Featured Are there any Bible teachers you fully agree with.

This is snippet of what John Owen said to his book The Death Of Death In The Death Of Christ :
"Reader... If thou art, as many in this pretending age, a sign or title gazer, and comest into books as Cato into the theater, to go out again --thou has had thy entertainment; farewell!"

 

We have strayed from the O.P.
I would never list Calvin as a theologian whom I agree with fully. I am not a Presbyterian, nor am I a paedobaptist and I would not have burned Servetus,
However, as a theologian he 'bestrides the world as a colossus.' The famous scientist Isaac Newton was once asked how he had seen further than others of his profession, "If I have seen further," he replied, "It is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." All serious Protestant theologians, including the 17th Century Particular Baptists, have stood on Calvin's shoulders, and if they have developed his teachings it is because they first learned of him.
However, Calvin did not originate Calvinism. Luther, Tyndale, Zwingli, Bucer were all Calvinists while he was still in short pants.

 

The premise of the OP is silly, right on the face of it.

Calvin did not burn Servetus. That is a myth.

If Calvin hadn't come along the theology would have been known as Bucerism.

 

It is best to glean from many, as none, save the scripture itself, are perfect in everyway... After all there is only one Mary Poppins

 

Evanescent faith—philosophy.

 

Nothing to debate.

 

Those are arguments over semantics.
I already accept the doctrine as “more likely than not” and containing “fewer internal contradictions than the alternative”, however, that misses the point that PARTICULAR DEFINITE REDEMPTIVE ATONEMENT (call it whatever you wish) is still 60% an argument from deductive reasoning (It must be true because …) and only 30% an argument from Scripture (The Good Shepherd lays down His life for His sheep.) … with the missing 10% being the “what about” verses that those holding the other POV are quick to share. (like 1 John 2:1-2).

 

Why should I explain the obvious?

 

Not.

There is an alternative to the Calvinist theory of Federal Headship, which is a scriptural, unlimited, universal, aspect of the atonement that removed the condemnation of Adam's transgression from 'all men', i.e., 'Savior of all men'. To see it, you must think outside the Calvinist box and it's 'Adam's curse' narrative.

 

Are you kidding? Sometimes I don't even agree with myself.

 

Yeah my wife calls me Mr. Right!... And she's right... I was on the right when she married me!... Brother Glen