Calvinism is Gospel !

[brightfame52]

But Calvinism teaches that people do not choose to remain dead, they have no choice. They remain dead unless God arbitrarily decides to regenerate them.

So, no matter how you squirm and twist, or run to AI to agree with you, Calvinism necessarily blames God for why a sinner never repents.

Again, if Calvinism is correct, an unsaved sinner can face judgment with the assertion that he did not repent and trust Jesus because God did not put repentance into him.

Thus, Calvinism makes a mockery of God’s justice.

True Christianity teaches that people have free will — and are personally accountable for rejecting the gospel or accepting it.


Joshua 24:15

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Deflecting to complaints about AI will not rescue your argument from the explicit text of Scripture. You claim that Calvinism teaches people have no choice. You are completely wrong. Sinners make choices every single day. The issue is not that they lack a will; the issue is that they possess a completely corrupt nature. John 3:19 explicitly tells us the problem: "light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." Sinners willingly choose to remain dead in sin because they love their darkness and hate the light. God does not force them to reject the Gospel; they reject it freely and gladly according to their own wicked desires.

Your claim that a sinner can blame God at judgment for not giving them repentance is the exact objection Paul anticipated and destroyed in Romans 9:19. Paul writes: "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" If your objection was valid, Paul would have agreed with your definition of fairness. Instead, Paul issues a devastating sovereign rebuke in verse 20: "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" No one will stand at the judgment as an innocent victim who wanted Christ but was denied. They will stand condemned because they voluntarily rebelled against a holy God.

Finally, your use of Joshua 24:15 as a free-will proof text completely backfires when you read the immediate context. Joshua is not addressing unregenerated heathen and telling them they have the free-will ability to save themselves. He is addressing covenant Israel. More importantly, you completely omitted Joshua's explicit conclusion to this exact conversation. When the people claimed they would serve the Lord, look at Joshua's immediate response in Joshua 24:19: "And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the Lord: for he is an holy God; he is a jealous God."

Joshua explicitly told the people that they lacked the moral ability to serve God on their own. Just like Joshua, historic Christianity teaches human responsibility alongside total human inability. God commands obedience, but because our hearts are stone, we cannot perform it until God sovereignly acts first. Your argument does not mock Calvinism; it mocks Joshua 24:19 and Romans 9:20.

---

 

[Cameron143]

But Calvinism teaches that people do not choose to remain dead, they have no choice. They remain dead unless God arbitrarily decides to regenerate them.

So, no matter how you squirm and twist, or run to AI to agree with you, Calvinism necessarily blames God for why a sinner never repents.

Again, if Calvinism is correct, an unsaved sinner can face judgment with the assertion that he did not repent and trust Jesus because God did not put repentance into him.

Thus, Calvinism makes a mockery of God’s justice.

True Christianity teaches that people have free will — and are personally accountable for rejecting the gospel or accepting it.


Joshua 24:15

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

1. Calvinism doesn't blame God for anything. It merely declares what they believe the Bible says is true of Him.

2. People aren't guilty before God because they haven't repented. They are guilty because they are in Adam whom God chose as the federal head of humanity. His sin and its consequences came upon all humanity. Do you blame God for this?

3. The verse you quote concerning choosing has nothing to do with salvation. It has to do with keeping the terms of the covenant the people were under.

 

[GWH]

Of course. But according to the Bible, God is the creator of the universe, and it has a narrative structure. The act of creation is not forcing anything or anyone.

But do you not see that you are assuming that human beings are not creatures and that they are morally neutral?

God created things to be forced via laws of physics, and per tulipism God created all humans to be forced into sinning
and He arbitrarily favors some with being forcefully regenerated.

Scripture teaches that human creatures are morally accountable because they have MFW and can choose either to cooperate
with God's will/condition that they reflect His love and be in heaven or to ignore His will/Word/Truth/Gospel and reap the just consequence aka hell.

Scripture also teaches that everyone lives by faith/MFW regarding God or ultimate reality (2Cor. 5:7), and the structure of earthly reality/creation forces souls to choose between various contradictory beliefs and to make (albeit sometimes rather subconsciously) two watershed choices: between nihilism and moralism, and between the various atheistic beliefs and the highest type of theism, NT Christianity.

 

[Roger316]

But Calvinism teaches that people do not choose to remain dead, they have no choice. They remain dead unless God arbitrarily decides to regenerate them.

So, no matter how you squirm and twist, or run to AI to agree with you, Calvinism necessarily blames God for why a sinner never repents.

Again, if Calvinism is correct, an unsaved sinner can face judgment with the assertion that he did not repent and trust Jesus because God did not put repentance into him.

Thus, Calvinism makes a mockery of God’s justice.

True Christianity teaches that people have free will — and are personally accountable for rejecting the gospel or accepting it.


Joshua 24:15

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

I can’t speak for Calvin, but predestination is biblical. What Christians often fail to grasp is that Scripture presents predestination as encompassing the entire shape of a person’s life, not merely their final outcome. If a person is destined for mercy in the eternal kingdom, then every chapter of that person’s story—his struggle with sin, his confession, his repentance, his paradigm shift, his faith, his transformation of behavior, and everything else—unfolds within the sovereign plan God has ordained. His place in eternity is not an isolated decree; it is the logical and fitting outcome of the life God predestined him to live.

Those who are destined for wrath also live a life that God has predestined, and this does not make His judgment a mockery of justice. Scripture presents their story as genuinely human, filled with real choices, real desires, and real acts of rebellion. The discomfort people feel—imagining such individuals as helpless or unable to repent even if they wanted to—rests on a misunderstanding of how predestination and human will operate together. A predestined life does not eliminate free will; it frames it. People act according to what they want, and their wants unfold within the narrative structure of God’s sovereign creation. Their judgment is just because it corresponds to the life they freely lived, even though that life itself fits within the story God ordained. Predestination does not erase responsibility; it reveals that God’s justice is perfectly aligned with the true character of each person’s life.

 

[GWH]

Accusing me of having a "cursed gift" does not change the plain definitions of the words Paul used. You have completely contradicted your own argument regarding 1 Corinthians 2:14. You claim that 1 Corinthians 2:14 is speaking about carnal Christians. Yet, Paul explicitly states that the person who cannot receive the things of the Spirit is the 'natural man' (Greek: psychikos). When I pointed out that Jude 19 uses the exact same Greek word (psychikos) and explicitly defines it as those 'having not the Spirit,' you agreed that Jude 19 refers to unsaved people. You cannot have it both ways. If the 'natural man' (psychikos) lacks the Spirit in Jude, he lacks the Spirit in 1 Corinthians. A person without the Holy Spirit is an unregenerate unbeliever, not a carnal Christian.

Your claim that unconditional election makes God guilty of favoritism reveals a severe misunderstanding of biblical partiality. Scripturally, favoritism or partiality means treating someone better based on their external status, wealth, or human worth (James 2:1-4). Unconditional election is the absolute destruction of favoritism, because God chooses people completely independent of their actions, character, or choices (Romans 9:11). If God looked down the corridors of time and elected people because He foresaw that they would make the right choice to repent, then God would be showing favoritism based on human performance. Election is based entirely on the good pleasure of His sovereign will, not human distinctions.

You attempt to rewrite Ezekiel 36:26 by turning a sovereign promise into a human work. You point to the calloused hearts of Matthew 13, but you ignore who does the surgery in Ezekiel. The text does not command the dead sinner to soften his own heart or cooperate with the operation. God states unilaterally: 'A new heart also will I give you... and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.' The sinner is entirely passive in regeneration. God does not wait for a stone to turn itself into flesh; He sovereignly replaces it.

Your suggestion to read Romans 4 to prove that man initiates salvation by seeking completely backfires. Romans 4 is the definitive proof of monergistic justification. Romans 4:4-5 explicitly declares: 'Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.' God does not justify the 'good seeker' who generated enough free will to repent. God justifies the ungodly. Faith is the gift that allows the ungodly to lay hold of Christ, and that faith is only possible because God first took away the heart of stone.

---

I refer to your cursed gift of proof-texting or omission as the only explanation I can see for your defining/blaspheming God as hateful and unjust by favoring only a few elect with forced conversion.

It is not my fault that Paul and Jude used psychikos with different meanings per the obvious context I cited that you ignored/omitted as usual/typical.

I follow the lead of Jesus and Paul in understanding Ezek. 36:26 in Matt. 13:14-15 and Acts 28:26-27, which indicate that souls must cooperate with God's will, so what perversity makes you want to kick against that goad?

And you must be borderline blind or else nutso if you have not noticed by now that I say ad nauseum:
God initiates/teaches; sinners may cooperate/learn--or not. And yet you refuse to learn, at your own risk per Gal. 1:6-9.
I urge you to become a truth seeker (2Thes. 2:10) and share the mind of Christ (1Cor. 2:16).

 

[GWH]

1. Calvinism doesn't blame God for anything. It merely declares what they believe the Bible says is true of Him.

2. People aren't guilty before God because they haven't repented. They are guilty because they are in Adam whom God chose as the federal head of humanity. His sin and its consequences came upon all humanity. Do you blame God for this?

3. The verse you quote concerning choosing has nothing to do with salvation. It has to do with keeping the terms of the covenant the people were under.

Tulipism blames God for not favoring everyone with forced election.
And you just accused God of damning humanity because of Adam rather than allowing them to repent.
Choosing has everything to do with praising God for His omnilove and justness.

 

[Mem]

The word "kind" means - Being gentle, friendly, helpful, and good to people. It doesn't mean to bow the neck as an equal.

God is never described as an equal in the Bible, He is outside of His creation. He is not a respecter of any person. This is why we bow our head when we pray, we are not His equal in any way.

What do you think "friend" means?

 

[IS]

Not sure what set off that rant, so please explain and I will apologize, because I try to discuss doctrines without being pejorative.
I have no quarrel with Calvinists, but only with the TULIP heresy that some of them believe. Growing up as a Baptist, I was a P/OSAS tulipist until I learned Scripture taught the possibility of apostasy.

I have believed and loved God and Jesus all of my life. Although a saint, I remain a sinner and fallible, willing to learn any truth anyone has to share.

Please quote what you think I called "borderline heresy", just so we can be sure what the issue/disagreement is.

All sinners including both homosexuals and heterosexual fornicators deserve death,
but God's better solution is for them to repent/be cured and be saved from their sin/addictions.

Just pretend we are speaking face to face, desiring to speak the truth in love as God loves.

Over...

GWH: Without the Law, They Can’t Even Define the Neighbor They’re Pretending to Love

 

[Gideon300]

No,I read the Bible and believe what God said.
Put the picture together that scripture narrates.

No you didn't answer it with a simple yes or no. But you dont have to, i know how it would make you look.

Jesus never fell for the kind of trap you want to set. Neither will I. God is love.

 

[Gideon300]

The word "kind" means - Being gentle, friendly, helpful, and good to people. It doesn't mean to bow the neck as an equal.

God is never described as an equal in the Bible, He is outside of His creation. He is not a respecter of any person. This is why we bow our head when we pray, we are not His equal in any way.

We are made in the image of God. We are His children. Jesus is our Brother. We will be united with Him in such intimacy that it like husband and wife. We are partakers of the divine nature. We are blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ. We have the indwelling life of Christ. Our lives are hidden in Christ with God.

Don't misunderstand "respecter of persons". It does not mean that God despises us. He called Abraham friend. Lord Jesus calls us His friends, if we obey Him. He even called Judas friend. What it means is that God does not play favourites. Another misleading translation from the KJV.

Equal? No. Blessed and privileged beyond comprehension? For sure.

 

[Bible_Locket]

Jesus never fell for the kind of trap you want to set.

That's paranoia.

Neither will I. God is love.

Many Christians ignore what God teaches. You're not the first.

 

[Gideon300]

Jesus never fell for the kind of trap you want to set. Neither will I. God is love.

Don't pray for me.

 

[Bible_Locket]

Don't pray for me.

Wow!
Don't ever speak to me again.

 

[Journey_man]

There are several conditions for salvation. You listed a few of them yourself. We can divide humanity according to those who met the conditions and those who didn't. The key is found in the rationale you offered. Those who will be saved have not independently fulfilled those conditions.

God’s choice of His people is not merely “unconditional” in the sense of being detached from human merit; it is expressive—a creative act in which God reveals His character, His purposes, and His story. Election is God’s way of speaking Himself into history. He chooses not arbitrarily but artistically, forming a people who embody what He wants to say about His holiness, His mercy, His faithfulness, and His redemptive love. In this sense, election is not just a decision but a self‑disclosure: God elects in order to display who He is, and His chosen people become the canvas on which He paints His identity and His saving intentions for the world.

We both agree that God regenerates a person first, and that regeneration logically and causally produces faith and repentance. And while faith and repentance are indeed gifts of the Holy Spirit, they still function as conditions of salvation in the sense that anyone who lacks them is not presently being saved. Their role is not meritorious—nothing about them earns salvation—but they are necessary markers that identify those whom God is saving. In other words, faith and repentance are the visible, Spirit‑generated signs that distinguish the regenerate from the unregenerate; they do not contribute to salvation, but they unmistakably accompany it.

I've never found anything in the bible to support the idea that God sets any conditions for salvation. The bible reveals that election is entirely unconditional, resting solely on God's sovereign grace and good pleasure.

God chose the elect before the creation of the world based on His own counsel and will, not because of anything good or any action foreseen in them. While faith and repentance are strictly necessary for a person to experience salvation, God does not elect someone because He foresees their faith. Rather, God's sovereign election causes the elect to receive the gift of faith.

From our human perspective, it may appear that Gods elect are are obeying the gospel and meeting "these conditions". But the bible indicates that obedience and good works are the outward signs, that the Holy Spirit is working to transform us inwardly.

 

[Journey_man]

Apparently you have never read Scripture with an open mind seeking to learn the truth.
If salvation is not possible, then sinners cannot justly/logically be blamed for not seeking it.
What kind of God would condemn humanity to hell? Not a kind God.
What sort of person would choose to believe in a hateful God?
Those who project their own hatred onto God and are hell-bound for such heresy.

Sinners are responsible for their sin because they sin voluntarily out of their own fallen desires, not because God forces them to sin. Lack of regeneration (the new birth) means a person's heart remains naturally corrupt, so they freely choose rebellion against God.

God does not force people to sin or put evil into their hearts. Sinners act according to their own internal corruption. God’s decision not to regenerate a sinner is a passive or judicial act of leaving them in the sin they already chose. Grace is a free gift. Because God does not owe mercy to anyone, withholding it and punishing actual sin displays strict divine justice.

God remains completely sovereign over all things while humans remain fully accountable for the moral choices they make. God has not "condemned humanity to hell", sinners are cast into hell because that's what they deserve.
The whole of mankind deserves to be cast into hell, but God has chosen to save a remnant for Himself. He chose some for salvation and left others dead in their sin.

 

[GWH]

GWH: Without the Law, They Can’t Even Define the Neighbor They’re Pretending to Love

Well, I am glad you have calmed down, but what you attribute to me is not a quote.
However, if you think that statement needs to be clarified, I would say that per the NT humans should reflect divine love
and truth to all: speak the truth in love, hoping for agreement/spiritual unity on earth and joy in heaven.

 

[brightfame52]

I refer to your cursed gift of proof-texting or omission as the only explanation I can see for your defining/blaspheming God as hateful and unjust by favoring only a few elect with forced conversion.

It is not my fault that Paul and Jude used psychikos with different meanings per the obvious context I cited that you ignored/omitted as usual/typical.

I follow the lead of Jesus and Paul in understanding Ezek. 36:26 in Matt. 13:14-15 and Acts 28:26-27, which indicate that souls must cooperate with God's will, so what perversity makes you want to kick against that goad?

And you must be borderline blind or else nutso if you have not noticed by now that I say ad nauseum:
God initiates/teaches; sinners may cooperate/learn--or not. And yet you refuse to learn, at your own risk per Gal. 1:6-9.
I urge you to become a truth seeker (2Thes. 2:10) and share the mind of Christ (1Cor. 2:16).

This weak unbiblical assertions you have made, have been reproved already.

 

[brightfame52]

Jesus never fell for the kind of trap you want to set. Neither will I. God is love.

You dont represent the God of scripture.

 

[Roger316]

I've never found anything in the bible to support the idea that God sets any conditions for salvation. The bible reveals that election is entirely unconditional, resting solely on God's sovereign grace and good pleasure.

God chose the elect before the creation of the world based on His own counsel and will, not because of anything good or any action foreseen in them. While faith and repentance are strictly necessary for a person to experience salvation, God does not elect someone because He foresees their faith. Rather, God's sovereign election causes the elect to receive the gift of faith.

From our human perspective, it may appear that Gods elect are are obeying the gospel and meeting "these conditions". But the bible indicates that obedience and good works are the outward signs, that the Holy Spirit is working to transform us inwardly.

That's my point isn't it? We so easily dismiss the human perspective as if it wasn't real. I agree with you that God chooses the elect before the foundation of the world, and that He does not elect someone because he foresees their faith.

The personal, existential dimension of salvation is not a footnote to soteriology—it is the arena in which salvation is actually experienced. The grand, cosmic sweep of redemption is glorious, but it is never abstract. Scripture refuses to let salvation remain a mere doctrine; it continually presses it into the lived, embodied, Spirit‑shaped life of the believer.

Salvation is never merely a system; it is an existential reality that unfolds in the life of every consecrated believer. God does not redeem humanity in the abstract—He redeems persons, and those persons are drawn into a life where grace becomes visible, embodied, and practiced. The saints participate in their salvation not as merit‑earners but as Spirit‑formed people whose hearts have been reshaped by divine love. A consecrated believer mourns, forgives, prays, seeks the kingdom, loves enemies, and walks in humility—not to earn life, but because new life has taken root within them. This is the existential core of salvation: God’s gracious act produces a transformed existence. Soteriology is not only about what God does for us; it is also about what God does in us, and therefore what God enables us to do as redeemed people.

 

[Journey_man]

Rip out the entire OT from your Bible, throw it away, and forget it altogether. And by law, I should have said Tanach, that even includes Ezekiel 36:25-27.
Then reevaluate what you couldn't see. While there, consider the difference between Christology and eisegesis. Most can't see any distinction there either; most apply the layer of Christology and insert whatever they want into every page throughout the OT anyway. Even the most "conservative" Christians are "liberal" interpreters without any respect to the historical context and audience, including what was believed by the intended audience at the time.

Perhaps you'll see a contradiction then about who, what, where, and why you couldn't see past the NT writers and modern interpreters?

The entire Bible is only about the Lord Jesus, from cover to cover. I'm not sure what you're trying to say by suggesting that I rip out the OT from my Bible.

I don't see the need to "re-evaluate what I supposedly couldn't see" and you haven't identified any faults in my theology. There has only ever been one audience throughout bible history. God made a covenant with His chosen/elect people, they have always consisted of Jew and Gentile alike.

I have never proclaimed an unbiblical version of the Lord Jesus, so I don't know why you raise the subject of "Christology".
And I have never read something into a text that wasn't in it's proper historical context, so I don't know why you mention "Eisegesis". You're not making your point clear, it sounds like you get frustrated when others don't agree with your private views.