Ouellette Calvinism

Click Photograph to Enlarge 

This is the latest serving of Ouellette on #Calvinism. It is a fatally flawed argument on a number of accounts:

1) No one can categorically say that their children "are not elect"  i.e. while their children are still in this life and within reach of the mercy of God. Calvinists, with their limited knowledge of the decree of God, must view all living people (without exception) as potentially elect and seek by all means to bring the gospel to them. Therefore to categorically declare that their children are not elect is to go beyond Scripture and what Calvinists believe. 

2) Even if we could peek into the Lamb's Book of Life, and did see that our offspring would live and and die impenitent and without saving faith in Jesus Christ (having loved darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil - John 3:19) why on earth would we rejoice in such a thing? Is there any Scriptural warrant for us to so rejoice? 

IMO, this is just a cheap pot shot at Calvinism and indeed at Calvinists themselves. Are Calvinists not supposed to love their children and desire the best for them? Is it expected that Whitefield, Spurgeon and George Mueller, all three of whom believed in the doctrine of Unconditional Election, would care better for the children in their respective orphanages than for their own flesh and blood?  

As it stands, this attack lacks theological depth, common sense, and even a common humanity. I can confidently say that Calvinism is safe when this is the level of attack that is directed towards it. Which is one reason why I put it up here. #WhyCalvinismIsSafe. 

* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* YOUTUBE VIDEO INDEX
* 3 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX