I object to this thread primarily because of the inflammatory title. I certainly do not object to the discussion.
Second, it is simplistic to reduce the doctrines propounded by John Calvin to the “TULIP” acronym. The reality is that those doctrines embodied by TULIP were documented in response to a divergence from sound doctrine long AFTER Calvin was dead by the Synod of Dordt held by Calvin’s followers. John Calvin espoused a wide range of doctrines well beyond TULIP. His life work, Institutes of the Christian Religion, begins with a dissertation on the subject of personal piety. Calvin moved his description of election to later sections of the Institutes in order to allay such objections.
Third, the arguments proposed in this post are also simplistic with no regard for alternative views. For instance, reading Ephesians 1:4 it is quite plain that it is “us” who are chosen “from the foundation of the world”. Of course Christ had been chosen, but, as stated in Eph 1:4, so are we!
Clearly Calvin, and those of us from the Reformed tradition, believe that God’s offer of the Gospel; i.e., Good News, is to be delivered to ALL people. However, as much as one doesn’t like the implications of Ephesians 1:4 (and a host of others) some folks will simply not respond because, in the end, they were not chosen by God.
The point of the doctrine is two-fold: First, salvation is the work of God, not ourselves “lest any man should boast!” Second, it is intended for assurance of salvation so that those who follow Christ can be confident that He who chose us will hold us in His hand until our final deliverance is secured.
Calvinism isn’t so much the problem; it’s the hyper-Calvinism that is promoted by many Freeper Calvinists.
They also don’t like to acknowledge that Calvin actually believed in common grace even if he did wrongly teach double predestination.
If you actually read the Canons of Dort (not Dordt) and the charges against Arminianism, you would see that that the so-called errors are well within the boundaries of the Christian faith; just expressed somewhat differently.
The Synod of Dort seemed to take positions directly opposite the Arminians without much consideration that they may have had some valid points.
Calvinists claim Charles Spurgeon as one of their heros, but they sure distance themselves from Spurgeon’s teaching that God desires that all men be saved. I’ll post the link to the specific sermon once a FR Calvinist challenges this point. IOW, Spurgeon clearly rejected the error of double predestination.
Please reconcile your position with this sermon of the Calvinist icon Charles Spurgeon in this sermon:
Salvation by Knowing the Truth
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/1516.htm
Specifically, address this point:
"Does not the text mean that it is the wish of God that men should be saved? The word "wish" gives as much force to the original as it really requires, and the passage should run thus—"whose wish it is that all men should be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth." As it is my wish that it should be so, as it is your wish that it might be so, so it is God's wish that all men should be saved; for, assuredly, he is not less benevolent than we are."