1 Corinthians 12:3

[DaveXR650]

Now if you were to say that God determines each man's destiny depending on whether they accept or reject Him then that is biblical. Just as man is responsible for the choices he makes in regard to his response to the gospel message.

God in His sovereignty has determined that He will save those that freely trust in Him. He has provided various means by which man can know Him. How they choose to respond to those various means will determine whether they are saved or lost.

Yes. I am saying that is what is taught. At the same time I am saying God, not man, is the determiner of how things work out. Anyone who has ever prayed for success at anything or for the salvation of anyone actually believes that in practice - or else it would be foolish to pray that.

What I do find strange is how you continue to fall back to God having to be "fair". Where does it say in scripture that God has to be fair, nowhere.

Exactly. I don't know why it would be strange since that has been argued since the Jews discussion with Paul in Romans 9. It's also a prime, if not thee prime argument against any level of determinism in modern debates. And you are right. The easiest way to disprove that argument is just to observe how things are.

If He is the decisive factor then why only be decisive in such a small group since God wants all to come to salvation? Do we have a conflict in the Godhead?

That's my point. That is an unanswerable question. Calvinism does not answer it to my satisfaction either but that does not mean we should make up some kind of explanation that is probably wrong. What Calvinism does not say is that there are those who want to come to Christ but are then cast out. So I don't have an answer for you. That would have to occur for the charges anti-Calvinists make to be true.

The Philippian jailer believed because he used his God given free will to evaluate the information presented by Paul and chose to trust in the risen Christ.

I guess he was just quick on his feet, so to speak.

 

[canadyjd]

In the context was Paul speaking to the saved or unsaved?
1Co 12:1 Now about spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed.
1Co 12:2 You know that when you were pagans, you were influenced and led astray to mute idols.
1Co 12:3 Therefore I inform you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

You say you read in context then deny the context. You are very confused or deliberately ignoring the context.

I understand that it is hard for you to accept this truth but the text does not support what you are claiming it says.

Why do you think the fact Paul is writing to believers in Corinth changes the truth of 1 Corinthians 12:3, “No man says Jesus is Lord, but by the Spirit?

As someone else mentioned, and I have explained, Paul is addressing divisions within the church. One such division concerned the gifts of God Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. Some believed unless you speak in tongues, you don’t have the Spirit of God. Some denominations believe that today.

That is why Paul is laying down this essential and foundational truth. “No man can say Jesus is Lord, but by the Spirit”.

I do understand your bias against the doctrines of grace has blinded you to this truth. I can only keep presenting it in hopes God Holy Spirit will guide you into accepting the truth…

“No man says Jesus is Lord, but by the Spirit”

peace to you

 

[kyredneck]

I Wonder

that in the name of Jesus every knee may bow -- of heavenlies, and earthlies, and what are under the earth -- and every tongue may confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Will that be by the Holy Spirit or because of a twisted arm?

When, when will every knee and every tongue?

3Thy people offer themselves willingly In the day of thy power….. Ps 110

 

[Silverhair]

That's my point. That is an unanswerable question. Calvinism does not answer it to my satisfaction either but that does not mean we should make up some kind of explanation that is probably wrong. What Calvinism does not say is that there are those who want to come to Christ but are then cast out. So I don't have an answer for you. That would have to occur for the charges anti-Calvinists make to be true.

Why do you call it an unanswerable question? God is sovereign and He wants all to come to repentance but not all do. Why not? If the Holy Spirit is as you say the decisive factor then it must be that He chooses not to save the majority of humanity which would indicate a conflict in the Godhead. The other option is that God in His sovereignty has given man a free will with which to choose to either trust in or reject Him. Those are the only two options available, either the Holy Spirit or man is responsible. The bible has given us the answer, man is responsible for the choices he makes.

I will grant that Calvinism does not explicitly state that there are those who want to come to Christ but are then cast out. But it does via their TULIP indicate that only a select group have the ability to trust in God. Only those that are included in the Unconditional Election that will partake of the Limited Atonement will then be drawn to God by His Irresistible Grace. So we see that Calvinism has erected a unbiblical wall, TULIP./DoG.

So the charges against Calvinism can be proven true by their own words.

I guess he was just quick on his feet, so to speak.

Just as the bible indicates man can do Eph 1:13 "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,..."

 

[Van]

Another straw man argument. I haven’t said
SNIP

peace to you

Ever notice how some are long on what they have not said or suggested.

By the Spirit means in accordance with the Spirit.

 

[Silverhair]

Why do you think the fact Paul is writing to believers in Corinth changes the truth of 1 Corinthians 12:3, “No man says Jesus is Lord, but by the Spirit?

As someone else mentioned, and I have explained, Paul is addressing divisions within the church. One such division concerned the gifts of God Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. Some believed unless you speak in tongues, you don’t have the Spirit of God. Some denominations believe that today.

That is why Paul is laying down this essential and foundational truth. “No man can say Jesus is Lord, but by the Spirit”.

I do understand your bias against the doctrines of grace has blinded you to this truth. I can only keep presenting it in hopes God Holy Spirit will guide you into accepting the truth…

“No man says Jesus is Lord, but by the Spirit”

peace to you

I have a bias toward biblical theology so logically I would disagree with your man-made philosophy. But by your obvious bias to the DoG you have shown why you have such a problem understanding what Paul is writing to the Corinthians.

 

[Van]

I have a bias toward biblical theology so logically I would disagree with your man-made philosophy. But by your obvious bias to the DoG you have shown why you have such a problem understanding what Paul is writing to the Corinthians.

Yet another petty person attack, addressing my supposed faults to hide false doctrines.

Folks what does "by the Spirit" mean in 1 Corinthians 12:3? Does this mean the words are being formulated and spoken by the Supernatural power of the Holy Spirit? Nope. The actual idea is that no one speaking in accordance with the Holy Spirit says Jesus is accursed, and no one not speaking in accordance with the Holy Spirit says Jesus is the Lord.

 

[canadyjd]

Ever notice how some are long on what they have not said or suggested.

By the Spirit means in accordance with the Spirit.

Strange, you continuously accuse me of saying things I haven’t said, and then complain when you are corrected.

“By the Spirit” means exactly what it says… God Holy Spirit enables people to say Jesus is Lord.

peace to you

 

[Silverhair]

Yet another petty person attack, addressing my supposed faults to hide false doctrines.

Folks what does "by the Spirit" mean in 1 Corinthians 12:3? Does this mean the words are being formulated and spoken by the Supernatural power of the Holy Spirit? Nope. The actual idea is that no one speaking in accordance with the Holy Spirit says Jesus is accursed, and no one not speaking in accordance with the Holy Spirit says Jesus is the Lord.

@Van were you intending to respond to @canadyjd rather than me?

 

[Silverhair]

Strange, you continuously accuse me of saying things I haven’t said, and then complain when you are corrected.

“By the Spirit” means exactly what it says… God Holy Spirit enables people to say Jesus is Lord.

peace to you

So from your comment it means that even when a pagan say "Jesus is Lord" they do so because the Holy Spirit enables them to do so.

This just points out the failed logic of your position. You continue to deny what Paul was teaching believers in 1 Corinthians 12:1-3. But I am not surprised as you read the scriptures through the TULIP grid.

 

[DaveXR650]

Why do you call it an unanswerable question? God is sovereign and He wants all to come to repentance but not all do. Why not? If the Holy Spirit is as you say the decisive factor then it must be that He chooses not to save the majority of humanity which would indicate a conflict in the Godhead. The other option is that God in His sovereignty has given man a free will with which to choose to either trust in or reject Him. Those are the only two options available, either the Holy Spirit or man is responsible. The bible has given us the answer, man is responsible for the choices he makes.

If you were really willing to look into the question you would find that it is more difficult than you allow. I could just as easily ask you if God creates men with a free will knowing that many if not most will not choose to repent - yet he did it anyway and then you come along and claim he really wants them to repent. Not to mention the fact that many never even hear the gospel. When I say the question is unanswerable I mean it. And your solution doesn't work any more than the most extreme Calvinist. The fact is, based on what scripture says, what theology says, and what we observe - both man and God are responsible. What I was pointing out is that that is what guys like Hodges and the Puritan era Calvinists understood. I call that unanswerable because it is, and because I haven't been able to answer it yet.

Only those that are included in the Unconditional Election that will partake of the Limited Atonement will then be drawn to God by His Irresistible Grace. So we see that Calvinism has erected a unbiblical wall, TULIP./DoG.

Except for the fact that all of them say that anyone who comes will not be cast out. You see what you just did. You say it's wrong to say this is unanswerable, then answer it and claim the answer is wrong, even though your answer is what you just made up, not what the Calvinist theology says. And your answer is exactly what the Calvinist theologians were anticipating when they said the question is unanswerable!

So the charges against Calvinism can be proven true by their own words.

Only if you use all their words, not part. If the theology says God is sovereign in your salvation and that you are responsible for your actions then you must take both into account. This is exactly what you free willers object to when a Calvinist claims that not even God can know the future and there can be no accurate prophesy or any reason to pray for anything if men have free will like you seem to demand. You indeed would be far better off if you realized that all this is in the end, unanswerable from our point of view.

 

[canadyjd]

@Van were you intending to respond to @canadyjd rather than me?

He quoted your post.

Are you thinking his response is simply a knee jerk, hyperbolic explosion of hatred? Yep

Welcome to the receiving end of @van’s nonsensical posts. How does it feel?

Peace to you

 

[percho]

Good question.

I think being in the presence of God will be so overwhelming that we will naturally fall to our knees, believer and unbeliever (though at that point, I suppose there will no longer be any “unbelievers”, as all will know the Truth.

peace to you

A thought or two or three.

Joel 2:28 YLT And it hath come to pass afterwards, I do pour out My Spirit on all flesh, And prophesied have your sons and your daughters, Your old men do dream dreams, Your young men do see visions.

Was the Spirit of God poured out on all flesh in say, 30,31,32,33 AD on Pentecost?

Acts 15:8 YLT and the heart-knowing God did bare them testimony, having given to them the Holy Spirit, even as also to us,

Did he give the Holy Spirit to all, at that time, yet the promise is to all flesh?

I wonder, what the first-fruit of the Spirit is? The feast of first-fruit?

And I have sanctified My great name, That is profaned among nations [Gentiles], That ye have polluted in your midst, And known have the nations [Gentiles] that I am Jehovah, An affirmation of the Lord Jehovah, In My being sanctified in you before your eyes. And I have taken you out of the nations [Gentiles], And have gathered you out of all the lands, And I have brought you in unto your land, And I have sprinkled over you clean water, And ye have been clean; From all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols, I do cleanse you. And I have given to you a new heart, And a new spirit I give in your midst, And I have turned aside the heart of stone out of your flesh, And I have given to you a heart of flesh. And My Spirit I give in your midst, And I have done this, so that in My statutes ye walk, And My judgments ye keep, and have done them. Ez 36:23-27

I wonder when that above takes place?

V 33 Thus said the Lord Jehovah: In the day of My cleansing you from all your iniquities, I have caused the cities to be inhabited, And the wastes have been built,

I wonder if that day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day?

Why would the Holy Spirit have inspired, fruit of Spirit, to be preceded by first, if there not to be a second?

 

[Silverhair]

If you were really willing to look into the question you would find that it is more difficult than you allow. I could just as easily ask you if God creates men with a free will knowing that many if not most will not choose to repent - yet he did it anyway and then you come along and claim he really wants them to repent. Not to mention the fact that many never even hear the gospel. When I say the question is unanswerable I mean it. And your solution doesn't work any more than the most extreme Calvinist. The fact is, based on what scripture says, what theology says, and what we observe - both man and God are responsible. What I was pointing out is that that is what guys like Hodges and the Puritan era Calvinists understood. I call that unanswerable because it is, and because I haven't been able to answer it yet.

Why do you say it is difficult to answer? God is sovereign and being that He is omniscient He knows all that will happen so there are no surprises for Him. God has stated that man has no excuse for not knowing Him Romans 1:19-20. Yet even with all this evidence many will not turn to Him Romans 1:21-22. God has provided the information whether creation, conviction of the Holy Spirit or the gospel etc but man still has to respond. Man has to use his God given free will.
Your claim that the Holy Spirit is the decisive factor removes all responsibility from the man. No decisive factor no positive response. Calvinism has painted itself into a corner by their own words.

I agree that both are responsible for a persons salvation, man cannot save himself. Only God can save and He has made the condition of salvation trust in Him. While all the information is there man must still choose how he will respond.

Except for the fact that all of them say that anyone who comes will not be cast out. You see what you just did. You say it's wrong to say this is unanswerable, then answer it and claim the answer is wrong, even though your answer is what you just made up, not what the Calvinist theology says. And your answer is exactly what the Calvinist theologians were anticipating when they said the question is unanswerable!

Correction Dave, you claim it is unanswerable. I have shown that it is answerable.The bible is clear that God is sovereign and man is responsible for the choices he makes.
When the TULIP is used by Calvinists to show mans' responsibility it fails from the start. Man can only be responsible if they have the option to accept or reject the gift of salvation. Your tulip takes that away.
Only those that are included in the Unconditional Election that will partake of the Limited Atonement will then be drawn to God by His Irresistible Grace.

Strange how you call my answer made up when it is just what your Calvinism teaches in your TULIP. So your admitting that the TULIP is just made up by men and has no relationship to the biblical text.

It matters not what your Calvinist theologians thought, it matters what the bible has told us. Romans 1 tells us God says we are responsible for knowing Him. Romans 10:9-10 shows us we are responsible to respond to the gospel message when we hear it. Also Ephesians 1:13
Romans 10:13 tells that all who call on the Lord will be saved. Sure looks like there is a condition involved in ones salvation.
1 John 2:2 is clear that Christ is the propitiation {atoning sacrifice} for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. So no limited atonement there.
John 12:32 is clear that God draws all, Titus 2:11 tells us grace is for all. But not all come to God for salvation so no irresistible grace to be found.

So when we disagree with the Calvinist TULIP it is because the bible disagrees with the Calvinist TULIP. But I have to ask how does disagreeing with Calvinist philosophy equate to not understanding the relationship between Gods' sovereignty and mans' responsibility?

Only if you use all their words, not part. If the theology says God is sovereign in your salvation and that you are responsible for your actions then you must take both into account. This is exactly what you free willers object to when a Calvinist claims that not even God can know the future and there can be no accurate prophesy or any reason to pray for anything if men have free will like you seem to demand. You indeed would be far better off if you realized that all this is in the end, unanswerable from our point of view.

To quote you, If the theology says God is sovereign in your salvation and that you are responsible for your actions then you must take both into account.
That is exactly what the bible tells us and Calvinism denies this.

How does man having a God given free will equate to God not knowing the future? Any Calvinist that makes that claim is just proving they do not know God.

God is omniscient and foreknows all that will happen in His creation. Where the Calvinist errors is that he equates foreknowledge with causation. Does God bring about some things,YES. We see this in the biblical text. Does God know what choices man will freely make, of course. He is omniscient after all.

Calvinism error is that they want God to control all thing via His divine determinism but then they deny the logical outcome of their view. God is responsible for all sin and evil.

If man does not have a free will then he just does as he has been determined to do. The truth is right there in front of you in the biblical text. You just have to accept it.

Dave you may like reading all those Calvinist and Puritan writers but they are just fallible men who are expressing their Calvinist mindset. The bible is the standard not them or any other man.

 

[DaveXR650]

Your claim that the Holy Spirit is the decisive factor removes all responsibility from the man. No decisive factor no positive response. Calvinism has painted itself into a corner by their own words.

Right there. That's what I mean. If you think they have painted themselves into a corner that's fine except that the ones I have read, including Hodge, Spurgeon, Edwards, Owen, and even non Cals like Arminius, Wesley and Baxter insist that the Holy Spirit is the deciding factor, or at least in the case of Arminius, Wesley and Baxter, the preliminary or necessary first factor. And, at the same time, all these guys put man as responsible to respond and insist that man's own refusal is a great and fatal sin. I'm not saying you have to accept that. But I am saying that it is true that they taught that.

Now using your same logic which refuses all paradoxes as flat out contradictions, I am saying this to you. If each man is in charge of his own soul to the extent you say then God simply cannot have a plan or an agenda of any kind until he sees what these characters are going to do. Even if God can somehow see the future your theology means God is passively knowing whatever we decide and has no right to mess with our free will. That would amount to some type of ordaining which you deny. There is no reason to pray for someone's salvation, and no reason to ask for God to do anything that would involve men's undetermined wills because that is off limits.

Furthermore, men's salvation must be some combination of individual virtue combined with chance, because no one has a right to manipulate a person's free will.

If that sounds like to you the way scripture unfolds, from Genesis to Revelation then go with it.

 

[DaveXR650]

Calvinism error is that they want God to control all thing via His divine determinism but then they deny the logical outcome of their view. God is responsible for all sin and evil.

Some Calvinists do. But some don't. In the paragraph before that quote you hedge by saying God brings about some things with your system. That's nice except the logical extension of man's free will being what you think it is would be like the famous quote in Lawrence of Arabia "Nothing is written". How could it be? And with your system God better make sure he doesn't mess with someone's free will.

The other problem is that even with your system you still have God putting a tree in the garden knowing full well what disaster would happen and doing it anyway. So a lot depends on how you use the word "responsible". It can be directly causative all the way to merely known and not changed.

 

[Silverhair]

Right there. That's what I mean. If you think they have painted themselves into a corner that's fine except that the ones I have read, including Hodge, Spurgeon, Edwards, Owen, and even non Cals like Arminius, Wesley and Baxter insist that the Holy Spirit is the deciding factor, or at least in the case of Arminius, Wesley and Baxter, the preliminary or necessary first factor. And, at the same time, all these guys put man as responsible to respond and insist that man's own refusal is a great and fatal sin. I'm not saying you have to accept that. But I am saying that it is true that they taught that.

So what we have is the Calvinists, Hodge, Spurgeon, Edwards, Owen insist that the Holy Spirit is the deciding factor, and the non-cal Arminius, Wesley and Baxter, say it is the preliminary or necessary first factor. And yet both groups insist that man is responsible to respond and insist that man's own refusal is a great and fatal sin.
There is a vast difference between "deciding factor" & "preliminary or necessary first factor"

Question for you Dave, if the Holy Spirit is the deciding factor is that before or after the person has made a free will choice either for or against God?

If the Holy Spirit were the decisive factor prior to a persons free will choice then we would have a conflict in the Godhead.
God the Father wants all to come to repentance.
1Ti 2:3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Or God the Father is being disingenuous.

I am glad that Hodge, Spurgeon, Edwards, Owen taught that man has to make the final choice but if they held too anything like the TULIP then they are just showing how confused they were. You said all these guys put man as responsible to respond and insist that man's own refusal is a great and fatal sin. So they must have all believed that man had an actual free will.

Now using your same logic which refuses all paradoxes as flat out contradictions, I am saying this to you. If each man is in charge of his own soul to the extent you say then God simply cannot have a plan or an agenda of any kind until he sees what these characters are going to do. Even if God can somehow see the future your theology means God is passively knowing whatever we decide and has no right to mess with our free will. That would amount to some type of ordaining which you deny. There is no reason to pray for someone's salvation, and no reason to ask for God to do anything that would involve men's undetermined wills because that is off limits.

Furthermore, men's salvation must be some combination of individual virtue combined with chance, because no one has a right to manipulate a person's free will.

If that sounds like to you the way scripture unfolds, from Genesis to Revelation then go with it.

Do you not comprehend what scripture says? God is sovereign and we know that He is omniscient so He foreknows all that will happen. Both the good and the bad. You do seem to have a problem understanding that God can know what choice a person will freely make without causing them to make it.

If you do not know the attributes of God then you need to find out what they are.

With all the silly comments you have just made if I thought that was what you actually believed I would tell you that you need some serious bible study. Get your head out of those Calvinist books and trust what God has said in His book.

 

[Silverhair]

Some Calvinists do. But some don't. In the paragraph before that quote you hedge by saying God brings about some things with your system. That's nice except the logical extension of man's free will being what you think it is would be like the famous quote in Lawrence of Arabia "Nothing is written". How could it be? And with your system God better make sure he doesn't mess with someone's free will.

The other problem is that even with your system you still have God putting a tree in the garden knowing full well what disaster would happen and doing it anyway. So a lot depends on how you use the word "responsible". It can be directly causative all the way to merely known and not changed.

As I have said more than once God is sovereign and in His sovereignty He has given man a free will with which to make real choices. You may not like the idea that God would allow man to determine his eternal destiny but God thought it was a good one. The alternative is to have puppets that dance and nod as He directs.

 

[DaveXR650]

There is a vast difference between "deciding factor" & "preliminary or necessary first factor"

Yes. That's why there are volumes of back and forth writings about the controversy. You go beyond even Arminius though.

Question for you Dave, if the Holy Spirit is the deciding factor is that before or after the person has made a free will choice either for or against God?

Before, and during the time when the person is either against God or hasn't bothered to give it a thought.

I am glad that Hodge, Spurgeon, Edwards, Owen taught that man has to make the final choice but if they held too anything like the TULIP then they are just showing how confused they were. You said all these guys put man as responsible to respond and insist that man's own refusal is a great and fatal sin. So they must have all believed that man had an actual free will.

No. They taught that man's will was intact, rational, and free and they taught that God is sovereign and has actually set out to save some specific people. Both.

Get your head out of those Calvinist books and trust what God has said in His book.

Those Calvinist book are annoying to read because almost every sentence is interrupted with a scripture reference, or the actual quote itself. And from scripture, they have realized that what you don't see is God for instance saying "wow, I'm gonna knock Paul flat, because he's pretty sharp and if he decides to come aboard he would be a great missionary!" You never see that. You do see a story of God working sovereignly and saving who he chooses and leaving others to themselves. That would be very discomforting except you also see that anyone who does come to God is welcomed because wanting to come and seeing your need is evidence of God's sovereign call. You are welcome but you are not in charge. That explanation works for me, especially as I go through life and begin to understand how hard it is for us to do the right things. But I don't see that as being part of actually coming to Christ so if the explanation doesn't work for you that's alright. I just get a little tired of the silly idea that only you guys are "Biblicists" and all the Reformers and Puritans were uninformed compared to you.

 

[Silverhair]

Yes. That's why there are volumes of back and forth writings about the controversy. You go beyond even Arminius though.

But not beyond the bible.

Before, and during the time when the person is either against God or hasn't bothered to give it a thought.

If before then you have setup a conflict within the Godhead. Then you have taken away the responsibility of the person. If the Holy Spirit decides who can trust in God then no free will is there.

No. They taught that man's will was intact, rational, and free and they taught that God is sovereign and has actually set out to save some specific people. Both.

Yes God did save some specific people for a specific purpose/service. But if Man has a free will then you can not have the Holy Spirit deciding who will be allowed to trust in God as you indicate in your prior answer. The Holy Spirit will influence/convict but does not dictate.

Those Calvinist book are annoying to read because almost every sentence is interrupted with a scripture reference, or the actual quote itself. And from scripture, they have realized that what you don't see is God for instance saying "wow, I'm gonna knock Paul flat, because he's pretty sharp and if he decides to come aboard he would be a great missionary!" You never see that. You do see a story of God working sovereignly and saving who he chooses and leaving others to themselves. That would be very discomforting except you also see that anyone who does come to God is welcomed because wanting to come and seeing your need is evidence of God's sovereign call. You are welcome but you are not in charge. That explanation works for me, especially as I go through life and begin to understand how hard it is for us to do the right things. But I don't see that as being part of actually coming to Christ so if the explanation doesn't work for you that's alright. I just get a little tired of the silly idea that only you guys are "Biblicists" and all the Reformers and Puritans were uninformed compared to you.

Yes the bible is clear that God is sovereign and He saves who He chooses and He chooses to save those that trust in Him. Those that reject Him He does leave to themselves so we have no disagreement there.

What we see in scripture is that God has provided various means by which man can know Him. Whether creation, conviction of sin or the gospel etc, those that come to God will not be turned away. Everyday we see mans' free will inaction in the various choices they make. I have spent enough time speaking to numerous people over the years to see some accept and others reject the free gift of salvation and I know that God does not play favorites. All have an equal chance to come to Him.

I agree that man is not in charge with regard to his salvation, how could he be. But God being in charge means He is the one that sets the conditions for salvation and He has. I don't see how He could have made it clearer.
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
John 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

That is an invitation to all, not just a select group as Calvinism posits, to make a choice to come to Him. The Calvinist determinism and TULIP turn Gods' offer on its' head. The universal call becomes a limited one. That reason alone is enough for me to reject Calvinism.

I did not say they were uninformed, they were reading the text through a specific lens, Calvinism. That has colored all that they understand and write.