Calvinists to over-emphasize God's aspects of God's sovereignty and predestination, much as all of us "orthodox" Christians put too much emphasis on the Trinity. We should want to emphasize ideas to the same degree they were emphasized in Scripture.
Very true - and with Calvinists, I do think that some of the arguments could be strong er when they over-emphasize certain aspects of God's Sovereignty and Predestination. The General arguments it seems many Calvinists tend to make are the following:
1. All people are fallen into sin, and could never seek the true God apart from his mercy and revelation to us.
2. All have sinned, and fallen short of the Glory of God...none deserves his mercy.
3. The Bible says in multiple places that we are not to boast in ourselves, or anything we do or have--we are to boast only in God.
4. The Gospel is preached to all men without distinction.
5. Some accept and repent and are saved; others reject and persist in their sin, and are damned.
But after that comes what is the big reveal:
If one man accepts while another rejects, then something must account for the difference between them.
Essentially, there is either something about the first man that is more deserving of God's grace; or he is more intelligent; or he is more righteous; whatever it is, he can boast that he was somehow "better" than the other man, and thus he can boast in himself and not only in God.
The other option, of course, is that the entire thing is in God's predestined plan, and God chose that the first man would freely choose to accept the Gospel, and the second would not, all to his own Glory. Basically, the difference is that the first man was elected by God for salvation, and the second was not. But both men are equally sinful, equally undeserving, and equally worthy of condemnation--thus the first man can boast ONLY in God.
This leaves others with a bit of a trapped scenario: Either you admit that you are somehow righteous in and of yourself (which you can't), or you admit that Calvinism is right.
For me, I grew up having many friends who were Calvinists - as I attended a high school which was predominately Reformed/Calvinistic even though it was "non-denominational" in name. And every day (or at least every other day), there were debates going on between teachers/students on how men were saved - with many of the teachers pushing their view on the students that the argument you presented was the BIBLICAL model. One of my closest brothers/friends who was also my coach/teacher did this often - being determined to get me to become Reformed.....and although I saw merit in some of what he noted, it always seemed incomplete. I was glad for others who were Reformed Charismatic (i.e.
John Piper,
Wayne Grudem,
Sam Storms i
n his ministry, etc.) - all of whom I grew up with and have supported many times (more
shared here and
here)..but with some of the "Big Reveal" punchlines they'd offer, I just couldn't get down with it...
What happened every time when they'd argue correctly till they got to the "Big Reveal" was that their arguments contained bad inferences, i.e. inferences where the premises don’t give adequate support for the conclusion drawn and can certainly be called fallacious. The nature of arguments that commit fallacies of relevance/ rely on premises that aren’t relevant to the truth of the conclusion -
irrelevant appeals....
It'd be like arguing that "Presidents have been elected to power" (true fact) and then saying "Presidents are called to use power wisely/can be voted out if corrupt" (also true) - but then jumping to claim "Therefore, the current president I disagree with is false/corrupt and deserves to be kicked out - and either you support that or you support corruption!!!" (100% FALSE)........for true facts were intentionally used to create a false scenario that left out a myriad of other factors - and assumed a conclusion that was never shown.
Just because men are to boast in God's Mercy and not themselves does not logically mean that men's actions are of no consequence to the Lord - just like it's the case that a child can be called not to forget how the kindness of their parents raising/training them enables them to live righteous in the present (i.e. learning manners, having funding to eat/have a roof over their heads, prayer, etc.) - and yet that doesn't mean parents assume the child isn't able to choose right and wrong and thus "boasting pridefully" when a child notes his own responsibility.....or that the child can say his actions in the good (when taking note of them) are "selfish" because he takes responsibility for them as the parents desire.
Additionally, when many have done the "All men are not good a part from the Lord!!", there seems to be a good bit of forgetting how God's grace goes to ALL mankind - saved and unsaved - and no one is able to do righteously without His mercy anyhow and yet there are still levels of things which can only be accessed when man chooses to appreciate the Mercy of the Lord....and make a choice they will give account for (more in
Once Saved Always Saved: True, False, or Misrepresented? - #
500 /#
501 ).
This is something I always had issue with whenever many in Calvinism would go from what Romans 3 said - and claim they were simply focused on the text - and yet they ignored the entire PRECEDDING commentary that followed it from Paul when he talked on choosing to become a Slave to righteousness (Romans 12) ....and that also included every other book Paul wrote BEFORE he wrote Romans (near the end of His life) and the testimony of Acts when he made plain that others chose to either trust in the Lord or not - with salvation being made available for all and men needing to prove their salvation by their deeds - from Acts 13 to Acts 26 and many other places. Paul didn't just write paragraphs - but he wrote LETTERS and those letters had a pre-existing context.
And this also goes for forgetting what Jesus noted - the one Paul pointed all things to - and seeing what He said which takes dominance:
Luke 13
Repent or Perish
13 There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? 3 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”
Pilate had apparently placed to death some Galileans as they were offering worship sacrifices in Jerusalem. No explanation of the reason was given. THey had perhaps trangressed a Roman Law prompting the respons from the notoriously hard-hearted Pilate. Since their
theology attributed individual suffering to individual sin, the Jews interpreted the fate of the Galileans as God's punishment of their guilt. This view of God's activity is known as
Retribution Theology......and with that in mind, one sees how Jesus transfered the meaning of these incidents to the spiritual sphere. He does not deal with a
Retribution Theory (similar to what occured with many concerning Hurricane Katrina and many saying it was of the Lord as JUDGEMENT). He instead points to the Lord and urgent demand of the present--that unless you repent, you will perish.
In the Jewish world, it was well understood that salvation was a relationship - with the Lord often responding to what men did or didn't do - and rabbis were trained on that. To ignore that alongside Biblical history preceding it (the concept of First Reference where you see what was said originally since it gives a context of how to interpret things later)...that would not be arguing consistently. And taking the text/loading it with a host of other assumptions without proving them has always seemed to be a matter of inconsistent logical argumentation.
And yes, there are clear examples of where the Lord influenced the hearts of others to do as He desired - like King Cyrus of Persia being deemed "God's Servant" and influenced (as the Lord does with kings at times) to be favorably inclined toward the Jewish people when he helped them come home AFTER the exile. But that does not mean all who do wrong are those who were NEVER chosen or called of the Lord - that'd be arguing based more so on lack of evidence and inferring things from present facts that are not there.
The views on men who die in sin being "destined to sin" is no different than arguing as many do in Islam when saying "All is as God Wills it" with a fatalistic view of the world done in order to honor the Lord/make Him seem Supreme when it simply leaves other categories existing that make it out as if God is also responsible for the acts of men since they had no choice - and there are many struggles they cannot get past when they marry foreknowledge with human freedom.
As said best elsewhere
(for a brief excerpt) :
It seems to be a widespread Protestantism notion, born of their reaction to Roman Catholicism, that any and all “free-will” actions by man in receiving the gift of salvation (or any grace from God) is by definition “meritorious” – earning of God’s favor, and a “good work” that man adds to the work of Christ. But such notions and regard for human actions are altogether foreign to the theological history of the Church for at least the first 1200 years. Helpless humanity no more merits the grace of salvation by receiving Christ – than a helpless soul dying of thirst in the desert “merits” life by his “good work” of drinking water brought and mercifully offered to him while dying.
There are other places which have done an excellent job of tackling what it is that you noted - and if interested, one can go here to the following:
