Over these past 5 years, I have come to dislike message boards, but apparently I am hooked on them to some degree. One reason to dislike them is because the debates that become the most fervent are about those issues which are unprovable or beyond understanding-- and in the case of theology, differing routes toward the same result.
Calvinism v. non-Calvinism is just such a debate. A "few" find the way of salvation; a vast majority (billions) are damned eternally. They are thus condemned because of "sin," which means missing the mark (Biblical explicit), with the "mark" being what God desires (Biblical IMplicit). If everything that happens is the will of God (total sovereignty), then God's will is for God's mark to be missed (sin). But since it is not God's will that any should perish (the result of missing his mark), then in our reasoning it cannot be his will that any should miss his mark (sin), so then his total sovereignty is refuted if sin does occur, and it is both scriptural and obvious that sin does occur. That makes an infinity of: God's will is that humanity violate his will, which is that humanity not violate his will, which is that humanity violate his will......
So if "calvinism" is defined as "everything is predestined", then either "sin" or "God's will" (or both) is an absurdity. But on the other hand, if everything is not predestined, then when we sin God has declined his sovereignty to a degree and allowed it, and allowing it results in something which scripture explicitly states is NOT his will ("perish"ing). That indicates that God chose damnation for the masses by making sin possible, which he did not have to do.
As I said, I dislike message boards despite letting myself become attached to reading them, and this is an example of why. Calvinism or non-calvinism... it's the same result, and the result is not sound reasoning either way. I don't feel good about this argument or about writing this post, but since it has been written it will be posted.
Sin is sin and none is worse than another.
