I don’t read much of Calvin. Sorry to disappoint.
Let me start by saying that this is a Soteriology thread. The challenge presented will stay within that realm.
I have noticed lately that there have been what I would consider strawman arguments against reformed theology, or if you’d prefer Calvinism. Understandably, when people present these challenges, they think that they are accurately representing what Calvinism teaches. For instance, one of the most recent arguments is that in Calvinism, God forces people to believe. So here is the challenge.
Using notable doctrines with reform theology, such as the Canons of Dort, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the London Baptist Confession of Faith, or Calvin‘s Institutes of Christian Religion, make your argument on whatever issue you have against Calvinism, but you must be able to quote one of these sources to support your claim. I will allow other sources, but they must be something that is considered in historic document document within reformed theology (Heidelberg catechism, for example).
Have fun.
Calvinism is used 5 times in this OP that you wrote. John Calvin is the origin of Calvinism. So, not only are you now unable to, by canon only, defend your stance about the Character of God, per OP thread history,(here's the link to the result of all of this proceeding discussion
This is the result of Commentary free Trinity Doctrine. Are there more verses I could have included? Yes, but that would have taken days. I hit the target on this..) but now, the very source of the Character of God that you Rebuke/Reproof other Christians with, on thread after thread... is something you haven't studied out, "much"?
I'm not having fun. This is actually very upsetting.
Your replies, in factor of the mean, are predominately flat lined and unresponsive to Scripture. This isn't just here. It's in all of your discussions. This isn't an attack, but a simple matter of fact.
Now, HERE <- Link I start using
John Calvin's writings, and you perk right up to the "Defense" of
his "Character". Would you agree that
John Calvin was a "
Hateful" man? He is frequently cited to have debated with hateful force. I have a point and this is forensically supported by your own words in all thread history, on this site.
You don't "read him that much", yet you jumped to quote him and attempt to rebut my use of his writings, against him.
Do you see the overall debate point that this is supporting? One of your first OP's was
800+ Free eBooks Listed Alphabetically by Author | Monergism ... If I look up "Monorgism": "
The word monergism comes from the Greek words mono, which means "one", and erg, which means "work". In theology,
monergism is the belief that the Holy Spirit is the only agent in regeneration, and that the human will has no inclination to holiness until regenerated.
Monergism is often associated with Lutheranism, the Reformed tradition, and historical doctrinal differences between
Calvinism and Arminianism.
About the OP...
The very definition of Monergism refutes the OP. Man has no will to turn to Jesus. This is why Calvin says this: In 3.2.11 "Therefore, as
God regenerates only the elect with incorruptible seed forever so that the seed of life sown in their hearts may never perish, thus he firmly seals the gift of his adoption in them that it may be steady and sure. But
this does not at all hinder that lower working of the Spirit from taking its course even in the reprobate."
But, add Calvin's own words... from the very source that you cited "Institutes"... and we can see that God DOES NOT ALLOW the "REPROBATE" to be saved. Calvin even has the Holy Spirit actively withholding salvational knowledge from the Reprobate.
What higher act of not being Puppets on Strings is there than man reaching desperately towards God for Salvation and God not responding because of His "REPROBATION" of the Reprobates (Selected by Divine Pre-Creation Lottery). They dance and sing, live and die, but GOD doesn't allow them to find Jesus Christ?