Calvinists get a lot of unwarranted hate for their admittedly strange views in regard to the sovereignty of God in relation to the responsibility of man. This hatred, as I said, is completely unwarranted. It flies in the face of God's call to the Church to be united, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3), rather than quarreling (2 Timothy 2:24). It is a grievous sin to shake our fists at God by hearing "Calvinist" as "heretic", and actually quite ironic, given that the main reason people tend to hate Calvinists is they don't believe God loves everyone...
Of course, Calvinists do not help this sorry state of affairs when they, themselves, become a stereotype and bash everyone who isn't a Calvinist. I even saw one Calvinist recently who suggested Arminians, in particular, have a different gospel. But thankfully, this is not so much a Calvinist problem as it is a human problem. We are all sinners, and so naturally, some Calvinists will be jerks, some non-Calvinists will be jerks. But I happen to know a Calvinist who is very much not a jerk, and I happen to be a non-Calvinist who is not a jerk. Therefore, using an example of a relatively recent dialogue between me and him, I hope to show that it is entirely possible for Christians to disagree on Calvinism without discarding each other as heretics.
The dialogue took place on a post by a very outspoken Calvinist page, called "The Reformed Sage". The post, seen here, suggested "Jesus dying for His own is one of the hardest biblical realities to swallow in the Scriptures. Yet, it's the truth."
Now, to be fair, it's possible I misinterpreted it, but the only way I can see Jesus dying for His own being "one of the hardest Biblical realities to swallow" is if this is intended as a defence of Limited Atonement. So, I replied in a comment, saying "I don’t find it an especially hard truth to swallow, at least not in the negative sense. It’s rather humbling to know He considers me anything other than coal for His fireplace, but I’m quite glad He died for me. That being said, there is no definition of the word “world”, unless you want to make one up to support some peculiar doctrine, that could simultaneously cover all Christians and rule out all others. If Jesus made propitiation for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2), wants all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:1-4), and even “bought” the heretics who deny Him and are destroyed, I find no Biblical way to support Limited Atonement."
As you see in the screenshot in the header image, my Calvinist friend spotted my comment, and replied with "...unless you are a universalist, you do believe in limited atonement. Limited in either the depth of its salvation, or its breadth to whom it is directed."
Universalism is a damnable heresy which suggests that all men, regardless of faith, will eventually be saved. The most commonly cited verse in support of this is 1 Corinthians 15:22: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive." On its own, this verse is actually more powerful support for the heresy of Universalism than I have ever seen for Limited Atonement. Limited Atonement usually requires some form of alteration to, or alien interpretation of the text, whereas a Universalist can simply say "see? It says as in Adam, so also in Christ all shall be made alive".
To refute both Limited Atonement and Universalism, I use the same two basic interpretation methods: 1. Scripture interprets scripture, and 2. The clear interprets the unclear. Because of this, I can say that, since scripture clearly tells us not only that Hell exists as an everlasting place of torment for impenitent sinners, that only through faith in Christ can we be saved, and that many find the path to destruction, 1 Corinthians 15:22 cannot possibly support Universalism. The key to understanding this verse, I believe, is "in Adam" and "in Christ". By virtue of blood, all men are in Adam, and so all men die in Adam. However, not all men are in Christ. If the criteria for being made alive is to be "in Christ", then all who are in Adam, yet not in Christ, still die, and are not made alive.
Regarding the extent of the atonement, however, scripture makes no such distinctions. As I said in my initial comment, Christ makes propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). This makes sense, given that He wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4).
In fact, using this logic, we can even make sense of a Calvinist's favorite verses in Romans 9. In Romans 9:22-24, God tells us through Paul "What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?" Now, which shows the riches of God's glory more? Him intentionally creating the vessels of wrath specifically with the intention that they reject Him, or God wanting all men to be saved (which, again, unless you want to re-write scripture or intentionally reinterpret it to support Calvinism, He does), yet only save those who come to faith, enduring everyone else with longsuffering?
You see already, then, how Limited Atonement fails to account for verses which seem to refute it, yet non-Calvinist views like my own (for which I am currently unable to find an appropriate label, if indeed any exist) are able to account for Calvinist scriptures.
I could even go further, and indeed am about to do so, by suggesting that Limited Atonement, due to the very nature of Christ, is actually impossible. See, it will not have escaped your notice that Christ is only one Man. How, then, can He atone for the sins of more than one man? Simply because He is also God. That means He is eternal; infinite in every conceivable way. Only His flesh is finite. Therefore, His death is sufficient to be the "...propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." (1 John 2:2).
If just one more person had been saved, Christopher Hitchens for example, the crucifixion would have looked no different. And indeed, if Christopher Hitchens had repented, He would have been saved. Therefore, going back to my Calvinist brother's objection, I do not have to believe the atonement is limited in the breadth to whom it is directed, because I believe it is directed at all men, nor in the depth of its salvation, because I believe it is absolutely able to save all to whom it is directed, and it is their rejection of that salvation (which Luke 7:30 and other scriptures make it quite clear it is possible to do) that "limits" it. But to say that is a limit is worse than saying if I write 10 people a check for £100,000 each, yet only 3 of them withdraw it, therefore I only sent out £300,000 worth of checks.
The main problem my Calvinist brother has is that even in direct response to me citing scriptures that refute Limited Atonement, he responded with philosophy. He did not show a scripture that demonstrates Limited Atonement, nor did he show a flaw or error in my interpretation of the scriptures I provided. Rather, he supported his belief in Limited Atonement by what is called "Reductio Ad Absurdum".
Reductio Ad absurdum is the practice of either refuting a proposition by showing it leads to an absurd conclusion, or proving a proposition by showing it, alone, leads to a tenable one. In this case, to reject Limited Atonement must, logically, lead to Universalism. However, there is another aspect of Calvinism that we can do this with. Unconditional Election is the Calvinist belief that God elects those whom He will save based on His will, and not on any characteristic or choice of the person.
The irony here is, with the exception of Perseverance of the Saints, I find Unconditional Election to be the most defensible of Calvinism's 5 points. Of course, I believe in what I can currently only describe as unconditional salvation. I believe, as scripture says, that God does not show partiality, or favoritism (Romans 2:11; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:25). Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or free, old or young, rich or poor, royal or common, I believe God judges each and every one of these categories with complete and utter fairness. I don't think God will look at an Egyptian and think "I don't like you, therefore you're not eligible for salvation". Nor do I believe God will look upon a Jew and think "you're awesome, so I'm totally electing you for salvation".
The main difference between me and a Calvinist is when, exactly, election happens. Or, more specifically, why. I, of course, believe the only condition for salvation is faith (as does a Calvinist). But what I believe can be quite adequately summed up by Romans 8:29: "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." (Emphasis added). That is, I believe God not only knows the future, but also all possible futures. He knows, for example, what would have happened if Jesus had gone to Sodom instead of Jerusalem.
A Calvinist, however, would argue that foreknowledge has nothing to do with election. In fact, free will, they argue, is an attack on God's sovereignty. If God is truly sovereign, He must choose who He will elect. But how? Using my Calvinist brother's own logic, we must assume that either election is conditional upon God's own preference (which would mean He shows partiality), or... upon the very thing I just described.
It cannot be denied that the condition for salvation is faith. If you believe in Christ, you will be saved. If you do not, you will not be saved. I affirm that, a Calvinist will affirm that. Thus, if I am correct, then election is conditional, not unconditional. It is conditional, first, on whether you would accept the Gospel in a given set of circumstances. But also, as is shown by Tyre, Sidon, and Gomorrah, upon whether or not God's will would be upheld in those circumstances. With Sodom, we know they would have repented, because Jesus said they would have repented (Matthew 11:23). But we also know not only that God did not provide the circumstances to cause them to repent, but also why (2 Peter 2:6).
By contrast, if the Calvinist is right, election is still conditional upon something. Upon what? That would have to be for the individual Calvinist to decide. However, it must be conditional upon something, simply because some people fulfill those conditions and others do not. The Apostle Paul fulfilled those conditions, for he was elected, and thus was saved. Sodom did not fulfill those conditions, for they were destroyed, and will receive their due condemnation on the day of judgement.
I have the greatest amount of love for my Calvinist brother, but it does not need to be re-stated that I disagree with him. Nevertheless, it is my hope that this article will show my fellow non-Calvinists how to express that disagreement lovingly. In fact, I almost hope that upon reading this article, my Calvinist brother will remain steadfast in his Calvinism, so that we may remain in loving disagreement, which of course will be resolved when all things are made new. My final words on this topic are simply God bless Calvinists, Arminians, Molinists, and whatever other theological views may be out there which are still within the Christian faith.