Would you prefer it if “Five point Calvinism” were true?

[Hmm]

With God nothing is impossible.

IOW, end of discussion lol

 

[A_Thinker]

I believe Jesus weeps for all of us when He sees our lack of faith. He loves us all as much as Lazarus. Jesus had already told the disciples that He was going to awaken Lazarus well before the time later when He wept. Was he weeping for Lazarus then already knowing that Lazarus would not be dead but alive ?

The scripture says that "Jesus wept" ... when He saw the sorrow of the people around Him. Jesus feels our pain, and is even understanding of our lack of faith, even as He encourages us to faith.

John 11

32 Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.

33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled.

34 And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see.

35 Jesus wept.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So for everyone who isn’t a believer in five point Calvinism, would you prefer it if five point Calvinism were true?

A simple yes or no answer to start your response would be great, then the rationale behind why you have picked either yes or no.

Q: Would you prefer it if 5 point Calvinism was true?

A: No.

Why? Well...

#1. It is not Scriptural (See 2 Thessalonians 2:10, Luke 13:3 (Note: The Elect cannot perish, and the Non-Elect cannot repent and yet Jesus basically says to repent or perish), and Jonah 3:1-10).

#2. It is not in line with God's goodness or character and or fair justice. It would be like a coast guard saving everyone on a lifeboat except for you and your family and when you ask him why he is not saving you and your family, he says.... “No reason, I just do not want to save you.” “You should be thankful that I am saving these other people.” Or it would be like a dog owner who kicks his dog across the room like a football because it has an uncontrollable pooping problem whereby the dog squeezes out hot piles of steamy goodness on his master's white carpets. So instead of the master taking his dog to the vet and trying to help him, he just decides to kick the poor animal and to punish it. That's kind of how I see the God of Calvinism. For it is called UNconditional Election. Meaning, God is not electing anyone based upon any conditions found within the individual. So God is simply creating many for the express purpose to be tortured for all eternity. That is their destiny that they cannot escape and God has chosen this only path for them. God wants many lives to suffer for all eternity and we should just be thankful that He saves a few when He has the power to save them all (But He simply doesn't). This does not sound like the loving God of the Bible.

#3. Calvinism cannot be true because if it was (not that it ever could be), I would conclude that life is meaningless and nothing I ever did truly mattered.

#4. Calvinism cannot be true because if it was (not that it ever could be), I would have to conclude God wanted the majority of mankind to be in despair without any hope because only a few are elected or saved by His choice and not their own.

 

[Clare73]

So for everyone who isn’t a believer in five point Calvinism, would you prefer it if five point Calvinism were true?

A simple yes or no answer to start your response would be great, then the rationale behind why you have picked either yes or no.

NO.

Your reference points are not Biblical.

I "prefer" the God-breathed Scriptures.

If it is revealed in those Scriptures, then I receive it and believe it, and love and prefer it because it is God's truth and nothing can possibly be more preferable.

 

[Cormack]

So there is nothing anyone can claim to have done to deserve a reward for.

Do you think that leaves Calvinists in something of a pickle, since for good works no man can boast, since God is the source of those good work, but, for wicked works man is somehow totally deserving of the blame, yet both mans wicked works and his good deeds have their source in the same sovereign God.

It seems as though it’s a naked double standard.

 

[BNR32FAN]

So for everyone who isn’t a believer in five point Calvinism, would you prefer it if five point Calvinism were true?

A simple yes or no answer to start your response would be great, then the rationale behind why you have picked either yes or no.

Absolutely not because that would mean that God is not just because He would be showing partiality towards some and not towards others. Furthermore it would mean that God implemented His commandment to repent and believe while only enabling a portion of man to comply while at the same time knowing full well that the rest would be completely incapable of complying. So He would basically be punishing people in the lake of fire for all eternity for not meeting His impossible expectations. To punish someone for failing to meet impossible expectations would also make Him unjust as well.

 

[Jipsah]

So for everyone who isn’t a believer in five point Calvinism, would you prefer it if five point Calvinism were true?
A simple yes or no answer to start your response would be great, then the rationale behind why you have picked either yes or no.

Yes. If we can't trust God to get things right, who or what can we trust? Our feelings? Our logic? Our "justice"? Our Free Will?

This is working on the assumption that the T is true, and that we're all damaged goods from the get-go.

 

[Jipsah]

I wouldn't like it to be true that Jesus died for some and not for all - the Calvanist belief of Limited Atonement.

Everyone but iniversalists believes in limited atonement one way or another. If anyone ends up in hell, then their sins were not atoned for.

 

[Hmm]

Everyone but iniversalists believes in limited atonement one way or another. If anyone ends up in hell, then their sins were not atoned for.

But that's not the TULIP meaning of Limited Atonement which is that Christ died only for the sins of a predestined Elect, not for all.

 

[Jipsah]

I personally would rather live with that uncertainty rather than feel that my destiny depends essentially on the throw of a dice. Even if the dice is thrown by God, from my perspective it would be a completely random outcome because it is not affected on anything I do.

So God can't be trusted with anything this important because He makes His decisions by tossing a coin or using a random number gnerator just how He feels on any given day.

Wow.

I'd rather hope that my relationship with God, however dysfunctional it is, and my efforts, however small it is, counts at lease for something. I can never be certain of salvation but I would feel that I will.be judged on my faith and it's outworking in a forgiving and grace-filled way rather than have it determined by a game of Russian Roulette.

How many chambers in God' revolver?

But as God is as He has revealed Himself to be in Jesus, expecting God to be just and rational isn't us telling God what He should be like, it's just us believing in His revelation about Himself.

But apparently not trusting His decision making skills at all.

 

[Jipsah]

the Calvin irresistible grace, forced salvation doctrine

If I drag a man kicking a screaming out of a burning building, is that a forced rescue for which I should be prosecuted?

 

[Jipsah]

But that's not the TULIP meaning of Limited Atonement which is that Christ died only for the sins of a predestined Elect, not for all.

The opposite being that Christ died for everyone's sins, it just didn't work for everyone.

 

[Cormack]

Everyone but iniversalists believes in limited atonement one way or another.

I think the big difference there is between (1) intent, (2) extent and (3) application.

Under Arminianism or just a bland freewill theism Christs death upon the cross is two of those three points.

Gods intent in the cross is that Jesus die for all men, showing a heart of love for everyone.

The extent of Christs saving blood is over all people, the benefits of His death are truly available to everyone.

Lastly the application, at least under traditionalism that’s the only thing that’s “limited,” since not everyone will choose freely to avail themselves of the gift.

So when @Hmm writes about disliking the idea of the death of Christ not being for all, it’s clearly meant in the sense of the extent of Christs saving blood.

So long as we deny Limited atonement the extent of Jesus’ death and resurrection becomes universal, and we can then prefer an understanding of the cross that denies the limited intent and limited extent we see in Calvinism.

In Calvinism, the cross of Christ is limited in its intent, its extent and in its application. It’s limited in every way.

I can see why many people would feel disheartened by that and prefer it wasn’t that way.

 

[Jipsah]

He could force us to do stuff, but He doesn’t. He lets us choose. He loves us so much, that He wants us to love Him back willfully, not by force.

Enough love to let us get ourselves consigned to hell, but not enough to prevent us from going there. Hmmmmmm...

 

[Jipsah]

The Bible says you have to confess Jesus with your mouth and believe in His resurrection in your heart before the Holy Spirit can be given.

Citation please?

It isn`t possible for it to happen in advance.

Another thing that's impossible for God to do to add to the "God Can't" list.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If I drag a man kicking a screaming out of a burning building, is that a forced rescue for which I should be prosecuted?

But if the guy is determined to kill himself, he can just run back into that building again or find some other way to kill himself. If somebody does not want to be saved, nothing can stop us from saving him.
God is not into the force saving business. If that was the case, then why doesn't God save everyone if that is how salvation works? It would seem kind of cruel on God's part to not save all if He is able to force save people. Meaning, if God is able to change a person's will to believe and to be His robot, then why doesn't God do that for all people?

 

[Jipsah]

How is this conception of God any different from Kim Jong-un? This is not the Jesus I know. He had friends for example. Lazarus was a good friend of His and He wept when He heard that he had died. Seems a bit silly therefore to say that Lazarus was totally depraved.

Do you believe that Lazarus was a sinner?

 

[Jipsah]

An interesting way you've put that. "Jesus died for you....perhaps." That's pretty much what a Calvinist has in the back of their minds when talking to another.

You could change it to "Jesus died for everyone but it doesn't do most of us any good" if you like.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The opposite being that Christ died for everyone's sins, it just didn't work for everyone.

I believe one reason God died for most all people was to show them that they cannot say that they did not have a chance at salvation because their sins were not paid for (provisionally). Seeing God paid for their sins on a provional basis so as to offer them a way of escape, they have no excuse.

Peter talks about false prophets and false teachers who deny the Lord who bought them.

“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” (2 Peter 2:1).

This means that while the Lord did purchase these false prophets and teachers with his blood (provisionally), they ae not saved. They need to accept the Lord Jesus personally in order to be saved. But the point here is that this verse supports an Unlimited Provisional Atonement, and not a Limited one. For God so loved the world... and not just the Elect (See: John 3:16).

 

[Hmm]

Do you believe that Lazarus was a sinner?

Yes, why?