Having listened to the poem, I find the fact that the poem is titled ‘Calvinist’ rather than ‘Christian’ or ‘Disciple’ or ‘Pilgrim’ to be the most poignant thing.
Well produced.
I agree Pilgrim. It stirs up the old (John Piper, R.C. Sproul) Calvinist in me. I think I will read “The Hunger For Significance” by R.C. Sproul now. 
I think you may have misread Pilgrim’s intent, Cole, dear brother. This man in Piper’s poem is the disciple of CALVIN, praised, described, examined – not the disciple of Christ. To this man, it’s okay that 99+% of all the human beings who have ever lived are purposively destined to be eternally tortured for the supposed “glory” of a vengeful God. This God is zealous for his own glory, and his glory is supposed to be displayed in never ending, indescribable agony in the vast majority of human beings.
Is the protagonist’s wife, lovely, dear, more precious than rubies, among the unregenerate? If so (and he cannot know, until the Day), he must rejoice in her eternal unremitting agony. His little daughter, adored, longed for, exquisitely precious in his eyes, may join the treasured and beloved wife in that forever consuming, never destroying fire of hell. These dear ones, if (as is likely in his theology) they are rejected, will grow ever more and more a horror, defiling the “perfect” universe of his even more horrifying “god.” Please think, Cole, of the monstrous image of this corrupt “god” to whom you propose to return. To this “god,” you are nothing more than a means to display his “glory,” whether by making of you an infinitely increasing and rotting and degenerating horror, or by making of you something like himself. Which is worse? Either is a monstrous proposal.
The disciples of John Calvin and of Augustine do mean well, and they do their best to follow the scriptures according to their sadly, sickly twisted form of human “logic,” but may we all cease to exist before we fall into the hands of such a “god” as theirs.
Love, Cindy
Yes, Cole, Cindy’s words ring very true. This video would be more appropriately titled “The Cognitively Dissonant Calvinist,” for if this man really considered the ramifications of what he’s preaching, this video wouldn’t be nearly so joyful. 
Cindy,
You don’t understand the Calvinist God as you misrepresent Him in you comments all the time. You have a distorted view of the Calvinist God and this causes you to blaspheme His Holiness to your own destruction. I have to go now but I will be back later to address your distortions later.
Well suit yourself, Cole. We’ve been over this before and I’m not going to argue with you about it. Just trying to save you some grief.
Please pause for a moment, Cole, to think about your own journey-- from Calvinism to Buddhism to Catholicism to the Disciples of Christ to… back to Calvinism? Before you wholeheartedly jump back on to Calvinism, think about some of the writings of Piper, Sproul, etc. Do such writings really point to the sort of god you’ve read in the Bible or witnessed in your heart?
Just think about it, brother.
Blessings,
Kate
Hi Kate,
I was thinking of becoming those things but I have never made the decision. Since Cindy doesn’t want to discuss with me, I guess I will discuss with you. You said above that Cindy is right. What exactly do you think she is right about?
Cindy,
Here’s the Predestination of Reformed Calvinism. We are all born with a sinful nature. Our hearts are enslaved to sin. The unregenerate have no desire for Christ. That is, they don’t want Christ as they willfully reject Him and the infinite worth of His glory. They are therefore responsible for their evil deeds and rejection of the infinite God. God has a chosen elect that He positively intervenes upon. By miracle working saving grace, God changes the heart and plants the desire for Christ within the hearts of the elect. The elect come to Christ because they want to. The unregenerate are left to themselves where they experience the consequences of their sins. There is no redeeming grace for those in hell. They stay evil forever and are punished forever. Why does God save some and not others? I don’t know. But I do know God is never obligated to be gracious to rebel sinners who don’t want to have anything to do with Him. God doesn’t rejoice in the suffering of those in hell. He’s not sadistic. Rather He rejoices in the glories of His justice. So, yes God is glorified by His justice. But not the suffering of those in hell in and of itself.
Ah, Cole, you have a history of seemingly deciding something, to cite your recent Catholic thread for example, and then to rethink it later, to cite your recent Catholic threa, once again, for example. I know the reasoning behind Calvinism, and I reject it in favor of the reasoning behind universal restoration, a reasoning you’re also familiar with.
That being said, I do’t wish to rehash the UR/Calvinism debate, because it’s already everywhere on site. I just want you to ponder if you TRULY believe you’ll be Calvinist this time next year, or even next month.
Kate,
I have demonstrated elsewhere that the understanding of Calvinism (as taught by Sproul and Piper) is completely misrepresented and misunderstood by people on this site. There is no cognitive dissonance. Where is this cognitive dissonance that you speak of? As to your question, I don’t know. I’ve been studying Calvinism for the past 14 years. It wasn’t until a few years ago that I began to truly understand a lot of it. At least the Sproul/Piper version of it. I’m not real familiar with EU. The only book I’ve studied in depth on the subject is “Hope Beyond Hell”. But when I started liking that book, everybody here shot me down as well.
I’m sorry you felt shot down over “Hope Beyond Hell.” I personally have not read it, having myself come to believe in universalism predominately through earlier Christian writers. But since you say you don’t know much yet about universal restoration, perhaps you could read some more about it. 
I could. But the problem I have is that every time I read these false, innacurate, misrepresentations of Calvinism, I want to go back and be a Calvinist. Sounds weird, I know. But that’s just the way I am.
Oddly enough, I feel that way about Catholicism-- So I understand, I really do, Cole.
But eventually I grow disgruntled with the legalistic god of strict Catholic dogma, and I return to the God I know from the Bible and from my heart (and the One it seems most Catholics embrace anyway-- and I’d reckon many Calvinists do without even realizing it.) Anyway, it is hard not to become defensive when someone points out the fallacies in an idea with which you were once comfortable. But the inevitable truth, from my experience, anyway, is that suppressing what one knows to be true for the sake of comfort and familiarity always leads to even greater discomfort.
Well, nobody has pointed out any flaws in the Calvinism that I have learned. They are all misrepresentations and false information about it. People here need to do a little more study before they criticize. Atheists had me believing all kinds of weird things. But the more I study the more I see they don’t know what they are talking about.
Well, having myself learned of Calvinism directly from Calvinists, I don’t personally see much misinterpretation of it.
I understand this sentiment, but I wish Calvinists gave us restorationists a better hearing, too. I wonder if Edwards and MacDonald are duking it out in Heaven.
Kate,
That is probably true. But understand that there are a lot of Calvinists who don’t know what they are talking about. Especially the Hyper-Calvinists.
I’ve never read MacDonald so I don’t know what his problem with Edwards is. I suspect it’s the atonement and of course hell. Other than that Edwards was a Master Mind on the subject of Beauty.
I think you realise how irrational a reason that is to go back. I’d really advise you not to bother.
I thought the poem was quite bizarre to be honest; I don’t really understand why it was made.
Whatever Jonny