An issue I've had with the idea of Calivinism: could someone explain please? Thanks!

[BrianJK]

I have a couple questions for Calvinists. I'm sure you've heard these before, but I couldn't find them browsing. Alas, part of being a newbie!

It seems to me that the Calvinist idea (belief, doctrine, etc) that only a select few whom God has chosen has any opportunity of salvation and that everyone else is completely lost and has zero chance of salvation actually limit the sufficiency of the blood of Christ. Is this idea indeed saying that Christ's blood is only sufficient for a few and thereby is not powerful enough to cover the sins of all the world?

If Christ's blood is not powerful enough to cover the sins of the world, then isn't this idea saying that God is not all-powerful? Isn't this saying that Satan still gets most of the spoils of the world? If Christ's blood is not powerful enough to cover the sins of the world, then how can His blood facilitate victory over Satan, as alluded to in Revelation 12:11?

If Christ's blood, on the other hand, is powerful enough to cover the sins of the world, but God denies its application in the majority of sinners, doesn't this mean that the penalty has been paid for all sin (since Christ's blood is powerful enough to cover it all), but God prefers to let a large portion of it be spilled in vain? If not, why?

Thanks for your attention to my questions!

 

[Skala]

I have a couple questions for Calvinists. I'm sure you've heard these before, but I couldn't find them browsing. Alas, part of being a newbie!

It seems to me that the Calvinist idea (belief, doctrine, etc) that only a select few whom God has chosen has any opportunity of salvation and that everyone else is completely lost and has zero chance of salvation actually limit the sufficiency of the blood of Christ.

The thing is, everyone deserves hell, so even if God saved zero people, there would be nothing wrong with that. It would be just of God to send us all to hell for our sins. One step further, if God saves just one single person out of the entire human race, he isn't then obligated to save anyone else. He is being exceedingly gracious by saving that one person. The rest simply go to the hell they deserve for their sins.

Thankfully, God saves more than zero people, or one person; he saves billions and billions of people who don't deserve to be saved.

Also you need to keep in mind that those that God chooses to not save, they don't want to be saved anyways. The default attitude of fallen man towards God is that we are enemies of God, and hostile towards him, and we find the gospel of Jesus as "foolish". It's not as if they want to be saved, but God says "No! I did not choose you!"

Is this idea indeed saying that Christ's blood is only sufficient for a few and thereby is not powerful enough to cover the sins of all the world? If Christ's blood is not powerful enough to cover the sins of the world, then isn't this idea saying that God is not all-powerful?

Actually, Christ's blood is powerful enough to save infinite number of people, but it is designed to save "those that the Father has given" to Christ. (John 17) Remember, Christ said that his mission was "to do the will of Him who sent me, and this is the will of him who sent me, that of all that he has given me, I lose nothing.." (John 6). His death was designed so that it infallibly saves all those that the Father entrusted to the Son.

Isn't this saying that Satan still gets most of the spoils of the world? If Christ's blood is not powerful enough to cover the sins of the world, then how can His blood facilitate victory over Satan, as alluded to in Revelation 12:11?

If Christ's blood, on the other hand, is powerful enough to cover the sins of the world, but God denies its application in the majority of sinners, doesn't this mean that the penalty has been paid for all sin (since Christ's blood is powerful enough to cover it all), but God prefers to let a large portion of it be spilled in vain? If not, why?

That is not a problem for Calvinism, but Arminianism. It's Arminianism that says Christ died for everyone, but the Father only applies it to some.

In Calvinism, not a single "drop of blood" is wasted, because every single person Christ intended to save, is actually saved. He's a perfect Savior with a 100% success rate.

 

[BrianJK]

The way I had understood Arminianism was not that the Father deliberately only applies it to some, but that He makes it available to all and only some take advantage of the offer. That's a question for their thread though.

Thank you for your answers. I have a couple more questions to make sure I understand, if you don't mind.

Back to the point: So you're saying that, in Calvinistic theology, Christ's blood is powerful enough to save all, but God only allows it to be applied to some? I ask because this is very similar to your criticism of Arminians' theology (to which I would also have some questions).

As far as the attitude of the fallen, whether someone wants to be saved or not doesn't change their need for salvation, does it? If someone is prevented by God from knowing that they need salvation and thereby wanting that which they need, how does this forced ignorance (at least that is how I understand the concept) change the fact that they need the saving blood of Christ?

 

[Skala]

The way I had understood Arminianism was not that the Father deliberately only applies it to some, but that He makes it available to all and only some take advantage of the offer. That's a question for their thread though.

I guess it depends on how you (and I) were defining things. I was thinking along the lines of in Arminianism, the Father provides it for all, but only applies it to believers (hence, he applies it to some, making the rest of Christ's blood "wasted")

Thank you for your answers. I have a couple more questions to make sure I understand, if you don't mind.

Sure

Back to the point: So you're saying that, in Calvinistic theology, Christ's blood is powerful enough to save all, but God only allows it to be applied to some? I ask because this is very similar to your criticism of Arminians' theology (to which I would also have some questions).

All I meant was that it's powerful enough to save any quantity of people, but God has decreed to only save some people. In other words, the amount of people that God chooses to save has no bearing on the power of Christ's blood.

As far as the attitude of the fallen, whether someone wants to be saved or not doesn't change their need for salvation, does it? If someone is prevented by God from knowing that they need salvation and thereby wanting that which they need, how does this forced ignorance (at least that is how I understand the concept) change the fact that they need the saving blood of Christ?

This is a major misconception. God is not preventing anyone from knowing they need salvation. He is simply letting them go their own rebellious way. He's giving them exactly what they want (to remain in sin and living a life of disobedience to the gospel)

So when a person ends up in hell, it's their own fault, not God's. God's lack of electing to save them is not the reason they are in hell - their own sin that they willingly commit is the reason. In other words, even if God chose to save zero people, the reason we'd all end up in hell is because of our sin, not because God didn't choose to save us. Non-mercy cannot be blamed for justice being executed, because mercy and justice are two different categories.

For example, if a prisoner is on death row and is about to be executed, he cannot say "The reason I'm being executed is because the judge didn't have mercy on me", no, the reason he is being executed is because he commit the crime in the first place. The Judge having mercy on him is something extra that the judge can voluntarily choose to do, he if wants, but he isn't required to.

We'd all end up in hell without God intervening to change our hearts via regeneration and bring us to faith in Jesus, because by default, we'd all reject the gospel and continue to desire to live in rebellion.

 

[BrianJK]

ok, I think I understand the Calvinist idea a little better now. I don't quite see eye-to-eye with it, but then again, I'm just as far away from the Arminians. I just can't please anyone these days!

 

[Skala]

ok, I think I understand the Calvinist idea a little better now. I don't quite see eye-to-eye with it, but then again, I'm just as far away from the Arminians. I just can't please anyone these days!

We've all been in your shoes bro. If there's anything I can do to convince you of the reformed side, let me know

I could recommend a lot of great material.

Try this for starters. It's a free video lecture you can watch:

Chosen By God Teaching Series by Dr. R.C. Sproul from Ligonier Ministries

 

[BrianJK]

A lot of me thinks it would be a whole lot easier if I were convinced of one mainstream theological stance or another! I have caved in to a few points because they are so overwhelmingly popular among believers as a whole even without fully understanding or in truth fully accepting them. It's part of living in an age where if you don't accept a doctrine yet simply due to not understanding it, you don't belong!

I tried to look through some of the posts here and on many other theology threads, because most of them come down to some form of the old Calvin vs Arminius debate. I have trouble learning from them, though, because they are so divided that it sometimes comes across as a little harsher than I would like to read.

If you're in the mood to explain though (which I much appreciate) I do have at least one more point on which I am confused. In Calvinism, what is the point of evangelism? I mean, I know we are told to evangelize, but besides simply doing what we're told for the sake of doing it, what is the point? Or is that it?

 

[Skala]

If you're in the mood to explain though (which I much appreciate) I do have at least one more point on which I am confused.

I'm always in the mood to explain! Sharing and teaching theology to other Christians is a sort of passion of mine

In Calvinism, what is the point of evangelism? I mean, I know we are told to evangelize, but besides simply doing what we're told for the sake of doing it, what is the point? Or is that it?

You are right, we evangelize primarily because God commanded it. Even if it made no sense whatsoever to do so, the fact that He commanded it is a good enough reason.

Thankfully, it does make sense to evangelize. God has not only ordained the ends, but also the means to those ends. God uses evangelism as the tool (the means) to bring people to salvation. We preach the word, and through our efforts He visits sinners with grace and brings them to a saving knowledge of Jesus.

Election/predestination in and of itself doesn't save anyone. It is merely the first step in God's salvation process. He not only elects to save us, but in time, sends the gospel to us (using Christians as evangelists), and works through that gospel message to bring about conversion.

When we evangelize, we are participating in God's great work of saving people. He uses us as tools in His hands to gather up the rest of the lost sheep.

In Calvinism, God uses means to bring about the ends. Sinners aren't saved willy nilly whether or not they hear, and believe the gospel, and put their faith in Jesus. But rather, they are saved precisely by doing those things, and evangelism is the way God accomplishes that.

Further, the Calvinist evangelist has every confidence that his efforts will not be in vain, because through our (the church at large) efforts, we know for a fact that God will, without fail, save people. Consider the Apostle Paul's attitude:

Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. 2 Tim 2:10

Paul endured many hardships - hunger, shipwreck, persecution, imprisonment - for "the sake of the elect, that they may be saved"

Our attitude should be the same!

 

[FreeGrace2]

I have a couple questions for Calvinists. I'm sure you've heard these before, but I couldn't find them browsing. Alas, part of being a newbie!

It seems to me that the Calvinist idea (belief, doctrine, etc) that only a select few whom God has chosen has any opportunity of salvation and that everyone else is completely lost and has zero chance of salvation actually limit the sufficiency of the blood of Christ. Is this idea indeed saying that Christ's blood is only sufficient for a few and thereby is not powerful enough to cover the sins of all the world?

As a fellow "newbie" and not either a Calvinist nor Arminian, I will tell you that Calvinists reject any idea of "opportunity" or "chance". For them, God before the foundation of the earth chose to save a few out of humanity, all others to spend eternity in the lake of fire. This choice was made, according to their theology, without any conditions, so effectively, they have removed the Biblical teaching that one believes BEFORE receiving eternal life and salvation.

They would argue that God "self-limited" the blood of Christ; not that it wasn't powerful enough, but that He never intended it to cover everyone. It's all part of their very limited theology; that Christ only died the those few chosen ones, the elect. As such, God's love is also limited ONLY to them.

If Christ's blood is not powerful enough to cover the sins of the world, then isn't this idea saying that God is not all-powerful? Isn't this saying that Satan still gets most of the spoils of the world? If Christ's blood is not powerful enough to cover the sins of the world, then how can His blood facilitate victory over Satan, as alluded to in Revelation 12:11?

Well, they would argue that Christ's blood is powerful enough to cover ONLY those intended it to cover. No one else. Sort of a self limiting power, if you will.

If Christ's blood, on the other hand, is powerful enough to cover the sins of the world, but God denies its application in the majority of sinners, doesn't this mean that the penalty has been paid for all sin (since Christ's blood is powerful enough to cover it all), but God prefers to let a large portion of it be spilled in vain? If not, why?

I believe the Bible is clear; Christ died for everyone. What did that actually and specifically accomplish? First, that means every sin of everyone has been fully paid for!! 1 Jn 2:2 says so.

Second, that payment actually purchased eternal life for everyone. This comes from Heb 90:12
and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

Now, since all sin has been paid for, why does anyone end up in the lake of fire? Rev 20:15 tells the simple answer. Their names were not found in the book of life. iow, they didn't have eternal life.

Eternal life is a free gift. Rom 6:23 says, For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

As I showed from Heb 9:12, Christ obtained (through purchase by His blood) "eternal redemption" or eternal life for everyone He died for, that being everyone.

How does one receive eternal life? John 6:40 tells us plainly:
“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

Expect to hear from the Calvinists that the reason they believe is because they already have eternal life, but this verse clearly does NOT say that.

Thanks for your attention to my questions!

Sorry for butting in with an answer that was directed to Calvinists. But I wanted to set the record straight, for I see that Skaka seems to be the main or only responder.

Whatever he answers, you need to ask for Scriptural support for his answers. That will reveal a lot!!

 

[BrianJK]

Thanks for posting. It is always good to hear from both sides. That said, my goal in this thread was not to be convinced one way or another, but simply to understand better what it is Calvinists believe. You seem to understand that pretty well too!

Scriptural references would be a good thing for which to ask; I agree!

 

[FreeGrace2]

Thanks for posting. It is always good to hear from both sides. That said, my goal in this thread was not to be convinced one way or another, but simply to understand better what it is Calvinists believe. You seem to understand that pretty well too!

Scriptural references would be a good thing for which to ask; I agree!

And thank you! But watch what the Calvinists will do (esp Skala) with what I posted. Note particularly how he will most likely misrepresent what I've posted. I'm very familiar with his tactics, and those of his colleagues.

 

[Skala]

And thank you! But watch what the Calvinists will do (esp Skala) with what I posted. Note particularly how he will most likely misrepresent what I've posted. I'm very familiar with his tactics, and those of his colleagues.

Brian, be careful with this guy. He literally has no idea what Calvinism is. He always misrepresents it, and when offered correction, he ignores it, opting to instead continue believing his own strawman of Calvinism that he invented with his mind, rather than the real Calvinism that we offer instead.

He claims to be neither Calvinist nor Arminian, when he's clearly Arminian in his soteriology. He's either that ignorant, or that prideful to think he's unique in some way and doesn't fall into either historical theological category.

He denies that he's a synergist, even though he is, and he claims to be a monergist, even though he isn't. In fact, he detests monergism.

He straight up lies about what Calvinism actually asserts. His main goal is to make Calvinism look as bad as possible to others, so he uses the worst pejorative language and emotional arguments he can muster up. His goal is not to represent it accurately and then refute the accurate thing. His goal is to misrepresent is so people will outright dismiss it altogether without taking an honest look.

He thinks Calvinism is out to get people or "prevent people" from coming to Jesus, even though it's been explained that Calvinism can't actually prevent anyone from doing anything, it's simply an explanation of why some people choose to come to Jesus and others don't.

He mistakenly keeps asserting that Calvinism teaches that God only loves few, but that is not true. He loves all men, but not in the same way. He sends sunshine and rain on the just and the unjust. He gives gifts to all men, but not the same gifts to all men. he has a special, unique love for His bride, the same way a husband has a unique love for his wife, just like Ephesians 5:25 says. When we mention Ephesians 5:25, he dismisses it or totally ignores it as if it doesn't have any thrust or implications.

He oversimplifies when he says that Calvinists believe God has chosen to save a mere "few out of humanity", but that is not true. We believe that God has chosen to save billions and billions of people, indeed, "a great multitude, too many to number" as Revelations 7:9 says.

Further his own theology has holes and is inconsistent. For example, he says that Christ died for and satisfied God's wrath for every single person and every single sin of those people, even the sin of unbelief. If that was true, logically, all people would end up in heaven because there are no sins leftover that the Father must punish, and there is nothing left for God's wrath to be angry with. However, for some reason in his theology, many people still end up in hell. Of course, he can't explain how this is logical or makes any sense.

He ignores the context of Bible passages. When he says "Hebrews 2:9 says Christ died for everyone!", we remind him to keep reading when the author continues to describe this group of "everyone" that the passage is about. (the brothers, the congregation, those who are being sanctified). the passage is clearly about the church and God's people. When we point this out, he simply dismisses it as "twisting the Bible" (lol? deriving more information from the passage is twisting the bible?)

When we bring up grammar and pronouns and context in other passages, for example 2 Pet 3:9, he mockingly says that Calvinists are being nonsensical for paying attention to "grammar and verbs and such", as if that was ever a bad thing in a scholarly pursuit of reading text.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Brian, be careful with this guy. He literally has no idea what Calvinism is. He always misrepresents it, and when offered correction, he ignores it

Well, well, well. What did I tell you, Brian. All you have to do to see that my warning was dead on is to visit the first thread entitled "Christ died for Everyone" in the "debate a Calvinist" folder in the "semper reformada" folder. Just scan through to see how MANY times I corrected their misrepresentations of my view!! It will astound you. And Skala has done it again here.

I challenged their doctrine of Christ's limited death, and they could NOT show their doctrine from Scripture. And they just butchered Heb 2:9.

He denies that he's a synergist, even though he is, and he claims to be a monergist, even though he isn't. In fact, he detests monergism.

Here is an example of their smokescreen diversion, for the purpose of changing the subject and trying to get themselves off the hook. I proved from a monergist website that the definition given is NOT mine, and their response was a goal post moving "Well, that's not our definition." You just won't "win" with them. So apparently they aren't monergists either, since they don't line up with a monergist website. Go figure.

He straight up lies about what Calvinism actually asserts.

Absolute malarky.

His main goal is to make Calvinism look as bad as possible to others, so he uses the worst pejorative language and emotional arguments he can muster up.

Please ask this actor for some actual proof.

His goal is not to represent it accurately and then refute the accurate thing.

I actually did refute their view. And they ain't happy.

His goal is to misrepresent is so people will outright dismiss it altogether without taking an honest look.

This, in fact, is what they've been trying to do with my view.

He thinks Calvinism is out to get people or "prevent people" from coming to Jesus, even though it's been explained that Calvinism can't actually prevent anyone from doing anything, it's simply an explanation of why some people choose to come to Jesus and others don't.

Just ask him for actual proof of this myth that he spouts.

He oversimplifies when he says that Calvinists believe God has chosen to save a mere "few out of humanity", but that is not true. We believe that God has chosen to save billions and billions of people, indeed, "a great multitude, too many to number" as Revelations 7:9 says.

Really? OK, ask him to explain Matt 22:14 then. Many are called, but FEW are chosen. So who's presenting false information here?

Further his own theology has holes and is inconsistent. For example, he says that Christ died for and satisfied God's wrath for every single person and every single sin of those people, even the sin of unbelief. If that was true, logically, all people would end up in heaven because there are no sins leftover that the Father must punish, and there is nothing left for God's wrath to be angry with. However, for some reason in his theology, many people still end up in hell. Of course, he can't explain how this is logical or makes any sense.

Sad to have to say it, but this is a total lie, outright!. I DID explain, but maybe he just can't comprehend it. I don't know. The reason people are in hell is because they DON'T have eternal life, the prerequisite for living with God for eternity. Rev 20:15 is the verse for that. The key on getting cast into the lake of fire is not having one's name in the book of life, meaning they don't have it.

So his representation of my view is once again BLATANTLY a misrepresentation. And I've repeated myself enough that it seems impossible that he just doesn't understand, but knows exactly what he's doing. So be careful of what he says. Always ask for proof, and see what happens.

He ignores the context of Bible passages. When he says "Hebrews 2:9 says Christ died for everyone!", we remind him to keep reading when the author continues to describe this group of "everyone" that the passage is about.

Here's another bogus statement. The only reason he "has to" keep reading after v.9 is because he and the rest of the 5 pointers come to the text with the bias that Christ DIDN'T die for everyone. So when they read v.9, they "must" ask, "everyone of which group", clearly indicating their extreme bias. They just can't admit that v.9 refutes their theology directly and clearly.

When we bring up grammar and pronouns and context in other passages, for example 2 Pet 3:9, he mockingly says that Calvinists are being nonsensical for paying attention to "grammar and verbs and such", as if that was ever a bad thing in a scholarly pursuit of reading text.

This, unfortunately, is just another blatant untruth (lie). Ask him for proof; what thread, what folder, and what post #. He will NOT be able to provide that for you, because it does not exist.

As I had warned you, this was bound to occur. He has done exactly as I warned you about. In spades, no less.

Watch him very closely, and demand proof for EVERY thing he says or claims.

 

[BrianJK]

Lol... maybe I put this in the wrong forum. I was afraid if I didn't put it in the "debate" forum that my questions would cause my thread to be deleted, marking them as "argumentative", though that was not my intent.

I did not intend to start an argument, though I am well aware that there are people who do and do not agree with Calvinism. I just needed to catch up on what exactly Calvinists believe!

 

[FreeGrace2]

Lol... maybe I put this in the wrong forum. I was afraid if I didn't put it in the "debate" forum that my questions would cause my thread to be deleted, marking them as "argumentative", though that was not my intent.

I did not intend to start an argument, though I am well aware that there are people who do and do not agree with Calvinism. I just needed to catch up on what exactly Calvinists believe!

No problem, Brian. You put it in the right one, "debate with a Calvinist". And of course that's what will happen.

But my only point is to challenge Skala and whoever else makes claims about my view.

And I will be very happy to answer any questions you have, and then check my answers with what the Calvinists try to present as my view, and you'll see exactly what I mean.

Thanks for being here. You will be able to see for yourself where the honesty is.

 

[Skala]

Lol... maybe I put this in the wrong forum. I was afraid if I didn't put it in the "debate" forum that my questions would cause my thread to be deleted, marking them as "argumentative", though that was not my intent.

I did not intend to start an argument, though I am well aware that there are people who do and do not agree with Calvinism. I just needed to catch up on what exactly Calvinists believe!

Calvinists believe the following:

God saves sinners.

He doesn't try to save them, He actually saves them.

Brian, you are not argumentative. I've enjoyed talking with you. Of course, what I don't appreciate is when non-Calvinists come into a Calvinist subforum and start telling you what Calvinists believe. (which is what our mutual friend is doing)

 

[FreeGrace2]

Calvinists believe the following:

God saves sinners.

He doesn't try to save them, He actually saves them.

My view is exactly the same! So why is Skala trying to insinuate that I don't believe that? Go ask him.

Brian, you are not argumentative.

Right. You didn't come here to debate. Debating IS argumentative.

I've enjoyed talking with you.

But he doesn't enjoy when someone challenges him and refutes him.

Of course, what I don't appreciate is when non-Calvinists come into a Calvinist subforum and start telling you what Calvinists believe. (which is what our mutual friend is doing)

Please ask Skala what misrepresentation I foisted on this subforum. I'd love to know. And as I noted before, just go look at the 2 threads called "Jesus Christ died for everyone", which I started, and see how often the Calvinists would misrepresent my view. Eye opening.

Skala's charging me with what they do all the time. What I've done is call them out on their own doctrines and they don't like it.

 

[guuila]

If you're in the mood to explain though (which I much appreciate) I do have at least one more point on which I am confused. In Calvinism, what is the point of evangelism? I mean, I know we are told to evangelize, but besides simply doing what we're told for the sake of doing it, what is the point? Or is that it?

I'd like to offer some insight here. The reason this question is always asked of Calvinists is due to a misunderstanding of God's omniscience. The same question can be asked to anyone who denies Open Theism (the stance that says God doesn't know the future). If God knows the future perfectly, and every single person is born into this world with their eternal destination set in stone, what is the point of evangelism? I think both Calvinists and Arminians can say the same thing: Evangelism is the means of bringing people to faith in Jesus. This is the best answer I can give:

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. (Romans 10:14-17 ESV)

So even in Arminianism, the same problem exists. There is a non-elect group of people, the same group God knows will never believe. The same group whose names are not written in the Book of Life, the same group who will spend an eternity in hell. Praying for them and evangelizing them will never change this, because God already infallibly knows where they will end up. This is why it's often said that the only consistent conclusion of Arminianism is Open Theism, because Arminians function as though prayer and evangelism might bring someone to saving faith who God knew would never believe in the first place.

Bottom line: It doesn't matter whether you're a Calvinist or Arminian. If you believe God is omniscient, that necessarily means you believe when you pray and evangelize, God has already decided whether he will or will not answer those prayers, and God has already decided whether he will or will not save the person you're evangelizing.

 

[BrianJK]

Interesting. I've never heard Arminianism described in that way.

However, as I am not convinced of either side, I have to assume that as much as Calvinists believe Arminians misunderstand Calvinist theology, Arminians would believe that Calvinists misunderstand Arminian theology to a similar degree. Everyone looks at other people's views through the lens of their own.

But thanks! I was originally trying to get both stances from their source, but it also makes sense to try and understand each stance from the others' point of view as well.

 

[guuila]

He thinks Calvinism is out to get people or "prevent people" from coming to Jesus, even though it's been explained that Calvinism can't actually prevent anyone from doing anything

Exactly. What people like FG2 are missing from their theology is original sin. It's the fall that is keeping people from coming to Jesus. We are all born "in Adam" with a heart that is hostile to the Gospel of Grace. If God doesn't intervene, we will all perish because the fall of Adam rendered all of Adam's descendants as enemies of God.

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. (Ephesians 2:1-3 ESV)

And then, the most glorious words in the whole Bible appear: BUT GOD...

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. (Ephesians 2:4-7 ESV)

Had it not been for "But God..." whereby God intervened into the situation, raising his children to newness of life in Christ, we'd all perish in Adam. God graciously intervened, and infallibly saves those whom he set his love upon before the foundation of the world. He didn't send Christ to merely make men savable, or merely make them reconcilable, but he actually sent Christ to save and to reconcile. Not one part of the equation depends on anything man does. Salvation is of the Lord.

So, in conclusion, folks like FG2 (while he will never admit it) denies the doctrine of Original Sin, maybe not officially, but he does so inherently in his arguments by acting like Calvinism is keeping people from being saved. To the contrary, the truths taught in Calvinism (the Bible, really) is what ensures people will be saved!