How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Clare73]

Deflection. That was not a direct answer to my question. Your words are just a reiteration of thinly veiled determinism.

It is the Biblical answer.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Then, let's say for the sake of argument, that I'm not representing Calvinism, nor even Reformed Doctrine. I see the following in your arguments, and so will once again attempt to show what is wrong with them, this time from simple logic, since neither of us accepts the use of Scripture texts the other has drawn on for our earlier statements:

I accept ONLY the use of scripture.
The problem is that it is not interpreted correctly by reformed believers.
Some scripture is so clear and yet it's not accepted.

1. God is first cause. But you say, "This does NOT mean that He, thus, determined everything that would happen to those on the earth -mankind."
So, I ask you, HOW not?
A. Does not everything that descends from first cause descend specifically? Concerning causation, one rather poetic science writer said something like, "The seeds of every [particular] thing we see now were sown in the big bang." Ignoring the question of whether things began with the big bang, he is correct. Whatever happens, happens specifically, as caused by what causes it. It is not logical to insert causation by chance, or by second first causes. HOW, then, I ask, does anything happen that first cause did not cause? And if he caused, knowing all results, then he thus determined —predestined— that they come to pass.

OK, I understand you better now.
What you're saying is that since God caused the universe, He being the first cause, He must therefor necessarily be the first cause of everything that happens.

This is philosophy. When I first started this conversation I did say that philosophy does not interest me.
What I've always stated is that God created all the physics that allow the universe to exist.
He put into motion all the laws that govern our planet and us.
The apple fell on Newton's head.
But we still do not understand what gravity is.
So what was the first cause for the apple falling?
Was it God?
Or was it the fact that the apple followed the laws of physics, was ready and ripe, and fell ?

I'm really not qualified to discuss philosophy.

Biblically, what has to be determined is whether or not we have free will.
I mean biblical free will....the ability to make a choice between 2 moral options: sin or not sin, God or not God, life or death.
I say we have free will.
Both the OT and the NT support this.
Every time you see the word CHOOSE, CHOICE, etc. in the bible, it means we can freely CHOOSE between two options.

B. If he does not determine everything, but only some certain things, what does determine the other things? Are you going to say that they are not caused —not determined— without explaining yourself? Or are you going to say that humanity caused them by choice —uncaused choice? Are you going to say that humans are all first causes? Are you going to say that things and events are not determined, with no explanation as to how that is possible? Even you said, "God set in place a system which science acknowledges...all those physics laws we all know a tiny bit about. We must work within those laws." The law of causation is one of those laws; is it not pervasive? What suspended it to allow for the mental construction: the ability to choose uncaused?

I honestly believe you're conflating theology with philosophy.
I can't answer to philosophy, I've never studied it.
The questions we should be asking are:
1. Is man so totally depraved that he is unable to get himself out of the pit?
2. Why would God throw a rope to some persons and not others?
3. How does the bible prove that we do not have free will?
4. Does God love His creatures or does He use them as plaything, to do with as he will?
5. Are we able to reject God's call?

Every decision we make is determined by something.
My granddaugher is going to college. A lot of consideration went into choosing a college.
So what could be the first cause?
The only first cause is God creating...
HER decision was based on other considerations...
I don't know that there was a first cause, but that goes into philosophical terriroty.

C. If God can (and does) determine some certain things, why would not the same be true about all things? I have heard this argument many times, with only the flimsiest framework to show how it happens: "God sees ahead, and is wise enough to know how to influence things to go this way or that. Sooner or later, he always gets to where he meant to go." This they say, because it is better than to admit that he brings to pass what he planned by specific intricate causation from the world's beginning until that thing comes to pass.

All Christians know that God has a plan. That's why you've heard all this before.
God will see to it that HIS PLAN will succeed in the end.
If you want to prove that God causes everything to happen, then you're going to have to show it from scripture
because scripture has to be our authority and because the persons that wrote it were inspired to write it.
It's incredible how the OT and NT are basically one entire book, chapter after chapter, each saying the same.
We can say that God may harden some hearts...either He does it directly, or He leaves the unrepentant person to their own means (Romans, Exodus)...however, how can we say that it is God that made me come to my desk to write to you? How do we get this idea from the bible?
AND, it brings up a myriad of problems.
Think of what it means if God causes everything on earth to happen...
What kind of a God would we be worshipping?
Why can't God be sovereign and give us free will?

D. Are you going to complicate this —that is, to kick the can down the road— by claiming another first cause that is not God and is not free agents? I doubt you will, haha, but yes, I've heard that one speculated on.
E. "All things are made by him..." John 1. Are you thinking that only refers to physical substances? What is your basis for thinking so?

I don't know what you're getting at...

2. "'Not of the will of man'", you say, "...simply means that man is not saved by his own works, or his own plan, but by the plan of God." You aren't very specific what you mean by, "we must be saved through HIS plan of salvation, which He has kindly shown to us.". I'm pretty sure you left the implications out on purpose. Do you mean to imply that he sort of hands us the ball, sits back and waits until his turn comes up again? I responded to someone today, who I'm not sure if he really meant it or not, or even if he thinks himself Calvinist, but he said belief and faith are one and the same, and faith and obedience are interchangeable in the Greek. I know there is something to that, in the meaning of such phrases the church has used for years, such as, "Obey the Gospel.". But this fellow went so far as to say, if I remember right, that belief was a "work". If you decide to believe, then yes, I agree, it is a work, in the same way that choosing to obey is a work.

It's belief and obedience that are interchangeable in the Greek. (not faith and obedience).
IOW, If you do not obey, you do not believe and V V.

What you're saying is that FAITH would have to be a work.
However, this is not possible because Paul stated very clearly that we are saved by faith and not by works...
If by works then it cannot be by faith. (Romans).
If by works it is a wage...
If by faith it is a free gift of God.

So what Christians believe (except for the reformed) is that
God reveals Himself to mankind...
Mankind must make a free will choice.

Love is not love if it's not freely given.

3. All of Christianity believes that the fallen nature is by default. That is true enough, I suppose, on the surface. But there is rather obviously a huge disparity in just what the fallen nature really is, and how pervasive in the life of the lost. Once again I find myself wondering why you didn't go further with your statement. Were you afraid of driving me off? Because I think you knew I wouldn't just blanket agree with your statements and the explanations or meanings you offered so non-confrontationally. I'm sure you think something is implied in that statement, that brings about your next, "We are created for good works Eph 2:9 and this from the creation of the world." What does the one statement have to do with the other, specifically?

The problem is not that we are born depraved...all of Christianity believes this.
The question is: Are we so depraved that it's impossible for us to take hold of that rope God sends down
into the pit and allow Him to pull us up?

The problem is that you don't believe God throws the rope down to everyone...

 

[GodsGrace101]

Deflection. That was not a direct answer to my question. Your words are just a reiteration of thinly veiled determinism.

I'm beginning to think the other member doesn't know what she believes...

 

[GodsGrace101]

Free will is not denied.

It's unlimited ability is denied; i.e., it's ability to make all moral choices, as in the choice to be sinless in thought, word and deed, is denied.

No comment.

 

[Clare73]

I'm beginning to think the other member doesn't know what she believes...

Feel free to state what in Scripture is unknown to her regarding what she believes.

 

[John Mullally]

Also see Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 5 which is even more evil-sounding and more clear.

And then I hear that God does not double predestinate....
It is not only pure logic, but Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 5 states plainly that Calvin believed in double-predestination.

. By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.

I believe part of the problem is that God's Sovereignty cannot be reconciled by the reformed to free will.
In fact all of TULIP comes from the idea that we do not have free will...
So we cannot decide for ourselves - God must pull us out of satan's web -IF we're of the chosen.
God chooses those saved and lost based on nothing, since we have no free will to choose for ourselves.
Jesus did not die for everyone, only the elect.
God must force His grace on us since we haven't the will to accept it or not.
We must necessarily persevere since it's God doing all the work and we do nothing.

And yet, free will is throughout the OT and NT for those that wish to see it.

The Gospel according to Jesus is that those who believe and are baptized will be saved per Mark 16:16 - It is that simple. I don't understand all the Calvinist double-think - as they challenge such simplicity with unanswerable questions like whether you were predestined to be chosen. Instead of the simplicity of Mark 16:16. Calvinism obfuscates with arguments against man's free will (which challenges other people;s ability to conduct rational thought), God's sovereignty (which they confuse with determism), God's decrees (which is a wild card as outside of the word, it is unknowable), and man's potential self-delusion (somehow they don't acccept that maybe they are the deluded). For denominations Calvinists really hate like WOF, they accuse them of following a different Gospel, a different Jesus as seen in the American Gospel flick, which was formerly published on Netflix.

 

[Brother-Mike]

The Gospel according to Jesus is that those who believe and are baptized will be saved per Mark 16:16. It is that simple.

I don't know any Calvinists that disagree with this statement.

 

[JAL]

I don't know any Calvinists that disagree with this statement.

Ok well in that case here's one I find puzzling, if I try to read it from a Calvinistic perspective:

“The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. 38Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.” (Mat 9)

Why are the workers few? Apparently the Lord doesn't know how to properly foreordain/predetermine His decrees?

Or is it just possible that real, libertarian, human freedom played a role in this calamity?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Is Paul referring to his unregenerate state in Ro 7, or to the conflict between the flesh and the spirit in his regenerate state?

I tend toward that viewpoint you submit here, though I have to say the fat lady has not sung yet. But my point to @FutureAndAHope is that even his use of it does not ruin Calvinism's claims.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

What, I ask, is wrong with the notion of God having predestined sin and the loss of many to eternal condemnation?

This is the very crux of the issue for me. Because the way we think about this topic paints two very different views of God. A Calvinistic God who actually desires to display wrath on some people, giving them no hope. Or the view I espouse which is God’s wrath is revealed against those who suppress the truth (Rom 1:18).

It is true that God’s love in not universal in the sense that his love is applied to all people. God still selects, or elects certain ones to salvation. But the way of this election is the difference. You know what you believe so I will not go over it.

It is my view that God desires all to come to a knowledge of the truth (2 Peter 3:9, John 3:16). That His love compels all to come.

This love speaks of gentleness, patience, and forgiveness, and dictates that God Himself is these things.

1Jn 4:8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

So the question has to be asked why do many perish, if God’s attributes are love? It is my belief that God has universal laws, that He must keep, there is a certain level of sin that is unacceptable in God’s eyes. In creating free-will creatures, they must universally abide by those laws. It turns out that man, not by God’s plan, turned out to be more evil in nature than good.

Gen 6:5-7 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

God regretted making man, but God chose not to bend the laws binding creation. He still wanted freewill acceptance of His nature by His creation.

Note however that God places before man a choice:

Job 36:9-12 Then He tells them their work and their transgressions—That they have acted defiantly. He also opens their ear to instruction, And commands that they turn from iniquity. If they obey and serve Him, They shall spend their days in prosperity, And their years in pleasures. But if they do not obey, They shall perish by the sword, And they shall die without knowledge.

The response of man dictating the outcome.

So where does wrath come from? It comes from a rejection of the nature of God as revealed to man:

Rom 1:18-19 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

Hell is not wrath for the sake of wrath, but rather a rejection of the nature of God, which is love patience, etc. God did not make man for wrath, faith enables even the evil able to access eternal life, if they will repent and take on God’s nature.

Pro 15:24 The way of life winds upward for the wise, That he may turn away from hell below.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I can mention one thing I find inconsistent with John Piper. He says Calvinists can tell people Jesus died for them. How is that consistent with limited atonement? His answer is because Jesus died in another way for those that aren't elect. IMO it's not only inconsistent, it's also dishonest.

While there are things I don't like about Piper and disagree with him about, I feel like this isn't quite fair. You didn't quote him, nor provide context, and leave one to take your word that he intended what he said, to be meant as you put it.

Nevertheless, even as you put it, you are the one who isn't being thorough in your analysis of what you say he claims. I thought we'd been through this before, but maybe you still didn't understand: You say, "He says Calvinists can tell people Jesus died for them." I assume by this you mean Piper says that Calvinists can preach the Gospel, (or other phrases to that effect). Then you ask, "How is that consistent with limited atonement?"

But, I can't help but wonder why you would think it is inconsistent with limited atonement. I can only guess, so here's a few thoughts:
1. We are not told which among humanity are elect.
2. God uses means to effect his ends.
3. We are responsible to obey, not to see to it that God's decree comes to pass.
4. The Gospel presented and rejected is added condemnation to prove they will not submit.
5. And last on this list, though probably not least on any exhaustive list, we love to talk about God and his grace.

What I guess, as to your thinking, is still the old mindset shown by pretty much all libertarian freewillers, which I will try to represent as follows: "If God has ordained that all come to pass, that will come to pass, and so it surely will come to pass, what is the point in anyone doing anything?" This is drawn on the old notion, that it is going to happen automatically, with or without anyone's help. Once again, this is a false, humano-centric point of view. God does not operate how we do. Indeed, it WILL happen, but guess HOW it will happen!

Also, as I mention in 3 above, in your objection you seem to find it incumbent on us to willfully fulfill God's plan. No wonder you think God's plan isn't specific, then, in all its particulars —because we don't know what it is, other than various things promised in Scripture.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I accept ONLY the use of scripture.
The problem is that it is not interpreted correctly by reformed believers.
Some scripture is so clear and yet it's not accepted.

I doubt very much you accept ONLY the use of Scripture*. But that statement is not applicable to mine, that neither of us accepts the use of Scripture texts that the opponent uses to support his argument. To make it more plain, I mean, that neither of us accepts the use the other puts to the texts he uses. —I don't like your use, you don't like my use. You don't like my interpretation and application, I don't like your interpretation and application. 'Use'.

*By this I intend no disparagement. Like all of us, you also accept logic, certain natural law, cosmically true principles, even reality itself.

 

[Mark Quayle]

This is the very crux of the issue for me. Because the way we think about this topic paints two very different views of God. A Calvinistic God who actually desires to display wrath on some people, giving them no hope. Or the view I espouse which is God’s wrath is revealed against those who suppress the truth (Rom 1:18).

It is true that God’s love in not universal in the sense that his love is applied to all people. God still selects, or elects certain ones to salvation. But the way of this election is the difference. You know what you believe so I will not go over it.

It is my view that God desires all to come to a knowledge of the truth (2 Peter 3:9, John 3:16). That His love compels all to come.

This love speaks of gentleness, patience, and forgiveness, and dictates that God Himself is these things.

1Jn 4:8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

So the question has to be asked why do many perish, if God’s attributes are love? It is my belief that God has universal laws, that He must keep, there is a certain level of sin that is unacceptable in God’s eyes. In creating free-will creatures, they must universally abide by those laws. It turns out that man, not by God’s plan, turned out to be more evil in nature than good.

Gen 6:5-7 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

God regretted making man, but God chose not to bend the laws binding creation. He still wanted freewill acceptance of His nature by His creation.

Note however that God places before man a choice:

Job 36:9-12 Then He tells them their work and their transgressions—That they have acted defiantly. He also opens their ear to instruction, And commands that they turn from iniquity. If they obey and serve Him, They shall spend their days in prosperity, And their years in pleasures. But if they do not obey, They shall perish by the sword, And they shall die without knowledge.

The response of man dictating the outcome.

So where does wrath come from? It comes from a rejection of the nature of God as revealed to man:

Rom 1:18-19 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

Hell is not wrath for the sake of wrath, but rather a rejection of the nature of God, which is love patience, etc. God did not make man for wrath, faith enables even the evil able to access eternal life, if they will repent and take on God’s nature.

Pro 15:24 The way of life winds upward for the wise, That he may turn away from hell below.

You left alone the rest of what I was trying to get across to you. My question above was rhetorical, leading up to the follow-up statement. Maybe you addressed it later on, but not here. The two were not intended separately.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I don't know any Calvinists that disagree with this statement.

It's prescriptive,
Not descriptive.

 

[zoidar]

While there are things I don't like about Piper and disagree with him about, I feel like this isn't quite fair. You didn't quote him, nor provide context, and leave one to take your word that he intended what he said, to be meant as you put it.

Nevertheless, even as you put it, you are the one who isn't being thorough in your analysis of what you say he claims. I thought we'd been through this before, but maybe you still didn't understand: You say, "He says Calvinists can tell people Jesus died for them." I assume by this you mean Piper says that Calvinists can preach the Gospel, (or other phrases to that effect). Then you ask, "How is that consistent with limited atonement?"

But, I can't help but wonder why you would think it is inconsistent with limited atonement. I can only guess, so here's a few thoughts:
1. We are not told which among humanity are elect.
2. God uses means to effect his ends.
3. We are responsible to obey, not to see to it that God's decree comes to pass.
4. The Gospel presented and rejected is added condemnation to prove they will not submit.
5. And last on this list, though probably not least on any exhaustive list, we love to talk about God and his grace.

What I guess, as to your thinking, is still the old mindset shown by pretty much all libertarian freewillers, which I will try to represent as follows: If God has ordained that all come to pass, that will come to pass, and so it surely will come to pass, what is the point in anyone doing anything? This is drawn on the old notion, that it is going to happen automatically, with or without anyone's help. Once again, this is a false, humano-centric point of view. God does not operate how we do. Indeed, it WILL happen, but guess HOW it will happen!

Also, as I mention in 3 above, in your objection you seem to find it incumbent on us to willfully fulfill God's plan. No wonder you think God's plan isn't specific, then, in all its particulars —because we don't know what it is, other than various things promised in Scripture.

No Mark, I'm not saying Calvinists can't preach the gospel, sure they can, but they can't do it the same way as those who believe in unlimited atonement. They can't say that Jesus died for them to unbelievers, or they have to be inconsistent or dishonest. But sure there are other ways to share the gospel. They can say: "Christ died for sinners, believe and you will be saved" etc. But if an unbeliever asks: "Did Jesus die for me?" They can't say anything.

Maybe I was unfair to Piper. I had to do some googling. From his site:

Christ died for all (that is in our affirmation of faith, let it be said), but not for all in the same way. In his death, Christ expressed a special covenant love to his friends, his sheep, his bride (you can hear texts behind each of those words, like John 15:13). For them, he obtained the infallible and effectual working of the Spirit, to triumph over their resistance and bring them to saving faith.

Limited Atonement

The doctrine of limited atonement teaches that God did more in the cross than obtain a bonafide offer of forgiveness for all who believe; namely, he also secured the saving faith of all the elect.

www.desiringgod.org

I actually didn't find that he said that you can tell an unbeliever "Christ died for you" even Piper believes Christ died for all, yet differently. I got it from my mind, maybe I remember it wrong, in that case I would have to apologize to him.

I don't understand how he means Christ died for those that aren't elect. Sounds like a play with words to me, but that is another topic.

 

[JAL]

No Mark, I'm not saying Calvinists can't preach the gospel, sure they can, but they can't do it the same way as those who believe in unlimited atonement. They can't say that Jesus died for them to unbelievers...

Excellent point. I hadn't thought of that. Calvinists literally can't say, "Jesus died for you." Thank you so much for pointing that out.

This caveat would seem to single-handedly impugn their position. What am I missing here.

 

[JAL]

Another weird scenario is an agnostic asking a Calvinist, "Does Jesus love me with unconditional love?" Dare the Calvinist discuss election at that point? I can't think of a more effective way to harden his heart to the gospel, further solidify his unbelief, and increase his enmity/hostility toward the Bible.

 

[Brother-Mike]

Excellent point. I hadn't thought of that. Calvinists literally can't say, "Jesus died for you." Thank you so much for pointing that out.

This caveat would seem to single-handedly impugn their position. What am I missing here.

What you are missing brother are the words of Jesus himself (my emphasis in red):

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." -- John 3:16-18 (ESV)

I cannot walk up to a stranger and tell them "Jesus died for you" because it might not be true. How many times does the Bible stress the need for belief? Can you tell the belief status of strangers? With respect you do a disservice to all if you are not clear with the mechanism of salvation. As John Mullally clearly pointed out above:

"The Gospel according to Jesus is that those who believe and are baptized will be saved per Mark 16:16. It is that simple."

Jesus' words go a bit further:

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." -- Mark 16:16 (ESV)

I'm all ears if you wish to exegete these verses, with an eye towards how you can state carte blanche that you can discern the beliefs of strangers.

 

[JAL]

What you are missing brother are the words of Jesus himself (my emphasis in red):

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." -- John 3:16-18 (ESV)

I cannot walk up to a stranger and tell them "Jesus died for you" because it might not be true. How many times does the Bible stress the need for belief? Can you tell the belief status of strangers? With respect you do a disservice to all if you are not clear with the mechanism of salvation. As John Mullally clearly pointed out above:

"The Gospel according to Jesus is that those who believe and are baptized will be saved per Mark 16:16. It is that simple."

Jesus' words go a bit further:

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." -- Mark 16:16 (ESV)

I'm all ears if you wish to exegete these verses, with an eye towards how you can state carte blanche that you can discern the beliefs of strangers.

Your moot points don't quell the storm here. A preacher shouldn't have to walk on egg shells to that extent. When preaching to a large crowd, a Calvinist evangelist cannot say:

"Christ died for our sins".
"Christ died for your sins".

If he's REALLY honest, he won't even say:

"The gospel is good news"

Inasmuch as the Calvinistic "truth" is 100% bad news to those fore-damned before they even had a chance to sin. In my understanding, Jesus didn't go around preaching the "bad news" of the gospel.

To summarize: Calvinism SEEMS to articulate a very different gospel than the one Jesus proclaimed.

I'm not saying this argument is a 100% slam dunk, but it seriously challenges the credibility of Calvinism. For some, this could very will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. That's all I'm say'n.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No Mark, I'm not saying Calvinists can't preach the gospel, sure they can, but they can't do it the same way as those who believe in unlimited atonement. They can't say that Jesus died for them to unbelievers, or they have to be inconsistent or dishonest. But sure there are other ways to share the gospel. They can say: "Christ died for sinners, believe and you will be saved" etc. But if an unbeliever asks: "Did Jesus die for me?" They can't say anything.

Maybe I was unfair to Piper. I had to do some googling. From his site:

Limited Atonement

The doctrine of limited atonement teaches that God did more in the cross than obtain a bonafide offer of forgiveness for all who believe; namely, he also secured the saving faith of all the elect.

www.desiringgod.org

I actually didn't find that he said that you can tell an unbeliever "Christ died for you" even Piper believes Christ died for all, yet differently. I got it from my mind, maybe I remember it wrong, in that case I would have to apologize to him.

I don't understand how he means Christ died for those that aren't elect. Sounds like a play with words to me, but that is another topic.

Zoidar, you say, "But if an unbeliever asks: "Did Jesus die for me?" [Calvinists] can't say anything".
But they most definitely can say something. From my point of view, and, of course, depending on how much they know about God and his Gospel, the first answer is, "do you want him?".

Excellent point. I hadn't thought of that. Calvinists literally can't say, "Jesus died for you." Thank you so much for pointing that out.

This caveat would seem to single-handedly impugn their position. What am I missing here.

Another weird scenario is an agnostic asking a Calvinist, "Does Jesus love me with unconditional love?" Dare the Calvinist discuss election at that point? I can't think of a more effective way to harden his heart to the gospel, further solidify his unbelief, and increase his enmity/hostility toward the Bible.

What you are missing brother are the words of Jesus himself (my emphasis in red):

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." -- John 3:16-18 (ESV)

I cannot walk up to a stranger and tell them "Jesus died for you" because it might not be true. How many times does the Bible stress the need for belief? Can you tell the belief status of strangers? With respect you do a disservice to all if you are not clear with the mechanism of salvation. As John Mullally clearly pointed out above:

"The Gospel according to Jesus is that those who believe and are baptized will be saved per Mark 16:16. It is that simple."

Jesus' words go a bit further:

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." -- Mark 16:16 (ESV)

I'm all ears if you wish to exegete these verses, with an eye towards how you can state carte blanche that you can discern the beliefs of strangers.

Mike you are exactly right. The argument so many have claimed, that 'whosoever' believes, (or calls upon the name, and other phrases) rules out predestination of the elect, is not only useless, but the same fact that renders it useless also applies to the question of evangelism by those who believe in Election —"WHO is it that believes?" If God does not love everyone, (and I'm not denying that in some form God does love everyone, but that's beside the point), there is nothing to be gained by fooling all in order that the elect might believe.

I've seen much effort in sowing seed, as if it was also harvest. I've watched churches making sure of the 'most effective' use of money in Evangelism, without the slightest concept that 'most hearers' or 'most needy' does not necessarily translate to most converts, and 'most converts' doesn't translate to most Redeemed. I thank God for the 'hit and run evangelist', but man, I don't enjoy listening to their mindset.

So, to the question of whether the Reformed can evangelize effectively, without compromising their theology: Most, even Arminian, believers are otherwise adamant that the TRUTH be told, regardless of the consequences or apparent efficacy, yet somehow I keep running into this mindset that we must sell the Gospel. OF COURSE, there is a place for doing as Paul did, to be all things to all people that he might win some. Nevertheless, in Paul's evangelism I don't see ANYTHING that goes against what has become known as Calvinism or Reformed teaching, nor do I see him backing off of telling the facts. "22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him."" (Acts 2)

It's better to say, "Listen to what God says", than to say, "God is a sweet old man who wants you so badly that he died for you, but it's up to you!"

The Word of God never returns to him void. If God uses the truth to harden someone's heart, what is the problem? I want GOD to change a heart; the intellect and emotions can't do it.

What do these who water down the Gospel say, when the agnostic says, "If God loves me, then why was I abused?"? "Well, God didn't really mean for you to be abused, but, see, we have freewill." Doesn't even sound close to, "Fear him who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell".

There is no useless evangelism, but if anything ever came close to it, it would be through the preaching of a 'winsome' gospel that ignores the truth.