Can someone explain Calvinism to me?

[*Aimee*]

So, today some friends of ours invited us to a church sermon in the park. We're looking for a church home so we agreed. Our friends have always called themselves Reformers, but I never knew what that meant.

During the sermon he mentioned that only a few select people are going to Heaven. He said that some people, no matter what they do, are going to go to Hell. He said that people think they can get to Heaven by reciting a passage (Jesus died for our sins) but that thinking is evil and we're saved by Grace alone.

Afterward, my friend and the pastor came to talk to me. I had so many questions. I asked how they knew they were one of the few that are allowed to go to Heaven, and they said they knew their hearts, and their hearts said they were saved. During the sermon he'd said that once you're saved you want to run out and save everyone, and tell about God. I asked what the point of this is, if everyone is either saved or not. They said to glorify God. I asked what the point of prayer, or anything, really is. They said it was to glorify God.

I'm so confused right now. They tell me that they're Calvinists. I'm having a major shake up in my faith over this. I don't understand how God is not available to everyone. I was always taught that ANYONE and EVERYONE can be accepted by Jesus, but they told me that was evil, selfish thinking. I'm super upset because I've never been one of those really exuberant happy shiny Christians. I've always WANTED to be. I'm so scared that maybe I'm not one of the "chosen" and that's why I have a hard time. I can think of so many times in my life where I was BEGGING God for help (breastfeeding comes to mind, I later found I have IGT) and I feel so many times like I'm alone and God is not there with me. Honestly I am just so frightened right now, I was ready to give up my faith entirely.

My husband is upset that I'm willing to toss out everything I've previously known about God after an hour in the park with these people. He says that he thinks this whole thing sounds cultish (how come, conveniently enough, they are all the chosen?).

I am far, FAR from being where I want to be in my faith. I was not raised Christian and I have no idea how to live a Christian lifestyle. I've found that you can find Bible passages to support almost any belief you want. I'm not sure what's "right" and what's "wrong". Why would God make his words SO frickin' hard to understand if he wanted them to be accessible by all? I feel like maybe because I struggle, it's because I'm not meant to hear his words. Does that make sense?

Right now we don't pray in the house very often. I mean, I pray most nights, but we don't pray before we eat, we don't pray with our boys before bed, I rarely read the Bible anymore...I feel like it's a constant struggle for me to work God into my life. And now I'm wondering if it's because I'm not meant to.

Anyway, if you've made it through this whole thing, thank you Can you tell me what you know Calvinism to be? What is your Biblical truth for being saved? How do you know you're saved?

Thank you

[canadiyank]

I'm not Calvinist, but I understand quite a bit about that understanding of Christianity. It sounds like they are pretty strict Calvinists if they're preaching about double-predestination (being predestined to Heaven and Hell) in an hour at the park.

I disagree with Calvinism but they have a very strong view of God's grace, mercy, and sovereignty that I admire.

Here's a helpful list of "TULIP" - the "5 points of Calvinism." Depending on how strict the Calvinist, they can be a "3 pt," "4 pt" or "5 pt" Calvinist.

Hope that helps somewhat.

http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm

[Smokering]

Grrr, computer ate my post.

I'm a Calvinist, and I think your friends did a pretty lousy job of explaining things to you! The doctrines of Calvinism are not meant to freak Christians into wondering if they're not "meant" to find God or if they're not elect.

The way it works is this: anyone who seeks God will find Him. In that sense, Christianity is "open to all" - there won't be people in hell going "Aww, but I wanted to be a Christian!" or people in heaven going "Whoa, what am I doing here? I was chosen? Huh?" People seek God because He chooses them - He changes their hearts to desire Him instead of desiring sin. An analogy I like is that becoming Christian is like going through a gate. As you approach it you read on the gate "Ask, seek, knock" - once you have passed through you look back and see written on the other side of the gate "Chosen before the foundation of the world". They're both true, it's just a matter of perspective. And it's pretty silly to ignore the command to "Ask, seek, knock" because you're worried you weren't chosen - if you do it you obviously were, and if you don't you weren't, and we're supposed to worry about our response to God's commands, not try to second-guess God's decisions. KWIM? In other words, real Christians are elect - the terms are synonymous. Whether you talk about "born-again" Christians, the elect, the chosen, the regenerate, followers of Christ or whatever, it means the same thing.

So when Calvinists describe themselves as "the elect", we're not saying we're some kind of super-Christians or better than other Christians or part of a select club. We're just saying we're saved - and not because of anything intrinsically good about us, but because Christ chose us despite our sinfulness. If we're sure of our salvation, again it isn't because we're so marvellous; it's because God has promised salvation to those who call upon His name. (And just for the record, Calvinists don't believe you have to be a Calvinist to be saved.)

Sorry they scared you! Assurance of salvation is a big issue for a lot of Christians, Calvinist and non-Calvinist alike. I actually find Calvinism less scary in that regard, because assurance of salvation isn't me-based (whether I pray enough/try hard enough/do enough good works) but God-based. I don't agree with your friends' position that you can necessarily "know in your heart" in an emotional sense, but I think it's possible to look at the Bible's promises of "If you believe X, you will be saved" and evaluate whether or not that's true. And of course, one of the ways to find out whether you believe something is to see if you live your life by it - but that's a different thing to saying "I don't pray before meals, so I can't be a Christian", you know? Christians fail all the time, forget God far more than we should, struggle with making our lives God-centred constantly; but that doesn't mean we're not saved.

I hope you find some peace! Being a Calvinist I obviously don't think Calvinism is cultish, but your friends do seem to have given you a rather warped version of it. FTR I think evangelism is important because it may be the means by which someone - chosen by God - comes to faith. That's pretty important! Yes, God chooses who He saves, but that salvation comes by human means - sermons, sharing the Gospel with friends, reading Christian books and so on.

I hope at least some of this makes sense! Let me know if there's anything else about Calvinism you want explained - there are a few Calvinist/Reformed mamas on MDC, but not vast droves of us.

[genifer]

See, this is where I think Calvinists and other christians go their seperate ways about predestiny. I*personally* think its a misinturpretation of the word 'predestined'. If God forknew those who would believe in Him, these are the one's he called.

romans 8:29

29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

foreknew in that he knew who would, in the depths of their hearts love Him. He hasnt written everyone off, but he is omnipotent, all knowing and in that, he foreknew those who would call on him... this is how I see it. These are the one's he's called. I believe he is also calling all to salvation, but knows that they dont think they need it, nor will they ever. Free will is never interfered with. To put it simply, God wont be surprised by who calls on Him and who wont, who, at the end of time, worship Him as Lord, and who will insist they dont need to worship anyone. But we may be surprised.

Im not a calvinist, bc I feel it doesnt allow for personal accountability, free will, the freedom to choose, which I believe, for us as the kind of creation, or creature, we are is important. We arent like the animals, unthinking, unreasoning.. or in the case of some monkey's and apes, limited reasoning. Nor are we like the angels, which I dont know a whole lot about, but know they have some kind of knowledge that is superior to ours, or simply put, we are spiritually different. I have just begun to consider whether we are a completely different kind of creation/creature. In that we are ...still being created(?), if that makes sense to anyone... that we are a very special creation, very very special in God's eyes. And that we arent finished yet. *I* believe that the moment we come to a faith in Jesus Christ, thats when our creation truely begins... that *might* be ot and a bit out there, but I dont think its unscriptural. I could be wrong, so dont take it as gospel...

[genifer]

I like my children's bible's version/interpretation of Roman 8:28-29

We know that in everything God works for the good of those who love Him. They are the people God called, because that was his plan. God knew them before He made the world. And God decided that they would be like His Son.

[Bluegoat]

I wouldn't go throwing out whatever you believed before after an hour in the park either. Powerful preaching can seem very moving, but it's probably best to take some time to think about it, and learn more about Calvinism and other points of view. There has been a long history of debate on this since, well, Calvin was around.

You might find it useful to read a bit of the history of the era when Calvinism was developed, in the Reformation, to put it in context. Calvin was kind of an interesting guy in any case, though it's rather bloody reading.

And remember too, if you find that it doesn't make sense to you, there are lots of churches that reject Calvinism - the RC, the OC the Anglicans, the Lutherans, and also all of the Anabaptist churches. So it's not like you have to believe that it is the only interpretation of Christianity. There are internet resources by both the RC and the OC on why they reject Calvinism if you would like to find out their objections.

[canadiyank]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

You might find it useful to read a bit of the history of the era when Calvinism was developed, in the Reformation, to put it in context.

And modern Calvinism is quite a bit different from what Calvin taught (just like most movements are). There's definitely different interpretations and strictness of adherence to the TULIP principles.

[canadiyank]

Originally Posted by genifer

Im not a calvinist, bc I feel it doesnt allow for personal accountability, free will, the freedom to choose, which I believe, for us as the kind of creation, or creature, we are is important.

Right - they don't believe in free will. Other denominations don't, at well.

I've heard salvation described as this:

The "free will" POV can be thought of as a man is drowning, and God throws him a life preserver - but it is the man's job to grab onto that life preserver and God will pull him to safety. Amen!

The "no free will" POV is more like this: Imagine the man in this case has already drowned - he is dead in the water. God comes, scoops him out of the water, and breathes life back into him. Amen!

In the first case, God throws the life preserver but it is to the man to choose whether or not to grab onto that and be pulled out...in the second case the man is completely incapable of acting - he's *dead* - so God saves him and fills him with the Holy Spirit to have new life.

Hopefully that simple illustration can show the difference between "free will" and "no free will." "No free will" people don't believe humans are some kind of robot pre-programmed into thinking or acting certain ways - instead they believe that we are spiritually dead in our sin and incapable of responding to God b/c of that "death."

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by canadiyank

And modern Calvinism is quite a bit different from what Calvin taught (just like most movements are). There's definitely different interpretations and strictness of adherence to the TULIP principles.

Yes, I certainly wouldn't leave it at looking ta what Calvin said. But I think it can be important to see the events surrounding new ideas or expressions of them. It would also be good to see the debates within Calvinism, and I think starting at the beginning is the best way.

[canadiyank]

It could be the best way. It could also be completely overwhelming. I know when I first discovered people thought differently about "how to get saved" that I did that I had to go back to my roots and re-affirm what *I* believed about it before I could heavily dig into what others thought...

By the way Bluegoat - hi to another "Megan-with-an-h."

[*Aimee*]

Originally Posted by Smokering

Grrr, computer ate my post.

I'm a Calvinist, and I think your friends did a pretty lousy job of explaining things to you! The doctrines of Calvinism are not meant to freak Christians into wondering if they're not "meant" to find God or if they're not elect.

The way it works is this: anyone who seeks God will find Him. In that sense, Christianity is "open to all" - there won't be people in hell going "Aww, but I wanted to be a Christian!" or people in heaven going "Whoa, what am I doing here? I was chosen? Huh?" People seek God because He chooses them - He changes their hearts to desire Him instead of desiring sin. An analogy I like is that becoming Christian is like going through a gate. As you approach it you read on the gate "Ask, seek, knock" - once you have passed through you look back and see written on the other side of the gate "Chosen before the foundation of the world". They're both true, it's just a matter of perspective. And it's pretty silly to ignore the command to "Ask, seek, knock" because you're worried you weren't chosen - if you do it you obviously were, and if you don't you weren't, and we're supposed to worry about our response to God's commands, not try to second-guess God's decisions. KWIM? In other words, real Christians are elect - the terms are synonymous. Whether you talk about "born-again" Christians, the elect, the chosen, the regenerate, followers of Christ or whatever, it means the same thing.

Okay so this does make sense. Youre saying that just because I want to know God, I've been chosen? I asked them this and they told me that for sure I was chosen, but they couldn't tell me how. And they couldn't tell me if someone who wants to be chosen would be turned away. That was what was heartbreaking to me. Someone begging God to be with him, and being turned away. That's why I was so upset.

So when Calvinists describe themselves as "the elect", we're not saying we're some kind of super-Christians or better than other Christians or part of a select club. We're just saying we're saved - and not because of anything intrinsically good about us, but because Christ chose us despite our sinfulness. If we're sure of our salvation, again it isn't because we're so marvellous; it's because God has promised salvation to those who call upon His name. (And just for the record, Calvinists don't believe you have to be a Calvinist to be saved.)

Okay, this also makes sense. I guess, I'm just not sure of the point of it. If it all means the same thing, why do we have to label it so that it sounds like God is rejecting His people? I mean, Of COURSE not everyone will end up in Heaven, but to actually think that God created his own children just to cast them out is scary to me.

Sorry they scared you! Assurance of salvation is a big issue for a lot of Christians, Calvinist and non-Calvinist alike. I actually find Calvinism less scary in that regard, because assurance of salvation isn't me-based (whether I pray enough/try hard enough/do enough good works) but God-based. I don't agree with your friends' position that you can necessarily "know in your heart" in an emotional sense, but I think it's possible to look at the Bible's promises of "If you believe X, you will be saved" and evaluate whether or not that's true. And of course, one of the ways to find out whether you believe something is to see if you live your life by it - but that's a different thing to saying "I don't pray before meals, so I can't be a Christian", you know? Christians fail all the time, forget God far more than we should, struggle with making our lives God-centred constantly; but that doesn't mean we're not saved.

Thank you, yes this does help. And I never previously thought that you could use works to get to Heaven but it seems so different than what they were explaining to me. They also kept saying that when I was further in my walk with God, I'd "get it". Which really was off putting to my husband as he's a lifelong (with one small lapse ) Christian.

I hope you find some peace! Being a Calvinist I obviously don't think Calvinism is cultish, but your friends do seem to have given you a rather warped version of it. FTR I think evangelism is important because it may be the means by which someone - chosen by God - comes to faith. That's pretty important! Yes, God chooses who He saves, but that salvation comes by human means - sermons, sharing the Gospel with friends, reading Christian books and so on.

And what you're saying doesn't seem cultish at all. So, evangelism is important because if we don't save one person that is chosen might not get saved? or is it just to hurry them on their journey with God? Yesterday they were telling me all these ways to tell from looking at someones outside life if they were saved or not. That seemed odd to me. I didnt understand anything they said about that though, so that may be. They started talking about Armanian? Armenian? I seriously have no idea.

[*Aimee*]

Originally Posted by genifer

See, this is where I think Calvinists and other christians go their seperate ways about predestiny. I*personally* think its a misinturpretation of the word 'predestined'. If God forknew those who would believe in Him, these are the one's he called.

romans 8:29



foreknew in that he knew who would, in the depths of their hearts love Him. He hasnt written everyone off, but he is omnipotent, all knowing and in that, he foreknew those who would call on him... this is how I see it. These are the one's he's called. I believe he is also calling all to salvation, but knows that they dont think they need it, nor will they ever. Free will is never interfered with. To put it simply, God wont be surprised by who calls on Him and who wont, who, at the end of time, worship Him as Lord, and who will insist they dont need to worship anyone. But we may be surprised.

Im not a calvinist, bc I feel it doesnt allow for personal accountability, free will, the freedom to choose, which I believe, for us as the kind of creation, or creature, we are is important. We arent like the animals, unthinking, unreasoning.. or in the case of some monkey's and apes, limited reasoning. Nor are we like the angels, which I dont know a whole lot about, but know they have some kind of knowledge that is superior to ours, or simply put, we are spiritually different. I have just begun to consider whether we are a completely different kind of creation/creature. In that we are ...still being created(?), if that makes sense to anyone... that we are a very special creation, very very special in God's eyes. And that we arent finished yet. *I* believe that the moment we come to a faith in Jesus Christ, thats when our creation truely begins... that *might* be ot and a bit out there, but I dont think its unscriptural. I could be wrong, so dont take it as gospel...

This is what I've always believed myself.

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

I wouldn't go throwing out whatever you believed before after an hour in the park either. Powerful preaching can seem very moving, but it's probably best to take some time to think about it, and learn more about Calvinism and other points of view. There has been a long history of debate on this since, well, Calvin was around.

You might find it useful to read a bit of the history of the era when Calvinism was developed, in the Reformation, to put it in context. Calvin was kind of an interesting guy in any case, though it's rather bloody reading.

And remember too, if you find that it doesn't make sense to you, there are lots of churches that reject Calvinism - the RC, the OC the Anglicans, the Lutherans, and also all of the Anabaptist churches. So it's not like you have to believe that it is the only interpretation of Christianity. There are internet resources by both the RC and the OC on why they reject Calvinism if you would like to find out their objections.

Thank you. I think I will do some research. Although right now my husband has banned me

Originally Posted by canadiyank

Right - they don't believe in free will. Other denominations don't, at well.

I've heard salvation described as this:

The "free will" POV can be thought of as a man is drowning, and God throws him a life preserver - but it is the man's job to grab onto that life preserver and God will pull him to safety. Amen!

The "no free will" POV is more like this: Imagine the man in this case has already drowned - he is dead in the water. God comes, scoops him out of the water, and breathes life back into him. Amen!

In the first case, God throws the life preserver but it is to the man to choose whether or not to grab onto that and be pulled out...in the second case the man is completely incapable of acting - he's *dead* - so God saves him and fills him with the Holy Spirit to have new life.

Hopefully that simple illustration can show the difference between "free will" and "no free will." "No free will" people don't believe humans are some kind of robot pre-programmed into thinking or acting certain ways - instead they believe that we are spiritually dead in our sin and incapable of responding to God b/c of that "death."

Thank you, I really liked that.

[Smokering]

Okay so this does make sense. Youre saying that just because I want to know God, I've been chosen? I asked them this and they told me that for sure I was chosen, but they couldn't tell me how. And they couldn't tell me if someone who wants to be chosen would be turned away. That was what was heartbreaking to me. Someone begging God to be with him, and being turned away. That's why I was so upset.

Yep - again, just substitute "Christian" for "chosen" and you'll see what it means. There are people who call themselves Christians who aren't real Christians - as in, people who say "Oh yeah, I'm Christian because my parents used to go to church" or "I'm Christian because I believe in America and mother and apple pie and the flag and democracy" or even "I'm Christian because that's the Western default and I'm not Moslem or Buddhist". Whether you're a Calvinist or not you'll probably agree that these people aren't Christians/born again/saved/elect/chosen; they're just products of a (post-) Christian community who identify with the label for the fuzziest of reasons. But again, that's not a specifically Calvinist problem.

Okay, this also makes sense. I guess, I'm just not sure of the point of it. If it all means the same thing, why do we have to label it so that it sounds like God is rejecting His people? I mean, Of COURSE not everyone will end up in Heaven, but to actually think that God created his own children just to cast them out is scary to me.

Well, the term "election" is used simply because it's used in the Bible to refer to Christians, and it puts the emphasis on God's sovereignty - and, today at any rate, it's a bit more specific than "Christian" which, like I said above, can mean all sorts of vague things from "Western" to "American" to "person who vaguely believes in Santa". So it lacks some of the cultural baggage of "Christian", I guess. But it's a sort of technical term, which Calvinists don't use all the time - mostly we just say "Christians" like everyone else.

Calvinists do differ on double predestination, which is the belief that God decides people go to hell as well as deciding that othes go to heaven. I believe in double predestination, but others don't. I think it's logical and supported by Scripture, and ultimately no less emotionally fraught than any hell-believing theology as it means that all who are in hell are there for a good reason in God's plan, not because of something God couldn't control (free will).

And what you're saying doesn't seem cultish at all. So, evangelism is important because if we don't save one person that is chosen might not get saved? or is it just to hurry them on their journey with God? Yesterday they were telling me all these ways to tell from looking at someones outside life if they were saved or not. That seemed odd to me. I didnt understand anything they said about that though, so that may be. They started talking about Armanian? Armenian? I seriously have no idea.

Arminians are just not-Calvinists. Most churches are Arminian - the most basic component of which is the belief in free will (technically libertarian free will; Calvinists believe in what's called compatibilist free will, although I think it's a misleading term). So there you go, you had a label you didn't even know about.

I'd look at evangelism just like, say, the story of Rebekah in the Old Testament. Abraham's servant prayed that the women who was meant to be Isaac's wife would give him water for himself and his camels, and that way he'd know it was her. Rebekah came along and did just that. Now, she no doubt thought she was acting of her own free will - I doubt she was wandering along like a zombie doing God's bidding with a glazed look in her eyes - but it was God who caused her to do those things. Could God have used another method to get Isaac a wife? Well, in theory, sure. But those were the rules of the game, and so Rebekah needed to draw the water for the camels - it wouldn't have "worked" otherwise.

Same with evangelism. The "rules" are that fith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17). So although God could save people by appearing in a vision a la Paul, He doesn't (or at least, not usually). So if God wants to save someone He makes darn sure that that person is evangelised to. And usually that's by Christians following the command to evangelise - again it "feels" like free will, they don't hear a disembodied voice saying "Go to the train station and share the Gospel with the guy in the red coat" - but God is behind it. And again I'd stress that it's not our place to second-guess God. It might be His plan to have us evangelise without any converts for years, for the good of our own souls; or it might be His plan to have us plant the seed that results in a salvation fifty years later when we're dead and gone. We don't know - but what we do know is that we're told to evangelise and that we should therefore do it. Which frankly makes things a lot simpler than trying to figure out what God's plan might be!

Oh, and I'd be somewhat suspicious of the "you can look at a person's outside life and tell if he's saved" thing. Christians are all at different points on the path to holiness, and have different natural struggles, strengths, temptations and abilities to deal with. For some Christians not doing heroin is a major spiritual victory, let alone using Nice Words and giving to the church; for others, most of the more exciting sins may never have crossed their sheltered minds. You know? It's difficult to really know where someone else is coming from. That's not to say that actions don't reveal anything about a person's spiritual state, but it's not a simple thing to judge, and spending our time examining other people for signs they're not really saved isn't exactly the Christian walk.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Smokering

Arminians are just not-Calvinists. Most churches are Arminian - the most basic component of which is the belief in free will (technically libertarian free will; Calvinists believe in what's called compatibilist free will, although I think it's a misleading term). So there you go, you had a label you didn't even know about.

OT, but I find the description of non-Calvinists as Arminians so odd, as if this interpretation/viewpoint suddenly came up during the Reformation as a response to Calvinism. I'm not sure why the term is used? Certainly, most non-Calvinists don't use it except in relation to his actual followers; to use it for, say, Roman Catholics just seems anachronistic.

[*Aimee*]

Smokering, I'm so so so appreciative, so I don't want to sound as I'm not or as if I'm totally dense, but here is where I'm struggling. What you're saying makes total and complete sense to me. What I don't get is why God would intentionally create his children to not be saved. Yesterday they kept saying "for His glory" but I don't get that. I don't see how one could believe that he created people to be elect but not to not be elect, because one is a symptom of the other, right?

Also, when you read John 3:16 ("God so loved the world that he sent his only so that whoever believed in him might not perish and have eternal life") it makes it sound like it's open to everyone. Where are the scriptural references to Calvinism? I mean, I know there is probably a billion but just the "big" ones

Thank you so much for taking this time to help me learn

[Smokering]

OT, but I find the description of non-Calvinists as Arminians so odd, as if this interpretation/viewpoint suddenly came up during the Reformation as a response to Calvinism. I'm not sure why the term is used? Certainly, most non-Calvinists don't use it except in relation to his actual followers; to use it for, say, Roman Catholics just seems anachronistic.

Sorry, that wasn't the most nuanced definition, was it. AFAIK RCs would describe themselves as "Arminian" in terms of beliefs, though not in terms of historicity. Originally Arminianism was named after Arminius and was very much a response to Calvinism, but I believe the term is used more loosely today. After all, most of the points are pretty either/or: either people can be un-saved or they can't, either people can resist God's call or they can't, etc - so within mainstream Christianity most people naturally fall into one of the two camps (especially as the five points are heavily interrelated). I've certainly heard people from various denominations refer to themselves as Arminian, but I'm not sure if I've ever heard a Catholic or Anglican self-describe as such.

Smokering, I'm so so so appreciative, so I don't want to sound as I'm not or as if I'm totally dense, but here is where I'm struggling. What you're saying makes total and complete sense to me. What I don't get is why God would intentionally create his children to not be saved. Yesterday they kept saying "for His glory" but I don't get that. I don't see how one could believe that he created people to be elect but not to not be elect, because one is a symptom of the other, right?

Right, which is why I believe in double predestination rather than single. Why God creates people to not be saved is a tricky one, and "for Hs glory" is as good an answer as any. One answer is that the ultimate "good" is for God to fully express all His attributes, and the existence of the damned is necessary for God to express His wrath and justice and holiness - so that the universe is somehow a better place because of the damned. I don't believe God would do it for no good reason.

Of course, even if you believe in the free will/foreknowledge position you run into a similar "problem", in that God chose to create people He knew wouldn't choose Him.Either way He still creates people knowing they'll go to hell. Different theologies deal with it in different ways.

Also, when you read John 3:16 ("God so loved the world that he sent his only so that whoever believed in him might not perish and have eternal life") it makes it sound like it's open to everyone. Where are the scriptural references to Calvinism? I mean, I know there is probably a billion but just the "big" ones

I wouldn't say John 3:16 says salvation is open to everyone - it says it's open to "whoever believes in Him". Which Calvinism happily affirms - it just also affirms that those who believe in Him do so because they are chosen by God.

Prooftexts? Prooftexts, prooftexts. OK. Let's see if I can do this in a vaguely systematic way.

First off, Calvinist holds that God is sovereign. That is, that He is in supreme control of everything, including human thoughts and actions, and that He decrees events. This is taken from verses such as Isaiah 46:9-10:

Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,’

Job 38-42 (too long to quote here!) demonstrate that God is in charge even of little things, like finding food for birds of prey and determining when it should rain. And throughout both Old and New Testaments we see God engineering events, human decisions and even sin to accomplish His purpose. Saul's madness, the fish swimming past Jonah at the opportune moment, Haggai's wife cheating on him, Pharaoh refusing to let the Israelites go, Esther becoming queen, Ruth turning up in Boaz's field, Joseph's brothers selling him into slavery, the man blind from birth being healed, Lazarus falling ill - the events are all inextricably interrelated, and God is behind them all. Many of the events even explicitly state that X occurred in order to demonstrate God's glory.

Calvinism also affirms the total depravity of man - the "T" of TULIP - which basically says that fallen man is sinful. It doesn't mean fallen man in 100% sinful and incapable of doing any good at all - we're still made in the image of God, albeit distorted by the Fall - but it means that left to our own devices, we will not naturally seek God. Romans 3:10:

as it is written:
"None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.

Psalm 14:2-3

The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man,
to see if there are any who understand,
who seek after God.
They have all turned aside; together they have become(H) corrupt;
there is none who does good,
not even one.

There is also some evidence used in the analogy of unbelievers to dead men. As a PP pointed out, a living person can try to save himself, but a dead man can't. The analogies Christ uses are not just of healing but of rebirth and resurrection. Paul also says to Christians of their pre-saved state (Ephesians 2:1-2a):

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked

So: God is in control of everything, and man is naturally inclined to be sinful. So it doesn't make sense that man could either act outside God's direct control, or that he would want to be saved. So man is not saved by his own works - rather, God imparts faith by grace to those He has chosen and only then can they feel the desire to know God. The order of events is listed in Romans 8:29-30:

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Romans 9 is one of the most famous prooftexts for predestination. Verses 6B to 24, bolding mine:

For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son." And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Romans 8:38-39

For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Hmm, what else before the baby wakes up? Irresistable grace follows on logically from the others - if God has chosen you for salvation and caused you to believe, you can't very well not believe. And perseverance of the saints similarly follows on - if you've been chosen for salvation before the foundation of the world you can't change your mind halfway through and be un-chosen. That said, the New Testament is very clear about the dangers of complacency and assuming we're saved - particularly in a culture where Christianity is acceptable it's easy to fool ourselves into thinking we're saved when we're not. True faith does manifest itself in works (read the book of James!), so it's not like we can say "Oh, I'm predestined so I don't have to do any of that Christian stuff". That's not how it works.

Well, that was kinda higgeldy-piggeldy, sorry! There are other prooftexts Calvinists use, but I can't think of them right now. I will say that every time I read the Bible now I get a stronger sense of God being in charge, shaping events to fit His purpose and generally doing what He wants! A lot of people find Calvinism "cold" or uncomforting, but I find it the opposite - knowing that if something bad happens to me it's not despite God but part of His plan, which is better than anything I can imagine. Strangely enough the song "Through Heaven's Eyes" from the (secular!) film The Prince of Egypt captures it rather nicely, although I doubt it was intentionally Calvinistic!

Baby's awake...

[Theoretica]

LOL I was reading the OP thinking "Hmmm....hope Smokering sees this one "

Nothing much to add, as it's not my area, but glad you're getting some answers

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Smokering

Sorry, that wasn't the most nuanced definition, was it. AFAIK RCs would describe themselves as "Arminian" in terms of beliefs, though not in terms of historicity. Originally Arminianism was named after Arminius and was very much a response to Calvinism, but I believe the term is used more loosely today. After all, most of the points are pretty either/or: either people can be un-saved or they can't, either people can resist God's call or they can't, etc - so within mainstream Christianity most people naturally fall into one of the two camps (especially as the five points are heavily interrelated). I've certainly heard people from various denominations refer to themselves as Arminian, but I'm not sure if I've ever heard a Catholic or Anglican self-describe as such.

I haven't either though I suppose it's possible; I certainly can't imagine the Orthodox doing it. Since they would all say their POV is that of the Apostles, I don't think they would want to connect it to one specific reformed reformer!

[Smokering]

Possibly. Then again, Calvinists also say our POV is that of the Apostles. It's interesting that neither Calvinism nor Arminianism are denominations per se; they're statements of belief which are both held by different, sometimes overlapping denominations. So I'm a Calvinist but my denomination is Reformed Baptist, and - not being terribly up on church history - I have no idea if the Reformed Baptist denomination stems directly from Calvin (or Luther) himself, came into being well after he died or what. It doesn't really bug me. Calvinism isn't particularly about the man (in fact I disagree with Calvin on some points, notably infant baptism), nor Arminianism; so in a way it's sort of unfortunate that they're named after actual people. But what other terms are appropriate? If the Orthodox position on certain doctrines is identical in content to the Arminian position, is there something handier than "Arminian" to call them? I'm curious now!

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Smokering

Possibly. Then again, Calvinists also say our POV is that of the Apostles. It's interesting that neither Calvinism nor Arminianism are denominations per se; they're statements of belief which are both held by different, sometimes overlapping denominations. So I'm a Calvinist but my denomination is Reformed Baptist, and - not being terribly up on church history - I have no idea if the Reformed Baptist denomination stems directly from Calvin (or Luther) himself, came into being well after he died or what. It doesn't really bug me. Calvinism isn't particularly about the man (in fact I disagree with Calvin on some points, notably infant baptism), nor Arminianism; so in a way it's sort of unfortunate that they're named after actual people. But what other terms are appropriate? If the Orthodox position on certain doctrines is identical in content to the Arminian position, is there something handier than "Arminian" to call them? I'm curious now!

Me too, I'll have to do some research... They might just call it The Doctrine of the Church or some such thing...