Calvinist apologetics - a place for Calvinists to chat

Calvinist apologetics is a crucial subject. After all, there will no doubt be many times when we must say to an Arminian, "Oh, I'm so sorry. I'm a Calvinist."

…Ha ha, just kidding. But anyway.

I'm a Calvinist and have been convinced of it, but I'm very bad at convincing others. It's hard to wrap one's mind around Calvinism - others always seem to think that it means that we're all mindless robots and God wouldn't want that because it wouldn't be real love unless we chose it. They find it hard to comprehend that we have NO part in our own salvation. It's just hard to fathom a lack of free will.

Really, I don't think Arminians have a lot of good arguments…if they do I guess I haven't seen them :P But there are a few passages, such as Matthew 23:37-39, which they think soundly refute Calvinism. I doubt that's true, but I have a hard time articulating it.

Also, here's a Calvinism-refuted article that we can use to look at Arminian arguments. http://www.heavensfamily.org/ss/calvinism/calvin_intro
It doesn't seem to refute Calvinism well…at all…in fact, the author's understanding of Calvinism seems pretty weak. However, despite this, I know it could easily convince many Arminians to stay Arminian unless we can soundly teach proper doctrine.

Have fun and be edified! :D

This might sound stupid, but… I have no idea who Calvinists or the Arminians are. Could you please explain? :)

AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

tries to calm down

I just wrote an entire response to you, SoulWinner, several paragraphs long…and then I promptly erased everything I wrote by accidentally backspacing to the last page.

Would anyone else like to give the answer a shot, because I really don't feel like writing all of it again.

goes back to screaming

I'm SO sorry…that would be frustrating!

Not that this would help you now, but after I told my sister what happened, she informed me that to un-do one thing (like, if it was a 1-click erase of everything, for example), if you push down "Ctrl" and "z", then you can un-do whatever you just did. Did that make sense? :)

Yeah, usually that would work, if I had done what you described. But I was trying to backspace some text, but I didn't realize that I had clicked with the mouse outside the text box, so when I backspaced, I went to the previous page, and because there was so much text, it was all erased. :(

Thank you, though. :) I might try to write it again later, but right now I do not have time.

You can also if you want , write in a word processor and then copy and paste. Then you will have a record of all the things you have typed out on the different subjects and you will be surprised how easy it could be in the future to convert them to Bible classes.

Plus, I always get paranoid that I will do what you have done by accident and I understand how exasperating that could be.

Anyway, God bless you!

Yeah, I think I may have to start doing that when I write out long responses. Otherwise I am totally enraged at the computer when I make a mistake like that. ;)

I agree. What are they?

@ Bethany I use that great "undo" tool as well.
@ all for anyone using a mac computer the keys to push are "command" then "z" I hope this helps everyone.

I thought I had already posted this, but I guess not. Ah well~

Here's a website that explains it nicely:
http://www.the-highway.com/compare.html

Alright, here goes my description of Calvinists and Arminians. I backed it up on a Word Document this time, so I don't have to worry about it all getting erased again. :)

The main point of Calvinism is God’s absolute sovereignty in salvation. If you believe that, you’re likely to agree with Calvinists.

Calvinists believe that man is totally unable to do anything to please God or to gain salvation. Even faith must be a gift from God. The Holy Spirit must regenerate a person’s heart before they can exercise faith and repentance.

Because God must take the initiative in salvation, Calvinists believe that when the Bible refers to “the elect,” it means those whom God chose and predestinated to salvation before time began. These are the Bride of Christ, the Church, whom God will save and give eternal life.

Because God knows who will be saved and only the elect will be redeemed, Calvinists believe that Christ’s death took God’s wrath only for the elect. And while His death was infinitely sufficient enough to cover the sins of the whole world, it is only effective for those whom the Father prepared for Him.

Calvinists also believe that the elect whom God has foreordained for salvation cannot resist His Spirit. When the Holy Spirit regenerates our hearts, we have no choice but to believe. And because our desires have been changed, due to our new hearts, we do so willingly.

Finally, Calvinists believe that those who have been justified by God will certainly be glorified, meaning that they cannot lose their salvation and “fall from grace.” They have the seal and guarantee of the Holy Spirit, Who will never leave them to themselves again.
______________

Arminians’ main stress is the free will of man.

Arminians do not believe that man is totally depraved, so as to render him incapable of doing any good. In their salvation equation, faith precedes regeneration. In other words, someone has to believe before they are born again, rather than the other way around.

The Arminians, like the Calvinists, view the elect in Scripture as individuals whom God has chosen. The difference is that they believe that these individuals are chosen because they believe. God looked down the corridors of time and saw who would believe in Jesus, so He elected those people. So, Calvinists believe that God chose people, therefore they believed, while Arminians believe that people believed, therefore God chose them.

Arminians believe that Jesus’ death was not merely for the elect, but rather for every person who ever lived, even those in Hell. He took the wrath of God for every individual. Thus He did not necessarily come to save people, but to make them saveable, or to make salvation possible.

For the Arminian, who believes in free will, the Holy Spirit can definitely be resisted. He can work in the heart of a sinner, calling him to Himself, and yet the sinner can still go to Hell. The person always retains the choice to reject God.

Finally, Arminians believe that Christians can lose their salvation. People who have had their sins forgiven and who have chosen to follow Jesus can just as easily choose to reject Him and go back to their lives of sin. God will never let go of them, they say, but they can let go of God.
_____________

So, that’s basically Arminianism and Calvinism. Hopefully that helps you get a better understanding of the two, SoulWinner. Don’t feel bad about not knowing. I didn’t know the difference just a couple of years ago.

Yeah, I myself have only been a Calvinist for…I'm not sure. About a year? Before then, I didn't know what Calvinism or Arminianism were either. I was kind of an Arminian…kind of. I believed that Christ died for everyone and people had free will and such, because that's what I'd always been taught, but at the same time, I sort of had a heightened sense of God's sovereignty - somehow I always knew that God was in control of everything, absolutely everything. I just didn't know how it "worked" that God was sovereign and we also had free will. So I guess you could say Calvinism was kind of a natural transition for me.

How did I become a Calvinist? Well, it's kind of interesting. We had this apologetics class, and the class certainly wasn't Calvinistic. (They had a lot of stuff from William Lain Craig and other Arminian apologists…OK, yeah, Craig is a "Molinist" but that's just a variant of Arminianism.) But they did have a few things from this one resource, Theopedia.com, that (whether they knew it or not) was Calvinistic. Well, that apologetics class made me very interested in theology, so I looked at Theopedia a lot. The more I read, the more convinced I came of Calvinism.

It helped that some of the Arminian apologists said some pretty goofy things. Craig was trying to explain what happened to people who had never heard the gospel. He gave this odd explanation about how, if God knew that if the person would've accepted the gospel had they heard it, they'd go to heaven, but if they wouldn't have accepted the gospel, they would go to hell…what?! With all due respect to the man, that's downright convoluted, and the Bible certainly doesn't say anything about it. (In fact, it speaks AGAINST it - see Romans 10:14) But what else can the Arminian say? That people who've never heard the gospel and who would've if they did will go to hell? That doesn't sound fair.

The truth is, NO ONE who hasn't heard the gospel wouldn't have accepted it if they had, because they are totally depraved and corrupt and accepting God's gospel is totally against their nature. Their only hope is God's regeneration, which is bestowed upon his chosen at the proper time and causes their eyes to be opened and their nature totally remade into a new nature that eagerly accepts the gospel. Arminians say this is "forcing" people to become Christians "against their will". It's true that no depraved sinner would ever choose to be regenerated. But it's also true that, once your old nature has been replaced with the born-again nature, you willingly believe in Christ, because what was once totally against your nature now is totally for your nature. How are you being "forced" if you're simply doing what your nature dictates? If someone tames an animal, so their wild nature is replaced with a tame nature, they obediently obey their master and are not "forced" to do so. It's true that the wild animal would never (and could never) choose tameness, but now that they are tame, they obey their master willingly.

I also remember Craig talking something along the lines of "it may seem bad that God created a world where more people are damned than saved, but maybe in order to create a world where everyone is saved, he'd need to create a very small world…" and stuff like that (not an exact quote) that seemed to indicate that man really boxed their sovereign Creator in. I mean, c'mon, with all due respect, what happened to God's omnipotence? I know Arminians acknowledge God's omnipotence, but say that He never uses it to influence people irresistibly…but under this view, God willingly allows Himself to be very much controlled and often forced to do certain things by His creation, all for the sake of "free will" (which does not actually exist because of man's depravity - see Romans 8:7-8).

If someone wants to convince me of Arminianism, first, you must convince me that man is able to choose God - from the Scriptures, not your own arguments which have nothing to do with the Bible. Show me that man is not totally depraved from the Scriptures. If you can't do that, you can't convince me of Arminianism. If Psalm 14 is indeed a part of the inspired word, how do you say that some DO seek after God?

At the same time, though, Arminians keep being Arminians, because they think that, if Calvinism is true, than people are "robots" and that God wouldn't "force" people to love Him. God is not "forcing" people to do something - He is changing their nature from one that is helplessly depraved to one that willingly submits to God, from a DEAD nature to a LIVING nature. But at the same time, it's tough to convince Arminians of this. It's just something that's hard to wrap your mind around, even though I see it is supported by Scripture. Any tips? :)

(ps - if anyone wants to, we can try to tear apart that article I linked to…what do you think?)

Oh, and, if anyone knows any arguments Arminians make against Romans 9, I would love to hear them so we can defend against them. :)

Oh, and, does anyone else want to try to write a refutation of that article I posted? I'm a new Calvinist so I'm not sure I'd be the best person to do it…but just reading that article makes me so mad because (with all due respect to the writer) the author's understanding of Calvinism leaves a lot to be desired…he uses tons of cliched Arminian arguments based on a failure to understand pretty basic Calvinistic truths. But I'm not sure I'd be the best to refute that article; I'd like to try, but I'm not a very experienced Calvinist, so I'd like some help I guess?! If that makes sense…

"(ps - if anyone wants to, we can try to tear apart that article I linked to…what do you think?)"

I think that I'd enjoy doing that–debunking the false claims of an Arminian against Calvinism and also establishing Scriptural facts to disprove theology that doesn't fit with Scripture… But I can't quite do it right now. I'd have to have a lot more time on my hands. :) Maybe I'll start it on a Word document and write it over a few days, then post the result here. :)

P.S. With regards to the cliched Arminian argument that, in Calvinism, God is forcing Christians to come to Him, I like to use this argument: Salvation is new birth, so it is very similar to our birth into this earthly life. So then, just as our birth into this world is forced, so is our birth into heaven (the promise of heaven, that is). Forcing a baby to come out of the womb is not a problem for anyone, so why on earth is the "forcing" of spiritual birth a problem? That baby ain't gonna come out by its own will! In the same way, we must be changed in order to want to believe in Christ. Salvation is totally a work of God, just as birth is totally a work of those OUTSIDE the womb, not inside. The baby isn't going to complain that it feels forced out of the womb!! :D

@All Well here is a Calvinist Reformer who grew up in an Arminian family. I think above all keep the gospel central. Became Reformed due to the teachings of men such as R.C. Sproul, John Macarthur, and John Piper. Other speakers I like are Francis Chan and Paul Washer. I love both Reformers and Arminians! And see where both are coming from. But I just see man as Totally Depraved and also see the Perseverance of the Saints as huge boosts in my Reformed position. Am looking forward to chatting more with all of you. With Love to ALL the brethren !

Well then, God's Bondslave, it looks like we're both in the same boat :) I've read some of R. C. Sproul's "The Holiness of God" and I really like it, and I own the ESV MacArthur Study Bible - it's VERY useful. Another author that I like is an oldie - A. W. Pink (1886 - 1952). I'm not a very diligent reader, but I have read some of his The Sovereignty of God" on my Kindle. It's quite good!

Have you guys ever heard of the "cage stage"? I think it's funny that there's even a Wikipedia article on this (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cage_Stage_Calvinism). Here's the first paragraph:

Cage Stage Calvinism is a colloquial term used by Calvinist Christians to describe proselytes who have recently converted from a generically Arminian theology to Calvinism. It suggests that the new Calvinist would be best placed in a cage rather than cause undue offense to other Evangelicals due to their zealous promotion of the distinctives of Reformed Protestant theology, what Calvinists often refer to as the "doctrines of grace" or the doctrine of the "sovereignty" of God.

I remember how amazing it was to discover Calvinism a few years ago through the Desiring God ministry; I went nuts! The cage stage definitely lasted at least a few months for me :)

I don't feel I need to respond to all the points on that webpage; though certainly, if anyone is wondering how a particular point or particular points are understood within a Reformed framework, we should have that discussion (and if anyone wants to respond to all those points, go right ahead! though it's probably been done somewhere else before).

For those of us who are Calvinists, we should believe that God is using all people–believers and unbelievers, Calvinists and Arminianists–for his glory; and his purposes cannot be thwarted.

There's a Wikipedia article for that? xD That's hilarious!

I guess I should get this out now… I am NOT a Calvinist. I do believe you can lose your salvation. I believe in predestination to a certain extent. I do believe that a person has a choice whether or not to receive salvation,but I also believe that God already knows what choice they will make. I am not sure if I am an Arminian, I just know I am not a Calvinist. Thank you for explaining the difference, Chief. :D

@SoulWinner: You sound like an Arminian for sure - not that I mind or want you to get kicked out or something. xD I'm happy that you're curious about theology!

Thanks! I am kinda waiting to get jumped by ChiefOfSinners and SavedByGrace, but maybe they will be as kind as you are(Just Kidding). :D I have just been raised taught these beliefs and they make the most sense to me. I suppose I will have to do a more in-depth search of the Bible to gain more insight on this subject. See you guys around!

No! Kick him out! This is "A Place for Calvinists to Chat"!! Just kidding, just kidding. I wish I could respond to you now, but I can't I probably won't for a while (I hate saying that to everyone). I'll try to defend our position when I am available. Thanks!

OK. Looking forward to it :P
I would love to hear some arminians on this subject. I might even start a new topic. Like I said I am fairly new to all this Calvinist and Arminian "doctrine".
P.S. : It appears everyone is busy with Bible Bee. So I totally understand that you guys can't comment as much right now.
P.P.S or P.S.S. In case you did not notice I am back after a long absence from Memverse :D

Wait a sec, if God chose everyone who would be saved before they were even created, does that mean that all the others have absolutely no chance at being saved? That means all those people are destined for hell and have absolutely no opportunity to change that. Please clarify.

That is one way to put it, I guess. But God is not cruel for not saving some; rather, He is incredible gracious for saving anyone at all. Also, every human has "no opportunity to change," not just those who have not been elected. Salvation is completed entirely by God, and not at all by us.

Here's what I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around: Why would God create human beings if most of them were destined to go to hell with no chance at salvation? Why did Jesus die on the cross if it was only to save a select few? We are all sinful and corrupt by nature, right? By your own admittance it is impossible for any man to do any good or come to Jesus Christ on his own. Thus, those whom the Holy Spirit has not come and "touched" will never be saved. They won't want Jesus because they have not been chosen. Which means they had no possibility of being saved. Which means they were destined to be a sinner all their life and no matter how much someone preached to them they would never be save because the Holy Spirit never came and touched them. According to Calvinists, a sinful and corrupt person cannot choose God, God has to choose them. Therefore, if God never chose them then they would keep on living the way they do because they are sinners and know no other way. I'm beginning to confuse myself here :) I'm just struggling to figure out what predestination truly is. When you have the time could you maybe explain? Any help would be great.

The reason God created some human beings knowing that they would go to hell for sure was that He would be glorified. When some go to heaven, God's mercy, grace, and other attributes are glorified. When others go to hell, His justice, wrath, and other attributes are glorified. However, I do not know why he has chosen some and not others; that's up to Him, not me. :)

Also, though Jesus' death on the cross only paid the ransom for a select few, it had the ability to atone for the sins of the entire human race. This is because the payment for any sin needs to be infinitely valuable, since our sin is infinitely intolerable to God; and since the payment for even one sin would have to be infinite, it would be able to atone for every sin ever committed no matter for whom it is actually effective. Sorry if that sentence made no sense…. :P And though this might not help your confusion much, I believe everything else in your comment. :)

P.S. I'd suggest checking out Romans 9:20-21; this might help you see why I believe the way I do. I believe that we should not think God cruel even if He chose only one person on earth to be saved; as I said before, we should instead be amazed at His incredible graciousness for saving anyone.

Wait a minute…. If God destined millions to hell all throughout history, then why does he plead with those same people to repent and turn to Him when he has created them to go to hell? (Ams 5:4) Then, because they are predestined to destruction, they cannot repent… Isn't that wrong?

What about when Paul tells the Athenians that God commands all men everywhere to repent? (Acts 17:30)

How about desiring all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth? (1 Tim 2:4)

Hope I didn't offend you or anyone with this comment… These are just some of the arguments I've heard. Course, I don't want to distance myself from any Christian, Calvinist or not. You know what I mean!

Oh yeah, can you tell I'm not a Calvinist??????? J/K!

@SoulWinner: I heard this quote somewhere:

"I'm not surprised that God didn't save all. I am surprised that He did save some."

God is not wrong in not saving everyone, He is gracious to save some.

"Why should Jesus not have the right to choose his bride?" Charles Spurgeon.

God is in control of everything and thus he gets to choose who will be saved. He chooses some to be saved but not all and it gives glory to Him.

Here are some thoughts about election:
Election magnifies our depravity and glorifies God more. We who are dead cannot make ourselves alive. There has to be someone who is stronger than us to make us alive…God. In 1 Thessalonians 1:4 it says, "For we know brothers, loved by God, that he has chosen you." Paul stated it as a fact that God chose the Thessalonians. In Ephesians 1:11 it says, "In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,"

@Jordan: God desired all people to be saved but He chose not to have all people to be saved. In Acts 17:30 God commands all men to be saved but not all men will obey Him because God did not choose them.

You said, "If God destined millions to hell all throughout history, then why does he plead with those same people to repent and turn to Him when he has created them to go to hell? (Ams 5:4) Then, because they are predestined to destruction, they cannot repent… Isn't that wrong?"
God is not pleading with them to repent and turn to Him. He is just saying "Seek the Lord and live'. If you want to live you have to seek the Lord. But not everyone realizes that they are dead without Christ. They think they are just fine thus they want seek the Lord because they don't even realize they are dead.

Here is how Martin Luther puts it in his Bondage of the Will (BTW, Luther's book is in response to a book by Erasmus called the Diatribe, so you will hear reference to it in this quote):

 "Another passage is cited by our Diatribe from Gen. 4, where the Lord says to Cain: 'Under thee shall be the desire of sin, and thou shalt rule over it' (v. 7). 'Here it is shown,' says the Diatribe, 'that the motions of the mind to evil can be overcome, and that they do not bring with them a necessity of sinning.'

"These words, 'the motions of the mind to evil can be overcome,' are ambiguous; but from the force of the sentiment, the inference drawn, and the subject-matter, they must mean that it is in the power of 'free-will' to overcome its motions to evil, and that these motions do not bring upon it any necessity to sin. Here again, what is excluded from that which is ascribed to 'free-will'? What need is there of the Spirit, or Christ, or God, if 'free-will' can overcome the motions of the mind to evil? Again, where is that 'probable view' which says that 'free-will' cannot even will good? Victory over evil is here ascribed to that which neither wills nor desires good! The thoughtlessness of our friend the Diatribe is exceedingly excessive!

"Here is the matter in a nutshell: As I said, by statements of this sort, man is shown, not what he can do, but what he ought to do. Cain is therefore told that he ought to rule over his sin, and keep its desires under his control. But this he neither did nor could do, for the rule of another, Satan, already bore heavily upon him. It is well known that the Hebrews often use the future indicative for the imperative, as in Exod. 20: 'Thou shalt have none other gods but me,' 'Thou shalt not kill,' 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' (vv. 3, 13-14); and there are countless such cases. If these words were taken indicatively, as they stand, they would be promises of God; and, since He cannot lie, the result would be that no man would sin; and then it would be needless to give men commandments! So our translator would have rendered this passage more correctly as follows: 'Let its desire be under thee, and rule thou over it.' Similarly, it ought to be said concerning the woman: 'Be thou under they husband, and let him rule over thee' (Gen. 3:16). That the words were not spoken to Cain in an indicative sense is proved by the fact that then they would have been a Divine promise; but they were not a promise, for the opposite of them ensued in Cain's conduct."

Ok @Carrisa and @SGB:

I understand your points… (I didn't say I agreed with them, though! ;-))

I believe that, while it is true that not all will be saved, God does have a genuine desire for all mankind to be saved.

Well, I know I'm not going to change anybody's mind on this topic, and no one is going change mine… so I don't really think I should keep up the argument… As I said, I don't want to be divisive, and I hope no one was offended!

God Bless!

Jordan

@Jordan: You did not offend me. But we weren't arguing as you said…we were discussing :D

Haha! Ok! Great.

Oh, I completely agree that God's desire is that all will be saved; however, this does not mean that His will is that they will all be saved. Like I said, both saved sinners and unsaved sinners will glorify God eternally, so He will be glorified no matter who He chooses for salvation. However, we will not know until the next life the reason why He chose those that He did. :)

In case there are still any other Calvinists around on the forums…

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/calvinist-evangelist/

Romans 8:29 says, "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son…" (NKJV). I believe that means that God, even before the foundation of the world, knew everyone who would ever put their trust in Him, and that He was therefore able to predestine those people for salvation.

The verse doesn't put any limitation on the foreknowledge it speaks of. It doesn't say, "For whom He foreknew would believe Him." It simply says, "whom He foreknew." If God foreknew everyone, as you say, must He not have then predestined everyone "to be conformed to the image of His Son"? Unless you believe all people will be saved, I don't think you would agree with this. So God only foreknows those whom He predestines for salvation (Christians); but what is this foreknowledge? I believe it is His special knowledge of His chosen people; the undeserved love that He bestowed on specific individuals for no other reason than that He wanted to. When God knows us in this sense, we will necessarily come to know Him.

Context is important too…the verse previous to 29 says:
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them *who are the called according to his purpose.* Romans 8:28 KJV
We know from the entirety of the Scriptures that the call has gone out to the whole world (John 3:16, Acts 17:30). We also know that Christ died for all (1 John 2:2, 2 Cor 5:15). The called are those who respond to accept, to submit, and to love God. The elect ones are the saved ones. The term election only applies to the saved.
Everyone has received an invitation, but not everyone has accepted or acted on that invitation.

(And that isn't exactly directed at you, Nicolas. xD Just adding a tidbit to the conversation. )

Many are called, but few are chosen…

You do have to be careful when discussing the word "called" in Scripture. It's got several different meanings depending on the verse.

God knows everything and everyone, even those who are never "conformed to the image of His Son," but I don't think this verse means He predestined everyone He foreknew! I think does mean that God knew everything about those He predestined from the beginning of the world. We can't know exactly how God makes His decisions. As Romans 9:20 says, "Who are you, O man, to reply against God?" It is interesting that God called Pharaoh to submit, but then He hardened Pharaoh's heart in order to "show His power" (Romans 9:17). Maybe God knew that Pharaoh would not trust in Him anyway. In any case, we are called to preach the gospel to everyone anyway, just as Moses called Pharaoh to repent even after God had said that He would harden Pharaoh's heart.

Yes, I agree. :) Thanks for the reminder. I looked up that word "called" from Romans 8:28 in the Greek, and it means the following:

G2822:
I. called, invited (to a banquet)
A. invited (by God in the proclamation of the Gospel) to obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom through Christ
B. called to (the discharge of) some office
i. divinely selected and appointed

And its counterpart (G2821) means:
I. a calling, calling to
II. a call, invitation
A. to a feast
B. of the divine invitation to embrace salvation of God

^(I really don't have time for this discussion presently, due to BB studying, so I won't be participating much, if at all, any more.)^

Context is important too...the verse previous to 29 says: _And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them *who are the called according to his purpose.*_ Romans 8:28 KJV We know from the entirety of the Scriptures that the call has gone out to the whole world (John 3:16, Acts 17:30). We also know that Christ died for all (1 John 2:2, 2 Cor 5:15). The called are those who respond to accept, to submit, and to love God. The elect ones are the saved ones. The term election only applies to the saved. Everyone has received an invitation, but not everyone has accepted or acted on that invitation. (And that isn't exactly directed at you, Nicolas. xD Just adding a tidbit to the conversation. )

Yes, the call for salvation has gone out to the whole world (though John 3:16 doesn't really say that… perhaps you were looking for Romans 10:18?). But I believe only God can cause someone to respond rightly to that call (John 6:44). And no, we do not "know" that Christ died for all people. 1 John 2:2 does not say that Christ died for all people; in context (mostly cultural, if not directly textual), it says that Christ's propitiation was not intended only for Jews, but for Gentiles also. (If Christ's propitiation was for all people, all people would be saved. Unless most of Christ's payment was for nothing.) As for 2 Corinthians 5:15, though it's harder to prove directly from context that the verse does not refer to Christ dying for all people, a strong argument can be made for the "all" referring simply to all of the elect. The verse does not prove anything for either side of the debate, IMO.

I agree with everything else you said. :) As for your comment not being directed at me in particular, considering I'm the only one presently here on my side of the issue, I thought I might as well be the one to respond. ;)

God knows everything and everyone, even those who are never "conformed to the image of His Son," but I don't think this verse means He predestined everyone He foreknew! I think does mean that God knew everything about those He predestined from the beginning of the world. We can't know exactly how God makes His decisions. As Romans 9:20 says, "Who are you, O man, to reply against God?" It is interesting that God called Pharaoh to submit, but then He hardened Pharaoh's heart in order to "show His power" (Romans 9:17). Maybe God knew that Pharaoh would not trust in Him anyway. In any case, we are called to preach the gospel to everyone anyway, just as Moses called Pharaoh to repent even after God had said that He would harden Pharaoh's heart.

Hm. You seem to be flipping the verse on its head. You say "I don't think this verse means He predestined everyone He foreknew" and "God knew everything about those He predestined." But this verse says precisely the opposite of the point you're trying to prove: "Those whom He foreknew, He predestined." Foreknowledge comes first, then necessarily predestination comes next. So God's foreknowledge can't be something He uses on all people; it's something only for those He predestines to salvation.

Again, I agree with the rest of what you said; none if it really disproves what I'm trying to say. :) I fully agree that we don't know how God makes His decisions. In fact, that statement seems to support my assertion that God doesn't choose people because they choose Him; He does it only because He wants to (and none of us can know why He does). I also agree that we must preach the gospel to everyone regardless of how God chooses people for salvation–because this is the means that God has appointed to bring people to Himself. He could do it in any way He wanted, but He has chosen to send those He has saved to bring others to salvation. I'll tell you now that I'm not of the opinion that because God chooses in ways that seem random to us, we shouldn't bother spreading the gospel. :)

You are right. I was mistaking foreknowledge in this verse to mean the regular kind of knowledge. Or course, God knows about everyone, but in this verse, Paul is taking about a deeper kind of knowledge.
As for the rest, I wasn't trying to disprove what you are saying. I was just thinking out loud.

The other day, someone called me "a die-hard Calvinist". I'm trying to decide if it was a compliment or not :).

Do you consider it a compliment? :)

Hehe. I wouldn't take it as a compliment if they considered me as holding more closely to a creed than to what Scripture says. If they understood that my "Calvinism" was drawn from what I believed Scripture to say, I'd appreciate it better. ;)

I'm pretty sure that they meant the latter :). I said something about how I didn't agree with a certain movie in that it assumed that everyone believes that we choose to come to God in of ourselves, not that He gives us the desire to and is completely in control of our lives.

@lady Mercy: I think so :).

One helpful thing to do when explaining Calvinism is to dispel the myths concerning what beliefs in Calvinism. For example, it is said our belief that God predestined some based on His mercy alone independent of any foreseen faith in man to faith and everlasting life and others to everlasting damnation implies God does not love the non-elect. But this is false. This is ere Reformed theologians make a distinction between God’s special love for the elect and His universal love for all mankind. Moreover, Calvinism and denying free will means that God is somehow the author of sin or doesn’t sincerely desire that all come to repentance.

Westminster Confession, Chapter III: Of Eternal Decree

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and inchangeably whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God not the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather establish.

II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet has he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass on such conditions.

Chapter X: Of Effectual Calling

I. All those whom God hath predestined unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.

II. This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not for anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.

I emphasize that God dying especially for the elect in some way beyond our comprehension does not mean God did not die for all mankind. The sacrifice of Christ is only applied to the elect, since they alone are in God’s appointed time effectually draw faith and converted.

When talking to an Arminian you can really make sure he understands the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism. Not only is what Calvinists believed misunderstood by Arminians but also what Jacobus Arminius himself and Classical Arminianism teaches. They have be surprised to learn that Arminius rather than teaching that salvation could be lost was unsure whether or not it could be lost, whether or not a true believer could finally fall away.

Okay.