Calvinism is Gospel !

[-Lutheran]

Mirror (Matt. 7:3-5).

"YOU" are a parrot that quotes scripture. The Amazon Gray has a vocabulary of 900+ words.
Why don't "YOU" take your SELF out of the equation?
"YOU" might end up sounding Reformed, let alone Calvinist.
But "YOU" will follow up and direct all attention to "YOU."
If likened to a false prophet instead of pointing to God (theology), "YOU" point to "YOU"rself.
Oh great man that "YOU" are, such knowledge and wisdom flow from "YOU."
Can anybody here shine up "YOU"r shoes?
"YOU" throw around Calvinism like the "N" word and appeal to the ignorant that "YOU," the most ignorant, are a podium queen.
How many have "YOU" chased away? How many people have "YOU" brought out the worst?
—
I met my one month quota. Spent too much time addressing "YOU," a "TWA (time-wasting hole in space and time)."

 

[GWH]

"YOU" are a parrot that quotes scripture. The Amazon Gray has a vocabulary of 900+ words.
Why don't "YOU" take your SELF out of the equation?
"YOU" might end up sounding Reformed, let alone Calvinist.
But "YOU" will follow up and direct all attention to "YOU."
If likened to a false prophet instead of pointing to God (theology), "YOU" point to "YOU"rself.
Oh great man that "YOU" are, such knowledge and wisdom flow from "YOU."
Can anybody here shine up "YOU"r shoes?
"YOU" throw around Calvinism like the "N" word and appeal to the ignorant that "YOU," the most ignorant, are a podium queen.
How many have "YOU" chased away? How many people have "YOU" brought out the worst?
—
I met my one month quota. Spent too much time addressing "YOU," a "TWA (time-wasting hole in space and time)."

The astute will notice that I never criticize Calvinism, but only tulip because it blasphemes God's love and justness.
YOU need to learn Matt. 7:3-5 and reform.

 

[-Lutheran]

The astute will notice that I never criticize Calvinism, but only tulip because it blasphemes God's love and justness.
YOU need to learn Matt. 7:3-5 and reform.

"YOU" lack any "SELF" or critical examination because any orthodoxy goes against the standard of "YOU."
Stay away from theology because theology isn't about "YOU."
"Astute" ROFL, "YOU" are a monkey pounding on keys on the keyboard.

 

[-Lutheran]

The astute will notice...

Mirror (Matt. 7:3-5).

ROFL! You brought up the "mirror"; that's how "YOU" see YOURSELF, oh wise, knowledgeable, educated one!
Nobody can get around "YOU" in this forum.

 

[Journey_man]

Great post.
However,if you read it again you'll realize all that you've said tells you,we who are the non- elect.dont know we love sin over God. Because we cannot know the things of God,including love and respect, because such things are foolish ess to us.

Romans 1:19-21 reveals that the "non-elect" know enough about God to make them fully accountable for their sin.

Romans 1:19-21 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

As we can see, God has shown the non-elect enough truth to leave them without excuse. But they obviously haven't received the gift of saving faith, so the gospel message is foolishness to them.

 

[Journey_man]

Many are called.Few are chosen.

Yes, the gospel has gone out into the whole world. But only Gods chosen few believe it.

 

[GWH]

ROFL! You brought up the "mirror"; that's how "YOU" see YOURSELF, oh wise, knowledgeable, educated one!
Nobody can get around "YOU" in this forum.

No, the mirror means YOU should look at YOUR self instead of projecting YOUR pride onto others per Matt. 7:3-5.

 

[Roger316]

Yeah, calvie theory is pretty DEAD.

We can't teach our kids squat and nothing we teach matters.......They are elect or damned. Nothing they believe or are taught matters.

As parents, we can only cross our fingers. God may have elected them to the Lake of Fire.

The core mistake in that mockery is the assumption that Calvinism reduces human life to fatalism—as though God simply predetermines an outcome while everything in between is meaningless. But in historic Reformed theology, God’s sovereignty is not a bare decree; it is the authorship of a story. A fatalistic system says events unfold mechanically, without purpose, and without meaningful means. Calvinism says the opposite: God ordains both the ends and the means—including parental teaching, prayer, persuasion, warnings, encouragement, and the real, consequential shaping of a child’s heart through the gospel. The critique collapses the doctrine of election into a caricature where nothing matters, but in Scripture the sovereign God works through real human actions to accomplish His purposes. In a fatalistic universe, the story is pointless; in a sovereign universe, the story is purposeful, personal, and saturated with meaning from beginning to end.

 

[GWH]

Yes, the gospel has gone out into the whole world. But only Gods chosen few believe it.

Yes, and tulipists are not chosen but instead choose to blaspheme the love/Spirit of God for humanity (Matt. 12:31-37).

 

[Journey_man]

So that means that as a 5 yr old child I was in danger of going to hell so good thing I believed instead. You said a 5 yr old cannot be saved because they are not capable of understanding. Yet, here you are saying they are even the babies are not safe.

I don't think you actually know what you believe. It's really not difficult if a person believes the actual gospel instead of trying to cover it up with fables and nonsense and then going back and saying something different then what they first said.

I never said "a 5 yr old cannot be saved because they are not capable of understanding". You just made that nonsense up, and that reveals that you're a liar

 

[Journey_man]

Really? then what is this about?


You have God electing some and leaving so called non-elect in their sin BECAUSE they CHOSE

You appear to be one of those people with a divided mind. You have made up your own rules and change them as you see fit to serve yourself.

See also my post 5413 where I first noted your discrepancy regarding putting a limit on the age a person may acknowledge Jesus.

My theology is based on the Bible, yours is based on your own private unbiblical opinions. You haven't found any faults in my theology, so you resort to slander

 

[Roger316]

But,God is not as merciful as you. He wishes that some perish.

I sure wish that you could switch places with God. You are way more merciful than Him........according to calvie theory.

The mockery in that post depends on a shallow, almost cartoonish picture of God—as though divine mercy must be one‑dimensional and God must either desire only salvation or only judgment. But Scripture presents God as far more complex than that simplistic dichotomy. He can genuinely desire repentance while also acting in ways that accomplish His larger purposes in history. Human beings do this all the time: we desire one thing, yet choose another because of wisdom, justice, or a greater good. The biblical God is not a flat character who operates on a single emotional track; He is a living, willing, judging, saving God whose desires, decrees, and actions operate at multiple levels. To mock this complexity is not to refute Calvinism—it is to refuse to deal with the God of Scripture on His own terms.

The second mistake is the assumption that the doctrine of God’s sovereignty somehow undermines mercy or makes salvation arbitrary. In historic Reformed theology, sovereignty is precisely what makes salvation secure. Those whom God sanctifies will not fail to be saved; His purpose for them cannot be overturned by persecution, suffering, or the extremities of spiritual trial. This is why believers throughout history have found the doctrine profoundly comforting. It does not teach that God “wishes some to perish,” but that He faithfully preserves His people through every threat to their faith. The mockery misses the point entirely: sovereignty is not a denial of mercy but the guarantee that mercy will triumph in the lives of those God has set apart for Himself.

 

[GWH]

The mockery in that post depends on a shallow, almost cartoonish picture of God—as though divine mercy must be one‑dimensional and God must either desire only salvation or only judgment. But Scripture presents God as far more complex than that simplistic dichotomy. He can genuinely desire repentance while also acting in ways that accomplish His larger purposes in history. Human beings do this all the time: we desire one thing, yet choose another because of wisdom, justice, or a greater good. The biblical God is not a flat character who operates on a single emotional track; He is a living, willing, judging, saving God whose desires, decrees, and actions operate at multiple levels. To mock this complexity is not to refute Calvinism—it is to refuse to deal with the God of Scripture on His own terms.

The second mistake is the assumption that the doctrine of God’s sovereignty somehow undermines mercy or makes salvation arbitrary. In historic Reformed theology, sovereignty is precisely what makes salvation secure. Those whom God sanctifies will not fail to be saved; His purpose for them cannot be overturned by persecution, suffering, or the extremities of spiritual trial. This is why believers throughout history have found the doctrine profoundly comforting. It does not teach that God “wishes some to perish,” but that He faithfully preserves His people through every threat to their faith. The mockery misses the point entirely: sovereignty is not a denial of mercy but the guarantee that mercy will triumph in the lives of those God has set apart for Himself.

And the third error is thinking that God's omni-mercy undermines His sovereignty.
In NT theology God's offer of grace is precisely what makes condemnation just.

 

[Roger316]

That's funny stuff considering what you have presented.

There is no gate. There is not a narrow way. And NONE can find it........According to calvie theology.

Wisp in the wind for some, and hell fire for the rest........calvie theory.

The mockery in that post only works if Calvinism is reduced to a kind of fatalistic fog where human effort is meaningless and Jesus’ warnings about the narrow gate become empty rhetoric. But Jesus’ point in Matthew 7 is not to explain why some fail to persevere—it is to describe the difficulty of discipleship. The gate is narrow because following Christ requires endurance, sacrifice, and a willingness to suffer loss for His sake. It is like candidates entering Navy SEAL training: the path is open, but the demands are severe, and many ring the bell because the cost is too high. Jesus is emphasizing the seriousness of the journey, not offering a metaphysical explanation for why some fall away. The mockery collapses His teaching into a caricature that ignores the actual purpose of His words.

At the same time, Jesus also says, “Many are called, but few are chosen,” which introduces the second layer of the biblical picture: God’s choosing is what ultimately sustains a believer through the narrow way. In Reformed theology, election does not erase human effort—it empowers it. Those whom God chooses, He strengthens, shapes, and directs. He gives them perseverance, conviction, and the inner resolve to endure hardship rather than ring the bell. The narrow gate is still narrow, the path is still demanding, and the warnings are still real—but the promise is that God does not leave His people to navigate it alone. The mockery assumes Calvinism teaches a meaningless drift toward heaven or hell, but the doctrine actually affirms that God works through real human struggle to bring His chosen ones safely through the narrow way.

 

[Roger316]

And the third error is thinking that God's omni-mercy undermines His sovereignty.
In NT theology God's offer of grace is precisely what makes condemnation just.

The New Testament never treats grace as a mere offer in the sense your post assumes—something placed on the table, waiting passively for human acceptance. When grace is described, it is consistently portrayed as God’s effective action, not a conditional proposal. Grace saves (Eph 2:8), appears and trains (Titus 2:11–12), overflows (1 Tim 1:14), calls (Gal 1:15), justifies (Rom 3:24), and makes alive (Eph 2:5). These are verbs of divine initiative, not invitations awaiting human activation. Even when the gospel is preached broadly, the New Testament never frames grace as a neutral offer that becomes real only if a person chooses correctly; it is God’s powerful work that actually accomplishes salvation in those He calls.

The closest language to “offer” is the universal call—the proclamation of the gospel to all people. But the New Testament carefully distinguishes this from the effectual call, the inward work of God that brings a person to faith. The general call is heard by many; the effectual call is performed by God and results in salvation. So when someone claims that “God’s offer of grace makes condemnation just,” they are importing a theological category the New Testament never uses. Grace is not an offer that justifies condemnation; grace is the divine rescue that overcomes condemnation. The mockery reduces grace to a transaction, but Scripture presents it as God’s sovereign, saving action.

 

[Journey_man]

Yes, and tulipists are not chosen but instead choose to blaspheme the love/Spirit of God for humanity (Matt. 12:31-37).

You Arminians can't consider any bible verse, without looking at it through the distorted Arminian lens. That's why your theology is all messed up

 

[GWH]

The New Testament never treats grace as a mere offer in the sense your post assumes—something placed on the table, waiting passively for human acceptance. When grace is described, it is consistently portrayed as God’s effective action, not a conditional proposal. Grace saves (Eph 2:8), appears and trains (Titus 2:11–12), overflows (1 Tim 1:14), calls (Gal 1:15), justifies (Rom 3:24), and makes alive (Eph 2:5). These are verbs of divine initiative, not invitations awaiting human activation. Even when the gospel is preached broadly, the New Testament never frames grace as a neutral offer that becomes real only if a person chooses correctly; it is God’s powerful work that actually accomplishes salvation in those He calls.

The closest language to “offer” is the universal call—the proclamation of the gospel to all people. But the New Testament carefully distinguishes this from the effectual call, the inward work of God that brings a person to faith. The general call is heard by many; the effectual call is performed by God and results in salvation. So when someone claims that “God’s offer of grace makes condemnation just,” they are importing a theological category the New Testament never uses. Grace is not an offer that justifies condemnation; grace is the divine rescue that overcomes condemnation. The mockery reduces grace to a transaction, but Scripture presents it as God’s sovereign, saving action.

I see both sets of terminology as synonymous: offer = call; general call = permissive will; effectual call = cooperation;
initiative = invitation.

On the other hand: grace/gift and effectual calling are NOT forcing or programming. Nowhere does the NT frame God as forcing folks to believe against their will or as programming robots so they have no volition.

How can being condemned without having had the opportunity/offer/invitation to repent/be saved be just?!

 

[brightfame52]

That's funny stuff considering what you have presented.

There is no gate. There is not a narrow way. And NONE can find it........According to calvie theology.

Wisp in the wind for some, and hell fire for the rest........calvie theory.

False misrepresentation

 

[Roger316]

I see both sets of terminology as synonymous: offer = call; general call = permissive will; effectual call = cooperation;
initiative = invitation.

On the other hand: grace/gift and effectual calling are NOT forcing or programming. Nowhere does the NT frame God as forcing folks to believe against their will or as programming robots so they have no volition.

How can being condemned without having had the opportunity/offer/invitation to repent/be saved be just?!

That's an insightful question in my humble opinion. The Narrative Theory of God's will argues that God predestines stories. In that perspective, God not only predestines the "opportunity"; he predestines the call, the faith, the response, the life lived by faith, and the inwardness associated with God's transformative work.

Whether God is just depends on whether he wrote a good story.

 

[HeIsHere]

The core mistake in that mockery is the assumption that Calvinism reduces human life to fatalism—as though God simply predetermines an outcome while everything in between is meaningless. But in historic Reformed theology, God’s sovereignty is not a bare decree; it is the authorship of a story. A fatalistic system says events unfold mechanically, without purpose, and without meaningful means. Calvinism says the opposite: God ordains both the ends and the means—including parental teaching, prayer, persuasion, warnings, encouragement, and the real, consequential shaping of a child’s heart through the gospel. The critique collapses the doctrine of election into a caricature where nothing matters, but in Scripture the sovereign God works through real human actions to accomplish His purposes. In a fatalistic universe, the story is pointless; in a sovereign universe, the story is purposeful, personal, and saturated with meaning from beginning to end.

Cold comfort to the one not selected for redemption.