Did God choose who gets saved before the world began — or does Calvinism make evangelism pointless and God a monster?

• A

  Avery4w ago

  Calvinism makes God the author of damnation. Full stop. If He chose before time who would be saved, He also chose who would burn. That's not sovereignty. That's a cosmic horror story with a Bible verse stapled to it.

  187Reply
• FM

  Feli M.3w ago

  My grandmother died believing she wasn't elect. She spent her final years convinced God had not chosen her. She was the most Christ-like person I've ever known. Whatever system produces that outcome has something deeply wrong with its pastoral application, even if the theology is airtight.

  177Reply
• J

  Jamie4w ago

  I grew up Calvinist. Was told from age six that God might not have chosen me and I'd just have to find out later. Spent 15 years with crippling anxiety about my own salvation. No theology that does that to a child is 'good news.'

  164Reply
• MT

  Marco T.3w ago

  The most underrated fact in this whole debate: Jesus never once explained His theory of election to the people He called. He just said 'Follow me.' Maybe we've turned a divine mystery into a denominational battleground and He's up there wondering why we're still arguing about Dort instead of feeding somebody.

  161Reply
• SK

  Sam K.4w ago

  2 Peter 3:9 — God is 'not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance.' ANY. ALL. Someone explain to me how a God who chose only some people to save is also a God who desires that none perish. Pick one.

  156Reply
• L2

  Leo 213w ago

  If Calvinism is true, please explain to me how it is remotely just to punish someone for rejecting a gospel they were never given the ability to accept. God withholds the very grace required to believe, then condemns the person for not believing. That is not justice. That is a rigged game.

  149Reply
• MM

  Morgan M.4w ago

  Romans 9 exists. 'Jacob I loved, Esau I hated — before they were born or had done anything good or bad.' If you can read that chapter and walk away an Arminian, I genuinely don't know what Bible you're reading.

  143Reply
• ML

  Maya L.3w ago

  Hot take incoming — I think BOTH Calvinism and Arminianism are trying to systematize something the biblical authors never intended to be systematized. John 6 leans Calvinist. John 3:16 leans Arminian. Maybe that tension is in the text ON PURPOSE and every 5-point system is a mistake.

  139Reply
• D

  Drew3w ago

  ^ calling Arminianism 'baptized paganism' is one of the most embarrassing things I've ever read on a Christian forum, and I've been on Christian forums since 2004. John Wesley was not a pagan. Your take is not bold, it's just rude.

  138Reply
• KL

  Kofi L.4w ago

  Been a pastor 22 years. Reformed. And I'll tell you honestly: the hardest pastoral conversations I've ever had are with Calvinists who've concluded they must not be among the elect. The doctrine is intellectually defensible. Pastorally? It can destroy people. That matters.

  134Reply
• JR

  Jamie R.3w ago

  I've landed here after decades of wrestling: I believe God is sovereign over salvation AND I believe human beings make real, morally accountable choices. I cannot fully reconcile these philosophically and I've stopped trying. I hold both because Scripture seems to teach both. Some call that a cop-out. I call it refusing to let a system override the text.

  122Reply
• P

  Priya3w ago

  Both sides have their prooftexts. I've been in these debates for 30 years and nobody has ever changed their mind. The real question is: what kind of God do you actually want to worship? And then we work backwards. I'm not saying that's good theology. I'm saying that's what actually happens.

  121Reply
• S

  Sam3w ago

  The debate was never whether predestination appears in the Bible. Obviously it does. The debate is what it MEANS — individual unconditional election to salvation, or corporate election of a people, or foreknowledge-based election. The word being there doesn't settle the argument, it starts it.

  117Reply
• R

  Reese4w ago

  Spurgeon also said he felt the tension and just 'put the two rails together and let God drive the train.' That's a beautiful metaphor that completely sidesteps the actual philosophical problem. 'I can't resolve this so I'll trust God' is not a systematic theology.

  112Reply
• L

  Liam3w ago

  A God who chose to create free beings and respects their freedom isn't 'thwarted.' That's the whole point. Love that is compelled is not love. A God who programs people to love Him and then congratulates Himself on their love is not worthy of worship either.

  109Reply
• RL

  Reese L.3w ago

  It says you're honest. Most people just pick a team at age 18 and never revisit it.

  108Reply
• M

  Maya3w ago

  Using 'you can't question God' to shut down a moral objection is not a theological argument, it's a conversation stopper. Abusers use the same logic. 'You don't get to question me.' The fact that Paul anticipated the objection doesn't mean his response actually resolved it.

  104Reply
• D9

  Drew 923w ago

  That's just Molinism in a trench coat.

  97Reply
• D

  Diego3w ago

  The missional energy in Reformed churches is real, I'll grant that. But I've also seen the flip side — the young Calvinist who decides his unsaved parent must not be elect and stops praying for them. That's not a strawman. I watched it happen in my own family.

  96Reply
• A

  Avery3w ago

  Election in the Old Testament was always corporate and missional. God chose Israel not to the exclusion of other nations but FOR the sake of other nations. Paul is working in that same tradition. Reading Romans 9 as if Paul is laying out an individualistic salvation mechanism is a massive context error that Reformed theology has never fully reckoned with.

  93Reply
• R_

  Ravi _x4w ago

  ok but like. if god already decided. why did jesus tell us to GO and make disciples. what exactly are we making them into if they're already picked or already not picked lmao

  91Reply
• N

  Nina3w ago

  ^ that's the most honest thing anyone has ever said in one of these threads

  88Reply
• N

  Noah3w ago

  I became Reformed kicking and screaming. Spent two years fighting it. Read every Arminian rebuttal I could find. And at the end I couldn't get around the text. Election is there. Irresistible grace is there. I didn't choose Calvinism because it's comfortable — I chose it because I couldn't make the alternative work. That's a different thing than working backwards from what I want God to be.

  86Reply
• J

  Jordan3w ago

  Can we please acknowledge that Ephesians 1:4-5 says we were 'chosen in Him before the foundation of the world' and 'predestined to adoption'? This isn't a Calvinist invention. The word is IN THE BIBLE. Arguing about whether predestination is real is arguing with Paul.

  83Reply
• L

  Liam3w ago

  This is N.T. Wright's argument and it's the best one I've seen. Corporate election doesn't resolve every tension but it fits the whole biblical narrative far better than 'God made a list of names before he made dirt.'

  82Reply
• D

  Drew4w ago

  The objection that election makes evangelism pointless was answered by Spurgeon, Edwards, and Calvin himself centuries ago. God ordains the MEANS as well as the end. Preaching is how He calls the elect. This is not a new problem and it has a perfectly coherent answer.

  78Reply
• S

  Sam3w ago

  nobody in here is gonna change their mind. we've all been having this argument since Dort in 1618. can we at least agree that people who treat election as a reason not to evangelize are wrong, and people who use eternal security to justify ongoing sin are also wrong? tiny common ground but its something

  74Reply
• A

  Avery3w ago

  Romans 9:20 — 'But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?' Paul literally anticipated this exact objection and his answer was essentially 'you don't get to question the potter.' Maybe the discomfort IS the point. Maybe a God small enough for us to fully justify isn't big enough to save anyone.

  73Reply
• L

  Liam3w ago

  i was arminian my whole life then i read 'Chosen by God' by Sproul and i just. sat there. i didnt like it but i couldnt argue with it. that was 8 years ago and im still working through what it means for how i pray and how i talk to my kids about faith. genuine faith crisis from a book. not sure what that says about me

  72Reply
• RR

  Ravi R.3w ago

  My church is Calvinist and I've never heard anyone use election as an excuse not to evangelize. That's a strawman that Arminians trot out constantly. The Reformed churches I know personally are among the most missionally active in our city. The doctrine doesn't produce laziness — at least not in the people actually living it.

  69Reply
• S

  Sam4w ago

  The answer to 2 Peter 3:9 in Reformed theology is that 'any' and 'all' refer to any/all of the elect, not every single human. I know that sounds like a dodge. But the alternative — that God genuinely desires something He has the sovereign power to bring about but simply chooses not to — creates its own impossible contradiction.

  67Reply
• M

  Maya3w ago

  If you disagree with Calvinism, explain why you're okay with a God whose salvation ultimately depends on the creature's decision rather than the Creator's will. Because that God can be thwarted. That God tried His best and some people just said no and He was stuck. Is THAT the sovereign God of Scripture?

  61Reply
• TR

  Theo R.3w ago

  Dort was 1618-1619 and if you think the debate started there you really need to read Augustine vs. Pelagius from the 400s. This argument is 1,600 years old minimum. Everyone in this thread is just cosplaying a very old fight.

  58Reply
• CT

  Casey T.3w ago

  Confidently wrong opinion I will now defend: Arminianism is just baptized paganism. It puts man's will at the center of salvation instead of God's. Every pagan religion ever invented is about what WE do to reach the divine. Calvinism is the only system that is truly grace all the way down.

  44Reply

More debates people can't stop arguing about