Calvinism/Reformed Christianity AMA

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Which of the five points of Calvinism have you found non-Calvinists understand the least or react the worst to? I have issues with all of them but limited atonement is the only one that actually pisses me off.

I have no major problems with Limited Atonement, but that's because I view the gospels through a universalist lens.  I believe all can find their way to the Divine, but only those whose path goes through Christ will be drawn to him. My objection with Calvinism lies more with the combination of Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace.  If God's grace is indeed irresistible then how then did either Lucifer or Adam fall?  If it is irresistible, why then does God Elect some to Damnation?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'll agree with realistic idealist concerning the Eucharist. Regardless of whether one considers it to be literally or metaphorically the case, it is in a very real sense part of the sacrifice that Jesus made of himself.  It doesn't matter that physical form of the bread and wine came into being later than Calvary as God transcends time.  Christ's sacrifice is not limited to one moment of time.  Like Christ himself, it transcends time from its beginning to its end.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My own PCA is marred by its difficulties in disciplining Federal Vision heretics.

What specifically is it about the Federal Vision that leads you to consider it heresy?  I ask this partly because it seems there are many differing views of what constitutes the Federal Vision and also it'll help me figure out what you consider to be core Calvinist doctrines.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

How is paedocommunion objectionable while paedobaptism is not? It seems to me that any objection to the former would be even more applicable to the latter.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If one appeals to Paul (and 1 Corinthians in particular) then let me point out the following. Paul indicates that communion is the replacement for Passover. (1 Cor 5:7-8) Passover is something children participate in. Indeed, the Seder is used as a means of instructing the young. Beyond that, Paul indicates that all who are part of the body of the church partake of the body and blood of Christ. (1 Cor 10:16-17) Therefore, to hold that there is an age at which one can be baptized yet cannot partake of communion would mean that baptism does not make one part of the visible church which seems like nonsense to me. This leaves the issue of 1 Cor 11:17-34. What exactly does Paul mean by an unworthy manner in verse 27? Worthiness certainly isn't based on being learned. Unworthiness comes from acting in a unrespectful manner. So long as a child can comport himself in an appropriate manner, I see nothing in that passage that bars paedocommunion.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm not necessarily arguing for a particular age at which entry into the visible church should occur, just that biblically I don't find a ground to justify different ages for communion and baptism which are the two distinctive rituals of the visible church.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The preceding is a prime example of why I am not, and likely never will be, a Calvinist. Perhaps it's just the wording, but I note that both views suppose that God decreed the Fall of Man. There's certainly nothing in Genesis to even suggest that God created Man for the purpose of failing. Supralapsarianism explicitly holds that. While infralapsarianism doesn't require that Man was created for the purpose of failing, it holds that God allowed the Fall of Man and yet elected to arbitrarily assign some to suffer for that when He need not have so elected. Both views are of a capricious God that treats Man as a plaything. I don't see that as being Biblically true.