God Doesn't Just Try to Save

There are differences of opinion, and there is dishonesty.  When someone (@soteriology101) says he's a former Calvinist and says:

"Calvinist’s [sic] market that concept as God trying and failing to make it seem unbiblical." 

"Calvinists have to paint God is [sic] failing simply because he gives us a choice because it makes their system look more plausible."

Calvinists realize that this does not represent their view, nor their thinking.  Maybe at the time when Sot101 considers himself to have been a "Calvinist" that's really what he held.  I doubt it.  

I don't doubt that he considered himself a Calvinist, I take his word for that.  

What I doubt is that he ever thought about marketing concepts to make things seem unbiblical or that he thought about painting God as failing to make his own system seem more plausible.

If he did think that way, that's messed up.  We shouldn't be trying to make things "seem unbiblical."  Nor should we be trying to make our system "look more plausible."  If he was doing that then, he should repent of having done so.

On the other hand, if he knows very well that he never thought that way as a "Calvinist," then he should stop speaking falsehood.  

But there is a third way.  Maybe he was a Calvinist, but the years of trying to attack Calvinism have just led him to forget what he once believed and thought.  

What I suspect is happening is that Sot101 is trying to simply reverse the charge that it his *misinterpretation* of the texts he mentioned (Matt 23:37; Luke 7:30; Ezk 18:31-32; Rom 10:21; & Matt 11:28-30), which seems to characterize God in an indefensible way.

More simply put, Calvinists affirm that "the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost" and the Son of man *actually does* seek and and does save that which was lost.  All the elect were lost, and all of the elect will be saved.  "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." (John 6:37)

Presumably to try to score some rhetorical point, Sot101  tweeted: "The Bible doesn’t say, 'The Son of Man has come to seek and to irresistibly save some of all sorts of that which is lost.'"  To which I responded: "It doesn’t say the Son of Man has come to *try*."

This is what provoked the irrational outburst from Sot101.  He apparently does not want us to characterize *his position* as being that God tries (and fails).  One can understand that he finds such a characterization uncomfortable, because it is so obviously blasphemous.  It's good that he has discomfort about that.

On the other hand, look at the analogy he offers to try to justify his position: "When I told my four-year-old daughter to eat her vegetables or she would not get dessert and she chose to refuse to eat her vegetables I did not try and fail. I very well could have forced fed her those vegetables if I were that kind of parent. I gave her a choice with consequences. "

This is one of those situations where it depends on how you look at it, I guess.  From where I'm sitting, it looks like he tried and failed to get his daughter to eat her vegetables.   But he says (or so one must infer) that he was not trying to get her to eat her vegetables, just giving her choice with consequences.  Recall, however, that the verse that sparked this discussion was one about Jesus coming not to "give people a choice," but to "save."  Calvinism says that Jesus did exactly what the angel of the Lord told Joseph in a dream "he shall save his people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21)  

Moreover, let's alter Sot101's scenario.  Suppose instead of going to bed hungry because she wouldn't eat her vegetables, suppose that the consequence of her choice was that she would die. Surely in that case, Sot101 would be on board with force feeding the girl in order to save her life.  I hope - and more than that, I'm confident - that he's "that kind of parent."  The consequences of not trusting on Christ for salvation is not just missing dinner: it's missing the wedding feast of the Lamb.  The consequences are not less dire than physical death, they are more dire (Matthew 10:28).

Moreover, let's alter Sot101's scenario.  Suppose instead of going to bed hungry because she wouldn't eat her vegetables, suppose that the consequence of her choice was that she would die. Surely in that case, Sot101 would be on board with force feeding the girl in order to save her life.  I hope - and more than that, I'm confident - that he's "that kind of parent."  The consequences of not trusting on Christ for salvation is not just missing dinner: it's missing the wedding feast of the Lamb.  The consequences are not less dire than physical death, they are more dire (Matthew 10:28).

But the question remains.  What does Calvinism say about these: "He marvels at their unbelief. (Mark 6:6)  He expresses a willingness despite their unwillingness. (Matt 23:37)  He rebukes them for rejecting the purpose God had for them. (Luke 7:30)  He doesn’t wish that any perish but all to repent and live (Ezk 18:31-32)  He holds out His hands to the weak and the unwilling (Rom 10:21; Matt 11:28-30)"?

While a detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this already-lengthy post, in summary Calvinism affirms a general outward call of the gospel and a willingness of God to receive anyone who responds in faith to the gospel.  However, we distinguish between that and God miraculously working faith in those that previously lacked it.  Does the general offer fail to save everyone who hears it?  Absolutely.  However, that's not the limit of what God can do to save his people from their sins.  So, if someone wants to point that God gives good things like life, liberty, and property to people who are ultimately lost, and even gives them the Gospel, which saves everyone who believes, we just agree.

And surely Sot101 agreed when he was a "Calvinist" (quotations because that's what he considered himself).  If Sot101 didn't agree with that when he was a "Calvinist," then I have to think he had a very wrong concept about Calvinism then.