Calvinism Examined

In Spurgeon's own words:

I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such limitation, I would cast it to the winds. I cannot, I dare not, allow the thought to find lodging in my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy. .... 1

• 1Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Autobiography of Charles H. Spurgeon (American Baptist Society, n.d.), 1:174, as quoted in What Love is This? The Berean Call; 4th edition (1 May 2013) 

In John 9:3 we read the following, regarding a man born blind:

Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

We must recall that punctuation was not in the original. I put a period in the verse, as in the quote below. I take the verse to mean this:

Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents. Then Jesus said that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

In Did Jesus Say That God Causes Blindness? 1 , Boyd says the original Greek does not require the interpretation that God's glory was the reason for the blindness.

Also Boyd says

... Jesus elsewhere rebukes people for suggesting that God was behind people’s suffering (Lk 13:1-5).

There is more in this article by Boyd, providing more reason to discard the erroneous interpretation of this scripture as proving that God causes sickness, or that He is glorified by sickness.

• 1Did Jesus Say That God Causes Blindness? https://reknew.org/2015/07/did-jesus-say-that-god-causes-blindness/

Calvinism claims (incorrectly, thank God!) most people to be doomed to damnation from birth with no hope. Fortunately, there really is hope! But - and this is where Calvinism gets this totally wrong - not according to Calvinism. This obviously might lead some who believe this to be true, toward despair. 

For some people who might feel unloved by people, there could be hope that at least God loves them. Calvinism destroys such hope of love. Example: one person upon realizing the implications of Calvinism, cried for 18 hours.

This is not the gospel! This is not good news. Calvinism says, you most likely are created by God for "the day of evil" for God's glory, to be dammed. Although some Calvinists argue that God still loves even those He has ordained to destruction, such theological post-hoc rationalizations do little to help comfort real people who feel unloved, and are no substitute for love.

Some Calvinists use as examples of the non-elect, those committing extremely wicked deeds and false teachers, while ignoring their own belief that the vast majority of so-called ordinary people, who are not false teachers nor committers of extremely wicked deeds, are still totally doomed by God's sovereign plan and in effect not loved by God. They tend to say that God loves the non-elect, but in a different way than the elect. Telling someone who is rejected that they are still loved, while maintaining the rejection, does little to comfort or to help them feel loved.

It can be argued that God loves people even though He sends them to damnation. This is not the whole point. Those people are also doomed with no hope of repenting, and unable to repent - by their nature, which nature is ordained by God. Now, would we say God still loves those people? We need to redefine love to say so.

One of the saddest feelings is the feeling that no one loves me. This sadness is one of the fruits of Calvinism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCvzeMmDojY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTKnHRFZ29M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyMdLVAGA7Y

Ordaining wickedness does not glorify the person who ordained it.

It might be argued that, not the wickedness per se, but the ability, or power, to be able to control all events, is the real essence of why those events (even wicked events) glorify the powerful one who ordained them.

This reasoning elevates the power of God. Power is one of God's attributes. It is not the only one.

Others? Love. Justice. Righteousness. Holiness. Truthfulness. Goodness.

When Moses asked to see God's glory, God did not say that He would cause His glory to pass by Moses. Nor did God say that He would cause His power to pass by Moses. No, God told Moses that God's goodness would pass by Moses. Ex 33:18-19

I heard one person assert that God's glory and God's goodness were identical. I might not go that far, but I do see God's goodness as one aspect of God that merits glory - perhaps the primary one. It seems God might share this same view, since God showed His goodness when Moses asked to see the glory.

But the point here is that when Moses asked to see God's glory, God showed Moses God's goodness. 

Let's think about this. If one performs good deeds, then we might build a statue of him; for example, Abraham Lincoln helped free slaves, and there is a statue of him.

What about people who perform wickedness? They go to jail.

We ought to consider that wicked events that God ordained would not glorify Him.

Limited atonement does not glorify God, instead it paints the picture of God as a  tyrant, unjust, respecter of persons, not a loving God.

See God is glorified by ordaining everything ??

Romans 4:5

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

In the above scripture we see that the person who has faith, who believes, is not performing a work. Thus, faith is not a work.

Romans 9:32

Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

We see in Romans 9:32 that works are not faith.
 

TBA (to be added)

Synergism claims God is helped by man to do something, in particular, salvation. Monergism claims God does it all - salvation - by himself.

Man's free choice to receive Christ as savior, is considered by Calvinism as synergism - man helping God out. However, God does all the saving. God just chose to do all the saving for certain people. Calvinists claim God does choose to (or has chosen to) save only certain people. On the other hand, God himself claims he chose to save certain people also - specifically, those people that believe.

Salvation works like this. Man believes. Then God saves those that believe. Man does not save himself, God does the saving. God just chose to save the particular group of people that God himself specifically delineated in scripture - those that believe. Calvinists claim also that God saves some particular group, that they refer to as the "elect."

Logically, if God can choose to save one group for no criterion or reason known to man, and this is ok since it is God's choice, then...

... why can not God choose to save another particular group, which is based on a criterion of God's own choosing?

Having a criterion certainly seems more logical, more intelligent, than no criterion at all.

Obviously, if we grant the sovereignty of God that Calvinists claim to be so important, then God can choose to specify the characteristics of some group which He determines to save. This is precisely what God has done. The group is the believers.

... it pleased God ... to save them that believe.
- 1 Corinthians 1:21

The entire verse: 

1 Corinthians 1:21
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

For God to determine such certainly seems possible, since

1. with God all things are possible, and since
2. scripture tells us this, and since
3. it cannot be too "below God's standards" since
   1. Calvinism claims that God determines all kinds of things of much lower standards, such as much worse, and more horrible, things, such as every worse thing that ever has happened, and all horrible things that ever have happened! 

See also Synergism - Monergism.

Calvinism claims that if God wants all to be saved, literally all people, and man can choose to reject salvation, then man is overpowering God.

However, by this line of reasoning, Peter was right in trying to forbid man from overpowering God in crucifying the Messiah! But Jesus did not see it this way, in Matt 16:23. 1

But, we might argue, Peter was going against God's plan. 

Yes, and even though God incarnate was to be humiliated, shamed, and killed - and even though Peter was arguably just seeking to preserve the glory of God - Peter was wrong, because the cross was God's plan. 

This is strikingly parallel to God's plan for salvation. Calvinists say man's ability to reject salvation is contrary to the glory or sovereignty of God, and thus not possible. However, the identical reasoning applies to the case of Peter, that the cross was man overpowering God, and we have a double standard. 

The claim that it is God's plan to save those that believe, seems insufficient  to Calvinists. Then tell me why it is sufficient in the case of Peter?

The argument used by Calvinists to refute free choice to receive Christ is even weaker than in the case of Peter, where it does not apply. So why does it apply at all, in a case where the diminution of God's glory, sovereignty, etc. are all less? and not where this diminution is greater?

For which is a greater blow to God's sovereignty, power, and glory - the humiliation and death of God incarnate, or the simple choice of man to receive or reject something offered to him by God?

Obviously, the argument Calvinists use here against man's free will is much more strongly supportive of Peter in preventing Christ from going to the cross, than it is against man's free will. But Peter was wrong to try to stop the atonement, and Calvinists are also wrong in this.

What is the criterion for application of this double standard? It is not scripture. It is some philosophical, ideological presupposition brought to the scripture in eisegesis.

Summary

To Peter, the cross likely was man overpowering God.

To Calvinists, man's ability to reject salvation also is man overpowering God.

The cross was justified because the cross was God's will.

Man's ability to reject salvation is justified because man's ability to reject is also God's will. (It pleased God to save those that believe.)

These 2 stand and fall together.

If God's sovereignty trumps God's will, then both the cross and man's will are refuted.

If God's will trumps God's sovereignty, then both the cross and man's will are confirmed.

The question of whether sovereignty requires micro-manipulation which by definition precludes free will is dealt with here. 

• 1Matthew 16:23 - 
  But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. - 2 Peter 3:9