How can anyone like Calvinism?

[Jonaitis]

Well, Christianity is an emotional religion. What about the time when Jesus called some people "serpents"? If you consider the fact that serpent is the Devil, that's literally the worst possible insult. Or what about the time when Jesus wept? There's nothing wrong about emotions.

Did Jesus foresaw the betrayal of Judas before it happened? Yet, the Lord states that this was foretold by the prophets, and that Judas was predestined for that role.

 

[TedT]

The biggest thing in my mind about Calvinism is God's absolute unwavering sovereignty. Which I am slowly coming around to accepting. If God is not completely Sovereign over all His creation, then how can we call Him God?

HIS sovereignty serves HIS love, it does NOT override it for any reason. It is a tool describing HIS ability to fulfill HIS plan, HIS purpose for our creation.

I have come to realize that the fact that the full story of GOD's interaction with man on this earth ends with a heavenly marriage implies that the heavenly marriage was HIS purpose for our creation. It is in the heavenly marriage that HIS GLORY shines forth the strongest and most perfect in relationship with us, NOT in justice nor redemption which are merely aids to bring the marriage to fruition after to our moral stumbles.

HIS plan for all creation was the heavenly marriage.
HIS plan for each of us is the heavenly marriage.
Everything HE has ever done or will ever do conformed to this purpose, this plan, and He has never done anything that would slow this plan down or put it off or side track it in the least!

It implies that ALL of HIS being, all of HIS Sovereignty, all of HIS love, HIS righteousness and HIS nature as just have one perfect focus, to culminate HIS relationship with HIS creation in the heavenly marriage: one plan, one focus.

Therefore:
Our free will is an absolute necessity.
Aside from the fact that GOD cannot create any evil so all sinfulness proves the free will of the sinner, it is also a fact that true love and true marriage can be arrived at only by the free will acceptance of the lover and acceptance of the proposal of marriage by the Bride. GOD is not a Borg willing to have a Stepford wife...

This implies that GOD would never not save anyone who could be saved to become HIS Bride, not for any reason. No one is in hell who can be saved by any IF in reality... This also implies that only those who chose to eternally reject HIM as GOD and husband by a deep desire not to be involved in HIS plan would ever be passed over for entry into the marriage because they have a right to their free will decisions to choose such a path.

It implies that everyone ever created in HIS image, ie, able to be a proper Bride for HIM, was created perfectly capable and able to become HIS bride, not held back by any imperfection or lack of acceptance by HIM.
Isaiah 43:7, 21
7 "whom I created for my glory"
21 the people I formed for myself that they may proclaim my praise.

Ecc 7:29 Only this have I found: I have discovered that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.” Upright: S3477, yashar, straightforward, just, upright:... GOD created no one disgustingly corrupt, enslaved to sin and unable to be HIS Bride.

By their coming into being everyone must have been within HIS plan, not separated from HIM by anything until they decide by their informed free will to reject HIM and HIS plan. HE cannot marry an evil person so why would HE create by any means, any system at all, evil people? It is impossible.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

The biggest thing in my mind about Calvinism is God's absolute unwavering sovereignty. Which I am slowly coming around to accepting. If God is not completely Sovereign over all His creation, then how can we call Him God?

Yet God in His great love allows man to freely love Him in return or reject Him . That is not what Gods sovereignty means in Calvinism . In Calvinism He rules your every thought , action , sin , what you chose to eat, wear etc …

 

[friend of]

Yet God in His great love allows man to freely love Him in return or reject Him . That is not what Gods sovereignty means in Calvinism . In Calvinism He rules your every thought , action , sin , what you chose to eat, wear etc …

That sounds like hyper-calvinism.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

That sounds like hyper-calvinism.

No it’s not actually I was a Calvinist and taught it for 40 plus years

 

[Strong in Him]

The emotion is disdain. Not suitable when building the Kingdom for God.

We have emotions because we are in a relationship with God, the Creator of the Universe who loves us unconditionally, and from whose love we cannot be separated. God is emotional towards us; he rejoices over us with singing, Zephaniah 3:17.

You are probably referring to feelings. People sometimes doubt/waver/lose faith because they don't FEEL God's love.
That is completely different. We are promised that God will always be with us; not that we will always feel his presence.

 

[Strong in Him]

If Christ died for every sinner, then there would be no Hell for anyone on earth.

Yes, there would - there would still be poverty, extreme weather conditions, accidents and people choosing to take others' lives. Christ died for every sinner - but not every sinner accepts that.

At the beginning of John's Gospel we are told, he came to his own people, but his own people did not receive him. Yet to those who DID receive him, he gave the right to become children of God, John 1:11-12. Verse 10 says that he came into the world, but though the world was made by him, it did not recognise him.
Romans 6:23 tells us that "the gift of God is eternal life". A gift needs to be received - and Scripture shows that it will not be received by all.
That doesn't mean that it was only for a few in the first place.

God does not play double-jeopardy, and Christ's atonement is always efficacious, never failing to accomplish what it was intended.

It DID achieve a way for mankind to be reconciled to God.
We can never reconcile ourselves to God, but eternal separation from God is not a given, or default position. It IS possible; Christ has made it possible. But it still requires a response on our part. (Not a work; Christ's atoning death was the work. We show our faith by accepting what he has done.)

It's not correct that if Christ died for all, then robbers, murderers, rapists, atheists etc automatically go to heaven despite their unbelief. If more people had believed Noah, they could have gone into the ark; it was big enough.

Nay, Christ does not offer, but demands as a command that all people everywhere must repent.

Yes, and some won't.
Christ offers eternal life to all. He doesn't force all to take it, just as he did not force the rich young ruler to follow him.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The biggest thing in my mind about Calvinism is God's absolute unwavering sovereignty. Which I am slowly coming around to accepting. If God is not completely Sovereign over all His creation, then how can we call Him God?

I know a place where one can acknowledge God's absolute sovereignty while rejoicing in his unwavering loyal grace and absolutely passionate love.

 

[Jonaitis]

Christ died for every sinner - but not every sinner accepts that.

I know what you are saying, but it is not quite correct. Christ’s death is the suffering of divine punishment for sin. If Christ died for all, then He suffered the divine punishment for all. It is more accurate to say that Christ died for the punishment of sin, rather than all sinners, to be received as a propitiation by faith (Romans 3:25). Christ’s death is only applicable through faith, and that has to mean that Christ only died for those who believe. If the unregenerate reprobate dies in unrepentance after hearing the gospel, Christ’s death only serves to condemn him. The recipients of Christ’s benefits are those whom Christ died. It was never a theoretical concept, theoretically saving everyone.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I know what you are saying, but it is not quite correct. Christ’s death is the suffering of divine punishment for sin. If Christ died for all, then He suffered the divine punishment for all. It is more accurate to say that Christ died for the punishment of sin, rather than all sinners, to be received as a propitiation by faith (Romans 3:25). Christ’s death is only applicable through faith, and that has to mean that Christ only died for those who believe. If the unregenerate reprobate dies in unrepentance after hearing the gospel, Christ’s death only serves to condemn him. The recipients of Christ’s benefits are those whom Christ died. It was never a theoretical concept, theoretically saving everyone.

There is a scripture that says Christ died for all.
2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died.

 

[Jonaitis]

There is a scripture that says Christ died for all.
2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died.

Paul states that "one has died for all, therefore all have died." This doesn't make sense to apply this to everyone, because everyone isn't united with Christ in his death, nor have they been raised to new life after (2 Corinthians 5:15b). The context is the reader.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Paul states that "one has died for all, therefore all have died." This doesn't make sense to apply this to everyone, because everyone isn't united with Christ in his death, nor have they been raised to new life after (2 Corinthians 5:15b). The context is the reader.

I agree that verse 15 adds extra context but not that the context is restricted to the readers of Paul's letter.

2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; 15 and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.​

Verse 15 tells the reader that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died ... I think that the lesson for us is that living for Christ who died for us and rose again from the dead for us is our calling.

 

[Jamdoc]

How can anyone in their mind like the doctrine of Calvinism?

One time, thinking about the fact that Jesus actually died for every single person on earth almost made me burst into tears. Thinking about the fact that no-one would have to go to hell. But then Calvinism feels really depressing when it says that God chose some special people who are only allowed to be saved for some mysterious reason. Like being part of some special group of special people, and I absolutely hate that and it disgusts me. But thank God, it's not even true anyway according to the Bible.

I wonder how the Calvinist would feel if every person on the entire earth was a saved born-again Christian. Maybe he wouldn't feel so special about himself.

Calvinism is a difficult position, it has support in Romans 9, but is contradicted in Romans 10.
I don't have a firm position on it but there is pros and cons to it, and varying degrees of it.
I most definitely can't be a 5 point Calvinist as irresistible grace is contradicted by Jesus Himself in Matthew 22:14. If the call of God is irresistible than everyone called would be chosen.

But as for the pros, it plays into eternal security, as if you're chosen then literally nothing can take you out of salvation, where an Arminian would teach that you can lose salvation. It also correctly elevates God's sovereingty.
The cons: to the extreme it basically means we have no free will and that God even ordained that we'd sin. Also in its most extreme interpretations, it sets up the possibility that one could choose God, but God not choose them. Which is the fear I can have if I adhere to Calvinist teachings, and combined with Romans 9... that some people were literally just created just to suffer, so that the redeemed can see them and say "God spared us from being like them".

and that is a tough pill to swallow that God, who desires that all come to repentence, would deliberately create those who are intentionally destined to suffer forever. It doesn't square with God's goodness or compassion.

So I don't know how I fall into those camps.
The best I can figure is that I've always believed God chose those He foreknew would choose Him, which would make Him sovereign still, but also allow for our free will to choose. If we never had a choice, then our love is meaningless ultimately, because we're just following a program.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

No it’s not actually I was a Calvinist and taught it for 40 plus years

Although I believe that God is sovereign, He is not the micro-manager that has been described of Him in post #23. I go along with Charles Spurgeon who said that we must believe the Gospel, receive Christ as Saviour, and then deal with the election issue afterward. He said that the promise that those who receive Christ have the right to call themselves children of God, overrules any secret decree in Heaven. Jesus made the promise that whoever came to Him, He would in no wise cast them out.

There is a lot of mystery surrounding predestination and election. Theologians have tried to work it out, but they have always come short and their theology has turned out to be imperfect. This goes along with what Paul said, "We know in part, and we prophesy in part". If we could work God out perfectly, then He wouldn't be God. Of course His Word speaks about election and reprobation, but God does not give us a comprehensive manual about how that works out in practice. All He says to us is, "Come let us reason together; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be a white as snow". And, "He who has the Son has life, and He who has not the Son has not life." The elect are those who have the Son. We don't know how that works, but if we have received Christ and have eternal life, then that is all that really matters. We could ask the Lord about election and reprobation when we get to meet Him face to face, but I guess when we get there, all that won't matter anymore, because we will be with the Lord.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Although I believe that God is sovereign, He is not the micro-manager that has been described of Him in post #23. I go along with Charles Spurgeon who said that we must believe the Gospel, receive Christ as Saviour, and then deal with the election issue afterward. He said that the promise that those who receive Christ have the right to call themselves children of God, overrules any secret decree in Heaven. Jesus made the promise that whoever came to Him, He would in no wise cast them out.

There is a lot of mystery surrounding predestination and election. Theologians have tried to work it out, but they have always come short and their theology has turned out to be imperfect. This goes along with what Paul said, "We know in part, and we prophesy in part". If we could work God out perfectly, then He wouldn't be God. Of course His Word speaks about election and reprobation, but God does not give us a comprehensive manual about how that works out in practice. All He says to us is, "Come let us reason together; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be a white as snow". And, "He who has the Son has life, and He who has not the Son has not life." The elect are those who have the Son. We don't know how that works, but if we have received Christ and have eternal life, then that is all that really matters. We could ask the Lord about election and reprobation when we get to meet Him face to face, but I guess when we get there, all that won't matter anymore, because we will be with the Lord.

Spurgeon went on record declaring tulip is the gospel and since arminians deny and abhor tulip they cannot be saved according to spurgeons own reasoning.Not only is Spurgeon adding to the gospel he is declaring another gospel according to Paul in Galatians 1 which is anethema. Spurgeon is flat out wrong.

C.H. Spurgeon :

I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the Gospel and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the Gospel if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor can I comprehend a Gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a Gospel I abhor.

The Five Points of Calvinism – Defining the Doctrines of Grace
Known as both the Doctrines of Grace and the Five Points of Calvinism, these doctrines are succinct summaries of what the Bible teaches about salvation.

reasonabletheology.org

 

[BBAS 64]

Spurgeon went on record declaring tulip is the gospel and since arminians deny and abhor tulip they cannot be saved according to spurgeons own reasoning.Not only is Spurgeon adding to the gospel he is declaring another gospel according to Paul in Galatians 1 which is anethema. Spurgeon is flat out wrong.

C.H. Spurgeon :

I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the Gospel and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the Gospel if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor can I comprehend a Gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a Gospel I abhor.

The Five Points of Calvinism – Defining the Doctrines of Grace
Known as both the Doctrines of Grace and the Five Points of Calvinism, these doctrines are succinct summaries of what the Bible teaches about salvation.

reasonabletheology.org

Ahhhhh

The Prince of Preachers got to love that Guy, like a warm blanket on a cool winter night!


"The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again."—C. H. Spurgeon

The Spurgeon Archive—Main Menu

In Him,

Bill

 

[Fervent]

Personally, I'm not concerned about whether I like a doctrine or not when looking at theology. My issue with Calvinism is its manner of handling Scripture, as it is a case built on compiling Scripture as if they exist in a vacuum and weighing ones that on the surface have the appearance of answering a question they may or may not be addressing. Calvinism has a gloss of being Biblical, and that gloss is maintained through a practice of careful proof texting and reading back into other Scripture what the proof texts supposedly say. So my issue is not with Calvinism, per se, especially as the understanding of what that means is quite varied, but with the hermeneutic used by systemic theology in general.

 

[DragonFox91]

Whether or not they like it doesn't affect why they are Calvinist. They do their studying & see Calvinism. If your theology is influenced whether or not you like it, you're going to run into basic issues.

 

[def]

I think Calvin created TULIP because he could not find any proof texts for his doctrine.

 

[BBAS 64]

I think Calvin created TULIP because he could not find any proof texts for his doctrine.

Good Day, Def

Why would you "think" that?
Have you ever heard of the Synod of Dort?
What from Calvin have you read that made you think such a thing?

In Him,

Bill