Well the bible says man was created with free will but lost that free will when Adam fell. All of us are born slaves to sin and incapable of pleasing God in and of ourselves. romans 6 makes it clear we are all slaves to sin. that is not independent will.
Scripture never indicates that man lost his free will. Free will to serve God. Rom 1:18-24 alludes to the same thing. Man actually needs to make an effort to actually deny the knowledge of God. We also have many who were called righteous in the OT. They are not righteous because God forced them to become righteous, but by their own free will. The Holy Spirit was working in the age before Christ, though not inward, but upon those of the OT. The fact that Mary, was righteous and choose to accept that she would bear Christ.
Making blanket statements such as you did negates the rest of scripture to the contrary. The fact is man chooses to be slaves to sin or to righteousness.
This is a bold face lie! I have read Calvins Institutes of the Christian Religion and He most definitely teaches Jesus became human. someone fed you bad lies.
Saying he teaches Christ became human means nothing when the theology he espouses denies the Incarnation. His doctrines of predestination, and election, and limited atonement are direct denials of the efficaciousness of the Incarnation. You even denied it with your total misunderstanding of the fall in relation to Christ correcting that fall, I Cor 15:20-22. The statement you made about the fall also is incorrect based on scripture. If that is what Calvin believed, then I understand his total misunderstanding of the Incarnation. It seems to be just incidental.
And false teachings are based on a reinterpretation of what is written. This is what Christianity starting in the late 2nd century fell prey to. this the need for the reformation and its slow crawl out of the darkness of false doctrine.
Yes, all false teachings are based on scripture. The west under the RC didn't accept the false teachings of Augustine until Anselm in the 11th century when he embodied both the concept of Original Sin and developed the Satisfaction theory of atonement.
Actually the Church had false teaching described by Paul by Hymenaeus and Philetus. As well as teachings ascribed to men like Apollo.
However, when false teachers/teachings occured and they impacted the faithful, a Council, like the one described in
Acts 15 would be called to determine the correct meaning of scripture. In other words they followed the teachings of the Holy Spirit/Paul as in I Tim 3:15.
Protestantism when even further astray than the RC. They adopted some the false teachings of the RC, then man every man his own interpreter of scripture which gave birth to hundreds of denominations who all differ between themselves on some point. Hardly the original gospel, once given and preserved within the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit. They have been debating the merits for 500 years so far. Do you think they might come together in any shape or form?
Sorry but history and Scripture prove you wrong! From Creation to some time pre-flood they knew of God but then the knowledge of God drifted away. Then around the time of the dispersal at Babel they drifted away from the knowledge of God and as the nations were formed after that the nation of the true god slowly vanished. Paul confirms this in ephesians 2:
Ephesians 2:11-12
King James Version
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
You have confirmed what I stated. Most men chose to deny the knowledge of God and went their own way. Flood destroyed them and then by the time of Abraham a different dispensation was needed. Even the Isrealites forgot God with even more divine intervention.
And we come to the current state and most are again denying Christ.
Paul also declares not all have a knowledge of the true god in romans 10:
Romans 10:11-17
King James Version
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Where does he say not all have the knowledge of God in these verses?
Also I think you meant Romans 1:18-24 and you must remember that Paul is writing a historical overview not present day though this is still going on.
Correct, thanks.
but you failed to answer the question of how the untold billio0ns who have never heard the gospel of salvation once or the name Jesus once have a chance of salvation as the bible says there is only way to be saved.
As I stated Rom 1:18-24 is applicable to all human beings in the most elementary level. There could be some Australian Aborigine who could be saved through what is known as natural theology. You have those in the OT. But I mentioned this to you earlier which means you don't think Abraham, Noah were saved, nor Moses, Elijah, or David, or many others of the OT. You do believe that Jesus is also God even though Jesus, Christ is never mentioned in the OT.
But you do! the five points of biblical Calvinism were written to rebut the initial 5 points of Armenianism at the Council of Dort. son these five points people are known for their Armenian or Calvinistic persuasion. that is why colloquially people are known as 3 or 4 or 5 point Cavlinists.
To have 1 or 2 points of Calvinism is impossible without holding to the rest. I see them as inextricably linked together. But then everyone has their own personal interpretation. They don't necessarily need to be consistent.
Well please show where you think Paul disagrees . Just saying it is totally inadequate.
Rom 1:18-24, the entire OT does not speak of the gospel, does not mention either Jesus or Christ.
Well I await this not difficult showing of why Calvinism is wrong biblically.
Total depravity. Scripture never teaches that man is totally incapable of finding God or responding to God. I already gave you the texts, Rom 1:18-24. He also never lost his free will, as you have already stated also.
Unconditional election. There is no verse in scripture that ever states that persons were predestined to be believers. There are six examples of election is scripture. Three are persons, Jacob, Christ and Paul. Three groups were elected, Israel OT, the Church NT, the disciples. None were elected to salvation, but to perform a service.
Limited atonement. Denies the Incarnation whereby Christ by His human nature defeated death by His resurrection for all of humanity and well as the physical world. And performed a sacrifice for the sins of the world. Heb 2:9, I John 2:2 are good summaries, as is I Cor 15:20-22.
Irresistable grace. From Adam to current believers, man by virtue of his free will can deny God's call as well as his status as a believer. There are many texts already given to you, but the parable of the sower, prodigal son, Unfaithful servant, and every text that exhorts believers to remain faithful. One does not have finitely salvation in this life, it is an inheritance given at the end of life, I Pet 1:3-5.
Perseverance of the saints. Same texts that show man can resist God's grace can be used here.
but first I would appreciate your understanding of what the five points are of Calvinism. Most I have discussed with usually speak of the heresies of hyper calvinism.
See above. If that is Calvinism just what is hyer-Calvinism, How could it be even worse.