Why I don't believe in Calvinism.

[Bible Highlighter]

lol at “not all Christians believe the same thing”..... that makes me uncomfortable just thinking about it. Non believers would have a field day with that statement.

I have been discussing the Bible for a long time on Christian forums. How about you? Any Christian who discusses the Bible with other Christians will know of the Theological wording that we Christians use. It is simply a fact. For even some unbelievers (atheists, agnostics) are aware of these different theological words that we Christians use by similar discussion. Most of these theological words that we use are not new and nor did they spring up overnight. So I would say that you need to simply need to study them for yourself. I know. I used to be intimidated by such words in the beginning of my faith, but in time, they will become second nature to you once you learn more about them. For example: Do you believe in Calvinism? Not all Christians believe in Calvinism. Hence, why there is a debate in this thread.

 

[JM]

I went into your next post with an open but cautious mind. But unfortunately found it wanting. Although agreeing to those verses in there original context, mashed together like this I disagree. Furthermore 1 John has been misused, which is one of my favourite epistles.

I found this posting wanting...of interaction with the material and demonstrating why it was 'wanting.'

I'll give this thread another 20 minutes and unsub from it.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Sam91]

WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES ABOUT ELECTION, IT’S NOT BASED ON FORESEEN RESPONSES:

And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect’s sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days. (Ma 13:20)

Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. (Jo 15:16)

And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)

The following video was created a few years ago to help explain Acts 13.

A very powerful example of how God choses can be found in Romans 9.

Notice;

1) it is before “having done any good or evil”

2) it is based on the purpose of God and not the create

3) not based on what we do but God who calls us

4) that Jacob was loved and Esau hated

The Arminian or free will tradition tries to avoid the plain interpretation by claiming “loved” mentioned in point 4 means “loved less” but the point still stands and that is, Jacob was loved more and elect, Esau was not. Jacob’s election was based on God’s love. Another free will argument to avoid this conclusion is to claim Jacob means the nation of Israel while Esau represents the gentile nation. The logic if faulty. Without conceding any ground, nations are made up of individuals so we are back to the main point, one was elect the other not.

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. (Ro 9)

The elect get it…those who are not were blinded.

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. (Ro 11:7)

Being a chosen nation or elect is based on God’s will and not ours.

So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. (Ro 9:16)

 

[Sam91]

I found this posting wanting...of interaction with the material and demonstrating why it was 'wanting.'

I'll give this thread another 20 minutes and unsub from it.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Your post is too long to interact with on a mobile phone. I can't quote snippets and my short term memory is too poor to scroll so much.

 

[JM]

Too much of the Bible is missed out in order for this view to be sound. Many are the words of our Saviour.

Too much of your personal taste for libertarian freewill is colouring your perspective.

I find your comment wanting, but it's not too bad...I guess.

lol

 

[JM]

Your post is too long to interact with on a mobile phone. I can't quote snippets and my short term memory is too poor to scroll so much.

I'll unsubscribe in a few minutes anyway. It's best I post and bounce. People will send me messages...even years later, saying God used these posts to help them. It happens all the time.

To God be the glory, that's all that matters.

Peace

 

[Sam91]

Too much of your personal taste for libertarian freewill is colouring your perspective.

I find your comment wanting, but it's not too bad...I guess.

lol

It's not so much personal taste but what I have seen with my eyes and experienced over my life. I do not profess to understand the ins and outs but I know what my Bible says. I can't reconcile it to what you wrote, even though there were no unfamiliar verses. I just can't.

It's a good job the Lord has taught me Proverbs 3:5-6

And that His ways are higher than ours. His thoughts are not ours. Isaiah 55. Out of interest, can you reconcile that chapter to your theology?

 

[Not David]

In chapter 10, Rose uses the letters of John of Shanghai and San Francisco (St. John Maximovitch) as an authority to provide more details of this teaching.

According to John of Shanghai and San Francisco the soul is hindered by the body and becomes more active after death. This struck me as a Gnostic holdover. It is admitted that all cultures have after death or “out of body” experiences and again, the Eastern Orthodox teaching is not examined but stated and believed without criticism. In the letters we read that a soul has two days to linger on earth, visiting places that were special to the individual when alive, but on the 3rd day the soul moves into “another spheres” and “passes through legions of evil spirits which obstruct its path and accuse if of various revelations…”

According to The Soul After Death the soul visits heavenly habitations and hell for 37 days, still not knowing where it will end up… On the 40th day the soul will stop in heaven or hell until the Last or Final Judgement. This is considered a taste of blessedness or torment. The Priest may offer a Liturgy (similar to the Roman Catholic Mass) and prayers on behalf of the deceased resulting in a change in the departed soul.

A word in closing:

I’m left haunted by this seemly pagan teaching founded on a dream, a nightmare and forced upon the scriptures. It maybe true, that this doctrine of Aerial Toll Houses is not considered universally “orthodox” by the Orthodox, but it is still embraced by millions of Eastern Orthodox believers. It is considered “dogma” by a large portion of the Eastern Church. It’s soul shaking to think that for 1,500 years Christians in the East have believed in such a doctrine, one that utterly lacks confidence in Christ to save, that places such emphasis on fallen sinners to evade demons and find rest for their wicked souls. It’s haunting to think that even after death we have to struggle to prove our faithfulness to Christ before we can enter our eternal rest. There is no rest in Christ for the Orthodox. The idea that demonic powers are seeking to “devour the soul of the spiritually weak,” even after death, robs Christ of His promises to save by faith alone. Simple, heartfelt faith in Christ’s work on the Cross is almost never in view. For the Orthodox the sinner is on a constant hamster wheel of merit and faith, faith and merit never finding rest.

I will end with 1 John 5.11-13 and with an old prayer:

“And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.”

Let us prayer:

O God, most high, most glorious, the thought of Your infinite serenity cheers me, for I am toiling and moiling, troubled and distressed, but You are for ever at perfect peace. Your designs cause You no fear or care of unfulfilment, they stand fast as the eternal hills. Your power knows no bond, Your goodness no stint. You bring order out of confusion, and my defeats are Your victories: The Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

I come to You as a sinner with cares and sorrows, to leave every concern entirely to You, every sin calling for Christ’s precious blood; revive deep spirituality in my heart; let me live near to the great Shepherd, hear His voice, know its tones, follow its calls. Keep me from deception by causing me to abide in the truth, from harm by helping me to walk in the power of the Spirit. Give me intenser faith in the eternal verities, burning into me by experience the things I know; Let me never be ashamed of the truth of the gospel, that I may bear its reproach, vindicate it, see Jesus as its essence, know in it the power of the Spirit.

Lord, help me, for I am often lukewarm and chill; unbelief mars my confidence, sin makes me forget You. Let the weeds that grow in my soul be cut at their roots; grant me to know that I truly live only when I live to You, that all else is trifling. Your presence alone can make me holy, devout, strong and happy.

Abide in me, gracious God.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

I'm not well versed in the Aerial toll houses, but it is a fact that Satan wants to accuse us and make us feel bad of God's love. I will create a thread in the Orthodox Forum to discuss about it.
Nevertheless, my point about Calvinism being an innovation keeps firm.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Here goes…

“What are the doctrines of grace?”

The Doctrines of Grace, also known as Calvinism, are summarized as:

1. T is for total depravity and inability of man to effect his own salvation.
2. U is for unconditional or unlimited choice of God in election.
3. L is for limited atonement.
4. I is for irresistible grace.
5. P is for the perseverance of the saints.

These “five points” are often called the Five Points of Calvinism but that is actually a misnomer. John Calvin did not write them and they were written only in response to the raise of Arminianism.

Does the Bible teach “Calvinism?” Before we get to scripture a little background.

Both Reformed Christians and other non-Reformed or Arminian Christians love the word of God and seek to conform to the word in all matters of faith and practice. Both groups believe they are expressing biblical doctrine and faith. Often those who oppose what is called “Calvinism” will lay claim to being a “Biblicist.” In my experience this claim is made in the spirit of obstinacy, one that simply ignores the facts of profane history, and embraces a modernistic view of theology. The person holding to such views often does so with an air of superiority, as if the person making this claim has a completely biblical theology “untainted” by any theologian. Both the Calvinist and Arminian lay claim to the idea of Biblicism. Both systems of theology believe they are expressing the literal, historical, and grammatical meaning of scripture. It is a pejorative when someone fails to recognize their own theological leanings, and claim the Calvinist is not attempting to explain what the divine word teaches. You will notice that I use the term Arminian for Bible believing Christians that support ideas about free will and I often use both identifiers together (ex. Arminian free will, free will Arminianism, etc.). This is not a slight but a historical theological definition to the chagrin of the Post-Modernist mind. To help clear the air I’ve included some questions. Many of them are my own, some of them I worked on with friends and others I’ve picked up from forums when having discussions about such theological issues.

Do you believe that human nature was gravely affected by the fall of Adam, but that sinners have not been left powerlessness in spiritual matters and can choose to be saved?

Do you believe that God enables every sinner to repent and believe but does not override man’s freedom to do so?

Do you believe each sinner possesses a free will that they will use to decide their final destiny depending on how they uses it?
Do you believe the sinners free will enables them to choose good over evil in spiritual matters?

Do you believe the sinner has the power to cooperate with the Holy Spirit and be regenerated or refuse to accept God’s grace and perish?

Do you believe the lost sinner needs help from the Holy Spirit but does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit to believe? Or that faith is man’s act and precedes regeneration?

Do you believe that God’s choice in election is based on what He foresees?

Do you believe that some sinners would respond to the preaching of the Gospel and God therefore elects them unto salvation based on His knowledge of their choice? Or that God decided to elect only those who would believe the Gospel?

Do you believe election is ultimately determined by man’s faith foreseen by God from eternity past?

Do you believe that Christ’s saving work on the cross made it a possibility for everyone single person that has ever lived to be saved but did not really secure the salvation of anyone?

Do you believe that Christ died for all sinners but only those who believe on Him are saved?

Do you believe Christ’s death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condition that they believe?

Do you believe that Christ’s death did not actually put away anyone’s sin but made salvation a possibility?

Do you believe that redemption becomes efficient only if man chooses to believe it?

If you have answered yes to any of the above questions you are probably closer to Arminianism than you first believed, even if you reject the name. The history of the free will movement among Protestants sits squarely within the Arminian framework. If you answer yes to most of the questions, face it, you are an Arminian.

Once it is understood that modern Evangelicalism has a tradition wedded to Arminianism the debate breaks down into monergism and synergism. The free will Arminian tradition is very similar to Roman Catholicism. In fact, Arminius like Philipp Melanchthon before him, softened the Protestant doctrine moving Lutherianism toward the Roman church. When I say Protestant I refer to Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin. All there Reformers held to what is now called “Calvinism.” This is a remarkable fact considering the Reformers lived in different geographical locations.

The Reformers and Bible believers before them were monergists. A monergist believes the Holy Spirit will act effectually bringing sinners to salvation by spiritual regeneration. This is done without the sinner acting as an accomplice or assisting God. From beginning to end the work belongs to God. A synergist on the other hand believes the sinner must cooperate (Christ + something, you fill in the blank, faith, sacraments, works, etc.) in the salvation process often inserting ideas like “prevenient grace” to help explain the inconsistencies. For the Arminian or Christian supporting libertarian free will, it is the act of the unregenerate sinner in believing that begins the process of salvation. One dictionary describe this view as, “two efficient agents [acting] in regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate.” This is the definition of modern Evangelism and is the hinge on which the discussion swings.

Do you believe a sinner must be saved purely by an act of God? or, Do you believe a sinner is saved by cooperating with the Holy Spirit? That is where we are today folks. We are discussing this very issue. Does the Bible teach that we are saved by God alone without any contribution made by the sinner? Or Does the Bible teach that we cooperate in the regeneration process? As we move forward I pray you take time to look up the passages cited and pray over them. It is important to read scripture as it is written and not fall to peer pressure, setting aside the Arminian comprise with Rome and let the Gospel of God’s free and unmerited grace wash over you. Let’s set aside our prejudices or bias, our traditions including American Evangelicalism or Reformed Calvinism and consider what scriptures teach.

The scriptures will be examined in subsequent posts.

While I could easily tear apart each of the verses you use use out of context to support Calvinism, it simply does not need to be done because of the ridiculousness of Calvinism to begin with. It would be like arguing whether or not air exists or clouds exist. We know God does not force save some and force others to not be saved for the Scriptures say that God is love. A loving God would surely not force some people to not be saved and then later judge them at a judgment (for something that was outside of their control). It would be like creating a robot whereby you left it to it's own programming to kill people, and then you later put that robot on trial for murder. It would be illogical to judge the robot for killing if the robot had no other choice outside of it's programming to do so.

So a God who judges the wicked for something that they had no control over and God could have easily changed it for them places the blame of salvation on God and not the sinner. That would neither be loving and neither would it be biblical and it would be an attack upon the good character of our God. But you are free to believe as you wish (of course). I merely create this thread as a means to divert the conversation from a Christian advice thread. This thread was not meant to be a major attack against Calvinism. In fact, there does not need to be any debate or attack. Calvinism falls easier than a house of cards if a person studies the Bible on their own without any Calvinistic bias, and by walking with the Lord and His good ways. There are plenty of free will statements made in the Bible that refute the idea that we are forced to make a decision. Of course, Calvinism creates work arounds for the free will we see in the Bible. But it is forced and unnatural to what the Bible plainly says.

 

[Sam91]

While I could easily tear apart each of the verses you use use out of context to support Calvinism, it simply does not need to be done because of the ridiculousness of Calvinism to begin with. It would be like arguing whether or not air exists or clouds exist. We know God does not force save some and force others to not be saved for the Scriptures say that God is love. A loving God would surely not force some people to not be saved and then later judge them at a judgment (for something that was outside of their control). It would be like creating a robot whereby you left it's programming to kill people, and then you later put that robot on trial for murder. It would be illogical to judge the Robot for killing if the robot had no other choice outside of it's programming to do so.

So a God who judges the wicked for something that they had no control over and God could have easily changed it for them places the blame of salvation on Him and not the sinner. That would neither be loving and neither would it be biblical and it would be an attack upon the good character of our God. But you are free to believe as you wish (of course). I merely create this thread as a means to divert the conversation from a Christian advice thread. This thread was not meant to be a major attack against Calvinism. In fact, there does not need to be any debate or attack. Calvinism falls easier than a house of cards if a person studies the Bible on their own without any Calvinistic bias, and by walking with the Lord and His good ways. There are plenty of free will statements made in the Bible that refute the idea that we are forced to make a decision. Of course, Calvinism creates work arounds for the free will we see in the Bible. But it is forced and unnatural to what the Bible plainly says.

I think what makes a difference is how much of a chance someone has had to read the Bible before encountering it. It's like lenses get put across peoples eyes to make it fit what they've been told. (Not saying I don't have lenses too).

Scripture has to be taken as a whole as well in part. I can't accept Calvinism because the warnings about being misled shoot into my mind/heart when I come across something that conflicts.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Again, Calvinism would be like creating a robot whereby you left it to it's own programming to kill people, and then you later put that robot on trial for murder. It would be illogical to judge the robot for killing if the robot had no other choice outside of it's programming to not kill. So a God who judges the wicked for something that they had no control over when God could have easily changed it for them places the blame of salvation on God and not the sinner. Why would God want to see them perish if He had the sole power to save them?

Here is another example: Imagine if you, your family, and a bunch of others are lost at sea, and a coast guard comes. However, imagine if you will that the coast guard saves everyone else out of the water, but he does not save you and your family. You ask him why he is not saving all of you, and he says... "No reason." As he drives away into the distance, would you not think it was unfair? Would you not think the coast guard was being mean, cold, and cruel? You sure would, unless you felt like you deserved to be treated unfairly or something.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I think what makes a difference is how much of a chance someone has had to read the Bible before encountering it. It's like lenses get put across peoples eyes to make it fit what they've been told. (Not saying I don't have lenses too).

Scripture has to be taken as a whole as well in part. I can't accept Calvinism because the warnings about being misled shoot into my mind/heart when I come across something that conflicts.

Indeed. Why all the warnings to us if Calvinism were true? Why all the commands to us if Calvinism was true? Why all the free will statements if Calvinism was true?

 

[Sam91]

Indeed. Why all the warnings to us if Calvinism were true? Why all the commands to us if Calvinism was true? Why all the free will statements if Calvinism was true?

It would mean that much of the Bible wouldn't be needed, when it says all scripture is profitable for... 2 timothy 3:16-17

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Free will is a choice that leads you down a path that determines which road you want to take.

Free Will in the Bible:

#1. Joshua 24:15 KJV -
"Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve"

#2. Matthew 11:28 KJV -
"Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."

#3. John 7:17 KJV -
"If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God."

#4. John 7:37 KJV -
"If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink."

#5. Acts 2:38 KJV -
"Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized"

#6. Acts 3:19 KJV -
"Repent therefore and be converted"

#7. Acts 16:31 KJV -
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved"

#8. Acts 17:30 KJV -
"but now commands all men everywhere to repent"

#9. Revelation 22:17 KJV -
"Whoever wills, let him take the water of life freely."

#10. Genesis 4:7 KJV -
"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."

#11. Revelation 22:17 KJ2
"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that hears say, Come. And let him that is thirsty come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."

#12. Luke 13:34 NLT -
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God's messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn't let me.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

I have been discussing the Bible for a long time on Christian forums. How about you? Any Christian who discusses the Bible with other Christians will know of the Theological wording that we Christians use. It is simply a fact. For even some unbelievers (atheists, agnostics) are aware of these different theological words that we Christians use by similar discussion. Most of these theological words that we use are not new and nor did they spring up overnight. So I would say that you need to simply need to study them for yourself. I know. I used to be intimidated by such words in the beginning of my faith, but in time, they will become second nature to you once you learn more about them. For example: Do you believe in Calvinism? Not all Christians believe in Calvinism. Hence, why there is a debate in this thread.

I’m well aware of all the different variations of titles different Christians give themselves. Although I haven’t quite seen one strung together like what you described yourself as I do understand that different Christians call themselves different things. And every single time I see it I cringe. I cringe because I don’t know how it became logical for two people to both be Christian and have differing beliefs. But maybe that’s my fault for hoping things should make some type of sense in the world we live in today. Apparently I’m in the minority who thinks it’s rather ridiculous to say we are of the same belief but we believe different...... I would laugh if someone was trying to explain truth to me and that came out of their mouth. I’d respectfully say thanks but no thanks.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

It would be like creating a robot whereby you left it to it's own programming to kill people, and then you later put that robot on trial for murder.

I've always regarded people who use the robot analogy to have no real understanding of Calvinism. It becomes apparent in such arguments:

Free will is a choice that leads you down a path that determines which road you want to take.

After which you quote verses about making the right choice, et cetera. If you think that Calvinism means that people don't make choices, of their own volition, then you don't understand the subject. If you think it means we are robots, then you don't understand it.

Incidentally, If you create a robot that goes around killing people, I'm sure no one would blame you for destroying it. If all it did was harm the other robots you made, they would say that destroying it was your own business and you had a right to it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I’m well aware of all the different variations of titles different Christians give themselves. Although I haven’t quite seen one strung together like what you described yourself as I do understand that different Christians call themselves different things. And every single time I see it I cringe. I cringe because I don’t know how it became logical for two people to both be Christian and have differing beliefs. But maybe that’s my fault for hoping things should make some type of sense in the world we live in today. Apparently I’m in the minority who thinks it’s rather ridiculous to say we are of the same belief but we believe different...... I would laugh if someone was trying to explain truth to me and that came out of their mouth. I’d respectfully say thanks but no thanks.

Let me give you a few examples that not all Christians believe the same thing.

Do you believe God forces some to be saved and forces others to not be saved?
5 point Calvinists believe this. Do you believe this?
Most Christians today profess to believe in the Trinity (Which is a belief I hold to).
Yet, there are professing Christians who do not believe in the Trinity.
Do you think this is okay to believe in either one?
There are Christians who think they can sin as much as they want and be saved.
There are Christians who think they can sin only on occasion as long as they generally sort of live a holy life and be saved.
There are Christians who believe you need to have both faith + works of faith (and live holy) as a part of salvation.
So no. Not all Christians believe the same thing. I would encourage you to study and learn more about the different Christian beliefs that are out there. If you are totally fine with all of the above beliefs, there is even a Theological label for that (Whether you want to accept that label or not).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I've always regarded people who use the robot analogy to have no real understanding of Calvinism. It becomes apparent in such arguments:

Just saying so does not make it so. You need to prove how my logic is flawed.
Unconditional Election is saying that God does not elect a person based on no conditions within the individual whatsoever. In the case of electing a person to damnation (Which is unconditional - i.e. unconditional election), they are in a totally depraved state that they cannot escape out of and God is going to judge them at the judgment for something that they have no real control over.

After which you quote verses about making the right choice, et cetera. If you think that Calvinism means that people don't make choices, of their own volition, then you don't understand the subject. If you think it means we are robots, then you don't understand it.

I am not new to the topic of Calvinism. While I prefer not to debate this topic endlessly because it is a pretty silly belief to hold to (from my perspective), I am aware of some of things Calvinists believe. I am aware of the 5 points of traditional Calvinism and that there are different flavors of Calvinism, as well (that do not adhere to the 5 points of Calvinism).

I am also aware that Calvinists believe that individuals can make free will choices, but they simply believe that one cannot make a free will choice in regards to choosing God. This is what I was referring to. Calvinists also believe in Total Depravity, meaning the sinner will always sin. My robot analogy shows the Calvinist's understanding on Total Depravity that they cannot escape sin and choose God. God elects them to remain in this totally depraved state of sin, and He judges them for something that they had no real control over to prevent. It's like a master who kicks his dog across the room like a football because it has an uncontrollable pooping problem (with the master knowing that fact). The master does not care and he simply punishes the poor animal for something it has no real control over. So fair justice? Yeah, it doesn't exist in the world of 5 point Calvinism (At least that I can see).

Incidentally, If you create a robot that goes around killing people, I'm sure no one would blame you for destroying it. If all it did was harm the other robots you made, they would say that destroying it was your own business and you had a right to it.

But the point here is if you had the ability to stop the robot from no longer killing others, then why not set it in it's program to not do that? Why would God allow for the robot to go on a killing rampage, when God could have stopped it? I know why God does not sometimes stop certain sins in this world. It is because He is desiring all men to repent and seek forgiveness with Him. But in the world of Calvinism, God is electing some men to remain as they are in their sinful state when God can just easily flip a switch inside them and make them into a perfectly loving being. God not making them into a loving being when that is how He operates would mean that God wants some to do evil. But if God lets man choose what He wants, then good or evil is their hands and they will be responsible for what they will do at a judgment.

 

[sparow]

In short, I don't believe in Calvinism because I see free will is taught in the Bible.
We are given commands, and men have disobeyed them not because God wanted them to, but because they chose to disobey. Also, why have a judgment if God was the one who placed them there and they had no choice to be there?

I do not believe in Calvinism because I believe in Christ-ism, Jesus is my teacher. So I Know little about Calvinism; but I comment on what you say.

"Free will”, generally means freedom; but freedom from what? Having freedom to follow God or to not follow God, is relative to a context and is not universal freedom; there is always friction or cost whether one follows God or not. Jesus offers rest from the consequences of sin, the cost is engaging with God and is a continuing process. The cost of disobedience to God is ultimately the second death; the cost of obedience to God is Christ on the cross. Disobedience to God is our-self on the cross; to call this free is deceptive at least.

Judgement is required because there is a standard to be meet.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I do not believe in Calvinism because I believe in Christ-ism, Jesus is my teacher. So I Know little about Calvinism; but I comment on what you say.

"Free will”, generally means freedom; but freedom from what? Having freedom to follow God or to not follow God, is relative to a context and is not universal freedom; there is always friction or cost whether one follows God or not. Jesus offers rest from the consequences of sin, the cost is engaging with God and is a continuing process. The cost of disobedience to God is ultimately the second death; the cost of obedience to God is Christ on the cross. Disobedience to God is our-self on the cross; to call this free is deceptive at least.

Judgement is required because there is a standard to be meet.

It's not a lack of free will that we are obligated to obey God as a part of eternal life unless you were forced against your own free will to automatically do that beyond your own control. Free will is saying you have a choice to either obey God, or not obey God. You are perfectly capable of obeying or disobeying. This means you have a free will choice. So free will is not an illusion or deceptive. It's why the Bible says choose this day in whom ye will serve.

Side Note:

In fact, no being in the universe has absolute free will whereby there is no consequences whatsoever to their actions. Even God is limited to only doing good because God is good and there is no darkness within Him.