I was looking into Calvinism a few days ago after seeing a thread in the Theology section on these forums. For those who don't know, one of Calvinism's main beliefs is that God, in his foreknowledge, predestines some people to salvation and others to damnation. It's a bit of a puzzling paradox.
Anyway, I wanted to ask any Calvinists here a few questions; if God knows in advance those who won't get saved, why did he make them? What purpose do the unsaved serve? Does God just want to watch some people burn in hell or something? Why doesn't he just make people who believe in him? I'm pretty sure that in 1 or 2 Peter it says that God desires all people to be saved. How can he say this when Calvinism specifically states that God chooses who will be saved and who will be damned (Calvinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)?
Unlike most other posters, I actually am a Calvinist. But I don't think Calvin ever answers this question. What he says is that God does it for his glory. Now some people read that as saying that God is showing off his power, damning people just so he can show that he can. But I don't think that's what Calvin meant.
The fact is, this is a question that all Christians, and maybe all theists, have to deal with: Why would God create a universe where so many people don't love him, and end up not being saved? I honestly don't think we know. There are guesses, and some seem plausible, but I don't think God has spoken clearly on this subject. I assume that's because we're not in a position to understand his decision. What he has told us is that he is loving.
In my view, what Calvin meant (or perhaps, should have meant) is that when we finally are in a position to understand, we will see that God's reasons are honorable, that they bring glory to him. Calvin didn't encourage speculation where Scripture doesn't speak. I think in today's context, some speculation may actually be necessary, just to show people that there are possible good reasons, even if we can't be sure exactly what God's motivations are. But I don't think Calvin felt that this was either necessary or appropriate.
I should note that the NT view of God's glory is not a typical human one. Remember that the Gospels portray the cross as showing God's glory.
As to statements that God desires all to come to him: The traditional Calvinist answer sounds like double-speak, but I'm not convinced we can do better. If God is omnipotent, then anything he wills will actually happen. So 2 Pet can't mean that God has chosen to save every one. It could mean, as Paul's uses of "all" sometimes do, that he has included all classes of people (e.g. not just Jews). Or it could mean that he has provided a way that anyone can be saved, offering salvation to everyone.
Note by the way that there is a dispute among Calvinists about whether God is truly offering salvation to everyone. Later Calvinism follows the 5 points from Dort. One of these says that Christ only died for the elect. That is not explicit in Calvin. There are Calvinists that don't believe it. How real can an offer be that God knows won't be accepted, particularly when God is responsible for everything? That's a reasonable question, although not one specific to Calvinism. But it is certainly possible for Calvinists to say that God has provided a means of salvation that is sufficient for everyone and is truly offered to everyone, even though he knows that not everyone will accept, and that in fact his plans include everything that will happen.
Last edited:
Upvote
0