The hard part of this doctrine, and Calvinists don’t necessarily like it either (but they believe the scriptures teach it) is that God’s Spirit does not open up these insatiable desires in everyone. Who, in our limited human understanding, wants to belive this? In my limited understanding I don’t want to. But in regard to the fact that it seems to me to be what scripture teaches as being true, I do belive it. Any theology (not just Calvinism) that belives God knows the future seems to have this problem. In our own experience we can see that some people’s lives are changed and they are blessed after hearing the gospel message, but others reject it and don’t experience these blessings. Any who believe God knows all things of all time belive that he chose to create this particular world even knowing who would freely reject or trust him. Why didn’t he create one of millions of other alternate versions of earth where different people belived or rejected him? For some reason he freely willed to create this one. He chose to create this world even knowing the choices people would freely make. So even from a non-Calvinistic theology in which God knows all time, there still seems to be the problem of God choosing an end result in which certain people believe and certain people reject him. It is a hard doctrine, and frustrating even to someone who believes that it is true.

On the topic of what Nate just said: the things you describe certainly are what many term “Hyper-Calvinism” and I’ve known people that have belived those things to be true. But again, the Calvinism is not defined this way in the Reformed confessions, instead it is belived that God predetermined the means by which things happen in time. For instance prayer is the means by which God does things certain things in time, just like food is one of the means by which God preserves our lives in time. Those who belive in such “Hyper-Calvinism” as you described should be consistant and not eat either. Another example is preaching the gospel: this is the means by which God’s Spirit draws people to himself. If no one preached the gospel, to use the words of Paul, “how would anyone hear?”

It’s more fiddling with definitions and semantics. Any occurrence of the word “choose” is interpreted, in reality, as no choice at all. In essence, the Irresistible Grace tenant gives us no choice in the matter whatsoever.

So choices, again, do not exist.

Of course, this makes no theological or logical sense at all. Why ask people to “choose you this day” if the reality is there is no choice?

At the end of this yellow brick road … the logical conclusion of determinant theology is hyper-Calvinism. Asking humans to do things that either 1) will have no effect whatsoever on others, or 2) will have no effect on themselves (ie – I ask you to choose me, but you really can’t — I ask you to persuade men, but you really can’t — I ask you to pray, but it won’t change anything) makes absolutely no sense at all.

I actually have a lot of respect for Calvinists who don’t let their theology make them lazy. The truth is, I can’t believe how anyone resists the slide to hyper once they’ve accepted determinism.

I believe the Lord has given us a choice to either believe in him or deny him. After reading this post, I thought about the passage in John where it says, “He who loves his life will lose it; he who hates his life on earth will gain it.” Isn’t that a choice? Jesus himself proposed many choices to man.

I would like to ask a question. If we are elected into the Kingdom without any choice of our own, does that mean everything we do is the elected act God has willed us to perform? Please do not give me the explaination that God wills us to do right and our flesh pushes us to sin. If we have no choice in the matter than are we to suppose God prompts us to committ what he died to save us from? If God hates sin, why would he ever allow his elect, his chosen, to do what he is so strongly against?

Glad I could be of some amusement to you, as you have been to me, Rick’s son.

And, yes, you have been amusing. Sorry, I’m not buying that a Calvinist would react so to receiving the news of his eternal damnation. Oh, they may put on that face in public, at least for a while, but get them alone and let them ponder the horror of their coming damnation and their powerlessness to effect it in any way, and I think soon enough they’ll need a nice padded room and a constricting coat.

And if, as I suspect, a Calvinist would not like for himself or herself to be eternally predestined to damnation, why should they then put that burden on others?

If the Bible were to give us a consistent emphasis that we are merely pawns to divine fiat, that we are in essence meat puppets responding to invisible strings, that all of our choices have in essence already been made and the story already been written, then I would be forced to agree with you and with predestinationists.

But it doesn’t. Whether you like it or not, and no matter how you try to explain it away, the Bible tells us that we have some ability to choose. We are even told that God has given choices, “I have set before you today life and death, good and evil. Choose life”.

In his view Jesus only died for the elect, in my view he died for the non elect as well but as I taught in my post no blood went to waste in the end. I guess you could say the the fly in the ointment is still unconditional election, it colors everything.

Sounds like the reformed saying “sufficient for all, efficient for some.”

Note how what you are arguing sounds almost exactly like what the Synod of Dort says (which is where the “5 points of Calvinism” were summarized from):

Article 3: THE INFINITE VALUE OF CHRIST’S DEATH
This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world…”

Article 5: THE MANDATE TO PROCLAIM THE GOSPEL TO ALL
Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel.

Article 6: UNBELIEF MAN’S RESPONSIBILITY
However, that many who have been called through the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ but perish in unbelief is not because the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross is deficient or insufficient, but because they themselves are at fault.

So it seems to me you actually believe in Limited Atonement in a traditional (almost even Calvinistic) sense, could it be that what you are trying to express is that you don’t believe in the Calvinistic way of defining Election (instead of limited atonement) as not being because of forseen faith? Perhaps you believe #1 below and are arguing against #2?

1) God forsees belief and elects, the effects of the atonement is limited to those who believe.
2) God elects people to believe, the effects of the atonement is limited to those who believe.

If this is the case, perhaps you might want to change the wording of your other artice, “Limited Atonement A Great Heresy” since it is in a sense calling both of our beliefs heresy, and I don’t think either of us is a heritic.

Jazz,
Your comment made me smile. A true calvinist, after being confronted by God and receiving the message of his predestined, elected, eternal damnation, would turn to God with his hands in the air and say praise your name.

I am a student at Trinity Bible College and I am amazed that the main topic is calvinist vs arminianism. The main focus is not the blood, cross, Jesus, resurrection, etc. but it is that of what we personally espouse.

It has come very simple to me because I realized, after 4-5 years of being a arminian, then a 1 pointer, 2 pointer, 4 pointer, 3 pointer, a total “calvinist”, then back to an arminianist, God is a God of missions. Do you know what that means in all realms whether Cal. or Arm.? If you are an arminian than Go and preach the gospel so every man will have a chance; if you’re a calvinist then go and preach so the sovereign God, Jesus Christ, may have all the Glory. After all, doesn’t the Lord deserve all rewards of his sufferings whether you are a “arminian” or a “calvinist.” If we go to tell the world because the Lord has commanded us he receives glory from that no matter what side of the theoligical fence you personally stand on.

As for a comment on this post….Except for God not being able to sin, I will never use the word limited concerning the sovereign God who bought my liberty on the cross!

Besides, as I questioned in my first comment, what is the implications of Unlimited Atonement? To my untrained mind, it’s universalism.

This is misunderstanding what is meant by Limited Atonement. In Calvinism the atonement is only for those elected to be saved. Therefore, the opposite of limited atonement is unlimited atonement, not in that it creates universalism, but that it is not limited in who can benefit from it. This is why it is ultimately linked to election – if only the elect are saved then the atonement is limited to them. If all could be saved then it is for all.

http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2007/09/atonement-rom.html