Does Calvinism make sense to you?

Question

What do you think of the fallen human being as totally depraved, that one is predetermined to elect salvation or damnation from eternity by the will of God and not by one's choises, that Jesus died for the salvation only for the elect few and not for the salvation of all, that God's grace is irresistible and those who are not saved are so because God choose not to offer the grace, and that the predestined-to-salvation cannot be lost and go to hell no matter what they have or have not done?
Does this defend the sovereignty of God? Is this compatible with the God of Eternal Love?

Answer 1

Yes, it makes sense to me. If Adam disobeyed God and lost fellowship with him, which left a federal representation of a sin nature for all of humanity, that doesn't sound unreasonable. Calvinism puts us where we belong then. Calling ourselves able to choose God as if He's on a restaurant menu, puts us in charge of the Almighty. Pelagianism waits for us to come into the restaurant. Semi-Pelagianism gives us a menu. Arminianism pushes us to the best selection, and leaves the final decision to us. Calvinism just serves the best in the house without a menu, to a few, not all, when no one can afford the food on their own anyway and should have been kicked out of the restaurant in the first place.

We are not predetermined to elect salvation or damnation from eternity. Everyone's a loser, and God would not only be justified in tossing us all into hell, He would be glorified in doing so. As in Plato's "Allegory of the Cave," we must be pulled away from the shadows by an external entity. Plato sees this as the job of a philosopher. In a theological sense, it's not a philosopher, God Himself must give us the gift of salvation. When the Holy Spirit works in our hearts, the natural result is repentance and a new life in Him. Do we get to choose this? No, we like our shadows!

Lastly, you can't say, "no matter what they have or have not done" unless you assume that man is innocent and fully capable of fellowship with God, after you know that in Adam, all have sinned. If you're going to deny your guilt, and choose God from a menu, then you are welcome to that theology and all of the other logical errors that go with it. I seek comfort in Calvinism, and yes, it does defend the sovereignty as well as the love of God -- for the ones that he has foreknown and predestined from before the foundations of the world. Those words of Scripture are too often twisted around to accommodate Man's pride in his own perceived abilities.

Answer 2

No, it doesn't make any sense. And the teaching of "total depravity" is all-too-typical religious black-and-white thinking. It's screaming obvious that none of us is perfect, but does it then follow that we can't do *anything* right? Calvinism has plenty of New Testament support, but the Bible has very little reality support.

Ever met a Calvinist who claims that he's *not* of the elect? Didn't think so. That's your first hint that the theology isn't quite objective. Everybody's got their One True Revelation. My vote goes to the first One True Revelation that can be verified in the lab.

Calvinism certainly does defend God's sovereignty--His absolute, despotic, dictatorial sovereignty. Needless to say, love's got nought to do with it. Fortunately for the non-elect, the Calvinists have yet to produce their absolute, despotic dictator.

_________________

P.S. Calvin's imaginary dictator reminded me of another sovereign Dictator, but one that actually makes sense. The Spinozan pantheists--Einstein, et al.--speak of an inflexible Dictator; but unlike Calvin's god, their despot isn't inscrutable. Spinoza's dictator governs with inviolable rules--so inviolable that we can discover them and even rely upon them! It allows us to harness Its unbending rules at our discretion. Spinoza's is not a god of love; It cares not whether we live or die; It is neither good nor evil, and knows nothing of justice. However, It has bestowed the capacity for love on many of Its creatures. We have the choice. :-)

And best of all, no lab test is needed. Spinoza's god is defined as an abstraction of reality. All gods are figments of human imagination, but Spinoza's god is the only god that's damn proud of it.

Answer 3

If Jesus was once despatched to avoid wasting "all," then his dying at the go was once both a roulette wheel of grace, or an entire accomplishment of God's functions from earlier than the rules of the arena, for "all" whom the daddy had selected. The former view makes Jesus a liar if sins are retained after dying -- forgiveness is forgiveness, is it now not? And the latter view might have handiest stored the ones whom the daddy had predestined, with the leisure left of their sins. I consider the latter view to be extra logical.

Answer 4

Nothing that deviates from original Christianity makes sense to me, and Calvinism isn't even close.

Answer 5

No, I can't make heads or tails of it. Fortunately you won't find too many people-on-the-street who actually believe in Calvinism through and through nowadays. Outside of seminaries, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who identifies themselves as "calvinist".

Peace to you.

Answer 6

calvanism doesn't make sense nor does any other organized religion.

Answer 7

no makes no sense