Calvinist limited love for mankind

Paul said he fought the good fight of faith. Paul said he kept the faith.
We need to do the same. We have to fight the good fight of faith. We have to keep the faith.
God is not going to have faith for us or force faith upon us.

Some try to separate works from faith.
While I am not denying we need to first be saved by God's grace without the deeds of the Law, we need to also bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, too.

Paul talks about a “work of faith” in 1 Thessalonians 1:3, and 2 Thessalonians 1:11.
James says he will show you his faith by his works (James 2:18).

Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, but it is up to us if we want to receive His gift and apply it personally to our lives. Jesus is the gift, and only by Jesus can we be forgiven, and only by Jesus can we walk uprightly in Him. For they that are Christ's have crucified the affections and lusts (Galatians 5:24).

This was raised in an "Ask Pastor John" podcast.


God does love the non-Elect, but God has a unique love for those who are elect.

fhansen said:

Yes, love allows that freedom, or else God cannot be love. All of God's creation is created good; it cannot be otherwise due to His own nature. Plus the story of creation tells us the same. So its only people failing to live up to their potential by abusing the gift of free will (also a good) that allows us to fail at our own intended purpose, to choose evil over good, no God over God.

Click to expand...

All of that was very poetic but completely irrelevant to anything taught in scripture. Nature was corrupted when humanity sinned. You will find that in the Bible. The idea that people were made good, but abuse free will by not living up to their potential sounds a little too much like Pelagianism. We are born with original sin. The alternative is heresy.

Oh, ok. So man is nothing more than a sort of automaton...

Click to expand...

I already stated that this argument means you don't really understand Calvinism, so I'll ignore everything you posted after that. Straw man arguments are impolite and unproductive.

Bible Highlighter said:

In Calvinism, God is loving some and hating most others based on no real rhyme or reason.

Click to expand...

Calvinism makes no assertion that God does anything for no rhyme or reason, Jason. Utter and meaningless chaos is only theoretically possible when God removes his divine hand from the course of history. The assertion of pure free will is a belief in a free will that was directed by nothing, caused by nothing, planned by nothing. It is the assertion that you follow your own will, but your will got that way by no plan of God. In fact, it is not the Calvinist position that sends people to Hell for no rhyme or reason, but it is your own "free will" position that does this.

God has his reasons for what he does.

In Calvinism, verses like John 3:16 that says that “God so loved the world” is not true. It should say that “God so loved the elect” instead if Calvinism is true. But the Bible does not say what Calvinists want John 3:16 to say. Calvinists have to re-write John 3:16 to their own liking in order to make it fit their theology.

Click to expand...

God so loved the world that he gave his son.... The statement is true from either position. It answers the question, "How much did God love the world?" The verse is a statement of the depth of God's love, not humanity's universal entitlement to it.

nolidad said:

if one does not accept what is called Calvin, then by default they accept the teaching of Jacob Armenius.

Click to expand...

I reject this idea, and tend to throw both ideas out the window.

Christianity got along fine before this dichotomy existed, so I don't need it.

The bible talks about both free will and predestination so I believe both.

Jesusthekingofking said:

man is saved by faith, so our free will / choice have a role in that.

Click to expand...

If we are saved by our choice then the blood of Christ is insufficient to save but rather we save ourselves. What heretical nonsense.

Michael Collum said:

I reject this idea, and tend to throw both ideas out the window.

Christianity got along fine before this dichotomy existed, so I don't need it.

The bible talks about both free will and predestination so I believe both.

Click to expand...

The Bible talks about choice, not free will --the only mention of free will has to do with an offering that is not required. Predestination does not negate choice.

nonaeroterraqueous said:

Calvinism makes no assertion that God does anything for no rhyme or reason, Jason. Utter and meaningless chaos is only theoretically possible when God removes his divine hand from the course of history. The assertion of pure free will is a belief in a free will that was directed by nothing, caused by nothing, planned by nothing. It is the assertion that you follow your own will, but your will got that way by no plan of God. In fact, it is not the Calvinist position that sends people to Hell for no rhyme or reason, but it is your own "free will" position that does this.

God has his reasons for what he does.



God so loved the world that he gave his son.... The statement is true from either position. It answers the question, "How much did God love the world?" The verse is a statement of the depth of God's love, not humanity's universal entitlement to it.

Click to expand...

The verse could also be translated, "For God thus loved the world, that the ones believing in him would not perish, but have eternal life." The versions that use "so much" are not translating, but adding what they think is the meaning.

Bible Highlighter said:

Paul said he fought the good fight of faith. Paul said he kept the faith.
We need to do the same. We have to fight the good fight of faith. We have to keep the faith.
God is not going to have faith for us or force faith upon us.

Click to expand...

But he does give us faith. You would have the integrity of man be sufficient for maintaining faith, when the integrity of man is not even sufficient to understand what God has done. Salvation and sanctification are both wholly the work of God, no matter how intensely our will is involved.

Curious why you think that God "installing" the Holy Spirit within us, giving us new birth, would be "forcing". He is, after all, the source of salvific faith, and the reality of it. So also, for the rest of our lives. We by no means deny the effort of will of the redeemed --of course we work-- but we deny the source of faith is the responsibility of man.

fhansen said:

Yes, God's love is pointless unless we're drawn by it to freely love back in return-or not. Love doesn't exist apart from the freedom to possess and express it. To know God is to know lavish unconditional love for all humankind, even as He allows us to set our own conditions-to ultimately reject His love if we prefer.

Click to expand...

If you are born with an antagonistic mind, and raised to be an angry person, are you not to blame for the evil deeds you do? So if you are born with original sin, are you not to blame for what you do wrong?

But more to the point, how can a person's love for God ever be worthy apart from God being the very source of that love. "Apart from me, you can do nothing".

Jesusthekingofking said:

man is saved by faith, so our free will / choice have a role in that.

Click to expand...

There's the crux of the matter. The Arminian thinks the ability to make worthy choice is human free will; the Calvinist believes God is the only source of worthy choice, as the will apart from the work of God is at enmity with God.

nonaeroterraqueous said:

All of that was very poetic but completely irrelevant to anything taught in scripture. Nature was corrupted when humanity sinned. You will find that in the Bible. The idea that people were made good, but abuse free will by not living up to their potential sounds a little too much like Pelagianism. We are born with original sin. The alternative is heresy.

Click to expand...

Pelagianism taught that man didn't need grace to be saved. Christianity teaches that man needs grace to be saved, but he can still resist and say no to grace, to God. The primary aspect of the state known as original sin is disassociation from God by an act of disobedience, a denial of His authority. This disconnection, this disunion, this pride-driven rebellion, is the heart of mans injustice, disorder, unrighteousness. Man was made for communion with God and is lost without it and human potential is only achieved by partnership with Him, 'apart from whom we can do nothing' (John 15:5), so your statement about it doesn't follow. And in this light passages such as the following make much sense:
"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live." Rom 8:12

Along with the myriad of other such verses that exhort, encourage, warn, and admonish believers to remain in Christ, refrain from sin, invest their talents, be holy, be perfect, wash their robes, be pure of heart, feed the hungry and clothe the naked, do good, obey the commandments, love, strive, be vigilant, persevere, with loss of eternal life generally at stake. These are all appeals to one's will.

nonaeroterraqueous said:

I already stated that this argument means you don't really understand Calvinism, so I'll ignore everything you posted after that. Straw man arguments are impolite and unproductive.

Click to expand...

Yep, you stated it alright. Haven't heard any real support for that position tho whereas mine wasn't a strawman but rather a reasoned argument, any accusations of impoliteness notwithstanding-not to mention undeserved.

Mark Quayle said:

The Bible talks about choice, not free will --the only mention of free will has to do with an offering that is not required. Predestination does not negate choice.

Click to expand...

The debate of either or did not exist prior to the reformation - so it is an invention.

Bible Highlighter said:

I consider Calvinism as about as crazy as believing in a Flat Earth. Why would God give us commands and get upset at those who disobeyed His commands if He has the power to just snap His fingers and make them mindless puppets to do His will? If God saves some (based on no condition), why doesn't He save them all? It appears really heartless to let others perish if God has the ability to save men by some kind of forced election.

In addition, why is there a judgment if Calvinism is true? That would be like kicking a dog across the room like a football because it is sick and it has uncontrollable pooping problem (When the master can simply take the dog to the vet and help it any time). But the master does not care. He just wants to kick the poor animal and be cruel. That's not the love of God I know the Bible teaches and the love of God I have experienced in my life. Calvinism is nuts - IMO. I think people believe in Calvinism because it fits their own personality or lifestyle. It's not in any way biblical or moral.

Click to expand...

After how many times you still think that one chooses to become the specific member of the Bride of Christ that God says they were chosen to be from the foundation of the world? HOW?? By chance? By being a better person than another? Do you honestly think that something can happen without being caused?

Mark Quayle said:

After how many times you still think that one chooses to become the specific member of the Bride of Christ that God says they were chosen to be from the foundation of the world? HOW?? By chance? By being a better person than another? Do you honestly think that something can happen without being caused?

Click to expand...

One thing I don't understand is why people who are hardcore into the predestination idea even bother having church.

What I mean is, churches are places where families can worship together.

However, there is no guarantee everyone in a biological family is one of the elect, yet churches are designed in a way to fool those attending into thinking they're saved due to agreeing to theology. It's what brings in the dollars.

Michael Collum said:

The debate of either or did not exist prior to the reformation - so it is an invention.

Click to expand...

Reformed Theology does not claim to be a complete system --and TULIP is a response to the Arminian 5 points. It is only called Calvinism, or Reformed, because of those who brought the truth back against work-based salvation (and the mentality that produced it). It is not an invention. What the Reformed want is Scripture. Not just verses, but the whole thing.

The Gospel of Scripture is entirely the work of God. Man can play no part in producing his own salvation. But this does not mean that man does not will it --but only that his changed will is a result of regeneration. The Elect chooses what was decided by God before the foundation of the world.

Mark Quayle said:

those who brought the truth back against work-based salvation (and the mentality that produced it).

Click to expand...

However, it seems that someone needs to bring the truth back from gnosis oriented salvation now.

So it's a vicious cycle.

Since it did not exist until the reformation as a teaching or refuted heresy, it's an invention.

There are many inventions, by their fruit you will know them.

Mark Quayle said:

If you are born with an antagonistic mind, and raised to be an angry person, are you not to blame for the evil deeds you do? So if you are born with original sin, are you not to blame for what you do wrong?

Click to expand...

Culpability for sin is always associated with the knowledge that a person has and the deliberateness of consent. If a person cannot do otherwise but sin, with no way to opt out of that situation, then how could they be responsible for that sin, let alone deserve eternal torment for it? God would be the only one to blame in that case, not them.

Mark Quayle said:

But more to the point, how can a person's love for God ever be worthy apart from God being the very source of that love. "Apart from me, you can do nothing".

Click to expand...

Yes, the worthiness comes only as we accept and embrace rather than reject that love-and so choose to love in return. And that's not a one-time event but rather an ongoing process of growth. Our justice or righteousness-and so our worthiness- increases as that love increases-because we can always turn against and walk away from it. All a work of God's that we have no means to accomplish ourselves but a work that we must nonetheless cooperate with. Man's obligation to be righteous does not go away with the new Covenant. Rather the correct means of achieving it is finally realized with Jesus' advent.

Michael Collum said:

One thing I don't understand is why people who are hardcore into the predestination idea even bother having church.

What I mean is, churches are places where families can worship together.

However, there is no guarantee everyone in a biological family is one of the elect, yet churches are designed in a way to fool those attending into thinking they're saved due to agreeing to theology. It's what brings in the dollars.

Click to expand...

True, you don't understand. We don't say people don't choose. We happily claim, even demand, that they do choose. But their choice does not produce salvation.

You are also wrong about the family at church --even the more Arminian leaning churches teach that attendance, or believing in a theology, does not save, and that one is not one of the Elect by being born in a Christian family.

Your particular kind of antagonism has me wondering if you are not a poser; not many Christians go the route of saying that God changing the heart of a person is "forcing".