Would you prefer it if “Five point Calvinism” were true?

[Ed Parenteau]

So for everyone who isn’t a believer in five point Calvinism, would you prefer it if five point Calvinism were true?

A simple yes or no answer to start your response would be great, then the rationale behind why you have picked either yes or no.

Yes,
Otherwise I wouldn't have been saved. I was raised in a Catholic church up until the fat, smoking Father Peter slapped me in Catechism for laughing. Another boy cried, Mike who came to me later and asked that I not tell anyone. I didn't. Your guess as to why he cried is as good as mine. Right about this time we stopped going to church. I must have been around 11 or 12. After that, I didn't much pay any attention to God. Didn't much pay attention to school either. It was the 60's and music became my god. Jimmy Hendrix, the Doors, the Stones, etc. Sex, drugs and rock and roll. By 1969 I became extremely depressed and disillusioned and decided my best option would be the join the marine corp. It wasn't a good fit. Stolen car, interstate transportation of stolen vehicle, caught and 6 mo prison. 1970, released from prison, discharged from marines. It is now 1980, 2 quickly failed marriages later, more hopeless than ever, in possession of a large cheap bottle of wine, a small stinky apartment I was about to lose, and then I was looking in the mirror when my eyes were opened and I saw what can only be termed the "blackness of darkness". I became terrified and I spontaneously cried out to God and "in a moment and in a twinkling of an eye, I was changed", He wiped away every tear from my eyes and peace that surpasses understanding overflowed me. It was the end of my unquenchable desire to drink or use drugs. Praise God.
Evangelizing to me is like treasure hunting. In the physical realm, you might use a metal detector, whereas in the spiritual realm, you use the gospel.
I see freewill this way. I could have the desire to jump up and fly, but I can't because it is impossible. Same with the spiritual realm. What can you possibly do if you don't hear His voice?
John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

 

[zoidar]

So long as that unwillingness isn’t seen by yourself as an inability to accept the different appeals of God to be reconciled (e.g. prophets, miracles, scripture, preaching, invisible attributes in nature,) then I’d say you can comfortably distance yourself from the T of the tulip.

The unique aspect of the T is that mankind is incapable of turning to God until he does a determining work of grace and changes their will.

I don't believe in regeneration before faith, but after faith (or simultaneously as faith). But I believe God the Holy Spirit must convict a person before he/she wants to have faith in Christ. Before being convicted the person doesn't want to respond to the gospel. Conviction is a change of my mind, faith is a change of heart. We aren't regenerated until we have faith.

 

[Cormack]

But I believe God the Holy Spirit must convict a person before he/she wants to have faith in Christ.

Your relationship to Calvinism would largely depend on the nature of that convicting.

(1) Irresistible and determining, or (2) resistible and persuasive. One is a kind of theistic fatalism while the other imo is biblical.

Before being convicted the person doesn't want to respond to the gospel.

Again I think it’s okay to distinguish between humanity not wanting vs. humanity are incapable. Incapacity is Calvinistic while simple unwillingness accepts that people can be convinced or persuaded, which sounds like the biblical idea and something you hold to at a glance.

Yes,
Otherwise I wouldn't have been saved.

Thanks for your testimony, Ed. I’m glad your faith has brought you into a happier state. However, presupposing that Calvinism is true in order to then write that you would prefer it if Calvinism were true kind of betrays the topics purpose. I’m not reading any unique reason to prefer Calvinism over any other Christian perspective that doesn’t involve the Calvinist defaulting back into presuppositionalism.

 

[zoidar]

Your relationship to Calvinism would largely depend on the nature of that convicting.

(1) Irresistible and determining, or (2) resistible and persuasive. One is a kind of theistic fatalism while the other imo is biblical.

Personally I needed to be persuaded. It sounds wrong to me to say the Holy Spirit can't be resisted. I believe we can harden our heart where it's hard for the Holy Spirit to do His work.

Again I think it’s okay to distinguish between humanity not wanting vs. humanity are incapable. Incapacity is Calvinistic while simple unwillingness accepts that people can be convinced or persuaded, which sounds like the biblical idea and something you hold to at a glance.

People are capable but unwilling or else they couldn't be judged for their unbelief. I don't put that much effort nowadays to figure this out. I just like the Lutheran way to understand it. If we are saved it's because of God, if we are not it's because of us. It doesn't really explain it, but I'm happy to leave it as a mystery.

 

[John Mullally]

Your relationship to Calvinism would largely depend on the nature of that convicting.

(1) Irresistible and determining, or (2) resistible and persuasive. One is a kind of theistic fatalism while the other imo is biblical.

I don't believe the work of the Holy Spirit is irresistible. During Jesus's ministry, He took authority over sickness, demons, and even the weather - but not over any man's will - yet He was a master at persuasion. Jesus spent a lot of time teaching and correcting His disciples - again, He did not use some special authority to zap them into conformity. Why would the work of the Holy Spirit on the earth today be any different?

Jesus called the rich young ruler to follow him and he refused. If someone can refuse the call from Jesus, they can refuse the call from the Holy Spirit. Acts 17:51 says that many resist the Holy Spirit.

The closest I see to Jesus taking authority over another man's will was when He cast out the legion of demons from the madman of Gadara - but again that is strictly a case of Jesus taking authority over demons.

Even in Paul's radical encounter on the road to Damascus he had to repent and his faith was severely tried. I realize that is a very high level of persuasion.

 

[Cormack]

I believe we can harden our heart where it's hard for the Holy Spirit to do His work.

Which the T in tulip would undermine, since under 5 point Calvinism people are born into this world hardened against God and His appeals to be reconciled. People don’t become hardened and begin refusing God, rather they are born that way.

Which makes a mockery of Jesus telling people to become like little children or that it’s difficult for the rich man to enter into heaven, since under Calvinism children are as incapable as adults, the impoverished as incapable as the very wealthy.

I just like the Lutheran way to understand it. If we are saved it's because of God, if we are not it's because of us.

I think that’s an excellent way for the traditionalist to cast the entire scheme of what’s happening with the lost or what’s going on in terms of unbeliefs. But since I’m being fairly microscopic alongside you, it’s informative to point out that Lutherans are locked into a Calvinistic style of thinking too.

They believe in an incapacity to respond positively to Gods appeals to be reconciled without some initial act of irresistible determining power, something that works to reorient the sinner and irresistibly change their natures or their will.

So while I also like the Lutheran statement that we are saved because of God and lost because of ourselves, Lutherans themselves aren’t being logically consistent in the area or philosophically savvy as to their own inconsistencies. They believe in determinism and can’t explain how man is accountable under their whole systematic too, something you notice yourself in the quote immediately below.

People are capable but unwilling or else they couldn't be judged for their unbelief.

During Jesus's ministry, He took authority over sickness, demons, and even the weather - but not over any man's will - yet He was a master at persuasion. Jesus spent a lot of time teaching and correcting His disciples - again, He did not use some special authority to zap them into conformity.

A great companion point to my earlier observation about children and the impoverished being gifted above hardened adults and the rich.

Acts 17:51 says that many resist the Holy Spirit.

For users who don’t know, Calvinists would agree to the above, mostly because they insist God used two types of convicting or two types of calling from the Spirit. So whenever people in the Bible resist the Holy Spirit the Calvinists can give you one answer, and then people listen and obey what the Spirit teaches they can now say it’s the irresistible type of Spirit at work.

I’d be aware of their doublespeak, because they aren’t going to willingly admit to doing these things until you point it out to them.

Calvinists often rely on the initiated not understanding Calvinism in order to convert you into their society of believers, that way they can casually use Christian language in order to soft sell you Calvinist concepts later down the road.

Even in Paul's radical encounter on the road to Damascus he had to repent and his faith was severely tried. I realize that is a very high level of persuasion.

Like Jonah and the great fish. God could have simply changed his will under Calvinism so that the prophet obeyed and went off to do his preaching ministry, instead God has to go through this big chase section where there are storms and waves and sea creatures convincing people to do their work.

Anyhow, over 200 messages in and I’ve yet to see a single valid reason to prefer it if Calvinism were true.

 

[zoidar]

Which the T in tulip would undermine, since under 5 point Calvinism people are born into this world hardened against God and His appeals to be reconciled. People don’t become hardened and begin refusing God, rather they are born that way.

Which makes a mockery of Jesus telling people to become like little children or that it’s difficult for the rich man to enter into heaven, since under Calvinism children are as incapable as adults, the impoverished as incapable as the very wealthy.

I don't think an infant is born with a hardened heart. A hardened heart comes with sin. But since everyone will fall sin, there will be a natural tendency in everyone to resist God.

I think that’s an excellent way for the traditionalist to cast the entire scheme of what’s happening with the lost or what’s going on in terms of unbeliefs. But since I’m being fairly microscopic alongside you, it’s informative to point out that Lutherans are locked into a Calvinistic style of thinking too.

I guess, I'm no Lutheran, but I like many aspects of Lutheranism.

They believe in an incapacity to respond positively to Gods appeals to be reconciled without some initial act of irresistible determining power, something that works to reorient the sinner and irresistibly change their natures or their will.

Lutherans believe we can resist the Holy Spirit. I don't believe God pulls someone irresistable, but that God leads people through events, through without they would never have the will to receive the gospel. So in that way it's a work of God.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

Anyhow, over 200 messages in and I’ve yet to see a single valid reason to prefer it if Calvinism were true.

In my first post, I misunderstood. The reason I misunderstood was because people were arguing from scripture and not from their personal preference, which is what you asked for. That being said, I would still prefer Calvinism, because I know that every intention of my heart was (evil) self centered and selfish from the start, and without God's intervention I was doomed from the start. If I did something for someone, it was to earn praise or avoid punishment. I am just amazed that He saved a wretch like me.

America's beginning was was mostly Reformed and Calvinist, Alexis de Tocqueville "Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."
America's decline is Arminian
The following is from an Arminian
The Triumph of Arminianism
(and its dangers)
The Triumph of Arminianism (and Its Dangers)

 

[Cormack]

In my first post, I misunderstood. The reason I misunderstood was because people were arguing from scripture and not from their personal preference, which is what you asked for.

It’s fine, there’s wiggle room in my topics to write about this idea or that idea, and if you’d like to share your own personal testimony or some verses you believe are relevant that’s fine.

My point though is that if it’s an attempt at answering the preferences question, you’re not really doing that because you’re presupposing that Calvinism is true and that other views are false from the get go. An example of that is the quote below.

Yes,
Otherwise I wouldn't have been saved.

That’s not really extolling a unique idea or benefit of 5 point Calvinism that other views don’t have, it’s just writing your own theology into the topic and insisting it’s true.

You’ve shared you prefer that Calvinism is true, or you wouldn’t have been saved. That’s an incredible thing on more than one level. Not only is that an example of blunt presuppositionalism that rules out other views a priori, but it’s also going to rule out other Christians being saved outside of Calvinism.

Do you believe non Calvinists are saved too?

If they’re not saved, then yes it’s truly preferable that you believe in it and be saved, you and everyone else, but that doesn’t mean it’s the preferable choice when we are not presupposing the truth of your perspective.

So once more that question. Can people outside of 5 point Calvinism be saved too, if they can, then your earlier preference isn’t really justified. You could be saved outside of Calvinism like many Christians testify to.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

So for everyone who isn’t a believer in five point Calvinism, would you prefer it if five point Calvinism were true?

A simple yes or no answer to start your response would be great, then the rationale behind why you have picked either yes or no.

Yes because they are true.

 

[Cormack]

Yes because they are true.

If you check out my exchange with @Ed Parenteau, you’ll notice I’m not asking for a circular reply that insists you’d prefer something to be true because it’s true (that’s grossly circular.) If you can return to the question without the presuppositionalism that would be perfect.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

It’s fine, there’s wiggle room in my topics to write about this idea or that idea, and if you’d like to share your own personal testimony or some verses you believe are relevant that’s fine.

My point though is that if it’s an attempt at answering the preferences question, you’re not really doing that because you’re presupposing that Calvinism is true and that other views are false from the get go. An example of that is the quote below.



That’s not really extolling a unique idea or benefit of 5 point Calvinism that other views don’t have, it’s just writing your own theology into the topic and insisting it’s true.

You’ve shared you prefer that Calvinism is true, or you wouldn’t have been saved. That’s an incredible thing on more than one level. Not only is that an example of blunt presuppositionalism that rules out other views a priori, but it’s also going to rule out other Christians being saved outside of Calvinism.

Do you believe non Calvinists are saved too?

If they’re not saved, then yes it’s truly preferable that you believe in it and be saved, you and everyone else, but that doesn’t mean it’s the preferable choice when we are not presupposing the truth of your perspective.

So once more that question. Can people outside of 5 point Calvinism be saved too, if they can, then your earlier preference isn’t really justified. You could be saved outside of Calvinism like many Christians testify to.

Believing in God and the Bible as the word of God is presuppositional. And for some reason you only honed in on one part of my posts. I mentioned evangelizing in opposition to your post, but you didn't respond to that. I mentioned freewill, but you didn't respond to that. I argued why Calvinism was better in America historically, but you didn't mention that. Why was that?

Everyone is saved by grace no matter where you hear the gospel preached. Does anyone explain theological doctrine before they preach the gospel to let them know where they're coming from? That's nonsensical.

 

[Cormack]

Believing in God and the Bible as the word of God is presuppositional.

That’s not the case. Lots of people have come to the Bible from a position of scepticism and been won over by things like the manuscript authority or fulfilled prophecy. Presupposing the Bible were true means you can accept the Bible without any of those arguments or evidences.

Same goes for God. People actually experience Gods presence, that’s not presuppositionalism.

I mentioned evangelizing in opposition to your post, but you didn't respond to that. I mentioned freewill, but you didn't respond to that. I argued why Calvinism was better in America historically, but you didn't mention that. Why was that?

Because none of those things are directly related to the topic. If it helps, I did read the entire link you sent, since I had some free time. Although again it’s not really about the topic.

Does anyone explain theological doctrine before they preach the gospel to let them know where they're coming from? That's nonsensical.

People rarely do but that’s not much of anything really. Nobody needs to explain most of their theology because they use words that have a shared meaning that the audience understands.

For example if I said to an unbeliever “God loves you, God loves all people. Jesus died for you, he died for the sins of the world.” I’d mean those words sincerely. There’s no private or complex meaning to the words God loves you, not in my book.

Calvinists however will say “Jesus died for the sins of the world,” but what they really mean is that Jesus died for the elect, a specially selected group, the “world” of the elect. Jesus’ death upon the cross wasn’t truly for the entire world and God doesn’t love everyone in the same way, not according to the Calvinist.

So the only nonsensical thing is that Calvinists have private meanings to commonly understood words, what’s double nonsense is that they’ll mislead people who are not clued in on their misuse of words and convert them into a theology that isn’t what the person originally signed up for.

Do you believe non Calvinists can be saved? Maybe I missed your answer in that last message, so I’m asking again.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

That’s not the case. Lots of people have come to the Bible from a position of scepticism and been won over by things like the manuscript authority or fulfilled prophecy. Presupposing the Bible were true means you can accept the Bible without any of those arguments or evidences.

Same goes for God. People actually experience Gods presence, that’s not presuppositionalism.

So when you evangelize, you don't presuppose God and the Bible to be true? I'm using this definition: What Is “Presuppositional” Apologetics?

Because none of those things are directly related to the topic. If it helps, I did read the entire link you sent, since I had some free time. Although again it’s not really about the topic.

I prefer Calvinism because when the country was Calvinist, in Alexis de Tocqueville's description, the churches were flames of righteousness. Can the same be said of today's mostly Arminian churches?

People rarely do but that’s not much of anything really. Nobody needs to explain most of their theology because they use words that have a shared meaning that the audience understands.

For example if I said to an unbeliever “God loves you, God loves all people. Jesus died for you, he died for the sins of the world.” I’d mean those words sincerely. There’s no private or complex meaning to the words God loves you, not in my book.

This is Arminian presuppositionalism.

Calvinists however will say “Jesus died for the sins of the world,” but what they really mean is that Jesus died for the elect, a specially selected group, the “world” of the elect. Jesus’ death upon the cross wasn’t truly for the entire world and God doesn’t love everyone in the same way, not according to the Calvinist.

Again, Arminian presuppositionalism

So the only nonsensical thing is that Calvinists have private meanings to commonly understood words, what’s double nonsense is that they’ll mislead people who are not clued in on their misuse of words and convert them into a theology that isn’t what the person originally signed up for.

Again, Arminian presuppositionalism.

Do you believe non Calvinists can be saved?

Maybe I missed your answer in that last message, so I’m asking again.

Everyone is saved by grace no matter where you hear the gospel preached.

 

[John Mullally]

This is Arminian presuppositionalism.

Again, Arminian presuppositionalism

Again, Arminian presuppositionalism.

Huh?

 

[Cormack]

So when you evangelize, you don't presuppose God and the Bible to be true?

I’ve done both. I’ve worn a presuppositional cap for the sake of teaching, and an evidentialist cap for many other occasions. Although for my coming to faith in the first place, that was largely about being convinced by sound arguments and evidence.

Which leads back into your earlier point. You insisted that beliefs to do with the existence of God and faith in the Bible are presuppositional, which they could be, especially if you’re unacquainted with all of our evidence for the authority of the Bible.

Those beliefs aren’t purely presuppositional exercises however, they’re evidenced facts (so far as people are prepared to experience or research these things.)

Based upon your article, I believe you’re blending the category of presuppositional apologetics with something like properly basic beliefs (which are a more valid category.) If you’d like to read more about properly basic beliefs I recommend reading from Dr. Alvin Plantinga.

Again, Arminian presuppositionalism.

When a Calvinist capitalises on an atheists ignorance to do with Calvinistic definitions, that’s the atheist being guilty of Arminian presuppositionalism?

Calvinists run this equivocation game on every potential convert, so it’s no good trying to railroad the mythical Arminian. Although for the sake of conversation and illuminating these categories, I’d like to go with the idea that Arminians and atheists are presupposing many of the same things when they’re confronted by a Calvinist.

See Arminians and atheists do share similar definitions about the word “love,” as do many untrained Calvinists. How do they get their definition of the word?

Not by presupposing a definition, that’s not how it happens my friend.

Rather these people have a view on the content of love because they have experienced love, love isn’t in a textbook but rather the living heart of loving people.

Ideas to do with the nature of love are properly basic beliefs, they are experiential in nature, not merely intellectual presuppositions.

So Arminians, atheists, inconsistent Calvinists, they experience love, then they read the scriptures and see “God loves.”

That’s where their point of view initially arises, which makes sense since the feeling from where we base the word first arises in the hearts of people.

The heart defines the text about love, not Calvinistic presuppositions about what verses mean.

It’s experienced, not just basic, but properly basic, our views about love arise naturally from our own lived experience, like the witness of the Spirit.

Where do full blown militant 5 point ride or die Calvinists get their definition of love from? From their theology. No wonder Calvinists are often accused by other leading Calvinists of being short tempered and arrogant, they’re ignoring love at its source for their theology.

“Christ died for the sins of the world.” When Calvinists say that, and when they convert unwitting Hindus, Buddhists and atheists into their fold, they’re reaping only confusion because at some point those poor converts have to come face to face with the ugly truths of the “doctrines of grace.”

That’s not their fault my friend, it’s the Calvinists fault for selling them on a lie, then turning around and saying sucks to be you, you should’ve done your homework.

Sadly for Calvinists everywhere, people are taking them up on their advice, we do our homework and have found Calvinism to be woefully inadequate at representing Scripture, Christ, God the Father, and lastly the human heart.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

I’ve done both. I’ve worn a presuppositional cap for the sake of teaching, and an evidentialist cap for many other occasions. Although for my coming to faith in the first place, that was largely about being convinced by sound arguments and evidence.

Which leads back into your earlier point. You insisted that beliefs to do with the existence of God and faith in the Bible are presuppositional, which they could be, especially if you’re unacquainted with all of our evidence for the authority of the Bible.

Those beliefs aren’t purely presuppositional exercises however, they’re evidenced facts (so far as people are prepared to experience or research these things.)

Based upon your article, I believe you’re blending the category of presuppositional apologetics with something like properly basic beliefs (which are a more valid category.) If you’d like to read more about properly basic beliefs I recommend reading from Dr. Alvin Plantinga.



When a Calvinist capitalises on an atheists ignorance to do with Calvinistic definitions, that’s the atheist being guilty of Arminian presuppositionalism?

Calvinists run this equivocation game on every potential convert, so it’s no good trying to railroad the mythical Arminian. Although for the sake of conversation and illuminating these categories, I’d like to go with the idea that Arminians and atheists are presupposing many of the same things when they’re confronted by a Calvinist.

See Arminians and atheists do share similar definitions about the word “love,” as do many untrained Calvinists. How do they get their definition of the word?

Not by presupposing a definition, that’s not how it happens my friend.

Rather these people have a view on the content of love because they have experienced love, love isn’t in a textbook but rather the living heart of loving people.

Ideas to do with the nature of love are properly basic beliefs, they are experiential in nature, not merely intellectual presuppositions.

So Arminians, atheists, inconsistent Calvinists, they experience love, then they read the scriptures and see “God loves.”

That’s where their point of view initially arises, which makes sense since the feeling from where we base the word first arises in the hearts of people.

The heart defines the text about love, not Calvinistic presuppositions about what verses mean.

It’s experienced, not just basic, but properly basic, our views about love arise naturally from our own lived experience, like the witness of the Spirit.

Where do full blown militant 5 point ride or die Calvinists get their definition of love from? From their theology. No wonder Calvinists are often accused by other leading Calvinists of being short tempered and arrogant, they’re ignoring love at its source for their theology.

“Christ died for the sins of the world.” When Calvinists say that, and when they convert unwitting Hindus, Buddhists and atheists into their fold, they’re reaping only confusion because at some point those poor converts have to come face to face with the ugly truths of the “doctrines of grace.”

That’s not their fault my friend, it’s the Calvinists fault for selling them on a lie, then turning around and saying sucks to be you, you should’ve done your homework.

Sadly for Calvinists everywhere, people are taking them up on their advice, we do our homework and have found Calvinism to be woefully inadequate at representing Scripture, Christ, God the Father, and lastly the human heart.

What a bunch of false accusations. There is no greater love expressed by God than the cross. Since you claim in the universal understanding of love, what is the response to the message of the cross to "those who are perishing"?
You're making the gospel of Jesus Christ sound like a sales pitch that is based on your ability to sell to with the wisdom of this world with their understanding of love.

 

[Cormack]

There is no greater love expressed by God than the cross.

And after that event has faced the meat grinder of your theology, it comes out as unrecognisable mystery meat. There’s no recognisably loving God under Calvinism. Unbiblical ideas like limited atonement are normally enough for most Christians to reject the systematic outright.

Since you claim in the universal understanding of love,

I’m claiming every mentally healthy person can experience love, and anyone who subordinates the immediate experience of love to their theological definition of love has abandoned living in the real world.

Calvinists often do just that. They insist God “loves” the non elect but has also predetermined their doom and inability to respond positively to the gospel, that’s not a recognisably loving God.

That love isn’t experiential, it’s an incoherent construct of your theology that you presuppose. It’s presuppositional because there’s no other way to defend such an insane sounding idea.

So you can either choose real living love, or the dead letters of Calvinism.

what is the response to the message of the cross to "those who are perishing"?

Are you meaning to ask how do the damned respond to the cross? Well, it’s “foolishness” to unbelievers. Maybe that comforts 5 point Calvinists because they hold onto an incoherent, foolish seeming philosophy. So their foolish idea of Calvinism must be the foolish cross!

So when people point towards the Calvinists misuse of words like “love” and “world” faithful five pointers can reply “Well of course it looks foolish to you, you’re not one of the elect!”

You're making the gospel of Jesus Christ sound like a sales pitch that is based on your ability to sell to with the wisdom of this world with their understanding of love.

I’m writing in plain language that everyone can immediately experience love, and if there’s anyone who would like to let themselves down by assuming that unbelievers don’t have an ability to love, have at it.

Anyone who picks their dry theology over immediate experiences is in retreat from reality, and since Christ is the truth, they’re in retreat from Him too.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

I’m writing in plain language that everyone can immediately experience love, and if there’s anyone who would like to let themselves down by assuming that unbelievers don’t have an ability to love, have at it.

That is irrelevant.
1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[Cormack]

That is irrelevant.
1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

You’re sending me a section of Bible text and assuming it’s content, obviously I’m not a Calvinist and wouldn’t share your interpretation here.

You have made zero effort to interpret the verse you’ve just shared or to respond to the bulk of my message (presumably because you can’t.) Making no effort to share what you believe the material means, there’s nothing much for me to respond to.

I’ve shared that everyone of healthy mind can experience love, and you’ve shared nothing to the contrary except to insist it’s not relevant.

If you’d like to try again I’d be happy to read from you, otherwise I’d like to recommend you watch something like “1 Corinthians 2:14 De-Calvinized” from soteriology 101. I’m assuming your view of that text is the usual Calvinistic one.

The YouTube channel Idol killer has an interesting debate up on the subject too, one where the Christian host shows the futility of Calvinists insisting that “natural men” can’t “understand,” since that gets them trapped into an infinite loop where they too can’t ensure they’re not currently still in their natural deluded state.

Just like how you’d “prefer” Calvinism to be true because “it is true,” you are regularly catching yourself in these question begging presuppositional loops.