John Calvin said this....

[Brother Ducky]

You really can't tell that those Calvinist colored glasses are on your face, can you?


I was saved by God's grace through faith. I decided to believe which granted me access to God's grace but that grace would not have been available had God not decided to make it available.


Resting in Him,
Clete

My Calvinist glasses are a Black Watch tartan. And I know they are there. However, they in no way inhibit my looking at non-Reformed stuff.

I understand that one of the greatest differences between Reformed and non-Reformed is the issue of free-will and the ability to choose God deliberately without the direct influence of any outside force.

I find that I have never seen a good Biblical free-will anthropology which would allow for such a choice. Absolute free-will seems to be assumed, but not supported.

If one can choose such things, why not choose to be Reformed? For the most part, we are a good bunch of guys and gals. Or choose to believe the world is flat? Or oblate spheroid if you hold it to be flat at the moment.

It seems to me that our choices are always limited by who and what we are at the moment of choice. I would contend that you did indeed choose to believe, but only because God made that possible for you to do.

Either way, it is not a matter of salvation.

Shalom,
Rick

 

[Clete]

My Calvinist glasses are a Black Watch tartan. And I know they are there. However, they in no way inhibit my looking at non-Reformed stuff.

I understand that one of the greatest differences between Reformed and non-Reformed is the issue of free-will and the ability to choose God deliberately without the direct influence of any outside force.

I find that I have never seen a good Biblical free-will anthropology which would allow for such a choice. Absolute free-will seems to be assumed, but not supported.

If one can choose such things, why not choose to be Reformed? For the most part, we are a good bunch of guys and gals. Or choose to believe the world is flat? Or oblate spheroid if you hold it to be flat at the moment.

It seems to me that our choices are always limited by who and what we are at the moment of choice. I would contend that you did indeed choose to believe, but only because God made that possible for you to do.

Either way, it is not a matter of salvation.

Shalom,
Rick

So what you're saying is that God predestined me to believe in free will.

That makes a hell of a lot of sense!

I'm working so I'll have to respond in more detail later.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nick M]

Brother Ducky, is Nang wrong or right about her statements? There is no third choice.

Well, I believe God Almighty is running the universe, down to every detail, according to His predetermined will and good pleasure.
Do you disagree?

God never rejected the reprobate according to His foreknowledge of their actions. God rejects reprobates according to His will. God formed all men, either for dishonor or honor, according to His willful purposes and good pleasure. To reject this truth is disbelief and a rejection of Sovereign God Himself.

 

[Shasta]

[Ask Mr. Religion;4450088]Choosing according to one's greatest inclinations at the moment one chooses does not deny choice is not truly one's choice. Any choice you make is because that choice was what you wanted to make at that time.

You are developing a hair trigger response to every post in the heat of emotion or something. Take a deep breath and consider what is being said.

I took your post to mean the sum total of a persons desires absolutely determines their choices. If you are saying merely that people take into account all their desires when they make free choices then I have no controversy with you.

The idea that choices arise from the sum total of desires which are activated by stimuli is a view I first encountered when I was into Behaviorism. Much later, I was very surprised to find the same or similar view being expressed by Puritan theologian / intellectual Jonathan Edwards. Edwards seemed to be trying to find a psychological mechanism to explain the theological doctrine of "inability." What was interesting to me was that worldly scientists who believed in material determinism were on the same page as theologians who held to Divine determinism in a reductionist view that dehumanized mankind and absolved individuals of all moral responsibility.

If a person's volition is merely an epiphenomenon of his total desires then mankind does not have volition at all, not only with regard to spiritual matters but with regard to anything else whatsoever. This hypothesis makes mankind a stimulus-controlled behavioral mechanism.

I think we have to remember that the "sum-desire" model is only a proposed mechanism designed to account for human will. Theological predeterminism could be accounted for by a simple exertion of divine force. I do not agree with that explanation either, I am just saying that the "sum desire" hypothesis is only a possible explanation for a doctrine. It should not be confused for the doctrine itself.

If you say I am allowing emotions to distort my judgement I will certainly consider it. I do not intend for my statements to be personally directed at you or anyone nor do I want to distort the beliefs of the Reformed Faith. If I get that wrong I am sure you will tell me. I assure you I am not exhibiting the excessive zeal of a new convert. I adopted an Arminiean view back when I was a teen, at which time I was a Baptist.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I see no reason for a Calvinist to distance themselves from any of Calvin's remarks quoted in the OP.

When considered in their full context, nor do I.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So you're saying people who by definition call themselves followers of a man will likely agree with him. Okay then.

Why would you expect Calvinists to distance themselves from the man himself? Like it or not there's a brutal internal consistency among Calvinists that rarely if ever wavers--Boettner, Pink, et. al. were all very much on the same page. If anything Calvinists are often downright proud of the brutishness inherent to their belief system. No shame, in other words.

That, plus the plain fact that anyone reading a published systematic theology will find it authored by one whose leanings are decidedly Calvinistic. A person must look far and wide to find a credible systematic published by a non-Calvinist. It begs the question of why persons who devote a lifetime of study of systematic theology more often than not support the soteriological doctrines of grace codified by Dordt.

I am not mounting a nose counting argument here, but only observing that those that have come before us indwelt by the same Spirit we all claim to possess do seem to see things differently. Thus, before one goes off in another direction they should at least carefully check themselves and consider the interpretations of the community of the saints in the church militant.

Too often folks have itching ears and succumb to the lure of being in the minority, thinking they have more enlightenment and wisdom than those gifted as teachers by God who have preceded themselves. Sadly, today's visible church is replete with folks clinging to some odd notion of "Just Me and My Bible" ignoring the teachings of Scripture concerning confessing what one believes according to the sound pattern—systematic theology—of the teachings of Holy Writ (2 Timothy 1:13). In fact, it is a rare occasion to find a believer that has actually taken the time to codify in detail what they believe, said folks preferring instead to just point to this or that person or written summary of Scripture, making these pointers their regula fidei. If we believers do not know what we actually stand for it is no wonder that some will fall for anything.

AMR

 

[Zeke]

Not that I have a dog in this literal letter fight but AMR has the trump card in Romans 9, concerning the flesh that is.

But then again the term All in that theology isn't what it's cracked up to be, legally it would be concerned with those of the chosen few of any order.

 

[Clete]

My Calvinist glasses are a Black Watch tartan. And I know they are there. However, they in no way inhibit my looking at non-Reformed stuff.

"non-Reformed" is a term that in most ears would imply "Catholic". Is this what you're intending to imply? If not then refer to Calvinism as "Calvinism" so that we can all be on the same page.

I understand that one of the greatest differences between Reformed and non-Reformed is the issue of free-will and the ability to choose God deliberately without the direct influence of any outside force.

Predestination is not a reformation doctrine. That is to say, it was not a contested doctrine during the Reformation. Catholics believe in predestination as much as you do. It was Roman doctrines that were at issue during the Reformation not Greek doctrines.

I find that I have never seen a good Biblical free-will anthropology which would allow for such a choice. Absolute free-will seems to be assumed, but not supported.

This entire argument is a red haring. No one, and I do mean no one, except those who want to make this red haring argument, believes that decisions are uninfluenced by factors outside the will of the decision maker. That's stupidity. Of course the circumstances have an effect, as do attitudes and upbringing and a host of other things all of which, when taken together compose what I am referring to as "circumstances". But being free of influence isn't what makes one's will free. What makes it free is the ability to do otherwise. It's referred to formally as the principle of alternate possibilities.

The Principle of Alternate Possibilities (PAP)

1. PAP: An agent is responsible for an action only if said agent could have done otherwise.
   
2. An agent could have done otherwise only if causal determinism is false.
   
3. Therefore, an agent is responsible for an action only if causal determinism is false.

If one can choose such things, why not choose to be Reformed? For the most part, we are a good bunch of guys and gals. Or choose to believe the world is flat? Or oblate spheroid if you hold it to be flat at the moment.

This is amazing.

It seems to me that our choices are always limited by who and what we are at the moment of choice. I would contend that you did indeed choose to believe, but only because God made that possible for you to do.

The choice was still mine if I had the ability to choose otherwise.

What you're talking about is coercion!

Either way, it is not a matter of salvation.

I beg to differ.

While I agree that most people who call themselves Calvinists are in fact saved, its only because they are genuinely ignorant of what Calvinism teaches. Most people who call themselves Calvinists aren't really Calvinists. They merely hold to some Calvinistic ideas. They, for the most part, while not understanding how to explain the contradiction, say they believe that they have a choice while also believing in predestination. They don't even try to reconcile the two ideas. They live in a sort of compatibilistic theological limbo. These folks have not shipwrecked their faith to the point of adopting a false religion.

Those Calvinists who are not ignorant however and openly and even eagerly cling to ideas that amount to them worshiping the wrong God, the wrong Jesus. They're salvation is very much in question. Many, I am convinced are no more saved than is the average Branch Davidian or Mormon or Jehovah's Witness.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Dialogos]

Grace of course. God's justice and mercy can be seen in the cross. At the same time we are given the option of trusting in and serving ourselves or believing in and serving him. I do not by embracing Christ in any way earn salvation. I am just putting myself in a position to receive the free gift.

So what makes you the exception to Romans 8:8? If those who are in the flesh cannot please God, how do you become spiritual before you are born again of the Spirit?

How did you go from being a non-understanding non-God seeker (Romans 3:11) to someone who puts themselves in a position to receive the free gift?

Non-Calvinists want to highlight the perceived dilemma they see with God ("God certainly would never choose some and leave the others in their sins," they say) at the expense of addressing the scriptural dilemma we see in man (which is that, left to his own devices, man is by nature, a God hating, sin lover who loves darkness rather than light).

A typical straw man many Calvinists use is that any act of the will is equivalent to a meritorious "work"…

Fair enough. And I agree that it is not an appropriate critique of non-Calvinist soteriology to claim that faith=work. Nevertheless, what is a legitimate critique is salvation, according to synergism, is located in the will of man rather than the will of God. Correct me if I am wrong but you likely believe that God has tried to save everyone with equal effort throughout all of history. The difference between a believer and a non-believer then, cannot be God’s grace it has to be something about the person. The believer has to be more humble, spiritually smarter, naturally more repentant, or just more spiritual than the non-believer. Whatever it is that makes the difference it is located inside of man rather than God because, in your view, God has tried to save both with equal effort.

Are you willing to admit that synergism necessarily means that the deciding factor in salvation comes from a characteristic within the person rather than God?

…but I doubt if people of the time would have interpreted it that way.

I doubt they would have seen it any different. Israel was very comfortable with the notion that God elects and that a Sovereign God is under no obligation or compulsion to show His grace to everyone equally.

The Caananites weren’t given a Day of Atonement. The High priest of the nation didn’t make atonement for himself and for Amorites, but for himself and the nation of Israel.

God did not choose to make a covenant with every family of the world but rather chose Abraham.

If that had been so then God never would have commanded man to do anything.

Your point here is dependent upon a flawed logic. I can give you numerous examples of God commanding man to do something that scripture says our human nature is too frail and sinful to obey without the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said, “be ye therefore perfect.”

Are you going to argue that God couldn’t have commanded that because that’s a command too difficult for you in your flesh to obey?

God told Israel to obey everything He had commanded them on Mount Sinai (Exodus 34:32). Are you going to argue that God somehow hoped that some would make it to glory by perfect obedience to the law?

However, when men preach the Gospel in the Bible they almost call for an decision to be made. Usually the response they command is immediate. You do not see anyone preaching a Calvinist message like "God has not died for all of you, but only for a few. Most of you have no power whatever to choose Him" Neither do they say "God so loves a few of you."

1. Men preach silly things all the time. I invite you to tune into TBN for a couple hours if you need evidence.
2. If Jesus died for everyone equally, then you must conclude that Jesus’ atonement is insufficient to accomplish its purpose of reconciliation for the vast majority of humanity.

The Gospel calls for a decision to be made. The decision is to believe on Him.

Of course! Calvinists don’t deny that a decision is made, we question whether a spiritually dead, sin loving, God hater has the ability, in and of himself, to choose life. Thus we conclude that man's decision is preceded by the Spirit's regeneration.

It is true that this would only be a responses to the drawing of the Spirit, but "drawing" means leading or influencing, impelling, not coercing or driving.

First, here we notice the notion of “prevenient grace” being snuck into the conversation. Prevenient grace is the synergist’s off ramp to avoid driving all the way to full-fledged pelagianism. This was one of the week doctrines that eventually tumbled in my own view and led me out of an Arminian understanding of salvation.

It is week for at least 3 reasons.
1. The scope and depth of the Spirit’s influence is too vague. What exactly does the Spirit do to the unregenerate heart that enables that unregenerate heart to choose faith? How exactly does that differ from the Calvinist’s view of regeneration prior to belief?
2. Why does it appear that the Spirit doesn’t draw everyone equally? There have been millions of people who have died never once hearing the gospel. How did the Spirit draw them?
3. The definition of Ελκω has been shown to mean exactly what you claim it does not. BDAG defines it as “drag” or “pull.” How do you rebut those findings?

In fact, if men were being coerced no appeal to the will need be made but as far as I can tell persuading and informing are fundamental to evangelism.

Coerced really isn’t the right word. Empowered is really more accurate. Calvinism maintains that God empowers some to do what they cannot in their natural state of reprobation. A man who is tossed into a river with both feet and hands bound can’t be persuaded or informed to swim to a life preserver until their feet and hands are unbound.

In another post you were arguing for limited atonement by trying to make the term "world" encompass fewer people than the whole of mankind. The verse under discussion was John 3:16. You spoke of the need for establishing context in that verse.

In another post I pointed out that John 3:16 describes how God loves the world. That’s the nature of the word Ουτως. The most common misunderstanding, and therefore misapplication, of this verse is that God loved the world soooooo very much that He….

This isn’t what this verse means.

We need to get to an accurate exegesis before we get to systematic questions like Calvinism or Arminianism (or Open Theism).

It is also demonstrably true that the bible will use the word κοσμος in a way that does not mean every single person on the planet who has ever lived or ever will live.

Here are some very clear, undisputable examples.

1 John 5:19: Are you under the sway of the Evil one? If “world” means everyone without exception then 1 John 5:19 says that you are.
1 John 4:5: Do you listen to false teachers? If “world” means everyone without exception then 1 John 4:5 says that you do.
1 John 3:13: Do you hate John? If “world” means everyone without exception then 1 John 3:13 says that you do.
John 15:18: Do you hate Jesus? If “world” means everyone without exception then John 15:18 says that you do.

I think a reasonable definition of κοσμος in John 3:16 is “the world in general, humanity in general”, rather than, “every single person in the world from the beginning of time until the end of time.”

God loved humanity in general and here’s how, He sent the Son. God didn’t send Jesus just for Jews but for Jews, Greeks, Romans, Scythians, Barbarians, slaves and free people alike. That understanding is consistent with the wider context of John's writing both given the textual context and the historical context.

If you disagree then please help me understand how God’s love expressed through the gift of the Son impacted the heathen Incan priest in the year 65 A.D. equal to the way it impacted Ignatius who John discipled?

While it is true that the world can mean a variety of things I think it is clear in the wider context of John's theology that the Apostle believed that the sacrifice of Christ was sufficient for all though the benefits were not actually appropriated by any except those who believe.

Define what you mean by “sufficient.” We reformed minded folks certainly don’t believe that the atonement was insufficient in any sense. Rather, we believe that the atonement was more sufficient than our Arminian and Open Theist brothers. We believe that the atonement is actually sufficient to propitiated the sins of the intended.

Your example of 1 John 2:2 is a great example.

In his First Epistle the Apostle makes this clear

"And he is a propitiation for our sins; and not ours only, but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1 John 2:2.

He is the propitiation ("atoning sacrifice") for OUR sins - for believers

but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD - everyone who is not a believer

The population of believers and unbelievers makes the population of the whole of mankind.

I see, so you see the sins of every human being who ever lived or will live removed from them by the cross, correct?

That is what propitiation means, that God’s just wrath has been turned aside concerning those sins rendering the "sinner" innocent.

So why does Jesus say to the Pharisees that they will die in their sins (John 8:24)?

If the whole of mankind, without exception, has their sins propitiated (which means that God’s wrath has been satisfied concerning them) then how can anyone die in their sins?

:think:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

First, here we notice the notion of “prevenient grace” being snuck into the conversation. Prevenient grace is the synergist’s off ramp to avoid driving all the way to full-fledged pelagianism. This was one of the week doctrines that eventually tumbled in my own view and led me out of an Arminian understanding of salvation.

It is weak for at least 3 reasons.
1. The scope and depth of the Spirit’s influence is too vague. What exactly does the Spirit do to the unregenerate heart that enables that unregenerate heart to choose faith? How exactly does that differ from the Calvinist’s view of regeneration prior to belief?
2. Why does it appear that the Spirit doesn’t draw everyone equally? There have been millions of people who have died never once hearing the gospel. How did the Spirit draw them?
3. The definition of Ελκω has been shown to mean exactly what you claim it does not. BDAG defines it as “drag” or “pull.” How do you rebut those findings?

Moreso, the view of prevenient grace denies the state of sin from conception of all the progeny of Adam. Invariably, those that adopt the notion that a wee bit of grace lingers within those in Adam end up denying the inability of the lost to seek after the righteousness of God.

The soteriological synergist will agree that we are sinners because we sin.

The Reformed will disagree and note that we sin because we are sinners.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4447283#post4447283

AMR

 

[Brother Ducky]

"non-Reformed" is a term that in most ears would imply "Catholic". Is this what you're intending to imply? If not then refer to Calvinism as "Calvinism" so that we can all be on the same page.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I prefer to use the term "Reformed" rather than "Calvinist" primarily because some seem to see Calvin as a cult leader to whom Calvinists do or should worship. It leads to threads about what Calvin said or references to Servetus, as if that made any difference in the way the Reformed traditions have developed over time.

I think we can reasonably be on the same page if I prefer and use the term "Reformed" to your "Calvinist."

 

[Clete]

I prefer to use the term "Reformed" rather than "Calvinist" primarily because some seem to see Calvin as a cult leader to whom Calvinists do or should worship. It leads to threads about what Calvin said or references to Servetus, as if that made any difference in the way the Reformed traditions have developed over time.

Your use of the incorrect terminology, while consistent with the typical Calvinistic tendency toward redefining what common words mean does little except muddy the waters and your motive is only serving to blind you to the truth of Calvinism. Read this thread and what you find is that the only Calvinists who disagree with a syllable of what Calvin himself said are the laymen. All of the educated Calvinists know what Calvin said and embrace it whole heatedly.

I think we can reasonably be on the same page if I prefer and use the term "Reformed" to your "Calvinist."

Nope. I won't be party to your muddying the waters. Nearly every Christian church that currently exists that isn't Catholic or Episcopal is genuinely Reformed and only a fraction of those are Calvinistic and even fewer genuinely Calvinist.
Your use of the term is wrong and you know it is. If you refuse to correct yourself on such an elementary point as that, you're a waste of time on anything more substantive

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Granite]

I prefer to use the term "Reformed" rather than "Calvinist" primarily because some seem to see Calvin as a cult leader to whom Calvinists do or should worship. It leads to threads about what Calvin said or references to Servetus, as if that made any difference in the way the Reformed traditions have developed over time.

I think we can reasonably be on the same page if I prefer and use the term "Reformed" to your "Calvinist."

Yes, there is a (subtle) distinction to be made. "Reformed" is--for lack of a better term--a bit of a "code word" generally implying the dour "frozen chosen" type of congregation one can expect, along with post-mil eschatology. A lot of people shy from the "Calvinist" label for the exact reasons you mention. Frankly, Clete's right when he points out few Calvinists know the man's work or his life terribly well--few have the time, patience, or stomach to churn through every bit of the Institutes, and rely on the Cliff's Notes available to them or more accessible writers like A.W. Pink or Lorraine Boettner.

There's a difference, if a slight one; once heard a fellow say that "Calvinist" struck him as weird as calling someone a "Paulist," or even the way a Muslim wouldn't appreciate "Mohemmedan," because it's kind of misleading.

 

[Brother Ducky]

0

Yes, there is a (subtle) distinction to be made. "Reformed" is--for lack of a better term--a bit of a "code word" generally implying the dour "frozen chosen" type of congregation one can expect, along with post-mil eschatology. A lot of people shy from the "Calvinist" label for the exact reasons you mention. Frankly, Clete's right when he points out few Calvinists know the man's work or his life terribly well--few have the time, patience, or stomach to churn through every bit of the Institutes, and rely on the Cliff's Notes available to them or more accessible writers like A.W. Pink or Lorraine Boettner.

There's a difference, if a slight one; once heard a fellow say that "Calvinist" struck him as weird as calling someone a "Paulist," or even the way a Muslim wouldn't appreciate "Mohemmedan," because it's kind of misleading.

I certainly agree that most have not read much of Calvin, I being one of them. Admittedly I read what is pertinent to me at the time, and just about every year I begin a journey through the Institutes and fail quickly for various reasons.

The fact that this thread is even here, and the vile things said about Calvin pretty much reinforces my penchant for going with "Reformed" rather than "Calvinist" to minimize the emotional baggage some seem to have with John Calvin.

Not a major interest of mine, but I wonder if all who call themselves Methodists are expected to believe all that Wesley said, or all Baptists have to hold to all that John said, or all Lutherans have to agree will all that Martin wrote.

 

[Brother Ducky]

Nope. I won't be party to your muddying the waters. Nearly every Christian church that currently exists that isn't Catholic or Episcopal is genuinely Reformed and only a fraction of those are Calvinistic and even fewer genuinely Calvinist.
Your use of the term is wrong and you know it is. If you refuse to correct yourself on such an elementary point as that, you're a waste of time on anything more substantive

Resting in Him,
Clete

While I would agree that most Protestants would trace their history to the Reformation, and in that sense could be called Reformed. But I would doubt if you queried members and clergy of many denominations they would gladly claim the name "Reformed." I suspect that outside of Presbyterians and the Continental Reformed tradition, most would vehemently deny being Reformed, despite the history of the denomination.

I do not believe my terminology is wrong, but is correct and proper.

And it is too bad you feel that if one uses terminology that you do not like, they are not worth dialoging with. You might be giving up some interesting and fruitful conversations.

 

[Clete]

While I would agree that most Protestants would trace their history to the Reformation, and in that sense could be called Reformed. But I would doubt if you queried members and clergy of many denominations they would gladly claim the name "Reformed." I suspect that outside of Presbyterians and the Continental Reformed tradition, most would vehemently deny being Reformed, despite the history of the denomination.

I do not believe my terminology is wrong, but is correct and proper.

And it is too bad you feel that if one uses terminology that you do not like, they are not worth dialoging with. You might be giving up some interesting and fruitful conversations.

It has nothing to do with whether I like the term it's your attempt to muddy the water that I object to. Calvinism and reformed are not synonyms and your use of the term is entirely incorrect and you know it. You don't like the implications of the term Calvinism and think that calling that particularly stinky rose by another name will keep you from smelling so bad. Your attempt to get me to go along with deception won't work.

 

[Granite]

It has nothing to do with whether I like the term it's your attempt to muddy the water that I object to. Calvinism and reformed are not synonyms and your use of the term is entirely incorrect and you know it. You don't like the implications of the term Calvinism and think that calling that particularly stinky rose by another name will keep you from smelling so bad. Your attempt to get me to go along with deception won't work.

Tulip, actually.:chuckle:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Would be better that some become more acquainted with history:

1. How Many Points

Then dig deeper:
2. http://www.amazon.com/Post-Reformation-Reformed-Dogmatics-Development-Orthodoxy/dp/0801026180

3. https://www.logos.com/product/4463/post-reformation-reformed-dogmatics
(also available from most libraries on inter-library loan)

AMR

 

[Clete]

Would be better that some become more acquainted with history:

I can't decide whether this post was an attempt on your part to revive the thread or an attempt to catch the last word in a played out thread that you've contributed next to nothing to when you had the chance. My gut says the latter. What's the point of reviving a thread you barely participated in?

In either case, in the interest of becoming more familiar with history, you've prompted me to quote more Calvin!

I particularly like this next quote because its just so common for Calvinists to talk about things we "should" do or, as in the case of your post, what "would be better" for someone to do. They talk EXACTLY as if their doctrine was false. They talk like we all have a choice. They talk like a person who does not believe in predestination or that God is an absolute control freak. They talk like me!

Here's the quote...

“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)​

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Dialogos]

Your use of the incorrect terminology, while consistent with the typical Calvinistic tendency toward redefining what common words mean does little except muddy the waters and your motive is only serving to blind you to the truth of Calvinism. Read this thread and what you find is that the only Calvinists who disagree with a syllable of what Calvin himself said are the laymen. All of the educated Calvinists know what Calvin said and embrace it whole heatedly.

Really, how do you know who is and who is not a "layman?"

Nope. I won't be party to your muddying the waters. Nearly every Christian church that currently exists that isn't Catholic or Episcopal is genuinely Reformed and only a fraction of those are Calvinistic and even fewer genuinely Calvinist.

Lets assume this statement is true (it isn't by the way but lets grant it just for the sake of argument), what would that prove?

In your estimation, genuine Calvinists are a very small minority of the folks who today consider themselves Calvinistic.

So what?