NB: This is a post for theological discussion, not apologetic discussion. While some atheists may feel seen off, I don't want any debate that may occur to descend into 'Does God exist?!?!' like it probably would! On-topic debate only please!!
I haven't posted for a while and have been thinking about this topic for a while now so it isn't going to take a particularly structured form, it will be primarily a cross between a reflection and a ramble. However there are serious points in here that I feel need to be addressed adequately, I'm not writing this to point fingers and look angry, if anyone can accurately demonstrate that my understanding is flawed then great! I write this before I get into the body of the post, so it may well turn into a bit of a ramble about general Calvinism... So if it does then great, get discussing!! =D
Here we go...
Irresistible Grace suggests that when a person is chosen and indwelt by the Spirit they are unable to resist (kinda comes with the title right?). Now combined with Total Depravity, the choice is not made by the individual, the choosing and the 'heart change' (for want of a better phrase) is entirely down to the Father (again, correct me if my understanding is incorrect). Now these points are internally consistent, at least for what I can see. Faith, according to my current understanding, is then given as a free gift to the individual. Hebrews 11.1 defines faith as being '...the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.', other definitions include 'Belief and trust in and loyalty to God' or 'Belief that is not based on proof'.
My problem is this: how can 'faith' in this context be truly honest? Any belief, if forced upon an individual, is not a genuine expression or experience. So I suggest this: If grace cannot be resisted when offered to a person, the grace is not accepted it is applied. If this is true then the Christian faith is not genuine. While it is real, the consequences of this line of thought are, to me a little worrying. It means no real choice, it means that I didn't accept Christ. I was made to accept Christ. Now I'm not complaining of course if this is true but what really worries me is what tends to come afterwards...
...That only some are made to accept Christ. The rest are, well, left to burn (since most Calvinists also tend to believe in ECT I will generalise here, but I recognise there will be exceptions!). So, those who did not accept Christ will be tormented forever. Why? Well, not because they didn't accept Him but rather because they weren't chosen. Question: Why weren't they chosen?
This tends to be where the 'We don't know the mind of God' stock answer comes in, which seems wonderfully convenient when something that seems to be cruel and arbitrary is being defended. I have said this on a number of occasions but I'll lay it out on the line here, I could not worship a God who creates people so as solely to destroy them. A God who is love is not a God who creates people that have no hope for salvation. Not at some point in their lives when they're so far gone that there is no return but from birth there is no hope for the 'unelect'.
Often now comes this defense: 'But you're thinking about it the wrong way, rather than asking why God condemns, you should ask why God bothers to save some!!' - This is an epic sidestepping of the issue at hand. What I ask is this: Why, if God has the ability to save all and if, according to the majority of Calvinists that I've spoken to, Christ's death is sufficient for all, is it not available to all? I will concede this: the availability of salvation to all does not necessarily mean that all will be saved (that's a question for another time), but why make the death of Christ sufficient for all but not available to all? That makes no sense to me.
Anyway, I'm sure that if any discussion follows then my arguments will become more refined. As I said, this is a ramble/reflection crossbreed so I have not nuanced things, just written what is in my very dead, relatively ill brain.
For now I leave you with love (and the opportunity for debate),
The_Rambler
(Ben Martin)
P.S. Be nice to each other if debate ensues, any Ad Hominems will be swiftly dealt with. Oh, and stay on topic!
