Beloved57 are you sure you’re chosen?

[Hoping]

That's our condition of "Original Sin", the idea to sin comes from this condition, but we retain the power to thwart the ideas that seemingly 'pop' into our head. Adam didn't have such a thought 'pop' into his head, to eat the forbidden fruit. He consciously chose to do it. That's the type of sin he committed, turns out 'on our behalf'.

But Original Sin doesn't force someone to disbelieve in Jesus. We have the power to thwart that idea to not believe.

Original sin is an invention by one sect.
It is not true.

 

[glorydaz]

You have no idea of the background context of her question. You need to just be quiet.

I wouldn't worry. What she said made absolute no sense whatsoever.

 

[glorydaz]

No, those believing in an elect group of people also believe God purposely causes one to not believe in Him.

Ah, sort of a two edged sword....yielded by a false teacher?

 

[glorydaz]

That does seem a bit hypocritical.

I'm convinced that's Ariel's middle name.

 

[glorydaz]

He determined that is the way it would go in that He made it possible and already had His plan of redemption in play. But it was still Adam who did it. He had actual totally free will. That is how He was created. He used that free will to sin against God, and now no one has that same free will that Adam and Eve had. Adam being what is called the federal head of all humanity, the first man, was actually also a part of God's redemptive plan. Now we see the second Adam, Jesus, born of woman, begot of God, so without that inclination towards sin. All who are in Him through faith (the federal Head of all who believe) have their sins atoned for by His life, death and resurrection.

Ah yes, the Federal Head. That is Calvin for sure. Where do you find Federal head in the Bible?

 

[musterion]

The Bible's many examples of God admonishing people to have faith in whatever He told them implies the opposite: their ability NOT to believe Him.

Since God cannot lie, that means free will does exist and that people will be held accountable for their choices based on the level of light (knowledge) they had.

But if man has no free will, then God is a liar, a hypocrite, and a corrupt judge - everything He says He hates - for condemning the lost for choosing to not believe Him.

Every gospel and covenant in the Bible is a lie if it included a condition of choosing to reject unbelief in exchange for being blessed by Him. God unleashing many judgments on those who chose to refuse His will is also wrong: if they had no free will, they didn't choose unbelief because they couldn't. They didn't have that ability (none of us do).

No free will = choice doesn't exist = no faith is possible = unbelief isn't possible either.

Anyone who believes in any form of Calvinistic predestination or lack of free will is in a (literally) stupid and blasphemous cult with an evil idol called "God."

Change my mind.

PS

If Calvinists really believe free will doesn't exist, then nobody's mind can be changed. If they had common sense, they'd fully embrace Calvin's nihilism, go away from this site, and leave everybody else alone. Nothing they do can make the slightest difference against anyone's predestined fate.

The elect will be saved no matter what...reprobates get the Lake no matter what.

Nothing can or will be changed either way, right?

So find a hobby and just go away with your blasphemous cultism.

 

[Arial]

It seems you are glad about something besides not being a sinner.
You can "reach perfection" on this side of heaven, and I don't mean 20-20 vision and good knees.
I mean sinless.

I'll keep working on it. You do the same and keep me posted.

 

[Arial]

I don't see where you answered what do you believe? I believe that you did answer I just want to make it clear here because I have missed where you answered, so here I number the sentences repeated again, tell me which one is wrong.

1)
If you are elect, there is nothing you can do to not be in heaven when you die.
2)
If you are not elect, there is nothing you can do to not be in hell when you die.

And then we can talk.

I have told you what I believe. These two statements you make are rhetorical. That is they are statements used to attain a deliberate end, in this case so that you can go away having attained the "material "you need to support your false premise on which you base a bias, should I answer either yes or no to either one. That is why they are framed in a negative way. In other words, it is highly deceptive and underhanded. It makes no difference to me whether we talk or not.

 

[Arial]

But HE told us of the Divine messiah, and that the Messiah would suffer and die and HIS people got it not at all - not because it was beyond their ability but because it did not conform to what they saw through their narrow knothole. The same thing is happening again as the prophecies of Daniel about a new revelation in the end times conform to the Revelation to John that a new little bible would be given that had to be eaten and digested for a full understanding, ie studied in detail, was also part of the end times revelation.

Everyone looks at the world through their own knothole.
We don’t see things as they are. We see them as we are.

That is not what I am talking about or meant.

 

[Arial]

No free will = choice doesn't exist = no faith is possible = unbelief isn't possible either.

This is what astounds me. That if someone says we do not have free will, immediately the conclusion is jumped to that what is being said is that we have no will. And no matter how many times it is explained to people that it does not mean that we have no will but that it isn't entirely free, (in bondage to sin as the Bible clearly tells us) they will still stick to that belief. Our will is not free=we have no will at all.

 

[ttruscott]

No free will = choice doesn't exist = no faith is possible = unbelief isn't possible either.

Anyone who believes in any form of Calvinistic predestination or lack of free will is in a (literally) stupid and blasphemous cult with an evil idol called "God."

ImCo:
Free will is NOT measured by the ability to chose because those enslaved by, addicted to, besotted with, evil desires still chose which sins to indulge in and how to indulge them. In fact since GOD cannot sin nor create sinners, the fact that sin and evil has come into HIS creation is absolute proof that the person's free will existed until they sinned and became enslaved, addicted to evil, coerced by their evil desire to sin again and unable to choose to be righteous.

Free Will means that you are NOT coerced by anything to choose any particular option when you make a choice but choose from freely within your own desire. A free will means that you have the ability to choose any available option involved in the choice and are not constrained by anything from choosing any option. A sinner can have no free will until he is reborn, his will freed from its enslavement to sin.

GOD interfering with a sinner's will by predetermination or predestination or even by an intrusion of grace is NOT against the sinner's free will (which he has not got) but is against his sinful enslaved will and so does no damage to the absolute necessity of our free will to be able to fulfill HIS purpose for our creation, the heavenly marriage.

 

[ttruscott]

Addendum:
a free will must have the ability to choose both righteousness and sinfulness. Never choosing sin is not a lack of free will but an embodiment of the will's ability to choose righteousness.

Sinners cannot choose righteousness without grace so they have no free will. But to become a sinner they had to have had a free will with the ability to choose evil or righteousness.

 

[Idolater]

I have told you what I believe. These two statements you make are rhetorical. That is they are statements used to attain a deliberate end, in this case so that you can go away having attained the "material "you need to support your false premise on which you base a bias, should I answer either yes or no to either one. That is why they are framed in a negative way. In other words, it is highly deceptive and underhanded. It makes no difference to me whether we talk or not.

Evasion.

Deception.

 

[Idolater]

...Nothing [anybody does] can make the slightest difference against anyone's predestined fate....

That's all I was sayin. That's Calvinism.

 

[Arial]

Evasion.

Deception.

Think what you like. It makes no difference to me. I am not playing your game.

 

[Arial]

ImCo:
Free will is NOT measured by the ability to chose because those enslaved by, addicted to, besotted with, evil desires still chose which sins to indulge in and how to indulge them. In fact since GOD cannot sin nor create sinners, the fact that sin and evil has come into HIS creation is absolute proof that the person's free will existed until they sinned and became enslaved, addicted to evil, coerced by their evil desire to sin again and unable to choose to be righteous.

Free Will means that you are NOT coerced by anything to choose any particular option when you make a choice but choose from freely within your own desire. A free will means that you have the ability to choose any available option involved in the choice and are not constrained by anything from choosing any option. A sinner can have no free will until he is reborn, his will freed from its enslavement to sin.

GOD interfering with a sinner's will by predetermination or predestination or even by an intrusion of grace is NOT against the sinner's free will (which he has not got) but is against his sinful enslaved will and so does no damage to the absolute necessity of our free will to be able to fulfill HIS purpose for our creation, the heavenly marriage.

Well said.
Another misconception because of conclusion jumping rather than cognitive thinking is that to say our will before redemption in Christ won't choose Christ = we are unable to choose Him. It is not free to choose Christ of its own free will, without an act of God working within the person. We have a natural ability to choose Christ (the faculties of will etc.) but we won't because we don't want to.

People confuse being a good person and mostly righteous at least part of the time, with the perfect righteousness that is necessary for eternal life in the very presence of a Holy God. We may want the benefits, mainly in this earthly life and in the community, that we perceive God and goodness can provide, but we do not want to give up ourselves, our control, or everything we may desire to have or do and obtaining it by whatever means works. And even if we wanted to, we can't, because we are hopelessly and helplessly imprisoned by our very nature. That is why we need Someone to rescue us, something only God can do----and did, if we but trust in Him as Savior and Redeemer.

 

[Idolater]

Think what you like. It makes no difference to me. I am not playing your game.

Oh this ain't no "game". Your theology stinks. And you evade the fact.

You either can or you cannot change your eternal destiny. Your theology says No. It's wrong.

 

[Arial]

What it says is this:

Colossians 1:16-18
16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.



Let me ask you this:

If a builder builds a fence, but has to hold it up constantly with his own two hands, is that the sign of a good fence? or a terrible builder?

On the other hand, if a builder builds a fence, and it stands on its own, without any further input or support from the builder, is that a terrible fence? or is that a sign of a good builder?

Which do you think God is? A good builder, or a terrible builder?

Do you think that God built a good creation or a terrible creation?

Really stupid question actually. And has no relation to what I said except in the mind of narrow thinker.

Who designed the creation in all its aspects, science and otherwise. and did so not by pondering and figuring it out. With a command from His mouth. Every system of holding together and functioning in an orderly manner already within whatever it is----everything. Do second and third causes remove the necessity of the first cause? If the first cause had an iota of turning from His creation, the second or third etc. causes would have nothing to support them. It would be wonderful, and I do pray about it for you, if you could begin to see the beginning of the bigness of God. So far are you from it right now, that you cannot even comprehend what I am speaking of when I say that. You most likely think you are there already, and yet you constantly say things that show your view of diminishes Him from who He is. I know you will say, and even believe, that is not true, but saying it doesn't mean it is so.

A book you should read that just might begin to take your breath away is "More Than Meets the Eye." You can find it by title of amazon I'm sure. Written by a scientist.

 

[Hoping]

I'll keep working on it. You do the same and keep me posted.

Just between me and you, perfection starts with a real, true, permanent, turn from sin.
Then, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins.
Do these things and you will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost...just as Peter said in Acts 2:38.
Those who really turn from sin are by definition non-sinners.
With the Holy Spirit's aid, we can endure faithfully until the Lord returns with His angels.

 

[Clete]

I can, I have, I do.

I haven't seen you (or anyone) do it yet. I don't recall you making any effort to refute a word of what I've said with anything that looks like an actual argument. You're great at declaring your doctrine in opposition to what I say but that isn't what an actual argument looks like.

Last I heard groups of people consisted of individuals.

You see, this is the sort of "arguments" you make. Wow!

Groups act quite differently than individuals. Groups are very predictable, even by us mere humans. They are also quite easily manipulated if one has the proper means (the last two years is proof enough of that). Individuals however are notoriously difficult to predict except in broadly general terms. Men (i.e. human beings) are bent toward evil and this propencity is more evident in groups, the bigger the group to more likely it is to be evil. (This, among other reasons, is why justice by committee (i.e. Juries) is a really bad idea, by the way.) So, while groups are made up of individuals, their behavior patterns are not the same because any one person can choose to act apart from the mob around them.

But they didn't.

You don't actually know that, Arial. This assertion assumes facts not in evidence. There may have been several people that God had to work around and in spite of in order to accomplish the work of Calvary. People like Peter, for example, who, if he had been permitted to continue his attack against the Roman guards, may have ended up having Jesus killed before the proper time. If there had been a guard who refused, for conscience sake, to act against Jesus, then it would not have been difficult for God to find a replacement and such an action would not have been known by anyone other than the righteous guard and God Himself, much less recorded in scripture.
The point here being that God DID NOT need to predestine every detail in order to accomplish His goal!

And not only that, but it came about exactly as God declared it would, many times over, long before it ever happened. I wonder why?

This isn't quite accurate either. Nearly all of the scriptures that were fulfilled at Calvary that you are no doubt thinking of, were not overt prophecies when they were written down and had things gone in an appreciably different manner then you'd not even recognized them as being prophesies, never mind failed prophesies.
That isn't to say that God didn't have them in mind as being prophetic. He clearly did but, again, the point is that it wasn't NECESSARY (i.e. in the logical sense of that word) for things to go precisely the way they went and, had they gone differently, then there'd be a whole different set of passages that you'd have in your mind as fulfilled prophesies.

God doesn't adjust His plans to fit our actions, contrary to what you believe.

So says you. The bible tells us otherwise.

They didn't see the light, and they wouldn't see the light.

I didn't suggest that they would. It was a hypothetical.

Do you think that surprised God? Do you think He had to come up with a plan B?

No, He accomplished plan A! Calvinists always over react and start yammering on about nonsense that no one has said. It's just so much silliness.

He did predestine the specifics. He tells us what they were centuries before they occurred.

No, He didn't.

(See! I can say things without supporting them too! Are you convinced when I do it cause I'm definitely not when you do!)

Well, that is your "complete and in depth study" of Reformed theology for you. We know what God tells us, or should, are required to learn it as children of God. That is called our responsibility. He gave us the information. He gave us the spiritual understanding, He gave us the mind--all the tools we need to hear and listen and learn and grow. It is our responsibility to obey.

Double talking nonsense!

You literally do not even understand your own doctrine! Perhaps you'd reject it if you did understand it.

Calvinism teaches that whether or not you obey has been infallibly predestined by God before you ever existed.

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)​

It also teaches that our obedience or lack thereof has NOTHING to do with being elected, either for salvation or damnation...

“God is moved to mercy for no other reason but that he wills to be merciful.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 8)​

​

“… predestination to glory is the cause of predestination to grace, rather than the converse.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 9)​

​

“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christia/n Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)​

​

“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)​

​

These are not cherry picked quotes of Calvin that distort the normal teaching of Calvinist doctrine. I have never one time found a single Calvinist who denies belief in every single syllable of what I've quoted above. They all, to a person, also say the same sort of thing you've said above and they simply accept the contradiction and move on. Their willingness to accept the openly glaring contradiction is, in their view, a sign of their piety. Many, in fact, believe that accepting contradictions as truth is what faith is and have said as much to my face.

More evidence that you do not know what you think you know. You are still operating on the most basic misunderstanding of Reformed theology ----that it teaches that we are robots or puppets.

It does teach that, Arial. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, that is what it teaches. No one ever states it in those terms but sewage by any other name still stinks just as badly.

Again, I have quoted the following to dozens and dozens of Calvinist both in writing and in person and never have I ever come across a single one that disagrees with the following statements...

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)​

​

“But since he foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place, they vainly raise a quarrel over foreknowledge, when it is clear that all things take place rather by his determination and bidding.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)​

​

“We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)​

​

"I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, all of Adam's children have fallen by God's will...​

​

...Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23)​

​

Now, to your point, Calvinists DO indeed believe that somehow, in spite of all of that being the absolute truth, we are not robots or puppets, as you put it. They believe both! They are also quite fully aware and accepting of the contradiction. They DO NOT CARE that their doctrine makes no sense. They, in fact, EXPECT for the things of God not to make sense to us poor stupid human beings!

Wow. I feel sorry for you and you hubris. It just goes to show that either people will lie at the drop of a hat in order to prop up their obvious lack of understanding of a thing, or there is, as we all know, a vast difference in reading and studying and that of comprehension.

It isn't hubris, it's experience. You are no different that the dozens of other Calvinists that have tried the same silly double talk.

Prove me wrong by telling me which of the quotes from Calvin are in contradiction to Reformed Theology.

You won't do it because there isn't one.

What does the Bible say is righteous judgement? We aren't judging the angels yet. Setting yourself as a judge over someone's salvation, as Polly, and then you and others, were doing, was the subject.

One topic at a time. If you'd like to learn what the bible teaches about what our responsibilities are in regard to judging others, I invite you to read the definitive treatment on the topic - HERE.

And as I told your alias,

My alias?

you all are doing so basing it on whether it agrees with what you believe or not.

That's my line!

Of the two sides on this debate, there is only one which cites original sources. There is only one who demonstrates the historical linkage between Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, Luther and Calvin. The side that does that also has to beg and plead with the other to even make actual arguments, which they flatly avoid doing like the plague because, as I've already pointed out more than once, Calvinists who know anything about what their doctrine actually teaches are quite fully aware that irreconcilable contradictions are plentiful throughout! The word, "antinomy" was surely coined by a Calvinist, or if it is wasn't it would have been (i.e. in the theological sense of the term)! It's their favorite theological term!

Not on anything to actually do with the content of the faith that saves. All I did, that started this fussy fuss fuss, is say to poke at someone's faith and confidence like that was atrocious---suggesting that maybe God was only playing some sadistic game with B57. And a Christian should know that, as that information is given to us in the scriptures. And in spite of the fact that all the self appointed judges insist that Jesus told us to judge, He also said "Judge not, lest you be judged." Now what do you suppose is the difference in the two kinds of judging? Or do you think one of those things He said is a lie?

That statement of Christ's was said to hypocrites. Look it up. It's in Matthew chapter 7.

I do not believe that you (notice you put yourself first) or Polly had no choice to do otherwise, and I do not, and of all the Calvinists I have known or read, and the Bible also, none would say that God predestines yours, Polly's or anyones every thought, word and deed.

This was either an intentional lie or you are as ignorant about Calvinism as it possible to be. (I strongly suspect the latter at this point!)

Perhaps you should ask your pastor. Maybe you'll find that you aren't as Calvinist as you like to think you are because I can guarantee you that Reformed theology DOES NOT teach that you have a will such that you can choose to do or to do otherwise. They do not teach that - period. So much so that if they discover that you believe it, you may well be excused from your church. Although, based on the complete ignorance you're displaying on what the bible teaches about judging, it is unlikely that your church would have the temerity to do such a thing.

Go ahead and try your best to get B57 to agree with you on this. He would die first!

Again you are reverting to the most basic, uninformed view of Reformed theology. That we believe God made us puppets and robots. That is an incorrect view.

I've quoted original sources the prove otherwise.

Another Lutheran church in Wichita, KS , (of which Park City is a suburb) one in fact that called themselves Reformed Lutheran, also had George Tiller, king of early and late term abortions, serving in their church. They certainly knew who he was, and I think by Reformed they meant reformed from the reformation. But I digress.

You not only digress but you do so into error. The difference between "Reformed Lutheran" and "Lutheran" has mainly to do with issues concerning baptisms and the Eucharist and other such ritualistic type issues. In so far as soteriology is concerned, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between them.

It could be that no one knew that Radar was a serial killer, but in order for him to be that evil, there had to be something off with Christianity in him that could be seen. "By their fruit you will know them." Is there zero doubt that he made public profession of faith in Christ? Or just zero doubt in your mind. But what he did or did not profess is beside the point. A person can say anything, and as you are infamous for: saying it doesn't make it so. Jesus and Paul and Peter and John did not tell us to watch for wolves in sheep's clothing, and false teachers coming into our midst because we couldn't do that. He told us because we could. And the only way we can discern such is if we are grounded in the doctrines of Christianity in the scriptures.

None of this is relevant to the point, Arial! I don't even care whether he ever made a public confession of faith. I would like to give these churches the benefit of the doubt and presume that they don't make unbelievers the president of their elder board but maybe the do! Who cares! That IS NOT THE POINT!

The point is that YOU CANNOT TELL!!!

YOU cannot tell!

You, Arial, are incapable of knowing!

Get it?

Not only do you have no rational way of telling whether Rader is saved, you have exactly equal means of telling whether B57 is saved and ultimately you have the exact same means to tell whether YOU are saved yourself!

The point isn't about Rader or even B57, its about the Calvinist's inability to know whether they are one of the big cosmic lottery winners or not! What's more is that they will not ever know for sure until they are able to walk through the Pearly Gates!

Why?

Because your doctrine DOES NOT TEACH that it has anything to do with a person's fruit! It doesn't have anything to do with whether you've made a public profession of faith or even if you believe at all! According to your own doctrinal documents, your salvation is a result of NOTHING other than an ARBITRARY declaration of God! Here it is again, right from the horses mouth...

“God is moved to mercy for no other reason but that he wills to be merciful.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 8)​

​

“… predestination to glory is the cause of predestination to grace, rather than the converse.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 9)​

​

“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)​

​

“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)​

Which of those statements do you disagree with, Arial? Because, whether you choose to believe it nor, that is what your Reformed doctrine teaches.

You don't know what Radar looked like to anyone.

Actually, I do. There was a time when I did some considerable amount of study on the subject of serial killers. His own testimony is voluminous and they've done several interviews with members of his family, friends and fellow church members.

Most likely there were some that did know something was not genuine or was creepy about him.

Perhaps, but none that have ever been recorded saying so. All those who knew him, including his own daughter, were all stunned to find out the truth of his depravity.

Though to not suspect him of being a serial killer is likely and irrelevant because it is not the point. And you can't speak for me by speaking about yourself. I have spotted many wolves and false teachers who have never been arrested.

You're right about him being suspected as a serial killer not being the point but what you aren't getting is that your doctrine teaches that the only people that you spotted as wolves in sheep's clothing were the ones that God predestined you to spot as such and you have no rational means to tell whether or not your spotting scope is accurate because your doctrine doesn't just teach that you were predestined to spot them as wolves but the extent to which they actually are wolves was also predestined, even if that extent is none at all!

Do you follow the point there?

If you only think you've spotted wolves in sheep's clothing but are actually wrong about it, THAT TOO was predestined according to your doctrine!

The point being made here is that ANY claim you make concerning a person's salvation, including your own, is both unprovable AND unfalsifiable!

Nope. That is all on BTK. Still I see, in spite of your decades of studying Reformed theology, you are prone to misstate it and in most grotesque ways.

It isn't a mistake, Arial. And if you actually believe that, which I have no reason to doubt, then you are not Calvinist and do not adhere to Reformed doctrine.

Don't take my word for it! Go ahead and ask someone you trust. Someone you know for a fact is an actual Calvinist! B57 comes to mind but it doesn't have to be him. Chances are your own pastor would work. Ask them the same exact question and do so straight. Don't poison the well by implying an answer before you ask the question. Just ask them straight up and tell them that you want a straight answer to the following question...

"Did God predestine Dennis Rader to rape that eleven year old girl and hang her from a plumbing pipe in her basement?"

If he doesn't know who Rader is then ask him whether God predestine Jeffery Dahmer to rape, kill and eat all the young men and boys he could get a hold of.

Here's Calvin's answer to basically the same question...

"I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, all of Adam's children have fallen by God's will...​

​

...Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23)​