Calling Calvinists! (Of the 5 point variety!)

[Jon_S_1]

Hey my totally depraved friends!

I have some questions about Calvinism. Having been an evangelical for many years I have working knowledge of it, but never really subscribed to it coming from a more baptist arminian background.

Anyway, some questions.

Why did Jesus die to save only a few? If he is God, his sacrifice should be capable of covering all those who desire it.

If God hates fallen mankind…Why would he offer himself in love for us?

My Calvinist Friend views God as a judge ready to send everyone to hell like they deserve. If God truly feels this way, why would he send Christ to save the elect, and further why would he make his sacrifice limited to a select few?

If no one can know if they are in the elect, why follow Christ? I believe Calvin said, something along the lines of, if you are elect you will act holy, but just because you are living a holy life does not mean you are elect. So play the part in hopes you are part of the club.

How is this analogy.

Catholic version- God sends his son which by his act of love on the cross, creates a lifeboat big enough for everyone ever created and Christ reaches into the waters we are all drowning in and pulls up everyone who grabs on.

Calvinist version- God tolerated his fallen creation just enough that he tolerated sending himself to die on the cross so he could create a life boat big enough for a few friends that he could sit in and watch the multitude crying out for help drown.

(yes this analogy is brutal…but if it is not accurate, explain how please!)

Any thoughts on any and all of this is helpful!

Thanks!

 

[RPRPsych]

I remember saying a similar thing to a Calvinist who was indulging in his favourite pastime (making fun of Pope Francis on Facebook).

His reply was that what I was describing was Hyper-Calvinism, not Calvinism. Only, he couldn’t quite explain what Hyper-Calvinism was - and frankly, I have no idea either. Is it Calvinism in hyperspace? Calvinism linked with superstring theory? The nerd in me would love to find out.

(It’s also worth noting that one interpretation of Thomism comes quite close to Calvinism on some points. In one line: God saves some, but not others, because he loves them more. I’ve never quite been comfortable with that view, but it’s an entirely orthodox view that you’ll find in several Catholic books, such as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange’s “Predestination” - note that title!)

 

[Kliska]

Not a Calvinist, but perhaps I can help as I’ve debated several

Why did Jesus die to save only a few?

I’ve been told that it all boils down to the glory of God. We can’t know why some are elect and others are not. Rightly or wrongly it was always an emphasis on His glory, instead of His love.

If he is God, his sacrifice should be capable of covering all those who desire it.

And the only ones who will desire it are the ones who receive irresistible grace, no one else will desire it, so it does cover all those who desire it.

If God hates fallen mankind…Why would he offer himself in love for us?

For His glory is the answer I received.

If no one can know if they are in the elect, why follow Christ? I believe Calvin said, something along the lines of, if you are elect you will act holy, but just because you are living a holy life does not mean you are elect. So play the part in hopes you are part of the club.

This is pretty much what I was told as well. Some Calvinist believe you can “read” the evidences and know if someone is more than likely saved or not.

 

[alwayswill]

I’m a 5 pointer

Hey my totally depraved friends!

I have some questions about Calvinism. Having been an evangelical for many years I have working knowledge of it, but never really subscribed to it coming from a more baptist arminian background.

Anyway, some questions.

Why did Jesus die to save only a few? If he is God, his sacrifice should be capable of covering all those who desire it.

The sacrifice of Jesus is fully sufficient to pay for the sins of all of mankind

If God hates fallen mankind…Why would he offer himself in love for us?

one possible answer God is love:
"Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends."John 15:13

"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."Romans 5:8

This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.1 John 3:16

My Calvinist Friend views God as a judge ready to send everyone to hell like they deserve. If God truly feels this way, why would he send Christ to save the elect, and further why would he make his sacrifice limited to a select few?

Out of love (see above)

If no one can know if they are in the elect, why follow Christ? I believe Calvin said, something along the lines of, if you are elect you will act holy, but just because you are living a holy life does not mean you are elect. So play the part in hopes you are part of the club.

God DOES want you to know you are elect
Therefore, my brothers and sisters, make every effort to confirm your calling and election… 2 Peter 1:10

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.1 John 5:13

How is this analogy.

Catholic version- God sends his son which by his act of love on the cross, creates a lifeboat big enough for everyone ever created and Christ reaches into the waters we are all drowning in and pulls up everyone who grabs on.

Calvinist version- God tolerated his fallen creation just enough that he tolerated sending himself to die on the cross so he could create a life boat big enough for a few friends that he could sit in and watch the multitude crying out for help drown.

(yes this analogy is brutal…but if it is not accurate, explain how please!)

Any thoughts on any and all of this is helpful!

Thanks!

How is this analogy.
Catholic version: Christ’s work on the cross made a wide bridge that doesn’t go all the way to the other side.,.

Calvinist version Christ’s work on the cross made a narrow bridge that goes all the way to the other side.,.

It comes down to this:
Either Christ actually saved people on the cross or Christ potentially saved people.

I say that not one drop of my Savior’s blood was wasted:

 

[alwayswill]

I remember saying a similar thing to a Calvinist who was indulging in his favourite pastime (making fun of Pope Francis on Facebook).

His reply was that what I was describing was Hyper-Calvinism, not Calvinism. Only, he couldn’t quite explain what Hyper-Calvinism was - and frankly, I have no idea either. Is it Calvinism in hyperspace? Calvinism linked with superstring theory? The nerd in me would love to find out.

(It’s also worth noting that one interpretation of Thomism comes quite close to Calvinism on some points. In one line: God saves some, but not others, because he loves them more. I’ve never quite been comfortable with that view, but it’s an entirely orthodox view that you’ll find in several Catholic books, such as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange’s “Predestination” - note that title!)

Question: “What is hyper-Calvinism and is it biblical?”
gotquestions.org/hyper-calvinism.html

Answer: A simple definition is this: hyper-Calvinism is the belief that God saves the elect through His sovereign will with little or no use of the methods of bringing about salvation (such as evangelism, preaching, and prayer for the lost). To an unbiblical fault, the hyper-Calvinist over-emphasizes God’s sovereignty and under-emphasizes man’s responsibility in the work of salvation.
…

Hyper-Calvinism takes a biblical doctrine, God’s sovereignty, and pushes it to an unbiblical extreme. In doing so, the hyper-Calvinist downplays the love of God and the necessity of evangelism.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I’m a 5 pointer

The sacrifice of Jesus is fully sufficient to pay for the sins of all of mankind

one possible answer God is love:
"Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends."John 15:13

"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."Romans 5:8

This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.1 John 3:16

Out of love (see above)

God DOES want you to know you are elect
Therefore, my brothers and sisters, make every effort to confirm your calling and election… 2 Peter 1:10

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.1 John 5:13

How is this analogy.
Catholic version: Christ’s work on the cross made a wide bridge that doesn’t go all the way to the other side.,.

Calvinist version Christ’s work on the cross made a narrow bridge that goes all the way to the other side.,.

It comes down to this:
Either Christ actually saved people on the cross or Christ potentially saved people.

I say that not one drop of my Savior’s blood was wasted:

Thanks for the info.

I do think your analogy is wrong.

Try this one:

Catholic: Christ work on the cross made a wide bridge that people must choose to use to cross the chasm.

Calvinist- Christ work on the cross builds a narrow bridge that some walk across and others are drug across against their will. Then after Christ drags them all over he blocks the bridge to keep those that followed but he didn’t choose out.

 

[RPRPsych]

I’m a 5 pointer

The sacrifice of Jesus is fully sufficient to pay for the sins of all of mankind

Isn’t this at odds with what you say later? Or rather, doesn’t this go against “limited atonement”?

one possible answer God is love:
"Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends."John 15:13

"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."Romans 5:8

This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.1 John 3:16

Good point, but then, why place a limit on God’s love? If we concede this and allow for a (potential, not actual) unlimited atonement, then we are very close to the Catholic position. (The lamentable trend towards quasi-Universalism in some Catholic circles is supported by neither Scripture nor Tradition; orthodox Catholic teaching has always held that the atonement was unlimited in scope, but certainly limited in actual numbers. The main disagreement - Thomism vs. Molinism - has chiefly been about the finer details.)

God DOES want you to know you are elect
Therefore, my brothers and sisters, make every effort to confirm your calling and election… 2 Peter 1:10

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.1 John 5:13

But if we need to “make efforts to confirm our calling”, then we once again draw close to the Catholic doctrine that works, though not salvific in themselves, are necessary; we must bear fruit and persevere, even if we are saved by grace and not by what we do. (Also, “make every effort” seems to contradict Final Perseverance and its country cousin, Once Saved Always Saved.)

How is this analogy.
Catholic version: Christ’s work on the cross made a wide bridge that doesn’t go all the way to the other side.,.

Calvinist version Christ’s work on the cross made a narrow bridge that goes all the way to the other side.,.

Ouch. How about this:

Catholic version: Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross made a bridge, but some choose not to take it because of their obstinacy in persisting in sin.

Calvinist version: Christ’s Sacrifice made a bridge where those who are not “elect” are stopped at the toll booth by “St.” John Calvin’s algebra of salvation.

It comes down to this:
Either Christ actually saved people on the cross or Christ potentially saved people.

I think it was Chesterton who pointed out that one of modern man’s flaws was his inability to tolerate paradox. Why can’t both statements be true? Christ actually saved some (the elect) but also potentially saved others, who wilfully rejected him and were therefore damned for their final impenitence. (Another imperfect analogy: think of a medicine that can cure all patients with, say, tuberculosis. It will still work only for those who actually take it. If I refuse to take it of my own free will, it’s not the medicine’s fault if I die of tuberculosis… )

I say that not one drop of my Savior’s blood was wasted:

On the contrary, wouldn’t trampling upon and insulting that blood, by refusing its power to save, be the greatest and most unforgivable sin? (There’s a quote from Hebrews which comes to mind, but it’s 6 am and I’m sleepy. )

Besides, if you feel so strongly about the Precious Blood, why aren’t you Catholic yet?

Also, thanks for your explanation on Hyper-Calvinism; it certainly made a lot more sense than the “Pope Francis is going to hell because Calvin said so!” spew of my Facebook acquaintance.

 

[alwayswill]

… How about this:

Catholic version: Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross made a bridge, but some choose not to take it because of their obstinacy in persisting in sin.

If you say that he died for every human being in the same way, then you have to define the nature of the atonement very differently than you would if you believed that Christ, in some particular way, died for those who actually do believe. In the first case, you would believe that the death of Christ did not decisively secure the salvation of anyone; it only made all men savable so that something else would be decisive in saving them, namely their choice. In that case, the death of Christ did not actually remove the sentence of death and did not actually guarantee new life for anyone. Rather it only created possibilities of salvation which could be actualized by people who provide the decisive cause, namely, their faith. In this understanding of the atonement, faith and repentance are not blood-bought gifts of God for particular sinners, but are rather the acts of some sinners that make the blood work for them.
desiringgod.org/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism#Atonement

Calvinist version: Christ’s Sacrifice made a bridge where those who are not “elect” are stopped at the toll booth by “St.” John Calvin’s algebra of salvation.

Nope: strawman

“Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Romans 10:13
And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ Acts 2:21
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

No one who wants to serve and follow Christ as their Lord and Savior through the power of the Holy Spirit will be turned away from salvation

Calvinists hold that Christ actually saved people on the cross: not potentially saved…

 

[Jon_S_1]

John 3:16

For God so loved the world (everyone) that he sent his one and only Son, that whosoever (anyone) who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

How does God dying for a select few reconcile with him dying for the entire world as stated here?

It seems a bit semantics on the Calvinist side.

"God died for only those who will believe in him because otherwise his sacrifice is empty. "

Catholics believe his majesty, grace and sovereignty is enough to cover the whole world not just those who believe. This is not empty because God is sovereign and knew people would put faith in his saving power.

We have free will and free choice…it’s as evidenced around us as the sun rising and setting, but the Calvinist rejects this idea, turning us into slaves of God…something not coherent with scripture, particularly Genesis when man who walked with God and was in relationship with God chose to reject God.

 

[alwayswill]

John 3:16

For God so loved the world (everyone) that he sent his one and only Son, that whosoever (anyone) who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

How does God dying for a select few reconcile with him dying for the entire world as stated here?

It seems a bit semantics on the Calvinist side.

"God died for only those who will believe in him because otherwise his sacrifice is empty. "

Catholics believe his majesty, grace and sovereignty is enough to cover the whole world not just those who believe. This is not empty because God is sovereign and knew people would put faith in his saving power.

We have free will and free choice…it’s as evidenced around us as the sun rising and setting, but the Calvinist rejects this idea, turning us into slaves of God…something not coherent with scripture, particularly Genesis when man who walked with God and was in relationship with God chose to reject God.

The Reformed/Calvinism position on the scope of the Atonement is that
Christ died for everyone and anyone whoever did or whoever will believe in Him.
Christ did not die for those who did not or will not ever believe in Him

No believer can ever say “Christ did not die for me”

 

[Jon_S_1]

The Reformed/Calvinism position on the scope of the Atonement is that
Christ died for everyone and anyone whoever did or whoever will believe in Him.
Christ did not die for those who did not or will not ever believe in Him

No believer can ever say “Christ did not die for me”

Why does the Calvinist feel a need to limit Christ’s atonement? Is Gods majesty not grand enough to sacrifice even for those who wouldn’t believe?

Does that not show the greatest love?

It’s almost like they are saying. “God only loved because he knew he’d be loved back.”

I say. God loved because he is love! Isn’t love a giving with no expectation of return?

 

[alwayswill]

Why does the Calvinist feel a need to limit Christ’s atonement? Is Gods majesty not grand enough to sacrifice even for those who wouldn’t believe?

Does that not show the greatest love?

It’s almost like they are saying. “God only loved because he knew he’d be loved back.”

I say. God loved because he is love! Isn’t love a giving with no expectation of return?

Well I don’t like the term: "Limited Atonement: but that is the term used to make the acrostic TULIP work. so be it

To the question : "Why does the Calvinist feel a need to limit Christ’s atonement? "

both schools of thought “limit” the Atonement: On side limits the scope ; the other side limits its power: IOW quantity vs quality.

. I limit the scope of the atonement, while saying that its power and effect is unlimited!

“Let there be no misunderstanding at this point. The Arminian limits the atonement as certainly as does the Calvinist.
The Calvinist limits the extent of it in that he says it does not apply to all persons…
while the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody.
The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively;
the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively.
For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge that goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge that goes only half-way across.
As a matter of fact, the Arminian places more severe limitations on the work of Christ than does the Calvinist.”
(Lorraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1932) p. 153.)
vintage.aomin.org/Was%20Anyone%20Saved.html

“The question that needs a precise answer is this:
Did He or didn’t He? Did Christ actually make a substitutionary sacrifice for sins or didn’t He?
If He did, then it was not for all the world, for then all the world would be saved.”
(Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, p. 47.)

 

[Jon_S_1]

Well I don’t like the term: "Limited Atonement: but that is the term used to make the acrostic TULIP work. so be it

To the question : "Why does the Calvinist feel a need to limit Christ’s atonement? "

both schools of thought “limit” the Atonement: On side limits the scope ; the other side limits its power: IOW quantity vs quality.

. I limit the scope of the atonement, while saying that its power and effect is unlimited!

“Let there be no misunderstanding at this point. The Arminian limits the atonement as certainly as does the Calvinist.
The Calvinist limits the extent of it in that he says it does not apply to all persons…
while the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody.
The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively;
the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively.
For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge that goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge that goes only half-way across.
As a matter of fact, the Arminian places more severe limitations on the work of Christ than does the Calvinist.”
(Lorraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1932) p. 153.)
vintage.aomin.org/Was%20Anyone%20Saved.html

“The question that needs a precise answer is this:
Did He or didn’t He? Did Christ actually make a substitutionary sacrifice for sins or didn’t He?
If He did, then it was not for all the world, for then all the world would be saved.”
(Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, p. 47.)

Thanks for the info I appreciate the replies.

You had me at Loraine Boettner, I can’t believe a thing by the man since his work on Catholicism is so erroneous and not scholarly.

Anyway,

I do not see how the Catholics limit the power of the atonement. Without the atonement there is no salvation withoutChrist sacrifice. How is that limiting it? How is that a bridge halfway?

We say he builds the bridge all the way. We have to walk across but he builds it and is the only one who can build it.

 

[alwayswill]

Why does the Calvinist feel a need to limit Christ’s atonement? Is Gods majesty not grand enough to sacrifice even for those who wouldn’t believe?

Does that not show the greatest love?

It’s almost like they are saying. “God only loved because he knew he’d be loved back.”

I say. God loved because he is love! Isn’t love a giving with no expectation of return?

the reality is that we are going to end up talking past each other because we do not hold to same doctrines on the what happened on the Cross.

Catholics don’t agree with this
**
Vicarious atonement** is the idea that Jesus Christ took the place of mankind, suffering the penalty for sin. Atonement is term meaning “reconciliation” or “amends.” Vicarious means “done in place of or instead of someone else.” So, in literal terms, the Christian concept of “vicarious atonement” is that Jesus was substituted for humanity and punished for our faults in order to pay for the sins we had committed and reconcile us to God. Vicarious atonement is also referred to as “substitutionary atonement” or “penal substitution.”
gotquestions.org/vicarious-atonement.html

1 Peter 2:
24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

2 Corinthians 5:
21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might
become the righteousness of God.

Isaiah 53:5
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;

Galatians 3:13
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—

 

[alwayswill]

Thanks for the info I appreciate the replies.

You had me at Loraine Boettner, I can’t believe a thing by the man since his work on Catholicism is so erroneous and not scholarly.

Anyway,

I do not see how the Catholics limit the power of the atonement. Without the atonement there is no salvation withoutChrist sacrifice. How is that limiting it? How is that a bridge halfway?

We say he builds the bridge all the way. We have to walk across but he builds it and is the only one who can build it.

did Christ actually save anyone by the Cross?
Or did Christ potentially save everyone?

Actual or potential saving?

 

[alwayswill]

Thanks for the info I appreciate the replies.

You had me at Loraine Boettner, I can’t believe a thing by the man since his work on Catholicism is so erroneous and not scholarly.

Anyway,

I do not see how the Catholics limit the power of the atonement. Without the atonement there is no salvation withoutChrist sacrifice. How is that limiting it? How is that a bridge halfway?

We say he builds the bridge all the way. We have to walk across but he builds it and is the only one who can build it.

As it relates to this discussion:
On the Cross: did Jesus pay the penalty for…

Some of the sins for some of the people
Some of the sins for all of the people
All the sins for some of the people
All the sins for all the people?

 

[Jon_S_1]

As it relates to this discussion:
On the Cross: did Jesus pay the penalty for…

Some of the sins for some of the people
Some of the sins for all of the people
All the sins for some of the people
All the sins for all the people?

All the sins for all the people. Even those who do not choose to be covered by that sacrifice.

 

[alwayswill]

All the sins for all the people. Even those who do not choose to be covered by that sacrifice.

is rejecting Christ a sin?

 

[Jon_S_1]

did Christ actually save anyone by the Cross?
Or did Christ potentially save everyone?

Actual or potential saving?

Christ actually saved everyone. He extends the grace to everyone.

Some reject the gift he bought for them. That is their choice.

If I go before a judge and you are convicted of murder and I arrange with the judge to receive your punishment for you. The judge accepts and sends me to the electric chair.

You come in the next day, and the judge says, “Good news, your sentence has been paid by Jon, you are free to go, and you reply back, I don’t accept that. I don’t believe he could do that, I want no part of it.” Do the judge sentences you to death.

Did I save you…actually. Yes I did.

Did you reject the gift and thus were punished as well making my death in vain. Yes.

But Jesus death is not in vain even if he only saves one soul.

 

[Jon_S_1]

is rejecting Christ a sin?

Yes. That is the unforgivable sin, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

It is the only sin God does not forgive. Not because he can’t and not because his sacrifice did not suffice, but because he, with broken heart, allows us to walk away from him.

I can ask back to you.

If I am elect. Can I commit genocide and God looks the other way?