🔥 If the Storyline doesn’t Belong to God, the Accusation Only Lands on You!

[SoteriologyA1]

Anti-Calvinists often say:

“You Calvinists believe God created Bob just to cast him into hell.”

But here’s the uncomfortable truth:
That critique doesn’t fit Calvinism...
it perfectly fits any view that affirms God knows Bob's Storyline but does not determine Bob's Storyline.

Walk it out:

Provisionism says:

God 100% knew Bob would only ever reject Him to the end.

God chose to create Bob anyway.

God has no Authorial purpose for what happens in Bob’s life.

Bob ends up exactly where God 100% knew he would: hell.

So what exactly was the point of creating Bob?

If God already knew Bob’s rejection from start to finish,
then Bob’s 80 years of life serve no divine purpose.

In that case, how is this any different than:

God creates Bob → waits 1 second → casts him into hell?

It’s not different. It’s just longer.
The “middle” changes nothing because on that view, God isn’t purposing 1 second or 80 years of Bob's existence for anything.

Now compare that to Calvinism:

On the consistent view:

God purposes Bob’s life from start to finish... and that's how he knows.

Bob’s rejection, rebellion, and final judgment are part of God’s intentional storyline purpose.

Bob’s life displays God's justice, patience, and power (Romans 9, Proverbs 16:4).

So when Bob is judged, it’s not:

“God created him 'only' to damn him.”

It’s:

“God purposed Bob’s life to reveal His glory, and the final judgment fits that story.”

So here's the real bottom line:

If the Storyline isn’t purposed by God,
then the accusation applies to you, not Calvinism.

Because now, all you're left with is:

God knows the result of His own action perfectly...

God creates...

And God allows the inevitable to play out pointlessly.

That’s not a plan. That’s a passive setup.
And the only way to prevent the outcome…
...is for God to not create Bob at all.

So ask them:

What was God’s purpose in creating Bob, knowing Bob would only ever reject Him?

If Bob's Storyline is not God’s,
then the whole thing collapses into:

“God created Bob 'just' to cast him into hell.”

And that’s not Calvinism.
That’s Provisionism exposed.

(If you need a biblically consistent example replace Bob with Pharaoh)

 

[Josheb]

Anti-Calvinists often say:

“You Calvinists believe God created Bob just to cast him into hell.”

But here’s the uncomfortable truth:
That critique doesn’t fit Calvinism... it perfectly fits any view that affirms God knows Bob's Storyline but does not determine Bob's Storyline.

Yep.

The notion God created anyone specifically for destruction has always been a strawman. And, imo, the misrepresentation is so misguidedly far from what Calvin/Calvinism teaches that it's not accurate to label the nonsense a strawman. It's really a red herring.

The people God chose to save were selected from a single population and that population is comprised entirely of sinners. Sinners are all on their way to destruction and that destiny is decided by their inherent and proactively decided sinfulness - what they did/didn't do, not what God created. The sad and despicable part of the ungodly red herring is that everyone, whether synergist or monergist, agrees with the scriptural fact all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, all are, therefore, in need of salvation from sin and God's commensurate wrath, and no one would be saved if God had not first acted.

In other words, the completely misguided, completely false, accusation disrespects all Christians and all Christian soteriological doctrine, not just Calvinism. It completely ignores all the common ground shared by Christians everywhere.

And, while I do not have specific statistics on the following, the likelihood is that anyone making such a fallacious, ungodly false accusation has no interest in the facts of salvation or the facts of Calvinism because the facts would mean they'd have to completely discard the falsehood permanently.

• God made humans good and sinless.
• One man disobeyed God and brought sin into the world and death (sinful death) to all humanity. All humanity was lost to sin.
• God made provision for that occasion. Some would be saved but most would not.
• All three conditions fit into the omni-attributed Creator's plan for creation.

Those are not points in dispute. When those four points are considered the false accusation Calvinists believe God created people specifically for destruction is untenable. God created every human ever made to glorify Him. The divide occurs because monergists believe God is the sole causal agent in everyone's salvation and He is not dependent in any way on the sinful creature when He saves the sinful creature from the sin that would otherwise cause the sinner's destruction. Synergists believe God has willingly made Himself dependent on the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner who has volitionally agency in his own salvation.

That is to what the divide boils down.



God is glorified when He metes out the just recompense for sin and God is glorified when he chooses to save by grace. That too is common ground (or should be).

 

[3 Resurrections]

• God made humans good and sinless.
• One man disobeyed God and brought sin into the world and death (sinful death) to all humanity. All humanity was lost to sin.
• God made provision for that occasion. Some would be saved but most would not.
• All three conditions fit into the omni-attributed Creator's plan for creation.

Those are not points in dispute

Scripture disputes this third point of "Some would be saved but most would not." This is false. The truth is that most are saved, but some are not, just like Christ's illustration of the "wheat" harvest with some "tares" which have grown up among the wheat. Christ did NOT call this a "tares" harvest, because the majority of this harvest is not reprobate tares; the majority of the harvest was going to be genuine, regenerate "wheat" which was to be gathered into God's "barn".

Christ's illustration of the "narrow gate" with "few there be that find it" was referring to the first-century ethnic Jewish population which would have only a "remnant" which would hear and believe. Christ came unto His own, and for the most part, His own generation of fellow-Jews "received Him not". As Paul was writing Romans 11:5, he referred to the "remnant" of ethnic Jews at that present time that were regenerate believers. It is a mistake to assume that this limit put upon first-century ethnic Israelites would also dictate a small minority percentage of all mankind that would ever be regenerate. God has much better stats than this. He intended to bring "many sons into glory" - not a few.

 

[Arial]

Scripture disputes this third point of "Some would be saved but most would not." This is false. The truth is that most are saved, but some are not, just like Christ's illustration of the "wheat" harvest with some "tares" which have grown up among the wheat.

The parable of the weeds explained.Matt 13:36-43

Then he left the crowds and went in to the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field." He answered, "The one who does the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one. and the enemy who showed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all lawbreakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. I that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear."

Neither the parable itself or Jesus' explanation of it mention "most", "many" of "some". So how exactly are you jumping to that conclusion and use this to say the Bible proves that most will be saved, and some won't be?

Christ's illustration of the "narrow gate" with "few there be that find it" was referring to the first-century ethnic Jewish population which would have only a "remnant" which would hear and believe. Christ came unto His own, and for the most part, His own generation of fellow-Jews "received Him not". As Paul was writing Romans 11:5, he referred to the "remnant" of ethnic Jews at that present time that were regenerate believers. It is a mistake to assume that this limit put upon first-century ethnic Israelites would also dictate a small minority percentage of all mankind that would ever be regenerate. God has much better stats than this. He intended to bring "many sons into glory" - not a few.

It is a mistake to assume that the passage is limited to first-century ethnic Israel. Remnant is a pattern in the Bible throughout redemptive history. God saves a minority for judgment----Noah's family, Israel after exile, Jews who believed in Christ to the worldwide church of genuine believers. He kept a remnant of prophets in Ahab's reign, along with Elijah.

Do you have God's stats? If so, please make them available.

Both "many" and "few" are relative terms. A small percentage of the human race would be a great many people, too many to count. But it would not be anywhere near "most".

 

[Josheb]

Scripture disputes this third point of "Some would be saved but most would not." This is false. The truth is that most are saved, but some are not, just like Christ's illustration of the "wheat" harvest with some "tares" which have grown up among the wheat. Christ did NOT call this a "tares" harvest, because the majority of this harvest is not reprobate tares; the majority of the harvest was going to be genuine, regenerate "wheat" which was to be gathered into God's "barn".

Well, let's see.

Matthew 7:13-14
Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

By any and all objective measures "many" well outnumbers "few." Many is always greater than few. Scripture does not dispute the third point; it affirms it.

Christ's illustration of the "narrow gate" with "few there be that find it" was referring to the first-century ethnic Jewish population which would have only a "remnant" which would hear and believe.

No, it was not.

It is true Jesus was speaking to a group of Jews at the time, but nothing he said is limited to that specific audience.* In point of fact Jesus never mentions the word "Jew," ethnic or otherwise, first century or not, and your interpretation would render everything said in the larger teaching applicable to only first century ethnic Jews and no one else. All expectations of anyone else building a foundation on Christ would/could/should be discarded.

Galatians 6:7-8
Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

That text was written to the "brethren" about the brethren but it, nonetheless, applies to anyone and everyone. Anyone who sows to the flesh reaps decay. Everyone who sows to the flesh reaps decay. How many people worldwide sow to the Spirit of God? How many sow to the Spirit compared to those sowing to the flesh? How many people over all the centuries since God cast A&E out of the garden have sowed to the Spirit versus the flesh?




A multitude of people are found in heaven worshiping God, but as large as that multitude may be, it is the "few" who have entered the narrow gate leading to life. Abraham was promised his descendants would outnumber the stars but as many as that may be, it is still the "frw" who entered the narrow gate to find life. Everyone else is the many who entered the wide gate to destruction.







* In fact, Jesus never uses the word Jew after chapter 2. The entire gospel is void of Jesus ever specifying his teaching as pertaining solely to Jews, first century ethnics ones or not. Verify that for yourself. Once you've verified that for yourself go back and examine your sources as critically as you have my op-reply.
.