Summarizing the Mistakes of Calvinism

[convicted1]

Well actually I AM irresistibly drawn to food! :laugh:

me too....now back to your regularly scheduled thread......

 

[Winman]

Skan said

You are making election about God picking individuals and you argue with him as if he is saying God picks foreseen believing individuals. I don't believe that is correct. Election is not about preselecting individuals, regardless of WHY (i.e. his own hidden sovereign purpose or foreseen faith). That would make Him a 'respecter of persons.'

I do believe that God foresees who will believe. Election is according to the foreknowledge of the Father (1 Pet 1:2).

1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

This verse is very similar to 2 Thes 2:13

2 Thes 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

I believe these two verses are basically saying the same thing. We are elect according to the Father's foreknowledge. So we are elect according to something God knew before it took place. This is the very definition of foreknowledge.

2 Thes 2:13 says we are chosen to salvation "through" sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. So, I think it is pretty clear that God could foresee who who believe the truth, which is the gospel.

This does not show partiality. God does not choose a rich man over a poor man, or pick a noble or mighty person over a base individual. This is what scripture is saying. But this in no way means that God does not regard what man does.

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

If it is impossible to please God without faith, then logically it follows that to have faith does please God. This verse directly implies that God rewards those who diligently seek him, and no man would seek God unless he believed in God.

We see this when Peter spoke of Cornelius.

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Peter was saying here that it did not matter that Cornelius was a Gentile, God is no respecter of persons. God doesn't prefer a man because he is a Jew, God doesn't prefer a man because he is rich, noble, or mighty.

But God does respect those who fear him and do righteous works. And this was said of Cornelius before he heard the gospel, believed, and received the Holy Spirit.

God does indeed accept those who fear him and have faith in him, regardless of whether they are Jew, Gentile, rich, poor, mighty, or weak. This is what is meant when God says he is no respecter of persons.

So, many here completely misinterpret and misunderstand what is meant when it is said God is no respecter of persons. That does not mean God does not recognize faith.

 

[MB]

Quantum, do you see that the NPP errs in its primary tenet, i.e., that the Jewish Christians knew that salvation was by grace through faith? They did not know that and over and again in Scripture we find them arguing for the keeping of some portion of the Law. That was one of the primary things that Paul argued against.

It also mightily errs when it assumes that election is for a group, the Jews, and not for individuals who profess faith by God's grace, which is why it is such a dangerous new trend.

It literally sets sideways everything the Bible actually argues, akin to the metaphor I used for Skandelon (or someone) in an earlier post. One can be hired to paint a building, arrive, erect a great scaffolding, paint the entire building magnificently, but when it comes time to get paid for the job, it is discovered that the original address was incorrect and the wrong building painted. So it is when the starting point for an argument is made -- wonderful logical heirarchy is erected and great points are argued, but on the payday it is discovered that the starting point is incorrect and all the logic and debate was for naught.

Group election is all I've seen in scripture. I've never seen individual election in the Bible. Many claim they were elected individually but no one has ever proven this to be so. Personally my feeling is if it isn't in scripture it isn't fit for doctrine. After all who wants a doctrine they cannot prove in a debate forum.
MB

 

[convicted1]

Group election is all I've seen in scripture. I've never seen individual election in the Bible. Many claim they were elected individually but no one has ever proven this to be so. Personally my feeling is if it isn't in scripture it isn't fit for doctrine. After all who wants a doctrine they cannot prove in a debate forum.
MB

Well, in the FWIW category, I think the OT Prophets, the twelve Apostles, and also Apostle Paul were individually chosen by God, just to name a few. Now, as I have already stated, this is what I think.

 

[Skandelon]

First, here you equate the Calvinistic view WITH God "looking down the corridors of time and see[ing] who will have faith and then elect[ing] them.

You misunderstood...I wasn't equating the point regarding 'looking down the corridors of time'. I was equating the individualization aspect. Both of these views assume election is about God preselecting individuals and I don't believe that is Paul's intent.

Hopefully that clarifies things.

God does indeed "individualize" and you are attempting to escape the horns of dilemma that you are in concerning election by removing this individualization and making it a corporate affair. That is not the truth of Scripture by example, by inference, or by actual text. We find in Hebrews 11 that God does indeed elect individuals not entire people groups.

Even Calvinists typically affirm some aspect of corporate election (His choice of Israel), don't you? This just sounds like you deny any kind of corporate election???

It is certainly not about God "individually picking winners and losers before the world begins." How can you be so crass about the will of God?

I don't believe this IS the will of God, so I don't believe I'm being crass about His will with this statement. I'm being crass about what YOU believe His will is because I think the claims of Calvinism about God are 'crass' and 'in error,' which is why I'm debating with you.

You may want to be aware of that before you argue further with your "new perspective" view.

There is nothing new about the corporate view of election. In fact it predates the reformed individualistic view.

 

[quantumfaith]

Quantum, do you see that the NPP errs in its primary tenet, i.e., that the Jewish Christians knew that salvation was by grace through faith? They did not know that and over and again in Scripture we find them arguing for the keeping of some portion of the Law. That was one of the primary things that Paul argued against.

It also mightily errs when it assumes that election is for a group, the Jews, and not for individuals who profess faith by God's grace, which is why it is such a dangerous new trend.

It literally sets sideways everything the Bible actually argues, akin to the metaphor I used for Skandelon (or someone) in an earlier post. One can be hired to paint a building, arrive, erect a great scaffolding, paint the entire building magnificently, but when it comes time to get paid for the job, it is discovered that the original address was incorrect and the wrong building painted. So it is when the starting point for an argument is made -- wonderful logical heirarchy is erected and great points are argued, but on the payday it is discovered that the starting point is incorrect and all the logic and debate was for naught.

No, GL, I in all and complete honesty do not.

 

[Skandelon]

I do believe that God foresees who will believe.

I don't deny that fact, but I don't believe that is the point Paul is attempting to make in those proof texts in question.

Election is according to the foreknowledge of the Father (1 Pet 1:2).

What is Peter speaking of being foreknown? The individuals who believe? Is that what the text says? No. It says "elect according to the foreknowledge..."

Here is what we have to come to understand. Israel is KNOWN as the people known and chosen by God. They are his ELECT. Here comes Paul/Peter saying God has chosen the Gentiles too as if it is some new concept. Well, we all know how well new doctrines are received. So, Paul/Peter point out that God has planned to graft in the Gentiles all along. This is his foreknown plan of redemption for all mankind, to which the law and prophets testified.

2 Thes 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

I think the best way to understand this verse from another perspective is to try and put yourself in Paul's shoes.

Pretend with me that we live before the Civil War and we are all slave owners. We have been taught wrongly that black people are not real people, just property. We, therefore, have concluded that God has no place for them to be saved. In our minds, they are no different than animals. (Of course, this thinking is abhorrent, and rightly so, but many held to this belief in those days, so please stay with me on the point of the analogy)

Now, you, are a respected white pastor in the community and all of your pastor friends and mentors believe as you do that blacks are not apart of God's covenant. In fact, you think they are not worthy of God's attention any more so than a dog. This is how you were raised to think as was everyone around you.

One day, God blinds you while walking down the road (like He did Paul) or speaks to you in a vivid dream (like He did Peter) and tells you that your views about black people are wrong and that God loves them and wants them to be a part of His covenant just like white people. At first your flesh objects saying, "What not those dirty slaves, surely not, you have only chosen us Lord." But God convinces you that his love for them is as real as his love for you and that it has ALWAYS been His plan from the very beginning to save the black people.

Then God calls you to preach to blacks and convince the whites that your ministry is really from God. Difficult job. Now, you can relate to Paul's dilemma with regard to the Gentiles.

Continuing in our analogy; you become know as the "preacher to the blacks" and you are not very popular at all. In fact, the whites argue that blacks aren't deserving of entrance into God's covenant and they beat you and even throw you in prison many times. But you argue, "God can show mercy on whom ever he wants!" And when you write to the black churches that you started you say things like, "I thank God that He has chosen you from the beginning," because people all around you keep telling them they have not been chosen by God. Even those whites who do believe you are trying to get the blacks to cover their dark skin or paint over it so they can become like the whites and you have to continually defend them. But your statement is more about blacks generally, as a group, not as individuals, right?

I know this is just an analogy and all analogies fall short, but hopefully this one provides some perspective as to why Paul says some of the things he says. Such as, "I praise God that he has chosen you from the foundation of the world..." etc... We have to be careful not to confuse what God is choosing.

Make sense?

 

[Skandelon]

Winman, if they had the word "yall" this wouldn't be an issue because then the word 'you' wouldn't be thought of in a singular/individual sense. We must remember that 'you' is the plural form of the pronoun too, so the question is whether Paul means "God hath from the beginning chosen {each of you individually} to salvation..." or God hath from the beginning chosen {you as a people} to salvation..."

See what I mean?

 

[quantumfaith]

i don't deny that fact, but i don't believe that is the point paul is attempting to make in those proof texts in question.

What is peter speaking of being foreknown? The individuals who believe? Is that what the text says? No. It says "elect according to the foreknowledge..."

here is what we have to come to understand. Israel is known as the people known and chosen by god. They are his elect. Here comes paul/peter saying god has chosen the gentiles too as if it is some new concept. Well, we all know how well new doctrines are received. So, paul/peter point out that god has planned to graft in the gentiles all along. This is his foreknown plan of redemption for all mankind, to which the law and prophets testified.


I think the best way to understand this verse from another perspective is to try and put yourself in paul's shoes.

Pretend with me that we live before the civil war and we are all slave owners. We have been taught wrongly that black people are not real people, just property. We, therefore, have concluded that god has no place for them to be saved. In our minds, they are no different than animals. (of course, this thinking is abhorrent, and rightly so, but many held to this belief in those days, so please stay with me on the point of the analogy)

now, you, are a respected white pastor in the community and all of your pastor friends and mentors believe as you do that blacks are not apart of god's covenant. In fact, you think they are not worthy of god's attention any more so than a dog. This is how you were raised to think as was everyone around you.

One day, god blinds you while walking down the road (like he did paul) or speaks to you in a vivid dream (like he did peter) and tells you that your views about black people are wrong and that god loves them and wants them to be a part of his covenant just like white people. At first your flesh objects saying, "what not those dirty slaves, surely not, you have only chosen us lord." but god convinces you that his love for them is as real as his love for you and that it has always been his plan from the very beginning to save the black people.

Then god calls you to preach to blacks and convince the whites that your ministry is really from god. Difficult job. Now, you can relate to paul's dilemma with regard to the gentiles.

Continuing in our analogy; you become know as the "preacher to the blacks" and you are not very popular at all. In fact, the whites argue that blacks aren't deserving of entrance into god's covenant and they beat you and even throw you in prison many times. But you argue, "god can show mercy on whom ever he wants!" and when you write to the black churches that you started you say things like, "i thank god that he has chosen you from the beginning," because people all around you keep telling them they have not been chosen by god. Even those whites who do believe you are trying to get the blacks to cover their dark skin or paint over it so they can become like the whites and you have to continually defend them. But your statement is more about blacks generally, as a group, not as individuals, right?

I know this is just an analogy and all analogies fall short, but hopefully this one provides some perspective as to why paul says some of the things he says. Such as, "i praise god that he has chosen you from the foundation of the world..." etc... We have to be careful not to confuse what god is choosing.

Make sense?

 

[MB]

Well, in the FWIW category, I think the OT Prophets, the twelve Apostles, and also Apostle Paul were individually chosen by God, just to name a few. Now, as I have already stated, this is what I think.

I haven't a clue what FWIW means.

You know Brother we have an awesome God He elected the Jews then turned around and chose us gentiles. Eph 1:4 I do not necessiarily agree that God elected Paul twice. I'd say Paul was called and he answered that call very well. When Paul was on His way to Demascus and had his vision. Christ called out to Paul and asked why he kicked against the pricks. What do you think those pricks were? Myself I'm inclined to think they were pricks of conviction. They pricked Paul's heart. I really believe one of those Martyrs he most likely killed told Paul about Christ and it started his conviction. He hunted Christians it pays to know a little about who your hunting. Ask any cop I'm sure they would agree.
Maybe I'm just old school but being called to do a Job for God. Just look at John the Baptist. He was called but something more important he was appointed to do a specific job and he did.. Was Paul appointed before He was born? I have no idea with out looking it up. Any way here is my point. A choosing is different than election. Simply because it seems some are chosen and some are elected. To be chosen for a specific job when I was young was referred to as a call not a choosing. It's like you have surrendered your life to Christ. You are already His workman whether you have done anything yet or not. To me surrender means you will do anything for God all He has to do is call on you. What we have to do in the mean time is get ready for that call. I know I rattle on far to much.
MB

 

[convicted1]

I haven't a clue what FWIW means.

You know Brother we have an awesome God He elected the Jews then turned around and chose us gentiles. Eph 1:4 I do not necessiarily agree that God elected Paul twice. I'd say Paul was called and he answered that call very well. When Paul was on His way to Demascus and had his vision. Christ called out to Paul and asked why he kicked against the pricks. What do you think those pricks were? Myself I'm inclined to think they were pricks of conviction. They pricked Paul's heart. I really believe one of those Martyrs he most likely killed told Paul about Christ and it started his conviction. He hunted Christians it pays to know a little about who your hunting. Ask any cop I'm sure they would agree.
Maybe I'm just old school but being called to do a Job for God. Just look at John the Baptist. He was called but something more important he was appointed to do a specific job and he did.. Was Paul appointed before He was born? I have no idea with out looking it up. Any way here is my point. A choosing is different than election. Simply because it seems some are chosen and some are elected. To be chosen for a specific job when I was young was referred to as a call not a choosing. It's like you have surrendered your life to Christ. You are already His workman whether you have done anything yet or not. To me surrender means you will do anything for God all He has to do is call on you. What we have to do in the mean time is get ready for that call. I know I rattle on far to much.
MB

For what's its worth.....

 

[Winman]

I don't deny that fact, but I don't believe that is the point Paul is attempting to make in those proof texts in question.

I would disagree, I do not see why Peter would mention God the Father's foreknowledge otherwise. Are these idle words?

What is Peter speaking of being foreknown? The individuals who believe? Is that what the text says? No. It says "elect according to the foreknowledge..."

He is speaking of Jews, "stangers" that were dispersed.

1 Pet 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Peter is calling these fellow Jews who are scattered abroad the Elect according to the foreknowledge of God "through" sanctifiication of the Spirit, unto obedience (believeing the truth- gospel) and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.

Here is what we have to come to understand. Israel is KNOWN as the people known and chosen by God. They are his ELECT. Here comes Paul/Peter saying God has chosen the Gentiles too as if it is some new concept. Well, we all know how well new doctrines are received. So, Paul/Peter point out that God has planned to graft in the Gentiles all along. This is his foreknown plan of redemption for all mankind, to which the law and prophets testified.

I think the best way to understand this verse from another perspective is to try and put yourself in Paul's shoes.

Pretend with me that we live before the Civil War and we are all slave owners. We have been taught wrongly that black people are not real people, just property. We, therefore, have concluded that God has no place for them to be saved. In our minds, they are no different than animals. (Of course, this thinking is abhorrent, and rightly so, but many held to this belief in those days, so please stay with me on the point of the analogy)

Now, you, are a respected white pastor in the community and all of your pastor friends and mentors believe as you do that blacks are not apart of God's covenant. In fact, you think they are not worthy of God's attention any more so than a dog. This is how you were raised to think as was everyone around you.

One day, God blinds you while walking down the road (like He did Paul) or speaks to you in a vivid dream (like He did Peter) and tells you that your views about black people are wrong and that God loves them and wants them to be a part of His covenant just like white people. At first your flesh objects saying, "What not those dirty slaves, surely not, you have only chosen us Lord." But God convinces you that his love for them is as real as his love for you and that it has ALWAYS been His plan from the very beginning to save the black people.

Then God calls you to preach to blacks and convince the whites that your ministry is really from God. Difficult job. Now, you can relate to Paul's dilemma with regard to the Gentiles.

Continuing in our analogy; you become know as the "preacher to the blacks" and you are not very popular at all. In fact, the whites argue that blacks aren't deserving of entrance into God's covenant and they beat you and even throw you in prison many times. But you argue, "God can show mercy on whom ever he wants!" And when you write to the black churches that you started you say things like, "I thank God that He has chosen you from the beginning," because people all around you keep telling them they have not been chosen by God. Even those whites who do believe you are trying to get the blacks to cover their dark skin or paint over it so they can become like the whites and you have to continually defend them. But your statement is more about blacks generally, as a group, not as individuals, right?

I know this is just an analogy and all analogies fall short, but hopefully this one provides some perspective as to why Paul says some of the things he says. Such as, "I praise God that he has chosen you from the foundation of the world..." etc... We have to be careful not to confuse what God is choosing.

Make sense?

That all makes perfect sense, and I am sure that is what Paul was up against, but it is Peter, the apostle to the circumcision that is speaking in 1 Peter 1:2, and he is speaking to fellow Jews who have been scattered abroad by persecution. He is not speaking to Gentiles.

Paul is saying almost the identical thing (little different wording) in 2 Thes 2:13. So, this is speaking of believers everywhere, both Jew and Gentile.

By the way, anybody notice this verse and can explain what is meant?

1 Pet 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

Now this is definitely speaking of a group of people, but these were also Jews.

 

[Winman]

Skan, to be fair, there is great controversy over who these "strangers" were. Albert Barnes writes much on this verse;

http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=1pe&chapter=1

 

[Skandelon]

I would disagree, I do not see why Peter would mention God the Father's foreknowledge otherwise. Are these idle words?

Of course not, which is why I spent all that time explaining what I thought the intent of the author was in my last post.

That all makes perfect sense, and I am sure that is what Paul was up against, but it is Peter, the apostle to the circumcision that is speaking in 1 Peter 1:2,

You actually quoted two different versus and the second was from Paul, nevertheless they were both dealing with the same issue in that day (though Paul was certainly more likely to be addressing the Gentile issue).

Paul is saying almost the identical thing (little different wording) in 2 Thes 2:13. So, this is speaking of believers everywhere, both Jew and Gentile.

Yes, but he is writing to predominately Gentiles congregations who are being persecuted from without and within by the Judizers and the Pharisees, all of whom were telling them they aren't the 'elect' ones. Paul is simply reminding them they are chosen and that this has been God's plan all along.

This is also why you see Paul use the pronouns 'you' and 'us/we' in his writings as he distinguishes himself and the other Jewish 'authorities' (i.e. apostles and maybe some Jewish believers). Quantum linked to a great article on that earlier... Point being is that this interpretation doesn't limit his audience to Gentiles, it just points out the nature of the response as he addresses this major issue within that historical context.

 

[DaChaser1]

Skan said



I do believe that God foresees who will believe. Election is according to the foreknowledge of the Father (1 Pet 1:2).

1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

This verse is very similar to 2 Thes 2:13

2 Thes 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

I believe these two verses are basically saying the same thing. We are elect according to the Father's foreknowledge. So we are elect according to something God knew before it took place. This is the very definition of foreknowledge.

2 Thes 2:13 says we are chosen to salvation "through" sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. So, I think it is pretty clear that God could foresee who who believe the truth, which is the gospel.

This does not show partiality. God does not choose a rich man over a poor man, or pick a noble or mighty person over a base individual. This is what scripture is saying. But this in no way means that God does not regard what man does.

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

If it is impossible to please God without faith, then logically it follows that to have faith does please God. This verse directly implies that God rewards those who diligently seek him, and no man would seek God unless he believed in God.

We see this when Peter spoke of Cornelius.

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Peter was saying here that it did not matter that Cornelius was a Gentile, God is no respecter of persons. God doesn't prefer a man because he is a Jew, God doesn't prefer a man because he is rich, noble, or mighty.

But God does respect those who fear him and do righteous works. And this was said of Cornelius before he heard the gospel, believed, and received the Holy Spirit.

God does indeed accept those who fear him and have faith in him, regardless of whether they are Jew, Gentile, rich, poor, mighty, or weak. This is what is meant when God says he is no respecter of persons.

So, many here completely misinterpret and misunderstand what is meant when it is said God is no respecter of persons. That does not mean God does not recognize faith.

god cannot elect based upon JUST foreknowledge of the sinner coming to Christ, as that would mean Christ death was NOT to bring actual/definite salvation, and since sinners cannot come to Christbeing depraived/dead/blind by the fall?

 

[Forest]

I believe these summarize the three mistakes Calvinists make in their interpretation of scripture:

1. They misapply passages that are in reference to the way in which God chose his divinely appointed apostles by applying them to the method God has chosen to save all souls. Proof that God sovereignly hand picks his messengers in no way proves that He sovereignly hand picks who will and will not believe their message.

2. They fail to recognize that in the two passages that the term predestination is mentioned it is in reference to those who already believe ("us"). Believers are "predestined to be conformed to Christ's image." And believers are "predestined to be adopted as his sons." Neither of these goals have been accomplished in our lives, but whosoever believes in Christ, God has predetermined that they too will be "adopted as His son and conformed to his image."

3. They mistakenly apply passages having to do with God's choosing to save the Gentiles while temporarily hardening the Jews to support their view of total inability and God's pre-selection of certain individuals. Passages having to do with the hardened Jews are often used by Calvinists to support their doctrine of Total Depravity. Passages having to do with the revelation of God's choice to allow Gentiles entrance into the Covenant of grace are used to support their doctrine of Unconditional Election.​

This thread has 16 pages and you closed my thread down when it was 16 pages. Is this being parshal?

 

[Alive in Christ]

I believe these summarize the three mistakes Calvinists make in their interpretation of scripture:

1. They misapply passages that are in reference to the way in which God chose his divinely appointed apostles by applying them to the method God has chosen to save all souls. Proof that God sovereignly hand picks his messengers in no way proves that He sovereignly hand picks who will and will not believe their message.

2. They fail to recognize that in the two passages that the term predestination is mentioned it is in reference to those who already believe ("us"). Believers are "predestined to be conformed to Christ's image." And believers are "predestined to be adopted as his sons." Neither of these goals have been accomplished in our lives, but whosoever believes in Christ, God has predetermined that they too will be "adopted as His son and conformed to his image."

3. They mistakenly apply passages having to do with God's choosing to save the Gentiles while temporarily hardening the Jews to support their view of total inability and God's pre-selection of certain individuals. Passages having to do with the hardened Jews are often used by Calvinists to support their doctrine of Total Depravity. Passages having to do with the revelation of God's choice to allow Gentiles entrance into the Covenant of grace are used to support their doctrine of Unconditional Election.​

That is a good synopsis of some of the errors of calvinism.

GOOD JOB! :thumbs:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

This thread has 16 pages and you closed my thread down when it was 16 pages. Is this being parshal?

Want to venture a guess?

 

[Christos doulos]

That is a good synopsis of some of the errors of calvinism.

GOOD JOB! :thumbs:

My friend. You do realize that this proves nothing but that the "errors" of Calvinism are your own interpretation of what you believe scripture to be.

It's your presupposition.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

My friend. You do realize that this proves nothing but that the "errors" of Calvinism are your own interpretation of what you believe scripture to be.

It's your presupposition.

...and that translates to ones own perception as well as opinions. Now we know something about opinions & how everyone has one.....:laugh: