A Question About Predestination

NOTE: update added at the end of this post!

In the comments under this post, Christine asked "I wonder what you think of this post by Triablogue:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/04/all-is-adjective.html

I am always glad to remember that you are not a Calvinist, right?"

Me: Yes, you're right I'm not a Calvinist. I don't know if I'm an Arminian; I don't think so.
I think the author makes sense when he says the 'you' is what is being referred to by 'all' in that passage. But one verse doesn't make a doctrine. I think Calvinism is too cut-and-dried. There are too many things we don't and can't understand about this subject. I do believe the Bible teaches election and predestination, but I don't think we understand what it really means. There are too many pieces missing, and either God doesn't want us to understand it yet, or our unbelief prevents it. We tend to pick and choose and believe only the parts we want to.

Christine: Wow, I am totally confused by that answer, but thanks for the response.

Me: If you're confused because I agreed with the author of the blog post: just because that one verse seems to say that God is longsuffering toward us (or you) and is not willing that any of YOU should perish doesn't mean that God [wants] everyone else to perish. There are other passages that seem to say God doesn't want anyone to perish. Ezekiel 33:11 says: Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’
And reading the whole chapter of 2 Peter 3, I's not clear that the 'you' only refers to believers, anyway. I don't know why Calvinists seem to have to stress so much that God doesn't want everyone to be saved. What's the point?

Me: In other words, even if I concede them their point here, it doesn't mean anything, because of the magnitude of the many scriptures that stress God's longsuffering and mercy and love toward the whole world.

Christine: OK, that helps. I'm wondering then, in what way do you believe in election and predestination? Just that God is able to foresee (of course) but does not foreordain, so that we can make truly free choices?

Me: That's a difficult question, but I'll try to answer it as soon as I can.

So, here goes. I'm going to just throw out some ideas and links here to help with this, because I myself always have to go back and study it again, since there is so much info. that I can't keep it straight.
One thing that occurs to me is that, for example, in 2 Peter 3:9, the passage used in the Triablogue article: Did God plan the Bible so that an unsaved person can read it and know that God is talking to him/her? The passage says God "is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." If someone reads this and thinks it is written for them, are they wrong? Should we tell them that is only written for believers? That would be terribly presumptuous, to say that God can't speak to whomever He wills through His word.

Following are some helpful web pages from my husband Eddie's Bible study website in which he discusses predestination and Calvinism. I agree with my husband on this issue, and also firmly believe that we should stick strictly to what Scripture DOES say, and not 'crystalize' our own extrapolations or conclusions as firm doctrine. There are many scriptures that contradict Calvinism.

http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/topical/predestination/calvinism1.html

http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/topical/christianity/UnderstandingPredestination.htm
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/topical/christianity/UnderstandingPredestination2.htm
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/topical/christianity/UnderstandingPredestination3.htm
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/topical/christianity/UnderstandingPredestination4.htm

I remember that in some of my earlier posts on Calvinism I've said that I think Calvinism is a 'false gospel' or 'false doctrine'. I've said that Calvinism takes doctrines from Scripture and then draws conclusions that contradict other scriptures,'crystalizing' things that should be left uncertain. I believe many Calvinists are believers. I also believe many Arminians are believers, and many Roman Catholics are believers, and many Methodists are believers, etc.. In other words, we know that many people that think they're saved, aren't saved, in all groups of Christians; but many are truly saved.

Even though we may look at certain groups or doctrines as 'heretical', the people in them can still be our brothers and sisters, and we need to love each one as such, and not condemn them. None of us is right about everything. There is a right doctrine that we all should strive to be united under, which is the Truth of Scripture. Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to think we're right and others are wrong, that's all, like Paul talked of in 1 Corinthians 1-3. Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

So, should people even be calling themselves 'Calvinsists' then, or sticking so exclusively to one man's doctrines? Are there not passages of Scripture that contradict Calvinist tenets, and should we work so hard to explain these passages away? I think there is something beyond all the seeming contradictions (which Arminians and Calvinists constantly argue over, so it can't be denied that they exist) which we can't understand outside of the commandment to love God with all our hearts, and our neighbor as ourselves.

All through Church history brothers have hated brothers for doctrinal differences, ignoring this greatest commandment. Being my father's daughter, and my husband's wife, I understand how important correct doctrine is, but love is the greatest doctrine for believers to remember. Not the slushy kind of love that ignores error, but the kind that doesn't puff itself up and push others down as 'heretics'. It's very hard to find that balance between Truth and Love, as history shows. I struggle with that balance in myself constantly. Another famous passage farther along in 1 Corinthians sums it up: And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

UPDATE:
Christine, I looked back at the comments again and realized I hadn't answered all your questions, except to say I agreed with my husband's teachings in the articles I referenced above. Your question was "I'm wondering then, in what way do you believe in election and predestination? Just that God is able to foresee (of course) but does not foreordain, so that we can make truly free choices?"
You also said: "It seems to me that Calvinists believe in election such that some people are destined for heaven aside from their choices, and some are destined not to go to heaven and therefore deprived of the choice."

I do believe God is able to foresee, and that He does foreordain many things. I also believe we can make truly free choices to accept or reject salvation; to obey or not obey; to sin or not to sin. I think it's possible that God has foreordained some things, like Judas's betrayal, and Paul's commission as Apostle; but that everyone's future is not set in stone. My husband explained his view, that we are predestined to walk in good works, but that we can choose not to walk in that planned path. Maybe each person's path is planned, but some choose not to accept God's gift, and so God's best plan doesn't come to pass for them. It's an idea.
In Romans 9 and 10, which speaks of predestination, it seems to be speaking of God's plan for Israel and for the salvation of the Gentiles. It may point more towards the church as a whole being saved because of Israel's rejection. Israel will be grafted in again later, though they were cut off for disobedience. I think that's in Romans 11. I don't think this subject will ever be settled, but I don't see the point of saying it's God's will for most people who ever lived to be sent to hell forever. I don't think that's true, nor do I believe that's what is going to happen. Even Charles Spurgeon believed or hoped that there would be more in heaven than in hell. I hope so too. In 1 Corinthians 15 it says "For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death." and "“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
55 “ O Death, where is your sting?
O Hades, where is your victory?”"
I don't believe eternal death will claim the majority of people, though I do believe in judgment. I don't know if we understand correctly how long hell will last, or how many will be there. A thousand years or two of torment would certainly be fearful and horrible enough. There were Fathers that believed in Annihilation, and Fathers that believed in ages of torment, and Fathers that believed God would make us forget those in hell, so we wouldn't weep for them anymore. There are still people today who believe those different things. I don't know which is true. I hope for the best.

'The Torch of the Testimony': 'Crystalized tradition' vs. the life of the Spirit

'The Torch of the Testimony' by John W. Kennedy is similar in message to 'The Pilgrim Church' and lists 'The Pilgrim Church' in its bibliography. Kennedy also begins his book with a description of the synagogue system as it relates to the early church. In the first chapter after discussing the synagogues, he relates the story of Stephen as an example of how 'crystalized tradition' such as that of the Jews is a barrier to the life of the Spirit. I believe this was what Jesus was speaking of in Matthew 9 when He said: "Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved." The Jews had the word of God, but they had taken it and 'crystalized' it into a tradition that actually hampered the work of the Holy Spirit and 'made the word of God of no effect' in their hearts. Their own ideas about the word were outside of the true Spirit of the word. Here is an excerpt from chapter one of 'The Torch of the Testimony':

One of the believers in Jerusalem was a Greek speaking Jew named Stephen. We first meet Stephen as one of the seven deacons appointed to look after the needs of a section of the church which, it was alleged, was being unfairly neglected. It is soon a parent, however, that Stephen was also a gifted teacher and preacher with a particularly sharp, God-given insight into some of the implications of the Gospel as touching Jewish tradition (Acts 6 : 10). In one of the Jewish synagogues he preached a sermon which so stirred up the hot-head champions of Jewish orthodoxy, that he was seized and arraigned before the Sanhedrin on a charge of blasphemy.

The outline of Stephen's sermon is preserved for us in Acts 7. What was the main burden of his message? It was simply this, that the old, Jewish sacrificial order was destined from the beginning to pass away, and the time had now come for itsdeparture. With the revelation of Christ, all the traditional trappings of the Temple had become obsolete, and there could be no reconciliation of the two orders. Life and tradition could not carry on side by side. Judaism as it was could not contain Christ; it would have to give way to Christ or die a spiritual death in isolation. Stephen points out that the transitory nature of the traditional, sacrificial system was symbolized in the impermanence of the tabernacle, and that the building of a permanent structure in the Temple was out of accord with God's ideal (Acts 7 : 44-50). It is true that God honoured the devotion with which the Temple was built, but it was, nevertheless, man's idea (I Chron. 17 : 1), while the tabernacle was erected on the specific command of God Himself (Ex. 25: 8).

It is noteworthy that there was one eminent disciple of Gamaliel whose devotion to his master did not extend to accepting his master's advice of moderation in dealing with the followers of Christ. That disciple's name was Saul. The sentence passed upon Stephen met with his full approval. "And Saul was consenting unto his death " (Acts 8: 1). Saul, or Paul, as he was afterwards to be called, totally rejected Stephen's claim that Jesus was the Christ in whom all the law and the offerings were fulfilled, but he plainly recognized that, if Stephen's claim were fact, it would mean an end to all the tradition in which he had been nurtured, and for which he was so zealous. In the light of Saul of Tarsus' future ministry, it is of interest to see how, in his tacit compliance with the condemnation of Stephen, there was an awareness, probably shared at that time by few if any of the disciples themselves, that this new movement, the church, could not be confined within the limits of Judaism. Separation was inevitable.

Theoretically, it might be maintained that the synagogue could have become the church, but practically this was never the case. No doubt, as has already been shown, the synagogue, being free from the sacrificial ritual of the Temple and with the Scriptures as central to its life, was in a position to accept Christ as the fulfillment of the Word of God without having to undergo quite such a radical upheaval as such an acceptance would have occasioned in the life of the Temple, but it was never likely that a ruling majority of the synagogue adherents would accept this. Loyalty to the orthodox, Jewish tradition was too strong and too deep-seated to be thus rooted out. The Spirit of God had to' move elsewhere to start on fresh and more free ground. We see here but the beginning of a pattern of events which is repeated over and over again through the history of the church. When that which is revealed of God is crystallized into a tradition, rigidly held and propagated with purely human energy, it becomes an impenetrable barrier to the truth. The life of the Spirit can never be confined within the framework of religious tradition. God is much greater than man's thoughts concerning Him, and the plant of the church grows best in a soil uncluttered by the pretty hedgerows of man's limited understanding.

When that which is revealed of God is crystallized into a tradition, rigidly held and propagated with purely human energy, it becomes an impenetrable barrier to the truth. I've used the phrase 'crystalized tradition' myself when talking about traditions that I've seen in protestant and Catholic teachings. The main doctrine that showed me this principle and made me think of the phrase 'crystalized tradition (or doctrine)' is that of Calvinism, though there are many more examples that could be used. The principles of Calvinism come from the seeds of truth in scripture, but the doctrines that we call Calvinism are an extrapolation from these scriptural truths that are then hardened or crystalized into a doctrine that ignores some other parts of scripture and so becomes a barrier to truth and to unity in the body of Christ. We need to be forbearing with each other's differences that come from incomplete understanding of scripture, because we all have an incomplete understanding and can learn from each other if we exercise patience and love. It's one thing if the differences come from faith with an incomplete understanding, and another thing if the differences come from error and unbelief. I think, for example, that both Calvinists and Arminians are coming from love of God and His word, and from faith, so we should all exercise forbearance and love toward those in the body of Christ, as God commands us.

Exchangedlife.com: Examining Predestination and Calvinism

My husband Eddie has just completed a study on predestination which is available on his website, exchangedlife.com. In the study, my husband looks at the issue of predestination from a Biblical perspective, hoping to resolve the conflicts between opposing camps on this subject. The study examines the scriptures that indicate free will and those that affirm the sovereignty of God and shows that these do not disagree.

NOTE: My husband is transferring his website to another location, so while this is being done, please look for the link here; then click on 'Bible Studies' and find the study on 'Examining Predestination and Calvinism' with the date '08/2009'.

Two false gospels: Daughters of Augustine--Part Three, a clarification

I had said I would talk some more about Augustine's influence on Calvin next, but I wanted to clarify something first. I have called the two belief systems, Roman Catholicism and Calvinism, that descend (in part) from Augustine 'false doctrines.' That does not mean, however that I believe everyone who is within these belief systems is not a true Christian. As far as Catholicism goes, I believe it is wholly false, yet some within it are saved. As for Calvinism, I know and know of many Calvinists who are true believers, and Calvinists are great defenders of salvation by grace alone through faith alone. Pastor Cloud has written of this in the article I linked to in the last post, 'The Calvinism Debate.' Following is an excerpt from the article, from the section called 'I do not treat all Calvinists the same.'

It is important to understand that there is a great variety of doctrine and practice among Calvinists, and by no means do I consider a man to be an enemy of the truth just because he accepts some of the Calvinist theology. The book Spurgeon vs. Hyper Calvinists: The Battle for Gospel Preaching by Iain Murray (Edinburgh, Banner of Truth Trust, 1995) does an excellent job of describing some of the differences among Calvinists. There are soul winning Calvinists, Calvinists with great evangelistic and missionary zeal; and there are Calvinists who condemn these things. Some interpret Calvinism in such a way that they do not believe in offering salvation to or preaching the gospel to all sinners; they do not even believe that God loves all men. According to Murray’s definition, these are “hyper Calvinists.”

Charles Spurgeon refused to try to reconcile every seeming contradiction in the Bible, and he was wise enough to know that he could not understand every mystery of God. He said:

“That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other. These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring” (C.H. Spurgeon, New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 4, 1858, p. 337).

Spurgeon warned about creating theologies that attempt to reconcile every biblical difficulty:

“Men who are morbidly anxious to possess a self-consistent creed, a creed which will put together and form a square like a Chinese puzzle,--are very apt to narrow their souls. Those who will only believe what they can reconcile will necessarily disbelieve much of divine revelation. Those who receive by faith anything which they find in the Bible will receive two things, twenty things, ay, or twenty thousand things, though they cannot construct a theory which harmonises them all” (C.H. Spurgeon, “Faith,” Sword and Trowel, 1872).

In these matters, Charles Spurgeon was a Calvinist but he was much more than a Calvinist; he was a Biblicist. It has been said of Spurgeon, that if you pricked him, even his blood was “bibline.” He loved theology and studied theology earnestly, but the bottom line was that he had childlike faith in everything the Bible says.

And while Spurgeon was a Calvinist, he was at the same time a great evangelist and believed in offering the gospel to all men and urging all men to be saved. Spurgeon believed that more sinners could be saved if the gospel was preached to them, and he did not try to reconcile such a view with God’s election. He believed his responsibility was to preach the gospel to as many sinners as possible. He believed that tools such as prayer could result in a greater harvest of souls. He had prayer meetings before the preaching services and every Monday night and on other occasions. Sometimes when the auditorium of the Metropolitan Tabernacle was full, a group would remain in the downstairs prayer hall and pray during the preaching (as per an e-mail from Mrs. Hannah Wyncoll, Administrative Assistant, Metropolitan Tabernacle, June 2, 2000). Spurgeon loved soul winning and taught his people to be soul winners. His famous book The Soul Winner is still in print. There were some in Spurgeon’s church who “made it their special work to ‘watch for souls’ in our great congregation, and to seek to bring to immediate decision those who appeared to be impressed under the preaching of the Word. [Bro. Cloud: Note the word ‘decision’ in Spurgeon’s description of this soul winner!] One brother has earned for himself the title of my hunting dog, for he is always ready to pick up the wounded birds. One Monday night, at the prayer-meeting, he was sitting near me on the platform; all at once I missed him, and presently I saw him right at the other end of the building. After the meeting, I asked why he went off so suddenly, and he said that the gas just shone on the face of a woman in the congregation, and she looked so sad that he walked round, and sat near her, in readiness to speak to her about the Saviour after the service” (C.H. Spurgeon, The Full Harvest, p. 76). Thus we see that Charles Spurgeon was a man who was very zealous for the winning of souls, and his Calvinism and his convictions about the sovereignty of God in no wise hindered that.

On the other hand, many Calvinists of that day opposed Spurgeon vehemently from their pulpits and in their magazines and denounced his practice of giving invitations for sinners to come to Christ. (He did not have the people actually come forward during the church service as is commonly practiced today, but he invited them to come to Christ all the same; and he believed that a sinner was saved in every seat in the Metropolitan Tabernacle’s massive auditorium of that day.)

For example, one popular Calvinist paper of Spurgeon’s day was the Earthen Vessel. In one of its issues in 1857, it boldly stated that “to preach that it is man’s duty to believe savingly in Christ is ABSURD.” Well, that was exactly what Spurgeon preached, so to a great many Calvinists of his day, Spurgeon was an absurd fellow!

This reminds us that there are different kinds of Calvinists and it is not wise to lump them all into the same mold.

I have had the privilege of knowing, and communicating at a distance with, many godly soul winning Calvinists. Though I am in strong disagreement with such men on the subject of Calvinist theology, I do not consider them enemies.

Next time I would like to talk about Augustine, and discuss the perspective I have already given, plus another perspective I have just found that sees him as, not only a great defender against heresies, but because he was a man always learning and growing, his voluminous writings have inspired two opposing systems: Roman Catholicism and the Reformation doctrines of grace.

Two false gospels: Daughters of Augustine--Part Two

Pastor David Cloud of Way of Life Literature has several good articles about Calvinism in his topical database. One if these is called The Calvinism Debate; it was very helpful to me in understanding Calvinism and comparing it to scripture. One of the sections that was helpful was called 'Some central errors of Calvinism. Number 7 of this section was called 'CALVINISM GOES BACK TO THE “CHURCH FATHERS” FOR AUTHORITY INSTEAD OF STRICTLY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT APOSTLES AND PROPHETS' and stresses that Calvin was very dependent upon Augustine for his doctrines and philosophies. St. Augustine is also a major founder of much Catholic doctrine. Following is section 7:

Calvin freely acknowledged that his authority was Augustine. Consider the following quotes:

“If I were inclined to compile a whole volume from Augustine, I could easily show my readers, that I need no words but his” (Institutes, Book III, chap. 22).

“Let Augustine answer for me…” (Ibid.).

“[Augustine is the one] we quote most frequently as being the best and most faithful witness of all antiquity” (Institutes, Book IV, chap. 14).

“Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so ... out of his writings” (Calvin, “A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God,” trans. by Henry Cole, Calvin’s Calvinism, Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing, 1987, p. 38; cited in Laurence Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism, 1999, p. 38).

WHO WAS AUGUSTINE? He was so polluted with heresy that the Roman Catholic Church has claimed him as one of its “doctors.”

Augustine was a persecutor and the father of the doctrine of persecution in the Catholic Church. The historian Neander observed that Augustine’s teaching “contains the germ of the whole system of spiritual despotism, intolerance, and persecution, even to the court of the Inquisition.” He instigated bitter persecutions against the Bible-believing Donatists who were striving to maintain pure churches after the apostolic faith.

Augustine was the father of amillennialism, interpreting Bible prophecy allegorically; teaching that the Catholic Church is the kingdom of God.

Augustine taught that Mary did not commit sin.

Augustine believed in purgatory.

Augustine was one of the fathers of the heresy of infant baptism, claiming that unbaptized infants were lost, and calling all who rejected infant baptism “infidels” and “cursed.”

Augustine exalted church tradition above the Bible and said, “I should not believe the gospel unless I were moved to do so by the authority of the Catholic Church.”

A great danger of christians following the doctrines of one man, such as Calvin, and Augustine before him, is that people become dependent upon those doctrines as systematized or 'crystalized' by that one man instead of seeking God directly in His word and letting the Holy Spirit teach us. This doesn't mean it's not good to be taught by godly men; of course it is; but we are responsible to compare everything to scripture and God promises He will teach us if we seek Him diligently in His word.
I'd like to look more at what Calvin taught as he received it from Augustine next time I post, if possible.

Two false gospels: Daughters of Augustine, Part One

I've been looking into the doctrines of Calvinism off and on during this same time that I've also been studying Roman Catholicism, and today I again came across this statement about Calvinism here
by Pastor David Cloud of Way of Life Literature:

Thus, while I have not read every book on this subject that could be recommended by my readers, I have made a considerable effort to understand Calvinism properly and not to misrepresent it (though I have learned that a non-Calvinist will ALWAYS be charged with misrepresentation).

The Calvinist will doubtless argue that I simply don’t understand Calvinism properly, and to this I reply that if Calvinism is that complicated it can’t be the truth. If a reasonably intelligent preacher who has studied and taught the Bible diligently for 32 years and has published a Bible encyclopedia and many other Bible study books can study Calvinism with a desire to understand it properly and still not understand it, then it is far too complicated to be the truth! The apostle Paul warned that it is the devil that makes theology that complicated. “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3). Of course, Calvinism is not simple by any means and this is one reason why it produces an elitist mentality. To understand Calvinism one must deal with compatibalism, monergism versus synergism, electing grace vs. irresistible grace, effectual calling vs. general calling, effective atonement vs. hypothetical atonement, libertarian free will vs. the bondage of the will, objective grace and subjective grace, natural ability and moral ability, mediate vs. immediate imputation of Adam’s sin, supralapsarianism, sublapsarianism, infralapsarianism, desiderative vs. decretive will, and antecedent hypothetical will, to name a few!

This statement reminded me of a statement I made to Elena (who is a Roman Catholic) about Roman Catholicism under the comment section on my post called 'Pastor Tony Bartolucci on Francis Beckwith: Drowning in the Tiber.' I had commented to Elena that I have been studying Roman Catholicism consistently for months, and on and off for several years, and she, apparently believing that Roman Catholicism is impossible to understand without years of study, or by those who do not adhere to it's tenets, said: " ooooo!! Months huh? Honey, you haven't even scratched the surface." My reply was:

That's arrogant, Elena. If it takes years to understand enough about the RCC to know whether or not it teaches the true gospel, then we are all hopeless, Elena. If the RCC teachings are so hard to understand that a normal person, a born again person like me, can't understand them when comparing them to scripture then the RCC teachings are definitely not the gospel, because the gospel is simple and concise. I don't need to study for twenty years and have an advanced degree in theology to be able to compare doctrines to scripture. All believers are told to do this, to beware of false teachings, and we all can do it in days or weeks if we prayerfully study with the help of the Spirit who teaches believers.

I have been coming to the conclusion that both Roman Catholicism and Calvinism are false doctrines, and both,coincidentally(?), descending at least in part from Augustine of Hippo.

My husband's sermon series on Predestination: exchangedlife.com

My husband recently wrote a four-part sermon series studying predestination and how understanding the biblical teaching on this subject can help us in our christian life. Here are the links to the four parts: http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/topical/christianity/UnderstandingPredestination.htm
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/topical/christianity/UnderstandingPredestination2.htm
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/topical/christianity/UnderstandingPredestination3.htm
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/topical/christianity/UnderstandingPredestination4.htm

I'm too dumb to be a Calvinist

I've come to the conclusion that I'm too dumb to read Calvin. I tried to read the document mentioned in my earlier post, called 'Calvins Calvinism,' but I couldn't get into it. I love to read informative books and articles from earlier times and normally enjoy the more detailed and precise language of those times, but this was not interesting to me, and the fact that Calvin kept referring to some other men who he called various derogatory names because they had the 'audacity' to believe in the free will of man was very annoying to me. The Bible teaches the free will of man along with the sovereignty of God, and as Spurgeon said:

“That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other. THESE TWO TRUTHS, I DO NOT BELIEVE, CAN EVER BE WELDED INTO ONE UPON ANY HUMAN ANVIL, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring” (Charles Spurgeon, New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 4, 1858, p. 337).
Following are some links from wayoflife.org that speak about Calvinism:
http://www.wayoflife.org/database/calvinscamels.html
http://www.wayoflife.org/database/calvinismprooftext.html
http://www.wayoflife.org/database/page22/page22.html
http://www.wayoflife.org/database/calvinismdebate.html
http://www.wayoflife.org/database/hypercalvinism.html

I think David Cloud's biblical view on the subject of Calvinism is the most sensible I have heard.
No, I'm not too dumb, but I do believe the Gospel is simple to understand and shouldn't require a high level degree and years of study to understand, and any system of belief that makes people proud and hateful towards others who don't agree with them is not the gospel.
Just to clarify, as David Cloud says in response to James White's desire to debate him on Calvinism vs. Arminianism: I am not a Calvinist, nor am I an Arminian; I'm a Biblicist.

CORRECTION: A reader has pointed out to me that I misunderstood Spurgeon's statement about man's responsibility and God's sovereignty, taking 'man's responsibility' to equal 'free will'. I did later realize my mistake but it never occurred to me to go back and correct it. Thanks 'Anonymous' for bringing that up :) Anyway, about 'free will' and God's sovereignty, I do believe "that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring". I believe our free will is subject to God, but that only He understands where the line is between them.

Did John Calvin 'consent unto the death' of Michael Servetus?

Here is an article I read about John Calvin today. I had been told several years ago that John Calvin had a heretic put to death. I, not being a Calvinist and not knowing anything about him except by hearsay, did not have any reason to think this wasn't true and did not investigate it, though it always bothered me that someone who was supposed to be a reformer would be a persecutor.
I had started reading 'Calvin's Calvinism' here, and a reference to the incident caused me to look up more information on the subject. I found the above article that explains another side of what happened between John Calvin and Michael Servetus, who is the man Calvin supposedly persecuted.
I always have wondered what Calvin really taught; if he would recognize the doctrines that are attributed to him today. I have never read any of his writings, so when I finish the translated documents mentioned above, I'll let you know what I think.