Who is a Calvinist?

[Silverhair]

Silverhair,

Not to seem offensive ( and I truly do not wish to offend you, personally ), but I tend to find something strangely absent when reading posts from people who not only disagree with "Calvinism", but also find it somehow necessary to bring up the events that happened at Geneva and John Calvin's involvement in them... as if those alone should serve to stop someone from believing anything similarly to what he taught:

The strange tendency to leave out one of the biggest offenders when it comes to crimes committed in the name of Jesus Christ ( and this is a matter of historical record ); The Roman Catholic Church.
Specifically, that governments under its direction which has, for over 1,500 years, historically taught the complete opposite of much of what is called "Calvinism" ( and rather teaches, to this day, what amounts to a modified form of modern "Arminianism" known as "Molinism" ), has led to:

Executions: During just one controversial and famous event known as the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in 1572, anywhere from 2,000 to 70,000 people were not just executed, they were essentially assassinated...in one day. Many or most were French Huguenots ( "Calvinists" ).

The Inquisitions: It's not generally known how many of those who opposed its teachings were persecuted, tried, found guilty of heresy, tortured and put to death by various means... but some estimates place the total death toll of the Inquisitions that were held in just Catholic-controlled Spain from 1478 to 1834, in the thousands, if not more. Add to this those that occurred in Portugal and several other countries around the same time period ( as well as those short periods in Catholic-led England ), and the estimated numbers are staggering, IMO.

Strict Moral Laws: I could list many.

"Theocracy" and Control: Western history, especially European history from roughly 900 to the 1800's, is replete with examples of the RCC's imposition, gross influence over and outright heinous crimes against, the peoples of the countries in which it was housed and had power over. The Pope still rules from Rome today, and many of it's condemnations and canons have never been repealed.

Banishment and Persecution: Common-place for much of its history ( and often highly dependent upon local and civil authorities' actions apart from Rome's direct involvement ), especially during the "Dark Ages" and well into what we know as the modern era. Individuals who disagreed with its beliefs and teachings faced either... or both.

I do not get offended by others honest comments.

It is not the events in Geneva that make me disagree with calvinism. It is the way that calvinism treats the word of God and what it does to His character.

If you have read any of my post then you will know that calvin did not actually come up with the errant views that he had but we have to go back to augustine who brought many pagan philosophies into the church and which calvin and those that followed him carried forward to this day.

The point you seem to be missing is that when calvinists put calvin up as a great theologian then you have to expect others to point out that he failed in many respects.

The RCC is not a model of Christian stewardship that anyone should follow. Molinism from what I know of it is nothing like Arminianism.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The point you seem to be missing is that when calvinists put calvin up as a great theologian then you have to expect others to point out that he failed in many respects.

I find myself unable to recall any of the times when anybody on this forum has put up Calvin as a great theologian.
Perhaps you would kindly remind me of two or three and give me the threads and the post numbers? Thanks!

 

[atpollard]

1. In your view, God must control everything or He is not sovereign, therefore, as you show above, you indicate is responsible for planning the fall. There is no way, as soon as you go down this hole, to seperate God from being the cause of sin. You can say He isn’t as much as you want, but as long as you hold to coherence and rules of logic, He would be the author of sin.
2. In my view, God is Almighty and can exercise that how He choses. In the case of creation, He chose to make a world were humans could make decision and direct their will. They chose sin which was not part of His plan. However, He always knew this would happen and has always planned for humans to become united in Christ as a husband and bride in glorification. So this is how God is not responsible for sin under my view, whereas He is in your view because of how you believe He exercises His sovereignty.

This touches on "the problem of Evil" (How can a GOOD God allow EVIL to exist?)

Irrespective of the degree of absolute sovereignty of God over creation, or the freedom God grants to man to act as a secondary cause ... the BUCK must stop with God or he is unworthy of the title.

Take a real, specific example: a child drowns (something that probably happens daily in a world of 8 billion people).

Is GOD "Omnipresent"? If "YES", then God was there when it happened and if "NO", then he is not "God" but some lesser spirit.
Is GOD "Omniscient"? If "YES", then God was aware of what was happening and if "NO", then he is not "God" but some lesser spirit.
Is GOD "Omnipotent"? If "YES", then God had the power to stop what happening (but chose not to) and if "NO", then he is not "God" but some lesser spirit.

Therefore, if GOD is GOD (Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent), then God was aware of what was happening, had the power to stop it, and chose to stand by and do nothing. One cannot say that God has no responsibility for that tragic event and still claim that he is "God".

So, ultimately, your view is attempting to sew a fig leaf for God that he does not need or deserve. To remove from God responsibility for what he allows by stripping him of his power makes him less than God.

 

[Silverhair]

I find myself unable to recall any of the times when anybody on this forum has put up Calvin as a great theologian.
Perhaps you would kindly remind me of two or three and give me the threads and the post numbers? Thanks!

Martin you are using the typical response that I see way to often on here.
But to answer your question.

Every time that someone touts the TULIP/DoG as the truth then they are putting calvin up as a great theologian as those ideas came from his his errant teachings. Those views are based on his misunderstand of the word of God.

 

[atpollard]

Every time that someone touts the TULIP/DoG as the truth then they are putting calvin up as a great theologian as those ideas came from his his errant teachings. Those views are based on his misunderstand of the word of God.

I must respectfully disagree. I came to 4 of the 5 points reading the Bible before I ever heard of "Calvinism" or "Arminianism" ... since the Church of God is part of the Wesleyan Holiness movement, they never taught "Calvinism/TULIP/DoG".

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin you are using the typical response that I see way to often on here.
But to answer your question.

Every time that someone touts the TULIP/DoG as the truth then they are putting calvin up as a great theologian as those ideas came from his his errant teachings. Those views are based on his misunderstand of the word of God.

Here, unfortunately, you show your ignorance once again. The Doctrines of Grace did not originate with Calvin, as I and others have stated many times. Obviously, they are found all over the Bible, which is all I care about, but let that pass for the moment. Look down at my signature at the bottom of this post. It was written by William Tyndale in 1525, while John Calvin (born 10th July 1509) was still in short pants.

 

[JesusFan]

Martin you are using the typical response that I see way to often on here.
But to answer your question.

Every time that someone touts the TULIP/DoG as the truth then they are putting calvin up as a great theologian as those ideas came from his his errant teachings. Those views are based on his misunderstand of the word of God.

Calvin was not inspired apostle, was wrong in some of his views, but was still one of the greatest theologians not named in the bible of all time

 

[Silverhair]

Calvin was not inspired apostle, was wrong in some of his views, but was still one of the greatest theologians not named in the bible of all time

That is a stretch. Was he a theologian, yes. Just as you and I are and all those that comment on this board.

Theologian: a person versed in theology, the study of matters relating to religious beliefs, practices, and doctrine.

Calvin made many errors in his teachings. You just happen to agree with those errors.

 

[Psalty]

The problem is evil is a problem for the Calvinist, because how you view sovereignty.

1. You just admitted that God ordained that Eve would sin. That His plan was that she would sin. Your theology holds that God sovereignly chose Sin. This is a massive departure from the faith from the first 4 centuries from the Christian church and Scripture, and until this day. This is why Calvinism has so much pushback.

2. You admit that God determines the Ends of those on the Wide Path to Destruction, but that they are ”Free” not to sin. You claim that He is not responsible for their actions, while insisting that He has sovereignly chosen their end.

3. When discussing Adam and Eve and the fall, where no sin or sinful nature or depravity was present, you cannot punt to the problem of evil, as below. I am assuming that you believe that God ordained their sin.
A). If God ordained their Sin, then your God is a God who causes sin
B). If you do not believe that God ordained that sin, then your view of Omnipotence and Effectual work is now placed in my bracket and out of the Calvinist camp.
***Which do you believe?

4. The non-Calvinist answer is that God is Sovereign. What did He sovereignly chose to do with His power? He chose to a make a world where humans had choice, even to chose a nature against His own. He retains all power to do anything and make any choice he desires, but His desire is for people to make choices for Him. The Calvinist by contrast usually affirms that God is only Sovereign if He is directly managing choices and plans and destinies of humans. Usually they said He is deciding everything.

Now to line by line below:

This touches on "the problem of Evil" (How can a GOOD God allow EVIL to exist?)

Irrespective of the degree of absolute sovereignty of God over creation, or the freedom God grants to man to act as a secondary cause ... the BUCK must stop with God or he is unworthy of the title.

Take a real, specific example: a child drowns (something that probably happens daily in a world of 8 billion people).

Is GOD "Omnipresent"? If "YES", then God was there when it happened and if "NO", then he is not "God" but some lesser spirit.
Is GOD "Omniscient"? If "YES", then God was aware of what was happening and if "NO", then he is not "God" but some lesser spirit.
Is GOD "Omnipotent"? If "YES", then God had the power to stop what happening (but chose not to) and if "NO", then he is not "God" but some lesser spirit.

Therefore, if GOD is GOD (Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent), then God was aware of what was happening, had the power to stop it, and chose to stand by and do nothing. One cannot say that God has no responsibility for that tragic event and still claim that he is "God".

So, ultimately, your view is attempting to sew a fig leaf for God that he does not need or deserve. To remove from God responsibility for what he allows by stripping him of his power makes him less than God.

Your failure with the Problem of Evil after the fall is your idea of Omnipotence and His ability to act.

Therefore, if GOD is GOD (Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent), then God was aware of what was happening, had the power to stop it, and chose to stand by and do nothing. One cannot say that God has no responsibility for that tragic event and still claim that he is "God".

The Calvinist must say that it was God’s will and plan for the child to drown.
The Non-Calvinist can say that it was God’s will to create a world with choice in which a child could drown, but does not have to say that it was God’s will and plan for the child to drown.

I am curious how you will answer the Pre-fall question of ordaining of Sin.

 

[JesusFan]

That is a stretch. Was he a theologian, yes. Just as you and I are and all those that comment on this board.

Theologian: a person versed in theology, the study of matters relating to religious beliefs, practices, and doctrine.

Calvin made many errors in his teachings. You just happen to agree with those errors.

His theology was not perfect, but much better then what gets passed as theology currently

 

[JesusFan]

The problem is evil is a problem for the Calvinist, because how you view sovereignty.

1. You just admitted that God ordained that Eve would sin. That His plan was that she would sin. Your theology holds that God sovereignly chose Sin. This is a massive departure from the faith from the first 4 centuries from the Christian church and Scripture, and until this day. This is why Calvinism has so much pushback.

2. You admit that God determines the Ends of those on the Wide Path to Destruction, but that they are ”Free” not to sin. You claim that He is not responsible for their actions, while insisting that He has sovereignly chosen their end.

3. When discussing Adam and Eve and the fall, where no sin or sinful nature or depravity was present, you cannot punt to the problem of evil, as below. I am assuming that you believe that God ordained their sin.
A). If God ordained their Sin, then your God is a God who causes sin
B). If you do not believe that God ordained that sin, then your view of Omnipotence and Effectual work is now placed in my bracket and out of the Calvinist camp.
***Which do you believe?

4. The non-Calvinist answer is that God is Sovereign. What did He sovereignly chose to do with His power? He chose to a make a world where humans had choice, even to chose a nature against His own. He retains all power to do anything and make any choice he desires, but His desire is for people to make choices for Him. The Calvinist by contrast usually affirms that God is only Sovereign if He is directly managing choices and plans and destinies of humans. Usually they said He is deciding everything.

Now to line by line below:


Your failure with the Problem of Evil after the fall is your idea of Omnipotence and His ability to act.

The Calvinist must say that it was God’s will and plan for the child to drown.
The Non-Calvinist can say that it was God’s will to create a world with choice in which a child could drown, but does not have to say that it was God’s will and plan for the child to drown.

I am curious how you will answer the Pre-fall question of ordaining of Sin.

You are creating here a theology more akin to islam and Allah, as He destines all and everything period, but we who hold to calvinism do not see God as operating in a Fatalistic sense

 

[Ben1445]

You are creating here a theology more akin to islam and Allah, as He destines all and everything period, but we who hold to calvinism do not see God as operating in a Fatalistic sense

It is the reality of Calvinism/Reformed Theology that is inevitable when the things you do believe are followed to their necessary conclusions.
Just ignoring the conclusions of the concepts doesn’t justify the concept.

 

[Silverhair]

His theology was not perfect, but much better then what gets passed as theology currently

His theology stepped outside of what the bible teaches and followed the false teaching of augustine who had gotten those teaching from the pagan philosophies that he had been involved in.

You seem to disagree with those that are going back to what Jesus and the Apostles taught.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The problem is evil is a problem for the Calvinist, because how you view sovereignty.

It isn't a problem for me, and it isn't a problem for Calvinists generally.
I think you would do well to study Calvinism before you make adverse comments about it.
Here is the 1689 Baptist Confession on Free Will. I offer it, not because I think it's infallible or anything like that, but to show you what Calvinistic Baptists believe about free will.

1. God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil. Matt. 17:12; James 1:14; Deut. 30:19
2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God, but yet was unstable, so that he might fall from it. Eccles. 7:29 3 Gen. 3:6
3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto. Rom. 5:6, 8:7; Eph. 2:1,5; Titus 3:3-5; John 6:44.
4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin, and by His grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that by reason of his remaining corruptions, he does not perfectly, nor only will, that which is good, but does also will that which is evil. Col. 1:13; John 8:36; Phil. 2:13; Rom. 7:15,18,19,21,23.
5. This will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone in the state of glory only. Eph. 4:13.

Unconverted people freely choose to reject God and follow sin (e.g. John 3:19). When God gives them new birth, they freely choose to follow Christ, and increasingly, to reject sin.

 

[Psalty]

You are creating here a theology more akin to islam and Allah, as He destines all and everything period, but we who hold to calvinism do not see God as operating in a Fatalistic sense

If you say that God sovereignly determines what peoples Salvific ends are, then you have a God who determines their fate. This is most Calvinists. Like you, most Calvinists only want to talk about the benefits of being elected to salvation as opposed to what God does with the rest of His sovereign control

Do you believe that God has sovereignly determined peoples eternal life?
Or do you believe that God is not sovereign over non-believers?

Again, from above, do you believe that God ordained that Eve would sin?

 

[Psalty]

You are certainly welcome to appeal to a confession, but confessions or people professing that there are no contradictions or implications of sin doesnt make it so. I have studied Calvinism quite a bit, and I would think you would have an actual response to my questions instead of appealing to the foundational statements that I have long since past in this thread.

Since you are jumping in here, why dont you actually answer the arguments instead of appealing to a statement/confession?

It isn't a problem for me, and it isn't a problem for Calvinists generally.
I think you would do well to study Calvinism before you make adverse comments about it.
Here is the 1689 Baptist Confession on Free Will. I offer it, not because I think it's infallible or anything like that, but to show you what Calvinistic Baptists believe about free will.

1. God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil. Matt. 17:12; James 1:14; Deut. 30:19
2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God, but yet was unstable, so that he might fall from it. Eccles. 7:29 3 Gen. 3:6

Do you believe that Eph 1:11 that God work’s EVERYTHING according to the council of His will?
And did God ordain Eve’s sin as part of His plan?

3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto. Rom. 5:6, 8:7; Eph. 2:1,5; Titus 3:3-5; John 6:44.

4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin, and by His grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that by reason of his remaining corruptions, he does not perfectly, nor only will, that which is good, but does also will that which is evil. Col. 1:13; John 8:36; Phil. 2:13; Rom. 7:15,18,19,21,23.
5. This will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone in the state of glory only. Eph. 4:13.

Your points 3-5 fail heavily on the citations quoted. I’ll just look at the first one, Rom 5:6.

For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
— Romans 5:6

The word “helpless” here in the Gk is:

[asthenēs] adj.​

ἀσθενής -ές (< ἀ- neg., σθένος, strength), in LXX
without strength, weak, feeble:

Your confessional writers believe that this verse is good to justify that man has no ability to accept God’s grace through faith.
Does this verse say that? It certainly implies weak and lacking the ability to self-save, but certainly not unable to respond or talk to God or accept the Gospel. The verse says nothing of the sort. And this is the document that you believe would simply answer my questions? With exegesis like this?

Unconverted people freely choose to reject God and follow sin (e.g. John 3:19). When God gives them new birth, they freely choose to follow Christ, and increasingly, to reject sin.

And who determined and ordained all things from Eph 1:11?

It is comical to hear that though God has Predestined sinners to salvation from eternity past, that they freely choose to follow Christ. The logical incongruency is un-reconcilable if you hold the english language stable without change definitions halfway through your argument to make “freely” mean something else altogether, which it sounds like you are suggesting.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You are certainly welcome to appeal to a confession, but confessions or people professing that there are no contradictions or implications of sin doesnt make it so. I have studied Calvinism quite a bit, and I would think you would have an actual response to my questions instead of appealing to the foundational statements that I have long since past in this thread.

You will understand that I don't know anything about you. It did not appear to me from your previous posts that you have studied Calvinism, so I thought a quotation from the 1689 Confession might be helpful.

Since you are jumping in here, why dont you actually answer the arguments instead of appealing to a statement/confession?

OK.

Do you believe that Eph 1:11 that God works EVERYTHING according to the council of His will?

Yes.

And did God ordain Eve’s sin as part of His plan?

No. She sinned of her own free will as the Bible tells us (Gen. 3:6). When God gave Adam and Eve free will, He knew perfectly that they would swiftly fall into sin, so He had His rescue plan ready. But God is not the author of sin.

Your points 3-5 fail heavily on the citations quoted. I’ll just look at the first one, Rom 5:6.

The word “helpless” here in the Gk is:

[asthenēs] adj.​

ἀσθενής -ές (< ἀ- neg., σθένος, strength), in LXX
without strength, weak, feeble:

Your confessional writers believe that this verse is good to justify that man has no ability to accept God’s grace through faith.
Does this verse say that? It certainly implies weak and lacking the ability to self-save, but certainly not unable to respond or talk to God or accept the Gospel. The verse says nothing of the sort. And this is the document that you believe would simply answer my questions? With exegesis like this?

Romans 5:6, NKJV. 'For when we were still without strength, in due time, Christ died for the ungodly.' I'm not sure what your objection to this verse is. But in any case, it is backed up by Romans 8:7. '... The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.' I add verse 8. 'So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.' The writers might have added Romans 3:10-18 or 1 Cor. 2:14, but the verses quoted are sufficient IMO to establish the case made in para. 3 of the confession.

And who determined and ordained all things from Eph 1:11?

God. And your point is?

It is comical to hear that though God has Predestined sinners to salvation from eternity past, that they freely choose to follow Christ. The logical incongruency is un-reconcilable if you hold the english language stable without change definitions halfway through your argument to make “freely” mean something else altogether, which it sounds like you are suggesting.

You may think it comical; I think it is glorious. I have to say that I think your conception of God is perhaps a little small. Psalm 110:3, KJV says, 'Your [Christ's] people will be willing in the day of Your power.' God is well able to use the free will of men and women to establish His gracious purposes. John 8:36. 'Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.'

 

[atpollard]

1. You just admitted that God ordained that Eve would sin. That His plan was that she would sin. Your theology holds that God sovereignly chose Sin. This is a massive departure from the faith from the first 4 centuries from the Christian church and Scripture, and until this day. This is why Calvinism has so much pushback.

I become a bit frustrated when people lecture me on what I believe as if THEY are an expert on MY beliefs and I am not. I tend to politely push back that whatever they are criticizing about “what I believe” (according to them) is still an issue if one assumes an Arminian or Synergistic position rather than a Calvinistic and Monergistic POV.

Let us start with your statement: “God ordained that Eve would sin.”

Did God ordain the fall, or was CHRIST just a plan B to fill in the gap for God’s failed creation plan A?
Was God powerless to prevent Eve’s sin, or did God do everything in his power to set the stage for the sin?
- Unguarded tree in the middle of the garden.
- Fallen Angel given unhindered access to vulnerable innocent.
- Angel with FLAMING SWORD only sent after the fall (when he could have guarded the tree before the fall).

I await your non-Calvinist explanation of how God never intended any of it, and is still OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT and OMNIPRESENT (ie. GOD).

From where I sit, the reason that the Sovereignty of God has “so much pushback” is the eternal cry of fallen man “The way of the Lord is not fair.” [Ezekiel 18 & 33]

 

[Psalty]

You will understand that I don't know anything about you. It did not appear to me from your previous posts that you have studied Calvinism, so I thought a quotation from the 1689 Confession might be helpful.

Fair enough.

OK.

Yes.

No. She sinned of her own free will as the Bible tells us (Gen. 3:6). When God gave Adam and Eve free will, He knew perfectly that they would swiftly fall into sin, so He had His rescue plan ready. But God is not the author of sin.

So you believe that God created the world in a place where He was sovereign but allowed Adam and Eve to have Free will? If so, then you believe a non-Calvinist‘s view of sovereignty. But you should not be saying this, because you should be saying that that God is sovereign over those choices, if you follow typical Calvinism. But maybe you aren’t a Calvinist!

Romans 5:6, NKJV. 'For when we were still without strength, in due time, Christ died for the ungodly.' I'm not sure what your objection to this verse is.

The point is that those authors are claiming this verse supports total inability to respond to salvation. This verse does not, it is a mis-citation. Not a strong encouraging indication of their exegesis.

But in any case, it is backed up by Romans 8:7. '... The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.' I add verse 8. 'So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.' The writers might have added Romans 3:10-18 or 1 Cor. 2:14, but the verses quoted are sufficient IMO to establish the case made in para. 3 of the confession.

Again, this does not make any statement against responding to God in faith, as scripture talks about. None of these describe Total Inability. Unless you believe that the bible states that Faith is displeasing to God, which I think we both agree on.

God. And your point is?

The point is that you believe that God has ordained Sin. This is the above point. You cant argue rationally and coherently that God can predestine the Ends but somehow the Means dont matter and are total unrelated.

You may think it comical; I think it is glorious. I have to say that I think your conception of God is perhaps a little small.

You only believe that it is glorious because you think that you are someone that God is saving. If you were not in that group, or for a moment put yourself in an un-elect person’s shoes you would not think that it is glorious.

Psalm 110:3, KJV says, 'Your [Christ's] people will be willing in the day of Your power.' God is well able to use the free will of men and women to establish His gracious purposes. John 8:36. 'Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.'

I see you have come around to human’s having been sovereignly giving a will and choice regarding salvation with Psalm 110:3! Welcome! You do realize that any Calvinist or non-Calvinist can agree with the above paragraph and both scriptures you quoted, I’m sure.

 

[Psalty]

I become a bit frustrated when people lecture me on what I believe as if THEY are an expert on MY beliefs and I am not. I tend to politely push back that whatever they are criticizing about “what I believe” (according to them) is still an issue if one assumes an Arminian or Synergistic position rather than a Calvinistic and Monergistic POV.

I dont mean to upset, but we have had maybe 10 exchanges where you are confirming all of this, stating that God has ordained all things according to His will in Eph 1:11. I confirmed this at least 2x with you. There is a distinct difference between your view of sovereignty and a non-calvinist’s; they are not applicable even though you are trying to make them the same. In fact, if you end up agreeing that Adam and Eve were free before the fall, then you are indeed a non-Calvinist! Unless you believe He changed how His sovereignty after the Fall, which maybe you think.

Let us start with your statement: “God ordained that Eve would sin.”

Did God ordain the fall, or was CHRIST just a plan B to fill in the gap for God’s failed creation plan A?
Was God powerless to prevent Eve’s sin, or did God do everything in his power to set the stage for the sin?
- Unguarded tree in the middle of the garden.
- Fallen Angel given unhindered access to vulnerable innocent.
- Angel with FLAMING SWORD only sent after the fall (when he could have guarded the tree before the fall).

He did not ordain the Fall AND it was not His plan A or B.
He is sovereign and could do what He wanted (Ox3). What He sovereignly wanted was for human’s to choose Him and His ways.
Plan A: Make humans who could willingly love and chose Him and His ways. Foreknowing what would happen, In Christ, before the foundation of the world, He already made Plan A: salvation in Christ through willing trust in Him. He still retains the ability and authority to act as He sees fit at any time, so there is no loss of the Omni’s.
***Again my question to you, do you believe that it was God‘s predetermined plan before the foundation of the world for:
1. Adam and Eve to have free will
2. Sin and eat the apple
These are simple questions, I am hoping for direct answers.

I await your non-Calvinist explanation of how God never intended any of it, and is still OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT and OMNIPRESENT (ie. GOD).

Answer 1 from previous post:

In my view, God is Almighty (Ox3) and can exercise that how He choses. In the case of creation, He chose to make a world were humans could make decision and direct their will. They chose sin which was not part of His plan. However, He always knew this would happen and has always planned for humans to become united in Christ as a husband and bride in glorification. So this is how God is not responsible for sin under my view, whereas He is in your view because of how you believe He exercises His sovereignty.

And for clarity, just because God does not act does not make Him not Ox3.
Additionally, see my answer up above.

Answer 2 from what you just quoted:

The Calvinist must say that it was God’s will and plan for the child to drown.
The Non-Calvinist can say that it was God’s will to create a world with choice in which a child could drown, but does not have to say that it was God’s will and plan for the child to drown.

From where I sit, the reason that the Sovereignty of God has “so much pushback” is the eternal cry of fallen man “The way of the Lord is not fair.” [Ezekiel 18 & 33]

It helps Calvinist to think so, but it doesnt answer the questions that are still on the table for you that are unanswered, which are reasonable, logical, and scripturally founded that you have not answered from the beginning.
1. It’s because the way in which your theology says He determines people’s ends is inconsistent with His love and holiness.
2. It presents an incoherent view of choice. It is claimed that people can act freely, yet at the end of the day their freedom doesnt mean anything because their end has already been determined by God. This is incoherence of how the term choice or freedom is used.
3. It presents an idea of sovereignty that is simply not found in scripture