Calvin's lonely god

Christ said that "many" enter destruction, and few find the way to eternal life.

If, as Calvin and some of his defenders argue, God denies the "many" reprobate who end up in Hell knowledge of Him and His grace -- they are "justly left in their sin" by His "sovereignty" -- then Calvin's god is lonely by choice. It chose to save only a few.

The Christian God calls all people to eternal life, not just the "lucky" few.

Offered in response to some thoughts from a kind sir concerned about my understanding of Calvin's unique doctrines:

I realize now that "God's Sovereignty" is code for "I'm a Calvinist."

I did not intend to "go for the throat;" I got the sense that you were someone who was perhaps Lutheran and had moderated your original views on Calvin's doctrines.

Apparently, you have crossed over fully into Calvinism.

As for what Calvin taught and Calvinism teaches, I did not invent, “TULIP.”

With Total Depravity (“T”), I have no problem (the teaching, not the condition!), since Scripture says that we are by nature sinful and unclean. We are dead in our trespasses and sin.

With that Luther would agree, I think.

Perseverence of the Saints (“P”), though contrary to Scripture, does not make God a monster.

It is with the heart of Calvinism (the center of "t U-L-I p") that I have a problem. It contradicts the Word of God and perverts His nature. (That's the nicest way I can say that without lying by omission.)

With respect to Unconditional Election (“U”), yes, Scripture states that God predestines believers to eternal life, and yes, It does make clear that those who end up in Hell deserve it (as do we all).

But judging from the Calvin quote I offered previously -- according to the Modern History Sourcebook, "from John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by John Allen" (sorry, no page number), found here -- it does not seem that he is saying what you are saying he's saying.

Calvin states that God "exclud[es] the reprobate from the knowledge of his name and the sanctification of his Spirit."

God does not say that He “justly leaves us in our sins” (your words). Christ came to save “the world.”

Jesus puts the lie to Calvin's claim by observing, “many are called, but few are chosen.” How many is “many,” according to the context? Those who were invited refused, so the King's servants were commanded to go out into the streets and "invite . . . as many as you find." They “gathered all whom they found.”

Not “some” of whom they found. All were invited. All were called.

No one was "justly left in their sin," alone and helpless.

Similarly, with regard to Limited Atonement (“L”) you wrote, "An atonement that actually saves and purchases us out of sin."

Jesus actually saves. Christ is – “actually” -- the atoning sacrifice not only for our sins, but for the sins of “the whole world.” God was actually reconciling “the world” to Himself in Christ's body on the cross.

Not “some” of the world.

Jesus did not lament, "I longed to gather only 'some' of you." Nor did He declare that His mission was to save "only some." Christ came to seek and to save “the lost.”

Not “some” of the lost.

Lastly, concerning Irresistible Grace (“I”), if God's grace is “irresistible,” then – as Calvin observes above – God does not send His Holy Spirit to those “many” who end up in Hell, or they wouldn't be there.

You call that, "justly leaving people in their sin."

Calvin's god creates people for Hell.

Calvin's god died for only some people.

Calvin's god denies the Holy Spirit to many.

Calvin's god justly leaves many in their sin, helpless and alone.

Christ opened the kingdom of Heaven to all people, but Calvin and his god shut it in people's faces.

They are "denied the knowledge of God and His grace." They are "justly left in their sin."

The justice of God is not how a holy and righteous God punishes sin, but how the merciful God justifies all in Christ: "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus . . . ."

Christ died for all so that all might live.

Update: It was recommended I read Piper's, The Justification of God. Here is my reaction to that:

I had a chance to read the sermon. Piper quotes Jonathan Edwards:

"the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, in choosing whom he would to eternal life, and rejecting whom he pleased; leaving them eternally to perish, and be everlastingly tormented in hell."

"in God’s shewing mercy to whom he will show mercy, and hardening whom he will."

You (plural) are taking Paul's rhetorical argument -- a hypothetical -- and making out of it a doctrine that contradicts the rest of Scripture.

That hardly seems wise.

Piper says that "Romans 9 is an explanation for why the word of God has not failed even though God’s chosen people, Israel, as a whole, are not turning to Christ and being saved."

He claims that the reason for their not turning to Christ is "God's sovereignty."

But Paul says it is because of unbelief in Christ:

"but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame" (Romans 9:31-33).

Piper's misunderstanding of Romans 9 comes from his misidentifying "Israel." They do not have "conditions they must me[e]t to be the 'children of promise.'"

Paul is making the point in Romans 9 that it is by faith -- not works -- that both Jew and Gentile become a part of the true Israel.

This chapter is not about God denying His grace to anyone -- justly leaving people in their sin -- it is about how a person receives the forgiveness of sins and eternal life: Faith in Christ.

Piper concludes by asking:

"Are all Israel the "children of promise" or only some? If only some, what makes one person a child of promise and another not?"

Paul answers -- God answers: "Faith in Christ" -- which is "the gift of God" -- makes a person a child of the Promise.

You don't have to say, "Calvin," to promote his heresy

In response to comments from Stan:

The first insult you certainly intend is to use the term "god" (instead of "God")

Your god creates people for Hell. Your god did not pay for all men's sins. Your god does not work to save all men.

Your god is not the God of the Bible.

The second intended insult is the constant use of Calvin's name as if there is a connection on my end.

For not knowing Calvin, you sure argue Calvin.

You've defended at least Double Predestination, Limited Atonement, and Irresistible Grace.

I have never referenced Calvin. I have always referenced Scripture.

You don't have to say, "Calvin," to promote his heresy.

You have taken one or two phrases, divorced them from their contexts, elevated your logic over the Word of God, and denied the clear testimony of the rest of Scripture.

You maintain an absolute, insistent denial that anyone can get their beliefs based on Scripture that differ from yours.

I've cited Scripture for everything I've said and I've asked you to do the same.

God speaks clearly.

If I am misrepresenting Scripture, show me from Scripture. If you cannot -- and if you cannot demonstrate from Scripture the truth of what you claim -- then I would suggest that some revising is in order.

In other words, you refuse to show gentleness and respect, demands from Peter (1 Peter 3:15).

"Gentleness and respect" is not a euphemism for "tolerate falsehood."

If you speak the words of God the way He intends them, we will agree.

Christ has reconciled and justified all. Those who reject His sacrifice for sins are on their own." Allow me a parallel. I go to the people to whom you owe large sums of money and I pay the debt. I don't simply make the payment available; I pay it. At this point, what do you owe? If those people came to you, then, and demanded payment, it wouldn't be fair or, worse, just. It would be criminal. Yet you are saying that all are justified and then arguing that some can still end up paying for the sin you say is paid for.

No, YHWH is saying that.

I quote the Word of God. You use flawed human analogies that end up contradicting His clear word.

Which pleases Him?

That you must resort to obviously flawed analogies demonstrates that your positions are without Scriptural support.

Your way has God holding people in Heaven against their will.

I read "justified" and understand it in its biblical term: "declared just before God". You cannot.

That's ironic.

Obviously you believe that a rebuke is far better than a dialog, that jumping in with both feet is better than actually trying to understand, and charity in all things is not a quality to practice.

That's charitable?

Therefore, it is abundantly clear that you won't understand me and I won't understand you. In deference to your strong distaste for biblical viewpoints that don't align with yours, I'll leave it at that.

Asking for you to produce Scriptural support for claims that blaspheme the Living God is not being mean.

You want me to agree with positions that contradict the clear Word of God.

I will not.

A Calvinist by any other name would offer heresy as rank

Some observations from a someone defending a god which "intends/determines/predestines" people for Hell:

At some point your "stand for the truth" stops being a stand for the truth and mere abrasiveness.

When you get to that point, your "stand" gets lost in the noise of your unkindness, and no one will hear your version of "the truth". I only point that out so that you can perhaps express your opinion in a way that doesn't turn people off before hearing it.

That is an important consideration, one that I keep in mind always. I do not want to offend anyone unnecessarily.

At the same time, Truth is abrasive.

What, specifically, did I write that was unkind? What did I write that was untrue? If Calvin's heresies preach a false christ, should not that be exposed and condemned? Will equivocations, euphemisms, or silence save anyone from error, especially someone entrenched in it? Does not calling a spade a "spade," force us to deal squarely with the issue?

With what language would you address genocide, pedophilia, rape, or slavery? Are those "alternative points-of-view," or vile abominations, offenses to God and Nature? How much more that which destroys men's souls?

What pejoratives would you use for Someone who, when pointing out stubborn, hellish heresy, called its proponents "children of the devil," "white-washed tombs," and "vipers"? With what language would you denounce someone wishing that those preaching observance of the Mosaic Law as necessary for salvation "would go the whole way and emasculate themselves"?

Have I written anything like that of you? Have I spoken of you in terms you use below?

If God knows something, it is certain. It cannot not happen. If He knows that "Tom" will reject Christ for his entire life, he will. So, if God knows something, it is already determined to happen. Nothing can change it. That doesn't require "cause and effect". Still, it is certain to happen. So when you admit that God knows who will be saved and who will not be saved, both are certain. Therefore, it is determined. Look, if God determines (predestines) who will be saved as you admit, then those who are not in that predestination are certain not to be saved ... and that is "double predestination". (Please note that it is not symmetrical. Salvation takes effort on God's part. Damnation does not.)

There again, you're making God's knowledge into His responsibility. You're going from "something must happen because God knows it will happen" to "God causes it to happen." That is not Biblical.

According to your logic, God knew that Mohammed was going to start raping little Aisha when she was nine, so He "determined (predestined)" that, right?

What does God say? He says to believers that He predestined believers to eternal life. What does He say about unbelievers here? Nothing.

You're assuming, using human logic, something God does not say. In fact, He says the opposite of what you're claiming: "The Lord is . . . patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" (2 Peter 3:9).

Using your logic, since God wishes it, no one will perish, correct?

Next, I need to point out a serious difference of opinion between you and me. "Does not YHWH intend Life for all people? Did not Christ die for and justify all people?" These are rhetorical questions from you that assume a "Yes" answer from me ... but I don't agree with them.

You don't agree with what God says.

Here's why. If God intended Life for all people, then all people would have Life. God always does what He intends (Psa. 135:6, etc.).

God created a perfect world. God gave His perfect law. Who ruined that?

Even after our wickedness, He became flesh and offered Himself up as the perfect sacrifice for all so that all might live.

God has reconciled the world to Himself in Christ's body on the cross. Nothing more needs to be done. "It is finished."

Regarding human evil, you have to say that since it happens, God intends/determines/predestines it all, for nothing happens against His will, right?

But what does God say? Sin, death, and Hell are our doing. God doesn't force people to love Him:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not" (Matthew 23:37)!

Your theology makes the Word of God false, the death of Christ meaningless, and God Himself a liar.

If He does not, then He is not sovereign. Does God desire Life for all? Sure, but that isn't the same as "intend". That isn't the same as "His will". (And you are seriously misreading 2 Peter 3:9.) We know this, for example, because on one hand we have the certainty that God takes no delight in the death of the wicked (Eze. 33:11), but we also know that He certainly does damn them. That is, He has a desire to save them, but His will is to damn them.

That's a bit incoherent.

Using your logic, the god who forces people to believe in Him and causes them to commit the most heinous atrocities desires to save people but can't do it? Won't do it?

Is Calvin's god insane or just impotent?

The second question is "Did not Christ ... justify all people?" No, He did not. I know you would like to say that He did, but doing so will simply make God unjust. The best you can say is that He potentially justified all people, not actually. If you argue that He actually justified all people and then you agree that some people go to Hell, you have an unjust God who has received proper payment for sin and still exacts further payment for sin. That is, you have a God who damns justified people. That is not just, and that is not God.

Or, you could say only and all of what God says:

"all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Romans 3)"

"Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men" (Romans 5).

"in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them . . ." (2 Corinthians).

"if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment . . ." (Hebrews 10).

Christ has reconciled and justified all. Those who reject His sacrifice for sins are on their own.

You are quite certain that there is no statement that God predestines who will not be saved. You are not satisfied with the undeniable fact that choosing who will be saved is also a choice of who will not.

So, you can't find any statement from God saying that He predestines people to Hell.

You're using fallible human logic which contradicts God. He does not say that He predestines people to Hell; He comforts Christians by assuring us that He predestined us to eternal life.

Here's an example of your error: In 1 John 4, God says to Christians that He, "sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." Using your logic, that means that since Christ was the propitiation for our (believers) sins, He was not the propitiation for unbelievers' sins too, right?

But what does God say? "He [Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2).

(Think about it like this for a moment. You arrive on a scene of a boat that capsized. Five people are in the water, drowning. You jump in to save them. You can only save so many before some of them drown. You choose, by whatever means you choose, to save as many as you can. It is unavoidable that by choosing to save some, the ones you didn't save were also chosen not to be saved.)

Your "logic" makes Christ a liar.

To make your analogy consistent with what God has revealed in His Word, He arrives on the scene to save everyone from drowning, but some say, "No, thanks, the water's fine. And who are you to say I need saving in the first place?"

Even when I hand you the Bible and point at Jude 1:4, you close your eyes and say, "Nope! That Scripture isn't in there!" You argue, "It doesn't say 'created by God for condemnation'." That doesn't solve your problem. It says they were already marked for condemnation before time.

First, I don't say it isn't there, I actually read it.

Second, as I noted in an earlier post, various translations (many done by Calvinists, and they've got no agenda, right?) render it as the condemnation being written beforehand.

That is not the same as God creating people for Hell (or denying salvation to many).

No one argues that God creates people for the sole purpose of condemnation. He creates people for His glory. Some of them display His glory in His salvation. Some of them display His glory in His power and wrath. None of them are made "for condemnation". But there are unavoidably some who were "marked out before time for this condemnation".

Following is the rest of Jude, beginning at verse 5. Note the reasons God gives for their condemnation. It was not His predetermining but their sin.

Note also that the condemnation for such people was set by God beforehand (prophesied by Enoch), not that God had created them for Hell:

". . . Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe . . . And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day . . . just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire . . .

"Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones.

"these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively . . . they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error and perished in Korah's rebellion.

"These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, looking after themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.

"It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

"These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage.

"But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. They said to you, "In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions."

"It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit . . . ."

My guest's comments, continued:

Look, it is your belief that I don't read my Bible.

I've never said that.

I've encouraged you to say only and all of what God says.

Fine. You can remain in your ignorance.

Personal attacks are almost always a sign that one realizes they've got nothing on which to stand.

It is your belief that I take my beliefs from a guy named Calvin, one whom I've never met or read.

I pointed out the last time you wrote this that you're defending the same ideas.

If you're not defending Calvin, why are you offended?

I don't know your god either.

Yes.

This one is a strange breed. He apparently has the capability to save all but chooses not to save all while choosing to save all but won't actually ... I don't know ... very strange.

Your confusion would end if you would just say what God says: Christ died for all, paid for all our sins, reconciled us all to His Father, and justified all men, but many reject that payment and so must pay out of their own pocket.

Maybe it's that in His sovereignty He is subservient to His creation -- they decide whether or not He will save them. He does all that He chooses to do and wills that all be saved but doesn't ... do ... that. Hmmm? He wills to pay for all sin at the cross and actually accomplishes this task but refuses to accept the payment His Son made on their behalf and damns some anyway.

No, they reject His payment for their sin. They damn themselves.

The facade crumbles. Do you realize you're mocking the Living God?

What??!! He knows who will come to Him and who will not and does nothing at all to change the list of who will not because He is either unable or unwilling while being both able and willing. So whose God is more capricious? Whose God is more malicious?

You call the death of Christ, "nothing." Vile.

The malice here is obvious, and it's coming from you.

I read my Bible and see an omniscient, omnipotent, sovereign Lord who always accomplishes what He intends.

Then you should say what He says.

Feel free to hate Calvin for whatever reasons you choose.

I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

But please, please, stop insulting the God that I love, the God that I find in the pages of my Bible, the God you blaspheme intentionally. If you cannot discuss the God of the Bible that I know with some respect, charity, and courtesy -- you know ... like the Bible commands (1 Peter 3:15), then I will have to stop giving you access to comment on my blog (you know ... like the Bible commands - 2 Thess. 3:14).)

Your god intends/determines/predestines people for Hell. It is impossible to blaspheme such a god, especially by telling the truth.

Clarifying that Calvin's god really is a malicious, capricious beast

Another note in an ongoing discussion here:

"I cannot conceive of why it is a problem for people to understand either double-predestination or its necessity."

Does not God "foreknow" all people? Does not YHWH intend Life for all people? Did not Christ die for and justify all people?

There is no problem "understanding" Double Predestination. The problem is accepting the idea since it is not found in Scripture [and contrary to the nature of the God revealed in the Bible].

Worse than that (that's bad enough!), it makes God out to be a capricious monster, which He is not.

"it is undeniably in Scripture."

No, only the statement that God predestines believers to eternal life is in the Bible.

If you want to say that God predestines people for Hell, you'll have to produce something from the Bible saying that . . . God predestines people to Hell.

And Arminianism doesn't cut it, either.

"It is not possible to retain an omniscient God and say, "Well, He doesn't know who will be saved . . . we have a God who knows in advance all who will be saved. Regardless of how you come to that conclusion, that would be "predestination"

You are confusing knowing the future for determining unalterably who will end up where.

"It is inescapable that if God is omniscient and knows all who will be saved, then He would also know all who will not be saved."

Again, knowing all things is not the same thing as causing them to occur.

Using your logic, Mohammed's slaughter is Calvin's god's will.

"if He doesn't intervene and change those who will not be saved"

YHWH did intervene. God did act. He has done EVERYTHING necessary for all to be saved, or is the death of His Son a small matter?

"If you argue that God knew but couldn't do anything about it, then you reject an omnipotent God. Which God do you reject?"

False dichotomy.

Instead, I prefer to say what God says:

"Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men" (Romans 5).

The correspondence continues:

"Now, since you reject that God "predetermined their condemnation" (which, by the way, is exactly what Jude 1:4 says), what exactly do you believe?"

Condemned for their sin, not created by God for condemnation.

["ordained," "written into" and "designated" according to the 1611 King James, Modern King James, and English Standard Versions.]

"The question of Limited Atonement . . . if He intended the salvation of all, He quite frankly failed. If He intended the salvation of those who believe, He succeeded. Which do you believe?

So, you're saying that Jesus only intended to save some but died for everyone? That makes sense?

I believe what God says:

"He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2).

Continuing the discussion:

"on "Irresistible Grace" . . . The point is that God has the capacity to call irresistibly. Given an omnipotent God, that seems like a given. What do you believe?"

So, your god can "call irresistibly," but chooses not to?

Are these clarifications really helping your argument?

You've got a god that chooses to save only a few based on a whim and calls only a few to faith.

I believe in the God of Scripture. He loves all. He desires that all should live. He calls all to salvation. He died for all people's sins. He has reconciled us all to Himself.

Many, however, choose to reject that gift, which means they've got to pay for their sins out of their own pocket.

"THe underlying belief here is that it is God's will that everyone be saved. The Bible says that God wants everyone to come to repentance, but it is clearly not His will . . . ."

That makes Calvin's god a sick monster and the Bible's God a liar.

"It is mandatory (biblically) that God's will occurs. It is impossible (especially given an omnipotent God) for God's will not to occur."

That is false, for He says not only that He is not willing that anyone should perish, but that many will.

That means also that your god wills genocide, slavery, and child rape.

"If it is God's will that all are saved, then we have only one of two possibilities. One is that all will be saved because God's will always occurs. The other is that some won't be saved ... and God is not omnipotent and the Bible's repeated claim that God always accomplishes what He wants to accomplish is a lie. Which do you believe?"

Neither. I believe God[, Who said that "I longed to gather you . . . but you were not willing," and, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever doesn't believe will be condemned."]

"You obviously despise what you call "Calvin's heresies". Are you aware that these beliefs 1) are not "Calvin's", but 2) come from the Bible? I myself have never read a word of Calvin. My beliefs are out of the Bible."

[. . .]

Double Predestination and Limited Atonement are Calvin's heresies. [Both are contrary to Scripture and, as you have demonstrated here, make God a monster.]

To attribute them to Christ only heaps blasphemy upon blasphemy.

Some clarifications don't really help

Offered in response to comments from a guest.

"I cannot conceive of why it is a problem for people to understand either double-predestination or its necessity."

Does not God "foreknow" all people? Does not YHWH intend Life for all people? Did not Christ die for and justify all people?

There is no problem "understanding" Double Predestination. The problem is accepting the idea since it is not found in Scripture.

Worse than that (that's bad enough!), it makes God out to be a capricious monster, which He is not.

"it is undeniably in Scripture."

No, only the statement that God predestines believers to eternal life is in the Bible.

If you want to say that God predestines people for Hell, you'll have to produce something from the Bible saying that . . . God predestines people to Hell.

And Arminianism doesn't cut it, either.

"It is not possible to retain an omniscient God and say, "Well, He doesn't know who will be saved . . . we have a God who knows in advance all who will be saved. Regardless of how you come to that conclusion, that would be "predestination"

You are confusing knowing the future for determining unalterably who will end up where.

"It is inescapable that if God is omniscient and knows all who will be saved, then He would also know all who will not be saved."

Again, knowing all things is not the same thing as causing them to occur.

Using your logic, Mohammed's slaughter is Calvin's god's will.

"if He doesn't intervene and change those who will not be saved"

YHWH did intervene. God did act. He has done EVERYTHING necessary for all to be saved, or is the death of His Son a small matter?

"If you argue that God knew but couldn't do anything about it, then you reject an omnipotent God. Which God do you reject?"

False dichotomy.

Instead, I prefer to say what God says:

"Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men" (Romans 5).

My guest continues:

Stan: "Now, since you reject that God "predetermined their condemnation" (which, by the way, is exactly what Jude 1:4 says), what exactly do you believe?"

Condemned for their sin, not created by God for condemnation.

Stan: "The question of Limited Atonement . . . if He intended the salvation of all, He quite frankly failed. If He intended the salvation of those who believe, He succeeded. Which do you believe?

So, you're saying that Jesus only intended to save some but died for everyone? That makes sense?

I believe what God says:

"He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2).

My guest continues:

"on "Irresistible Grace" . . . The point is that God has the capacity to call irresistibly. Given an omnipotent God, that seems like a given. What do you believe?"

So, your god can "call irresistibly," but chooses not to?

Are these clarifications really helping your argument?

You've got a god that chooses to save only a few based on a whim and calls only a few to faith.

I believe in the God of Scripture. He loves all. He desires that all should live. He calls all to salvation. He died for all people's sins. He has reconciled us all to Himself.

Many, however, choose to reject that gift, which means they've got to pay for their sins out of their own pocket.

"THe underlying belief here is that it is God's will that everyone be saved. The Bible says that God wants everyone to come to repentance, but it is clearly not His will . . . ."

That makes Calvin's god a sick monster and the Bible's God a liar.

"It is mandatory (biblically) that God's will occurs. It is impossible (especially given an omnipotent God) for God's will not to occur."

That is false, for He says not only that He is not willing that anyone should perish, but that many will.

That means also that your god wills genocide, slavery, and child rape.

"If it is God's will that all are saved, then we have only one of two possibilities. One is that all will be saved because God's will always occurs. The other is that some won't be saved ... and God is not omnipotent and the Bible's repeated claim that God always accomplishes what He wants to accomplish is a lie. Which do you believe?"

Neither. I believe God.

Stan: "You obviously despise what you call "Calvin's heresies". Are you aware that these beliefs 1) are not "Calvin's", but 2) come from the Bible? I myself have never read a word of Calvin. My beliefs are out of the Bible."

Clearly not.

Double Predestination and Limited Atonement are Calvin's heresies.

To attribute them to God only heaps blasphemy upon blasphemy.

Some thoughts on Arminianism

I received a kind note today.

Here is most of my reply:

. . . Theologically, I try to say only what God says.

You are right in saying that Calvinism's bad theology causes them to trash Scripture. That's why I made the point that we should remain silent where God does.

. . . I have a few thoughts regarding Arminianism:

1. God from all eternity predestined to eternal life those of whom He foresaw that they would remain steadfast in faith to their end.

God says that He predestined believers to eternal life. I think that is the place we should stop.

Calvin's gross error was [concluding] that since God predestines people to Heaven, He must also predestine people to Hell, even though Scripture does not say this!

Interestingly, God speaks of those who sin against Him being "blotted out" of "My book" in Exodus, while in Revelation, Christ speaks of those remaining faithful to Him not having their names "blotted out" of the Book of Life.

God's intention is for all to have eternal life. You can't have a name blotted out of a Book unless it's already in it.

2. Christ died for all mankind, not only for the elect.

Absolutely!

3. Man cooperates in his conversion by free will.

Since the Scriptures speak of us being "dead" in our sins, faith as the gift of God, and our utterly sinful nature, I do not believe that we can choose Him or contribute anything to our salvation.

John 1 speaks of believers being born, "not of human will," but, "born of God."

4. Man may resist divine grace.

Yes! Jesus lamented over Jerusalem, ". . . I longed to gather you . . . but you were not willing."

5. Man may fall from divine grace.

The Scriptures warn believers against falling away from the faith into unbelief (which rejects God's grace).

I think the place where the "once saved, always saved" crowd errs is in thinking that because Christ will not allow us to be taken from Him, we cannot take ourselves away (through unbelief).

Since Scripture states both, we should too.

Calvinists aren't the only people who hate me. I've got Muslims and Darwinists after me, too.

Romans 9 shows God's compassion and mercy, not His capriciousness and malice

In response to courteous comments here.

. . . God being malicious is something that you've drawn out of a Calvinist view, not Calvinists.

I don't think I've written that Calvinism says God is malicious and capricious.

Several of Calvinism's doctrines contradict the Word of Christ in ways that make its god malicious and capricious.

Attributing such characteristics and attitudes to YHWH blasphemes Him.

God works on a scale of just to merciful, unjust or malice don't enter his character at all.

YHWH is fully both at the same time. In Christ's body on the cross, He punished all men's sins and had mercy on all.

Calvinism denies that mercy to many.

I don't think the parable of the sower has anything to do with predestination.

The Parable of the Sower is relevant because it doesn't show God creating bad soil or never sending the Word to some (both Calvinist heresies).

It shows that the responsibility for unbelief is ours.

. . . Romans 9 especially verses 14-24 . . . clouds the issue of God's will in choosing and man's role in accepting. As well as whether people can actually be destined for Hell. I'm still considering my thoughts on this passage, but when considering how God chooses I think it's essential to include this passage.

God says:

"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide" (John 15:16),

". . . God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all" (Romans 11:32).

"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 3:18).

"he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16).

"by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast (Ephesians 2: 8 and 9).

"For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (Romans 3:28).

"He [Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2).

"in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them . . ." (2 Corinthians 5:19).

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you kill the prophets and stone to death those sent to you! How often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you were not willing" (Matthew 23:37)!

What does Romans 9 say? Paul shows that despite Israel's rejection, God's promises are sure and are received by faith.

Regarding Jacob and Esau, Paul writes, "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call . . ." (Romans 9:11).

Paul's point here is not that God hates (or rejects) people just because He chooses to do so (Calvinism's Double Predestination), it is that God's blessings depend on His mercy and are received by faith, not by works.

Being the older and favored son, Esau was to receive his father Isaac's blessing. Isaac asks Esau to hunt and prepare a "delicious meal," after which he would bless him. While Esau is out obeying his father, Jacob's mom, having overheard their plans, conspires with Jacob to deceive Isaac into obtaining the blessing.

So, the one who received the promise, Jacob, did not deserve it. Like Jacob, we receive the Promise not because we deserve it (we deserve condemnation!), but because of His mercy.

Romans 9 also mentions Pharaoh. Is the fact that God says of him, "I raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth" (Romans 9:17) evidence of His creating people for destruction? Is Paul's statement that God hardens whom He hardens proof of this?

Paul does not state that the hardening God did was His "sovereign choice" (that subtitle in the ESV and NIV is human commentary, not Divine revelation) to condemn someone; rather, he declares that its purpose was to show His power to the entire world.

Does God's patience with "objects of wrath prepared for destruction" (Romans 9:22) mean that He created people for Hell? No, since we believers are by nature, "objects of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3).

And God is patient with those "objects of wrath" in order that they too might repent. Paul writes, "do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?" (Romans 2:4).

Calvinism denies God's kindness, forbearance, and patience to many.

Most importantly, Paul shows us that the reason Israel is rejected is not because of "God's sovereign choice," because of its unbelief, through which they reject Christ:

. . . Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works" (Romans 9:30-32).

If a Calvinist cannot state accurately what God says, what makes you think they'll get your words right?

Calvinists accuse God of creating people for Hell (Double Predestination) and Christ of dying for only some people (Limited Atonement), both of which are contrary to Scripture and make YHWH a lying monster.

Additionally, they pretend an affinity to Luther, trying to wrap around themselves the cloak of the Reformation, when in reality what they have is a Deformation of Christ.

Here a guest not only defends the hellish doctrines of Double Predestination and Limited Atonement, he attributes to me his own perverse attitudes:

How do you look at the things Jesus says later on in John 6? Namely, that the full number of those whom God gives to Him WILL come to Him, and that out of that number not a single one will be lost? Just curious.

Those who are not given to Christ by the Father -- are those not given because YHWH created them for Hell, because Christ did not die for them, or because the Holy Spirit never worked in their hearts?

Or is it, as Scripture teaches -- including here in John's gospel -- that they are rejected because they reject God through unbelief?

You're trying to say against that a person's condemnation is God's fault. Where does He say that?

Here's some of what God does say in John 6, including another opportunity for Calvinist selective reading near the end:

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out [. . .] this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

[. . .] No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

[. . .]

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

Note in verse 44 that God says all who come to Christ are drawn by the Father. It doesn't say that only those who come to Christ were drawn by the Father.

Did not Christ say that when He was crucified He would draw "all men" to Himself?

Dusty McDusty continues:

I notice you tend to accuse Calvinists of bringing blasphemous charges against God's character

That's false. I accuse Calvinists of blaspheming God by their false doctrine.

There's a difference between Calvinists proclaiming that God is malicious, for example, and Calvinists proclaiming something that makes God seem malicious in your own personal judgment.

Where did I accuse Calvinists of saying that God is malicious? Is that misrepresentation of my words intentional?

-God says that He is not willing that anyone should perish. You say God makes people for Hell.

-God says that Christ died for all. You say Christ died for some.

-God says that He has mercy on all. You deny His mercy to "many."

-God says that in Christ's body on the cross, He was reconciling the world to His Father. You deny that reconciliation to "many."

-God says that Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the "whole world." You deny His sacrifice to "many."

-God says only that believers are predestined to eternal life. From this you infer that God predestined those in Hell to Hell. when in fact they rejected Christ's payment for sin through unbelief.

Where does God say that He predestines the "many" who find themselves in Hell for it? Where does God say that Christ died for only some? That He loves and has mercy on only some?

Dusty continues:

I've never heard a Calvinist call God "malicious" or "blame" God's sovereignty for people going to hell.

No, he just claims that God creates people for Hell.

I don't suppose I need to restate this, but just in case: The Calvinist makes God a monster. I merely point out what the Calvinist is doing.

And hey-- do you believe that God, before creating this existence, foresaw the situation of lots of people going to Hell, and yet decided to create this existence anyway? Well, if you do (and how can you not, as a theologically responsible Christian), then how do you not also "blame God's sovereignty" for the fact that people go to hell? God could have created this existence differently and He didn't. Voila--He's to blame (not to mention malicious). Shame on you for believing such a thing.

Just like the Darwinist and the Muslim, projecting their error onto the one pointing out the error.

You're confusing foreknowledge with predestination.

The reason I cannot "blame God's sovereignty" for people going to Hell is because unlike the Calvinist, I tell the truth about what I read. God says a person goes to Hell because of their own sin.

Do you, as a theologically correct sort, believe that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present? (That is, that God is sovereign?)

Here comes a perfect example of Calvinist theology in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

your own version of a cruel, malicious God? You know what I mean, right? The God who is sitting there as you read this refusing to intervene in the brutal beating and worse of a little child at the hands of her mom's drunk boyfriend (3rd time this month)... and Who will send that little child to hell when she dies of a drug overdose 19 years from now after a life of bitterness and unbelief, which He could have done something to prevent by putting a stop to the brutal beatings and worse 19 years before...

Blaming God first for mom's drunk boyfriend's cruelty (and mom's negligence), and second for
the adult woman's sin and unbelief.

To a Calvinist that's called, "good theology."

But what does God say? He says that He has mercy on the just and unjust.

Christ explained in one parable that He allows the weeds to grow up alongside the wheat until the harvest so that no good plants are destroyed prematurely along with the weeds.

As Peter said, God's "slowness" is His patience, for He wants all to be saved.

And there will be justice: Either in Christ's body on the cross, or in the unrepentant sinner's in Hell.

soul-squashing evil that people's lives are saturated with all over the world on a daily basis--evil which the loving, non-malicious, all-powerful God you believe in allows. Stuff that plays a huge part in stoking the UNBELIEF of people everywhere, which unbelief--as you yourself profess--is the reason why people go to hell.

That's dishonest!

You blame God (again) for human evil, you blame Him (again) for unbelief, and you attribute the responsibility for unbelief to outside forces rather than to the individual.

You imply also that suffering causes unbelief, when in fact, God often works through suffering to create and strengthen faith, as He says.

Nice, well-thought-out beliefs (and accusations) you've got going here. What a noble defender of God's character you are.

If you say what God says -- no more, no less -- you won't have to worry.

Calvinism blasphemes the Living God

What makes Calvinism unreasonable (to a Christian) is that by attributing to God what He does not say, it contradicts what He has said.

Calvin's god creates people for Hell and denies the grace of God to all (Double Predestination and Limited Atonement, respectively).

To teach such heresy, a Calvinist must deny that God has "bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."

Watch how a Calvinist negates the clear language of the Word of God to justify his false doctrine: Not only did Christ not die for the sins of the whole world, but He actually creates people for Hell!

So, you're a universalist!

I am someone who makes it his goal to say only what God has said, nothing more nor less.

We should all speak His words and remain silent where He does.

What does God say? He says that Christ died for the sins of the "whole world." He says that He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should have eternal life. In lamenting over Jerusalem He says, "I longed to gather you like a hen gathers her chicks, but you were not willing."

Was He lying?

Don't blame God because someone rejects Him through unbelief. To attribute to God the evil we create is not only unjust, it is blasphemy.

Strong Tower writes:

Why is it that anti-Calvinists never, ever quote all of Scripture like you did with Romans 11: What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear [. . . .]”

Here he tries to use a discussion of (natural) Israel's unbelief to prove that God creates people for Hell. One shouldn't use Romans 11 for that, since verses 20 and 21 state:

That's right! They were broken off because they didn't believe, but you remain on the tree because you do believe. Don't feel arrogant, but be afraid. If God didn't spare the natural branches, he won't spare you, either.

Why were those members of Israel rejected ("broken off")? Because of unbelief!

It's also worth nothing here that God warns believers against being rejected also through unbelief.

(So much for "Once saved, always saved.")

Look also at verse 23, which reads:

If Jewish people do not continue in their unbelief, they will be grafted onto the tree again, because God is able to do that.

There goes Double Predestination and Limited Atonement. Broken-off unbelievers rejoining the people of God!

Strong Tower continues:

And the same with what Jesus said: [. . .]“To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given [. . .] I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled [. . . .]’"

Later in Matthew 13, the Apostles receive an explanation of the parable of the sower. Does that mean the Apostles were blind, deaf, and uncomprehending unbelievers?

No. The Apostles listened to God, and He gave them explanations to His parables in and to which an unbeliever would have neither interest nor access.

Note also in this parable that the Word of God goes out to all soils (hearts).

Does God steal the seed? No, the devil does.

Does He make the soil rocky? No, that's a faith that falls away.

Does He make the thorns grow and choke the Word? No, those are human cares and lusts.

Do not make examples of Man's unbelief proof of God's malice.

If it was the mere preaching of the Word that saves and that all could be saved by the mere hearing of it and choosing to believe it, why is it that Jesus says that the preaching that he did actually accomplished the opposite in some. Why too would Jesus not pray for the entire world, John 17:9 if indeed what you are saying is true?

I've never said that we "choose" to believe the Gospel. One dead in trespasses can choose nothing. In fact, Christ said, "You did not choose Me; I chose you." All we can do is reject God's gifts through unbelief, as noted above.

What does God say? "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17). We are saved by His grace, through faith, and God offers these to all.

Do not make the fact that some reject God's gift proof of His not giving it.

As for John 17, He says He was praying specifically for His disciples. This was just before He was to be betrayed. Is it unusual to pray for loved ones before leaving them?

Is not praying for someone proof of condemning them? That makes no sense, especially in light of the many passages where God states explicitly His love for all people.

The reality of what Scripture teaches is that God does as he wills and in part that includes the blinding and hardening of the people not elect.

We've seen that the hardening is connected to unbelief, and that God says unbelievers will be accepted if they "do not continue in their unbelief."

In response to my questions, "Are you implying that Christ only wants some people to be saved? Where does He say that?" Strong Tower responds with:

Will all people be saved? Then no . . . .

He wants to blame God's "sovereignty" for the fact that people will be condemned.

But that is not what God says. He says that those who end up in Hell do so entirely on their own account: First, they sin. Second, they reject the only payment for sin (other than their own torment), which is the body and blood of Christ given and shed for them.

Jesus said, "Many are called, but few are chosen." God calls "many" (all), but most reject His call through unbelief.

One last observation: Using Strong Tower's logic, Christ's executioners were Christians, since He prayed for His murderers, "Father, forgive them."