How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[zoidar]

In whole, or in part? Many of the parts of my system can be found in the history of the church. For example Tertullian held to a material monism.

There are a few things I believe in that is not described or discussed in Scripture or among the Church Fathers. But that is not theological issues. I normally don't discuss such things, because it's just my personal view. We are free to hold a personal view as long as it's not destroying the well grounded truths about Christianity I would say.

 

[zoidar]

One more time. . .your issue is with Peter (1Pe 1:2) who presents God as choosing some (not all) to be saved.

Don't try to hang that one on me!

Chosen sure, but when, for what and on what basis?

 

[JAL]

There are a few things I believe in that is not described or discussed in Scripture or among the Church Fathers. But that is not theological issues. I normally don't discuss such things, because it's just my personal view. We are free to hold a personal view as long as it's not destroying the well grounded truths about Christianity I would say.

My fallibility seems to demand that I regard ALL historic doctrine as potentially questionable. However, if it's any consolation, the Inward Witness has always seemed to convict/convince me of Trinitarianism and the Nice Creed. Since I have never been able to question those fundamentals in good conscience - not even across several decades - I'm pretty sure I never will.

FYI: It is fundamental to my beliefs that, given our fallibility, we need to seek the gift of prophecy (1Cor 14:1) - we need to seek the gift of infallibility. Because, historically speaking, 100 billion souls are at stake if we have any errors in our approaches to doctrine, evangelism, missions, sanctification, and ecclesiology.

 

[Clare73]

Chosen sure, but when, for what and on what basis?

See 1Pe 1:2.

 

[John Mullally]

One more time. . .your issue is with Peter (1Pe 1:2) who presents God as choosing some (not all) to be saved.

Don't try to hang that one on me!

Jesus in Mark 16:16 says that the choosing is left to man - He said that those who believe and are baptized will be saved - God will not do for man what he directs man to do. One more time, you do not believe Paul when he states that God desires all men to be saved in 1 Timothy 2:4. If you do not believe Paul on this, stop calling yourself a Paulist - and more accurately call yourself a Calvinist. Calvin also did not believe 1 Timothy 2:4 as he proposed the "Doomed from the womb", where he blasphemes God by stating that God creates people to a destiny of eternal suffering for the purpose that he receive glory - sick. 1 John 4:8 says that God is love - a God of love does not do what Calvin accuses God of doing - God does not predestine billions of people who Calivin depicts as pawns (remember Calvinisim denies man's free will) to eternal torment in order to receive Glory - again Calvin is absolutely sick! I suggest casting down the Calvinist stronghold that has lodged itself in your brain in favor of the Bible (2 Corinthians 10:5). Believe the Gospel!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Thanks for the reply Mark - now you're really trying to break my brain! Indeed I previously had some early pondering into the "interface" between our temporal existence and the seemingly atemporal New Earth (e.g. are we already there and here simultaneously? Or does time just end at when we arrive? Will my beagle be there with me? Will he complete his commentaries?).

If convenient, I'd be interested in a suggested verse or two (above you pointed to some places in Scripture "even more than hinted at").

Appreciated as always, BM

I'll admit that some of the things that set me on this trajectory are not directly Biblical, as such, one of which is the obvious implication raised by the logical notion that God is not subject to time. I admit to the fact that thinking of this separately as a necessary fact, even if not completely understood, crossed over to suggest there is a reason for the curious language constructions that Biblical prophecies sometimes use.

From our necessarily temporal view, it is easy to say that, in a manner of thinking, we could 'right now' actually be 'up there' watching all this unfold as context for judgement upon every idle word, etc. In fact, some have gone way past this, to claim that we were once up there, and put down here, to later return up there. Now there's not much they have to back that up scripturally, but I think I have more.

I'm going to have to leave it there as I'm way past time for bed tonight, getting up 3:30 for a trip. Don't let me forget to show Scripture that may apply.

 

[zoidar]

See 1Pe 1:2.

Yes exactly!

The elect refers to Christians/believers.

"'Christians' according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ"

 

[FutureAndAHope]

He didn't say impossible. . .

I don't see Jesus and Paul as in disagreement.


Is not Jesus' doctrine on the Holy Spirit in Jn 3:3-5 that we are spiriutally blind until we receive the Holy Spirit,
whose sovereign operation is governed only by what he pleases (Jn 3:6-8)?


I do not see Jesus and Paul to be in disagreement. . .I do not see the word of God contradicting itself.
The contradiction is only in one's understanding.

But what Jesus said 100% disagrees with your doctrine, Jesus states you must be obedient to His words to receive the Holy Spirit. It is the reason why God reveals Himself, when we align with God's nature, He is pleased with us, and shows himself to us. The wrath of God is only revealed against those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. The earliest Church Fathers also agree with this.

Dialogue of Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew. (Cont.)​

Chap. LXXXVIII. — Christ Has Not Received the Holy Spirit on Account of Poverty.

For God, wishing both angels and men, who were endowed with freewill, and at their own disposal, to do whatever He had strengthened each to do, made them so, that if they chose the things acceptable to Himself, He would keep them free from death and from punishment; but that if they did evil, He would punish each as He sees fit.

Justin Martyr - First Apology - Ch 1-25​

Chap. X. — How God Is to Be Served.

But we have received by tradition that God does not need the material offerings which men can give, seeing, indeed, that He Himself is the provider of all things. And we have been taught, and are convinced, and do believe, that He accepts those only who imitate the excellences which reside in Him, temperance, and justice, and philanthropy, and as many virtues as are peculiar to a God who is called by no proper name. And we have been taught that He in the beginning did of His goodness, for man’s sake, create all things out of unformed matter; and if men by their works show themselves worthy of this His design, they are deemed worthy, and so we have received — of reigning in company with Him, being delivered from corruption and suffering. For as in the beginning He created us when we were not, so do we consider that, in like manner, those who choose what is pleasing to Him are, on account of their choice, deemed worthy of incorruption and of fellowship with Him. For the coming into being at first was not in our own power; and in order that we may follow those things which please Him, choosing them by means of the rational faculties He has Himself endowed us with, He both persuades us and leads us to faith.

I also see no connection between John 3:3-5 and your doctrine. You have certainly miss read that scripture. All Jesus is saying is you can not see the heavenly kingdom without being born again.

 

[Receivedgrace]

I'm not getting you. People were saved before the Bible, by the divine Word. Paul says that saving faith comes by hearing the Word (Rom 10:17). In both of his main discussions of justification by saving faith (Romans 4 and Gal 3), he refers the reader back to Genesis 15:

"The [divine] word came to Abram in a vision [speaking promises]"

THAT is what it means to hear the Word of God. Jesus put it like this: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" (John 10:27).



You're speaking Christianese - popular Christian cliches that often have no discernible meaning. Even if I were you to ask you, "What precisely do you mean by the Spirit "acting through" the book?", you'd simply respond with more Christianese. This is how cults operate: everyone is running around speaking cliches that sound sophisticated but have no clearly defined meaning.

You seriously think that the Spirit operates more powerfully in today's Christians - who have this book - than in the prophet Abraham?
Not even close. Trust me, you don't compare to Abraham.

The bible is a written record of God's revelation given to man. It is complete and wholly sufficient to equip men to know and obey God.
The bible teaches that we have the Holy Spirit to teach us what God has revealed in the book we call the bible. Jesus taught the religious folks He encountered in parables because they though they knew what they did not know.

 

[JAL]

The bible is a written record of God's revelation given to man. It is complete and wholly sufficient to equip men to know and obey God.
The bible teaches that we have the Holy Spirit to teach us what God has revealed in the book we call the bible. Jesus taught the religious folks He encountered in parables because they though they knew what they did not know.

Sola Scriptura is a human fabrication prey to fallible interpretation. There's too much at stake to risk religious errors/misunderstanding - namely 100 billion potentially lost souls since creation. Therefore God's plan has always been to nurture each of us toward (infallible) prophethood (as many of us who are willing to meet His high demands for this office) - 1 Cor 14:1.

Would you like an example? In the NT, three major Sola Scriptura parties reigned: The Pharisees, Sadducees, and the teachers of the Law. (Paul was a member of the Pharisees until he later became a prophet). Then Christ The Prophet appeared on the scene, pointing out that all three groups of bible scholars were totally misunderstanding Scripture. The same kind of corrective is so desperately needed today.

 

[Receivedgrace]

Sola Scriptura is a human fabrication prey to fallible interpretation. There's too much at stake to risk religious errors/misunderstanding - namely 100 billion potentially lost souls since creation. Therefore God's plan has always been to nurture each of us toward (infallible) prophethood (as many of us who are willing to meet His high demands for this office) - 1 Cor 14:1.

Would you like an example? In the NT, three major Sola Scriptura parties reigned: The Pharisees, Sadducees, and the teachers of the Law. (Paul was a member of the Pharisees until he later became a prophet). Then Christ The Prophet appeared on the scene, pointing out that all three groups of bible scholars were totally misunderstanding Scripture. The same kind of corrective is so desperately needed today.

Well, we can be certain that if we do not follow biblical instruction and discount, it to be of little or no real value, we must certainly fail to attain the desired outcome.
God cannot lie. Jesus attested to the value of the scriptures and the necessity of proper understanding of the scriptures.

 

[JAL]

Well, we can be certain that if we do not follow biblical instruction and discount, it to be of little or no real value, we must certainly fail to attain the desired outcome.
God cannot lie. Jesus attested to the value of the scriptures and the necessity of proper understanding of the scriptures.

That's what I said. Prophethood is how we come to rightly understand the Scriptures.

"16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Tim 3).

See that expression "man of God" ? That's an OT expression for a prophet. Note that this letter was written to a prophet named Timothy, not to the whole church. Here's what Paul commanded the whole church:

"Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy" (1 Cor 14:1).

 

[Clare73]

Jesus in Mark 16:16 says that the choosing is left to man -

So you set Scripture against itself, Mk 16:16 against 1Pe 1:2. . .and you think God contradicts himself in
his God-breathed Scriptures (2 Ti 316).
I have a higher view of God.

He said that those who believe and are baptized will be saved - God will not do for man what he directs man to do. One more time, you do not believe Paul when he states that God desires all men to be saved in 1 Timothy 2:4.

Yes, I believe 1Ti 2:4. . .I also believe that God chooses some (not all) to be saved (1Pe 1:2).
And I believe they are reconciled in the difference between the two wills of God, his revealed and his secret (Dt 29:29).

So do you believe 1Pe 1:2? How do you Biblically reconcile it with 1Ti 2:4?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Thanks for the reply Mark - now you're really trying to break my brain! Indeed I previously had some early pondering into the "interface" between our temporal existence and the seemingly atemporal New Earth (e.g. are we already there and here simultaneously? Or does time just end at when we arrive? Will my beagle be there with me? Will he complete his commentaries?).

If convenient, I'd be interested in a suggested verse or two (above you pointed to some places in Scripture "even more than hinted at").

Appreciated as always, BM

I'll admit that some of the things that set me on this trajectory are not directly Biblical, as such, one of which is the obvious implication raised by the logical notion that God is not subject to time. I admit to the fact that thinking of this separately as a necessary fact, even if not completely understood, crossed over to suggest there is a reason for the curious language constructions that Biblical prophecies sometimes use.

From our necessarily temporal view, it is easy to say that, in a manner of thinking, we could 'right now' actually be 'up there' watching all this unfold as context for judgement upon every idle word, etc. In fact, some have gone way past this, to claim that we were once up there, and put down here, to later return up there. Now there's not much they have to back that up scripturally, but I think I have more.

I'm going to have to leave it there as I'm way past time for bed tonight, getting up 3:30 for a trip. Don't let me forget to show Scripture that may apply.

Continuing my disclaimers --I can't teach this notion as fact-- it seems only logical to me, and Biblical, though not exactly drawn from Scripture, specially since God's 'mode of existence' is not something our brains are currently built to handle.

(The older I get the more I see that our conceptions of what God has said, are, (similar to how we use language to poorly convey thought), like handles or buckets to carry thoughts around in, and never quite full of understanding of the facts. This is particularly so when we consider God's person and being. I have no 'Christian indigestion' at the notion that God can 'talk down to us' and still be true. But, in fact, this is one of the mysteries I long to know more about, that the Word of God is perfect and true, yet he uses human language to do this. Anyhow, we can't help but use human language and concepts to think, and even this notion of God's timelessness is a humanly posited notion, and probably in some ways misleading to us. We will know more when we see him as he is!)

I have already referred to prophecies, particularly places such as in Revelation where the revelator says, as if in the past tense, "I saw", and makes many other such past-tense sounding statements, so I'll leave that as is, except, again as before to mention I am aware of the 'storytelling' method apparently employed --I can't immediately think of the literary term for that. But I think it could be both: one from a temporal point of view of something yet to happen, and the other from God's point of view, having 'already happened' (as we would describe it --past tense). Apparently, John and Daniel et al, saw it as God showed them, and could only describe it as past tense(?), I don't know...

Another category is where passages sound like, "already but not yet". I think I mentioned, the "slain from the foundation of the world" but wasn't slain (from our POV) until Calvary; and "chosen from the foundation of the world" but not yet all saved. Some will say that "now we know in part but then we will know completely" explains those, and there is something to that for many passages, but that still doesn't cover the curious language. Here's a few more:

Hebrews 2: "7 '...You made him a little lower than the angels; You crowned him with glory and honor 8 and placed everything under his feet.' When God subjected all things to him, He left nothing outside of his control. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him." This one even comes right out and describes the principle! (And for anyone reading these, yes, I know there is a lot more to these passages than just the use I have made of them here).

Here's a curious one, and maybe it doesn't fit here, but: John 15:3 "You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you." And while I'm working on what may not fit: John 17:16 "They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world."

Ephesians 2: "6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus..."

Ephesians 1: "3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ." (my emphasis)

And even John 3:16 and so many others like it, refer to God giving us eternal life. We offhand translate that in our minds to something like, "Well, that is, eventually", or "Eternal, starting now", or "Well, it IS of an eternal nature, a new spiritual nature", but we may be missing something there --something that those who reject the security of God's having chosen us will probably dismiss outright, that even NOW we have it, yet don't see the consummation of it. This may also support the idea, which I DO teach for other reasons, that Regeneration and Salvific Faith are entirely the work of the Spirit of God in us.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Can we try being rational for a nanosecond? Let's suppose the New Earth is atemporal - coexisting in the past, present, and future. That would mean, wouldn't it, that past, present, and future ALL continually exist - and thus are all three atemporal, right? So, then, the New Earth would be temporally identical to the current earth. Atemporality is incoherent drivel.

Since you are the rational, coherent, one here among us, maybe you can fill in the logical steps you apparently assumed we could fill in for ourselves, between "atemporal" = "coexisting in the past, present, and future"; and maybe you can do the same for the notion that "past, present, and future ALL continually exist" = "all three are atemporal" I could just as easily as you think you have shown that atemporality is incoherent drivel, use your own argument to demonstrate mathematically that atemporality is a valid concept!

This way of yours to trust human words to accurately guide us through spiritual concepts may have something to do with why you think it is the only logically coherent theological system (though, according to you, as far as you know, you are the only one to come up with this obvious fact) in which God is growing and improving.

 

[JAL]

Since you are the rational, coherent, one here among us, maybe you can fill in the logical steps you apparently assumed we could fill in for ourselves, between "atemporal" = "coexisting in the past, present, and future"; and maybe you can do the same for the notion that "past, present, and future ALL continually exist" = "all three are atemporal" I could just as easily as you think you have shown that atemporality is incoherent drivel, use your own argument to demonstrate mathematically that atemporality is a valid concept!

I have no idea what you just said. Yes, I believe it is incoherent to posit a co-existence of past, present, and future. Example of the incoherence is the apparent violation of non-contradiction. After all, coexistence means simultaneity. Visualize:
....(1) That guy is 25 years old.
....(2) His future already exists. Simultaneously he is 100 years old, dead, and gone.

Huh? My earlier argument was a reaction to the proposal that:
....(1) The New Earth is atemporal.
....(2) The current earth is temporal.

Why would there be any difference? Again, if the New Earth is simultaneous with the current earth, both are therefore atemporal.

This way of yours to trust human words to accurately guide us through spiritual concepts....

You want to trust non-human words? You're not making any sense here.

Here's my advice to everyone: if your proposed doctrine is something that humans cannot understand, then remain silent! What value is gibberish? OR, at minimum, at least preface it with the disclaimer that it is pure gibberish and, as such, of dubious epistemological value.

Accepting gibberish entraps us within a false sense of security because we gratuitously tell ourselves, "I already have the correct answers, there is no need to further reform my theology."

 

[John Mullally]

So you set Scripture against itself, Mk 16:16 against 1Pe 1:2. . .and you think God contradicts himself
in his God-breathed Scriptures (2 Ti 316).
I have a higher view of God.

Yes, I believe 1Ti 2:4. . .I also believe that God chooses some (not all) to be saved (1Pe 1:2).
And I believe they are reconciled in the difference between the two wills of God, his revealed and his secret (Dt 29:29).

So do you believe 1Pe 1:2? How do you Biblically reconcile it with 1Ti 2:4?

Concerning 1 Peter 1:2:
Peter is speaking to the Church identified in the previous verse. It was not that God elected us to be the elect! God foreknew that we would be His elect. We are called the elect because God knew ahead of time who was going to become the elect. God foreknew who would trust Jesus as Saviour. We are the elect because when we heard the gospel of grace we trusted Christ for salvation.. and because of His foreknowledge - God knew from the foundation of the world that we would become part of the elect!

Relating 1 Timothy 2:4 with 1 Peter 1:2 and Mark 16:16:
Although God desires all to be saved, there are plenty of passages like 1 Peter 1:2 indicating that many are not. This is because God has left many decisions up to man. The Gospel is the power of God to salvation (Romans 1:16-17), but it only applied when it is believed (Mark 16:16). God will not force anyone to believe.

Calvinist revealed will vs secret will:
What is the significance of the revealed and secret will? I would think it just means that God has not fully revealed His will. But that is not what Calvinists are getting at:

To say that God hates sin (revealed will) while secretly willing it, or to say that God warns us not to fall away (revealed will) though it is impossible (secret will), or to say that God loves the world (revealed will) while excluding most people from an opportunity for salvation (secret will), or to say that God warmly invites sinners to come to Him (revealed will), knowing all the while that they cannot possibly do so (secret will). Such things do not deserve to be called mysteries when that is just a euphemism for nonsense.​

​

John Calvin comments: “As for this passage being taken by sophists to support free will and abolish God’s secret predestination, there is an easy answer. God wishes all to come together, they say: therefore all are free to come and their wish does not depend on the election of God. I answer, that the will of God as mentioned here must be judged by the result. Seeing that in His Word He calls all alike to salvation, and this is the object of preaching, that all should take refuge in His faith and protection, it is right to say that He wishes all to gather to Him. Now the nature of the Word shows us that here there is no description of the secret counsel of God (Arcanum Dei consilium)--just His wishes. Certainly those whom He wishes effectively to gather, He draws inwardly by His Spirit, and calls them not merely by man’s outward voice. If anyone objects that it is absurd to split God’s will (duplicem in Deo volunteer fingi), I answer that this is exactly our belief, that His will is one and undivided: but because our minds cannot plumb the profound depths of His secret election (ad profundam arcanae electionis abyssum) to suit our infirmity, the will of God is set before us as double (bifariam).” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, Matthew, Mark and Luke, Vol. III, James and Jude, p.69, emphasis mine)​

​

In other words, when Jesus said, “How often I wanted,” but “you were unwilling,” what He secretly meant was “I never really wanted” since you were purposely excluded from the secret predestination of God. Moreover, did Jesus tearfully weep over Jerusalem because He had eternally, willfully reprobated them, and as a result, they were now unwilling?​

​

 

[Clare73]

Continuing my disclaimers --I can't teach this notion as fact-- it seems only logical to me, and Biblical, though not exactly drawn from Scripture, specially since God's 'mode of existence' is not something our brains are currently built to handle.

(The older I get the more I see that our conceptions of what God has said, are, (similar to how we use language to poorly convey thought), like handles or buckets to carry thoughts around in, and never quite full of understanding of the facts. This is particularly so when we consider God's person and being. I have no 'Christian indigestion' at the notion that God can 'talk down to us' and still be true. But, in fact, this is one of the mysteries I long to know more about, that the Word of God is perfect and true, yet he uses human language to do this. Anyhow, we can't help but use human language and concepts to think, and even this notion of God's timelessness is a humanly posited notion, and probably in some ways misleading to us. We will know more when we see him as he is!)

I have already referred to prophecies, particularly places such as in Revelation where the revelator says, as if in the past tense, "I saw", and makes many other such past-tense sounding statements, so I'll leave that as is, except, again as before to mention I am aware of the 'storytelling' method apparently employed --I can't immediately think of the literary term for that. But I think it could be both: one from a temporal point of view of something yet to happen, and the other from God's point of view, having 'already happened' (as we would describe it --past tense).

Apparently, John and Daniel et al, saw it as God showed them, and could only describe it as past tense(?), I don't know...

Would that not refer to a vision, before their writing?

Another category is where passages sound like, "already but not yet". I think I mentioned, the "slain from the foundation of the world" but wasn't slain (from our POV) until Calvary; and "chosen from the foundation of the world" but not yet all saved. Some will say that "now we know in part but then we will know completely" explains those, and there is something to that for many passages, but that still doesn't cover the curious language. Here's a few more:

Hebrews 2: "7 '...You made him a little lower than the angels; You crowned him with glory and honor 8 and placed everything under his feet.' When God subjected all things to him, He left nothing outside of his control. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him." This one even comes right out and describes the principle! (And for anyone reading these, yes, I know there is a lot more to these passages than just the use I have made of them here).

Would that not refer to giving him the governship/rule of creation which he must then secure according to God's order, beginning with its purchase (redemption, ransom) from condemnation, and then moving on to restoration to what I suspect will be greater than it was in the beginning.

Here's a curious one, and maybe it doesn't fit here, but: John 15:3 "You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you." And while I'm working on what may not fit: John 17:16 "They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world."
Ephesians 2: "6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus..."
Ephesians 1: "3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ." (my emphasis)
And even John 3:16 and so many others like it, refer to God giving us eternal life.

Is eternal life not God's life. . .not that I can define that, but may be what Peter is referring to when he states that we "participate in the divine nature." (2Pe 1:4).

We offhand translate that in our minds to something like, "Well, that is, eventually", or "Eternal, starting now", or "Well, it IS of an eternal nature, a new spiritual nature", but we may be missing something there --something that those who reject the security of God's having chosen us will probably dismiss outright, that even NOW we have it, yet don't see the consummation of it. This may also support the idea, which I DO teach for other reasons, that Regeneration and Salvific Faith are entirely the work of the Spirit of God in us.

 

[Clare73]

Concerning 1 Peter 1:2:
Peter is speaking to the Church identified in the previous verse. It was not that God elected us to be the elect! God foreknew that we would be His elect. We are called the elect because God knew ahead of time who was going to become the elect. God foreknew who would trust Jesus as Saviour. We are the elect because when we heard the gospel of grace we trusted Christ for salvation.. and because of His foreknowledge - God knew from the foundation of the world that we would become part of the elect!

Except that Scripture never uses divine foreknowledge as God knowing in advance what man is going to do, but only of God knowing in advance what he is going to do. . .and that is not because he looks down the corridors of time to see what he will do in the future, but is because he knows what he has already decreed that he shall do.

God's foreknowledge is of his choice/decree before the foundations of the world.

"Known to the Lord for ages is his work." (Ac 15:8)

God's "foreknowledge" has been hi-jacked to mean foreknowledge of man's works instead of God's works.

Relating 1 Timothy 2:4 with 1 Peter 1:2 and Mark 16:16:
Although God desires all to be saved, there are plenty of passages like 1 Peter 1:2 indicating that many are not. This is because God has left many decisions up to man. The Gospel is the power of God to salvation (Romans 1:16-17), but it only applied when it is believed (Mark 16:16). God will not force anyone to believe.

Calvinist revealed will vs secret will:
What is the significance of the revealed and secret will? I would think it just means that God has not fully revealed His will.

Moses (Dt 29:29) indicates more than just your simplification.
God's will is presented as twofold: secret; i.e., his pleasure (Ps 115:3, Ps 135:6, Da 4:35) when he executes the hidden decrees of his providence, and revealed; i.e., in his word.
And Moses concludes his prophecy of the Jews' rejection (Dt 29:25-28) just as Paul concludes his (Ro 11:33), grounded in the unsearchable (secret) wisdom of God. . .not in the choices of man.

But that is not what Calvinists are getting at:

To say that God hates sin (revealed will) while secretly willing it, or to say that God warns us not to fall away (revealed will) though it is impossible (secret will), or to say that God loves the world (revealed will) while excluding most people from an opportunity for salvation (secret will), or to say that God warmly invites sinners to come to Him (revealed will), knowing all the while that they cannot possibly do so (secret will). Such things do not deserve to be called mysteries when that is just a euphemism for nonsense.​

​

John Calvin comments: “As for this passage being taken by sophists to support free will and abolish God’s secret predestination, there is an easy answer. God wishes all to come together, they say: therefore all are free to come and their wish does not depend on the election of God. I answer, that the will of God as mentioned here must be judged by the result. Seeing that in His Word He calls all alike to salvation, and this is the object of preaching, that all should take refuge in His faith and protection, it is right to say that He wishes all to gather to Him. Now the nature of the Word shows us that here there is no description of the secret counsel of God (Arcanum Dei consilium)--just His wishes. Certainly those whom He wishes effectively to gather, He draws inwardly by His Spirit, and calls them not merely by man’s outward voice. If anyone objects that it is absurd to split God’s will (duplicem in Deo volunteer fingi), I answer that this is exactly our belief, that His will is one and undivided: but because our minds cannot plumb the profound depths of His secret election (ad profundam arcanae electionis abyssum) to suit our infirmity, the will of God is set before us as double (bifariam).” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, Matthew, Mark and Luke, Vol. III, James and Jude, p.69, emphasis mine)​

In other words, when Jesus said, “How often I wanted,” but “you were unwilling,” what He secretly meant was “I never really wanted” since you were purposely excluded from the secret predestination of God. Moreover, did Jesus tearfully weep over Jerusalem because He had eternally, willfully reprobated them, and as a result, they were now unwilling?​

You have introduced another nature into the equation, a human nature which is limited in terms of the infinite divine, and which submits to the divine (Mt 26:29).

 

[John Mullally]

Except that Scripture never uses divine foreknowledge as God knowing in advance what man is going to do, but only of God knowing in advance what he is going to do. . .and that is not because he looks down the corridors of time to see what he will do in the future, but is because he knows what he has already decreed that he shall do.

God's foreknowledge is of his choice/decree before the foundations of the world.

"Known to the Lord for ages is his work." (Ac 15:8)

God's "foreknowledge" has been hi-jacked to mean foreknowledge of man's works instead of God's works.

Moses (Dt 29:29) indicates more than just your simplification.
God's will is presented as twofold: secret; i.e., his pleasure (Ps 115:3, Ps 135:6, Da 4:35) when he executes the hidden decrees of his providence, and revealed; i.e., in his word.
Moses concludes his prophecy of the Jews' rejection (Dt 29:25-28) just as Paul concludes his (Ro 11:33), with the unsearchable wisdom of God.


You have introduced another nature into the equation, a human nature which is limited in terms of the infinite divine, and which submits to the divine (Mt 26:29).

Not an argument: Foreknowledge just means known ahead of time. I can say that Calvinists have hi-jacked the term foreknowledge. What is an argument is that Calvinists twist secret will not to mean that which is not revealed in scripture. No, but to attribute to God duplicity. No the God who desires all to be saved, has not predestined any to eternal torment from before birth in order to receive glory for himself (which Calvin states). Neither has God predetermined every man's action, especially sin, per Jeremiah 32;35. No, God is a God of love.