An Honest Look at Calvinism - What is it Exactly?

   Calvinism, in a nut shell, teaches that God chooses, Himself, who is going to end up in Heaven, and who will end up in Hell. This is not to say He does this separating at the time of judgment day, no, Calvinism teaches He has selected this even prior to any man being born. They justify this with their T.U.L.I.P. principle, which I will elaborate on later.

   What the Calvinist stands in opposition to, is man's 'free will' to choose whether they follow Jesus, and therefore, by faith, enter into Heaven, or follow Satan (the ways of the world) and choose Hell. While I am certain the words "free will" together do not appear in any translation of the Bible, all through the scriptures the context of free will of man is clearly shown, and taught.
From the very beginning of mankind, Adam and Eve were given a choice;

Genesis 2:16 "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

   Now, certainly God knew that man had the CAPABILITY to choose wrongly, and sin, but I do not think it can be clearly argued that God did not 'put them to the test' and present them with a choice to see what they would do. Was that choice about eating? No. It was clearly, for them, choose to live under His covering and protection in the garden, or choose to die by taking on the penalty of sin. They chose unwisely, and ended the 'dispensation of innocense'.

   Then began the 'dispensation of conscience'. During this time, Satan clearly understood that man had a choice, whether or not they can maintain a conscience toward God, or against Him. In the book of Job, the Devil challenges God to let him torture His servant Job, and he was convinced Job would curse God. The Calvinist would say, well, Job was a chosen one so he didn't give in, but do you really think the Devil would waste the effort if he understood God's sovereignty on this topic like the Calvinist does? Why would he bother? (same concept applies to the garden incident). Genesis 6 speaks of Noah and the flood. If God already knew that Noah was the only one He would choose (with his family of course) to be saved during this time, why does verse 6 say God was 'grieved in His heart' such that He wanted to destroy the entire Earth? However, because He is God, He knew of Noah, and the Word says God "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord" (this indicates God SAW Noah's worth at that time) and the word 'found' here is the Greek word 'matsa', which means to 'come upon, light upon, discover'. If God predestined Noah for such a day, how could the Greek word 'matsa' be used here?

   Now begins the 'dispensation of Human Government' where Noah just witnessed how serious God is about His creation, and was commanded to go, and fill the Earth, following HIM in faith. In stead of carrying through with this command, and doing as was commanded by God, to Noah, his descendents decided to make the choice to build a paganist tower of Babel and try, once again, to reach the glory of God on their own. How does the Calvinist square with this event? Did God stop choosing souls after Noah? I mean, he scattered ALL the nations, confusing languages and everything, there was no 'chosen people' at this time. Until the 'dispensation of the promise', which is, of course, where God now chooses a people. But even in this choice, God still gives Abraham the choice to prove himself in faith. He, God, didn't just place the crown on his head, and predestinated him to be the father of His Nation. He TESTED him. Why would God test someones faith if He already knows what that faith is made of? I cannot understand that in the simplest of terms. He may foreknow something, based on what he sees in a mans heart, but it does not seem at all to be His nature to set up a staged event, as we would call it today in the WWF (hope you are not a fan).

   Next is the 'dispensation of the Law', again you see choices. I know that the Calvinist uses the example of the Pharaoh of Egypt during the time of Moses as a prime example of God choosing someone, or predestinating them even if it means they end up in Hell with Satan. I can understand why they think that in reading the story from start to finish, but I wonder, did John Calvin consider carefully the ENTIRE story? One thing the believers in full predestination and those of us in the 'free will' camp can agree on, is that God CAN see the heart, and know it. God saw Pharaoh's heart, no doubt, but read the story carefully. In the first 5 plagues God sent upon the Pharaoh and his people, Moses recorded that PHARAOH himself hardened his heart. Pharaoh had already proved to God that his heart was hard. When God sees good in a man's heart, He moves him to do more to further His agenda, so God also, when he sees evil in a man's heart, can use that to also further His agenda. Like Scripture says "God sends rain on the just, and the unjust", after all, He is God. Did God foreknow Pharaoh would make these choices, sure, just like I foreknow that if I set an alarm clock set to go off at 5am tomorrow, and it is plugged in, I am certain it will go off at 5am tomorrow. I can alter whether it actually does or not, but that will require my intervention, and would be based on what day of the week it is, and that can change based on MANY factors, vacations, holidays, etc. God saw in Pharaoh that he needs to get up at 5am EVERY day of the week, regardless, because his heart was stone cold. This is the simplest way I can understand God's foreknowledge, and why he used the Pharaoh at such a time. Like Paul said in 1 Corinthians 2:16 "For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." Also, after Moses led God's chosen people through 40 years in the desert because of their disobedience, (not all of them died in His favor, even though they were of the 'chosen' people) Joshua was about to bring them into the Holy Land to become the Nation of Israel. In Joshua 24:15 he stood up before the people and said "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

   Now we come to today, the 'dispensation of Grace'. Again, there are so many verses about us having a choice to choose Christ, hearing the Word in order to even obtain faith, that it is impossible, in the time I have, to expound on all of them. There are some in the Calvinist camp, perhaps all, that think 'free will' choice in faith was originally a 'hedonistic' concept. This is quite contrary to what the Lord Himself taught. In Mt. 7:14 about it; "Because narrow is the gate, and difficult is the way, which leads to life, and few there are few who find it." Hardly the definition of hedonistic. Sure, this would define the hierarchy in the Church of Rome beginning in the 3rd and 4th centuries, but not the words of the Apostles, and certainly not the Word of the Lord. And what about the Apostles? John repeats Jesus' words in 7:17 "If anyone 'wills' to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God..." The first word 'wills' here speaks of intention, resolve, something someone chooses to do out of desire. There is no indication of divine providence, or ordination in the word 'wills', it is simply, to each man, his choice to do, or not to. However, the second word 'will' as in 'His will' DOES speak of Divine purpose, and God's intention, but that is what was chosen, not what was ordered.

   Again, the Calvinist will claim that Paul never taught free will choice, and I agree he has said some things that appear to be, on the surface, statements that back up (and Calvinists are not shy about using them) the idea of a predestined, eternal order for each man ever born. However, in the same book of Romans, Paul then confuses these doctrines by his statements in chapter 10, verses 9 -13. How can he be claiming in Romans 8 & 9, as interpreted by Calvinist thinkers, that God predetermines who will be saved, and who will not, but then in the following chapter state that it is by personal confession, personal choice, our hearing of the preached Word (verse 8), that faith is obtained? And verse 13; "For, whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" 'shall be saved' here is the Greek word 'sozo', and it speaks of rescuing someone from perishing. How can someone, preselected by God to be saved, be perishing? Also, the word 'whoever' comes from a Greek pronoun, and simply means who (anybody), and has no indication of gender, religious status, ordination or any classification. So yes, Paul did teach free will, and he also taught predestination, however, that can only be understood in context of the whole of Scripture. In a nut shell, predestination is God's plan for mankind, His goal. Calvinists err by applying the conclusion of it's finality (we are already selected before birth) to an infinite God (who is not bound by our times, and reasoning). There are some things we may never clearly understand, until the day we are with Christ, in His Kingdom, but, I think the Scripture speaks clearly IF, all of it, is understood in harmony together from Genesis to Revelation.

    And what about Peter? Is he to be discounted because he did not speak about the deep things the Lord chose to reveal to Paul, at a later time, than what Jesus spoke to his original disciples? No, because even Paul stated that when he finally met the disciples after 3 years of learning from the Holy Spirit, they all were preaching the SAME Gospel message. And whether it was in Paul's ministry to the Gentile, or Peter's to the lost sheep of Israel, what is important is the base of the Gospel message, Peter stated God's intention clearly in 2 Peter 3:9 in regards to ALL men "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance." The word 'all' here means; each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone....you get my point. Yes, God is quite aware there will be many who will perish, and the word 'any' in this verse indicates He knows that some will choose wisely, and not perish, but His will, is that all would be saved. It breaks His heart (Gen. 6, Mt 23:37 et.al.) to know that they all will not, how can He be broken about what He chose to do in the first place? Do you see how this really does not make sense?

   The Calvinists also teach that our choice to choose our salvation was never taught by the early Church, or anyone, until the 16th or 17th century. This not only shows a willingness to ignore allot of Old & New Testament Scripture, but also a willingness to ignore allot of the early Church leaders and teachers, who's writings still exist today. Irenaeus wrote, around 180AD, against what were early teachings akin to what John Calvin came up with much later, and spoke clearly about our free will. He was discipled under Polycarp, who in turn is believed to have been a disciple under the Apostle John. That is just one, a careful, honest study would reveal there were many Bishops and leaders, teachers and followers who understood and taught free will in the early Church, not to mention the men who gave us the New Testament writings themselves, with words directly given them from the Holy Spirit.

   Now, to get to how the Calvinist reasons what they believe. Most people involved in Christianity, whether they are aware or not, have come across some form of Calvinistic beliefs, but allot, like myself until recently, never really study it, or know what the acronym TULIP means. I have heard the term before, over my years being saved, but never really looked into its meaning, or understood how much they cling to this principle. A friend of mine, who teaches Calvinism, shared with me what the acronym TULIP Stands for:

T – Total Depravity – Humankind is totally depraved, dead in their sins, and unable to choose the Spirit since they are slaves to sin.

U – Unconditional Election – Since we are totally depraved then God must choose for us. Since every single person is on the path leading to hell, and is unable to choose otherwise, He must make the choice for us. Here is where experientialism poses a problem. Many will say, “Well, I know my experiences and the hard choices I had to make to choose Him. I know what I went through.” Without giving one thought to the fact that God was in control and helping them along throughout all of that. If God is…well God…then don’t we think He would allow us to ‘experience’ as to grow in our relationship with Him.

L – Limited Atonement – this is an important one as well. Christ’s sacrifice was limited to only the elect. His chosen. The believers. If we say that Jesus died for the sins of the entire world then we must take the stance of Universalism…that everyone is going to heaven. Why? Because otherwise we wouldn’t understand what happened during the atonement. Christ bore the sins at that very moment. Therefore, the sins of all of those, from the beginning of time until the end, that were His elect were put on Him. NOT, the sins of the world. If that were the case then the entire world would have had their sins forgiven. NOT, the sins of those who would someday choose…then that would make it all retroactive. He bore them at that moment. If we hold to free will choice, then we MUST put God in time with us and say that He looked ahead and knew. That is the problem of those that want to say Romans 8:29 says “foreknew” meant that he looked ahead. The problem is that nowhere in Scripture (unless you want to twist this one to fit a theology) does ‘knew’ or ‘foreknew’ mean a simple head knowledge. Adam ‘knew’ Eve and they bore children. To ‘know’ always means in an intimate way…so when God ‘foreknew’ us this means that before the foundations of the world He intimately knew us. Therefore, the atonement and bearing of sin was for His elect only.

I – Irresistible Grace – Naturally if we can’t choose and He chooses for us then we cannot resist. Without the power to choose we lack the power to resist.

P – Perseverance of the Saints – Anytime perseverance is mentioned it is our battle to the end. Not that anything would be lost but that it is simply a struggle in this world as we are growing.

My thoughts about this acronym is that it really should stand for:

T - Taking
U - Unbiblical
L - Licence to
I - Indoctrinate
P - People

   The 'T' - Total depravity? First of all, nobody disagrees that we are born dead in original sin, that is why we need to be born again! (though an infant born is not held accountable for that sin until they are conscience of that sinful nature).Paul speaks of this in Romans 7:9 Secondly, nowhere does Scripture indicate we "choose the Spirit", so the concept that we cannot choose the Spirit is correct. What does the Word say? John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me, draws him..." On the surface this could sound as if God is selecting someone, and the Calvinist also hangs on this Scripture as proof of their theology, but does it say that God chose us? You know the saying "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink." This is very true for us, and the same principle for us humans is the same for God who created us in His image. He will draw us, lead us, if He sees softness already in your heart, toward Christ, but, He will not MAKE us drink!. He doesn't plant that seed there prior to our existence, this verse does not say that. If this were so, how could the 'The Parable of the Seed' Jesus taught make any sense? Paul tells us in Romans 10:17 "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God". He, because He is God, sees the heart, and draws someone to His Son, it is just that simple. But unlike us, He knows which ones will choose Christ, though He wishes ALL men would! That is His purpose, His will, His election. Once we accept Christ, we also pray for the Holy Spirit to choose to live in us. If He sees a worthy vessel, He will! We don't choose in that case, the Spirit does, but that is AFTER we have heard the Gospel message (still in our sins), accepted Jesus, repented of our sins, and accepted the Lord's holiness (His blood atonement), not before. So, we have as much ability to choose something good, as we do to choose something bad, that is what God gave us, a free will to choose.

   The 'U' - Unconditional election? What is not stated by my friend is, when exactly God does that choosing. There are two views on this, and for the sake of keeping any body's heads from exploding, I will not repeat those two words ending in 'ism', I'm not certain I can even spell them correctly! In a nut shell, the much lesser held view is God decided, before He even created man, who would be saved, and who would be condemned. (but still went through the whole process of the garden and the fall to initiate original sin in a man, who was already condemned, or was he? hmmm). The second waits until after the fall, then God decides from that point, every human being, prior to being born, was either going to be a good egg, or a bad egg. I wonder what happens to the poor bad eggs (abortions, miscarries etc.) that never got a chance to even come into the world and do a little bit of evil. You mean they end up in unquenchable fire, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth after being told on judgment day they are going there, not because anything they did, but because God decided they needed to go there? How does that a make God not only a righteous Judge, but any kind of a Judge at all? He's Judging His own decision? Both views essentially say the same thing, and end up with the same result, God chooses to send some to Hell, and some to Heaven so don't argue that, He is God, He can do as He pleases. I don't get this part of Calvinism at all, and it certainly is found nowhere in proper context, and understood Scripture. The Calvinists hang their hats on God's sovereignty on this one, and ignore completely His heart, Mercy, and Grace. I'm sure those who have believed this stuff, and have died, or will die, are going to understand clearly what a righteous Judge God truly is.

   The 'L' - Limited atonement? This is probably one of the most un-biblical and condemning parts of this acronym in regards to what Jesus actually did at the cross for mankind. To understand the atoning blood of Christ, the way the Calvinist does, is almost akin to the understanding that the Roman Catholic Church has about that shed blood. The Catholic Church teaches that Christ shed His blood at the cross, but that certainly wasn't enough volume of blood to cover the sins of all those who looked for Him to come, or would choose Him after His death, so they created a doctrine and ceremony that "recreates the blood" so we can actually drink it. This they claim is necessary because Jesus stated to His disciples at the Passover meal, better known as 'The Last Supper'. "Whoever eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:54. They could only understand this verse in a literal way, Jesus said it was His blood (though at that dinner, there is no record he bled into the cup) so therefore, anybody drinking from the cup (communion) must drink His actual blood, or there is no atonement, no covering of sins. Then they created an actual procedure of how this is actually to be done by the Priest, and what the substance, though it distinctly tastes like wine made from grapes, truly is. Yikes! The Calvinist here also looks at Christs shed blood as a finite amount, and it is not possible for it to be able to cover an unknown amount of sins. As you see above, if it was to cover all men ever born, then everybody would be saved! This does not force me into believing a Universalists doctrine whatsoever. The sheer magnitude of what Christ actually did at that cross is not to be understood in a finite way. Remember, here is God, in the form of the Son, who participated in the creation of man, who had no sin, knew not what sin even felt like, lived a sinless life in the flesh, which no man has ever, or will ever do, and he took on OUR SIN, so we COULD BE SAVED. Man is nowhere near big enough, or able to procreate and sin enough to exhaust that Grace, and force God to pick a number. Hebrews 9:12 "Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once FOR ALL, having obtained eternal redemption" Again, all means all, and it does not specify election, or selection. Nor is Paul saying here it automatically covers everyone, read the last verse in that chapter, Paul makes it clear that it will cover many, but only those who choose Christ, and are waiting (or were, or will) for Him. In regards to 'eternal redemption' look up the definition of the word eternal sometime, it does not speak of 'limits', and eternal redemption goes on even after it is no longer even needed, my hope is in that day. The only number limit we have in scriptures is the number of Gentile believers to fill the Church (all since the Resurrection), and when that number is met, which no man knows how many, nor will we know the day or the time, though we are told of signs to look for, Christ will return for His Church and usher in the next dispensation of Judgment. There is no limit to what God can do, as we can clearly see in Scriptures, and therefore, in that same manner, there is no limit to how many God can save by offering His Son, as a sacrifice for our sins. His will is for all to be saved, but His wisdom, and foreknowledge knows, that will not be the case, and the number of lost still grows greater. It's funny, the Calvinist can admit that the action of one man, Adam, brought a totally depraved sinful nature on all mankind, but somehow discredit the Lord's ability to bring justification to all mankind through His free gift. The Scriptures are clear; Romans 5:18 "Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life."

   The 'I' - Irresistible Grace? I would call this Indisputable Grace, and beg to differ on the irresistible part. While I experienced the Lord's Grace many times prior to my full commitment to Him, as God's Spirit never gave up on me, I was certainly able to resist, and did for 18 years! If I was elected, as Calvinist's would claim I was, I would have kept seeking after the face of God at 11 years old, because when I heard the massage, and realized I needed a Savior in Jesus, and came forward, and gave my life to Him (I think?). According to the 'T' principle, I should have got the Holy Spirit in me that would lead me and guide me, because I was so totally depraved I couldn't possibly ask for it myself, and at that age, I couldn't stand against those teenage years on the horizon on my own. Well, I didn't get the Spirit because I didn't ask, nor did anyone ever tell me I needed to, and so I eventually resisted, boy, did I resist. But, His Grace never did leave me, there were some nights I wondered who the heck I was, only for Him to somehow show me He's still there, waiting for me to choose, tapping His fingers, driving me nuts!. Finally, at 29 years old, I couldn't take it anymore, I asked the Lord to flat out tell me what He wants me to do, and I'll do it! I got a phone call from a local non-denominational Pastor the next day. He would come around once in a blue moon to witness the Gospel to me (I politely informed him I'm a Catholic, and I'm comfortable with that, but would gladly read some materials) and I was surprised to get a call from him. Later he confessed to me he wasn't going to bother to call me to come to their Good Friday service, because he figured it was no use after inviting me many times in the past, but he said God just would not let him not do it, and so, here I am. I made a commitment to Christ that night, Thursday, before I even went to that service because I knew already it was what I needed to do, I needed to change my life, and by His Grace, His drawing me, His unwillingness to lose even one, I became born again that night. God was irresistible to me that night (and has been ever since!), but that came AFTER I accepted Him, and repented, and committed to follow Jesus. And like I mentioned above, as I lay in bed one night, a few months after, asking the Spirit to come into me, abide in me and fill me, and He sure did make Himself known to me that night. I asked, His Spirit came, we worked it out together, but on His terms this time. 2 Corinthians 12:9 "And He said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness." That is my God.

   The 'P' - Perseverance. while my friends sentence above about the word perseverance here is correct, that it means we can, and should, persevere through all our struggles as long as we put our faith and trust in Jesus, and allow His Spirit to lead us. Where he, and Calvinism err is the little comment thrown in there "Not that anything would be lost..." Scripture backs up that we cannot have our salvation taken away, we cannot just lose it; Romans 8:38-39 "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 38 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." .Notice these are all EXTERNAL forces, and Paul is exactly right, of course. However, one force Paul did not include here, is the one thing that has all the power (given by God, we didn't set this up, He did), not only to obtain that salvation, but also remove it, and that is our 'free will'. Yes we can be secure in our salvation for eternity, as long as we always want it. This is what Paul, and others, referred to as 'enduring', finishing the race, staying the course, persevering. Yes, it is by the sealing and filling of the Holy Spirit that we are even able to do this, but, in Matthew 12, Jesus taught the parable of "the house swept clean". This speaks of an 'unclean spirit coming out of a man', and refers to our acceptance of Christ, whether it is through His healing, or deliverance, or hearing of the Gospel and repenting. According to Calvin, if the Spirit of God automatically enters someone upon confession, because they were pre-chosen, how can these evil spirits come back (seven fold!) to this house to find it empty still? if we have no control over whether the Holy Spirit remains, and abides with us to the end, how can evil spirits come back seven-fold and make it home again?

   Do you see how taking a few verses that speak of our security in Christ, which is very, very true, but twisting them to mean we can never, ever, do anything to deny Him later, after having accepted His message, and even having His Spirit working in us. I heard one supposed preacher on the radio saying that there is only ONE sin that keeps anybody out of Heaven, that is rejecting Jesus. Certainly nobody gets in on that merit, but he went on to say God doesn't care if you are homosexual, or commit the worst of sins, as long as you never reject Jesus, you are in 'like Flynn' anyway. Unbelievable! No mention of repentance, denying self, battling flesh, or anything, just don't reject Jesus, and you are good, try to work on the other stuff, but don't sweat it. What does Jesus say about that?

Matthew 7:22-23: "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

   Most Christians, Calvinist or simply the 'once saved always saved' crowd, do not tend to preach like this, however, this is where their doctrines have led weak men. I would be shaking in my boots if I heard teaching like this, based on principles I support, coming out of men's mouths. We are accountable, not only for that which we say, but also that which we teach, or who we say 'godspeed' to about what they teach.

In conclusion,

   For over 1500 years, Christians followed the truth of Scripture. Not always did they have a Bible available like we do, and certainly the early Church had NO Bible, just letters, copies of letters, and word of mouth. But, because they heard the Gospel message, repented, accepted Jesus and His blood atonement, became born again, got baptized, prayed for the Holy Spirit to fill them and teach them, they survived even the dark ages when the Roman Catholic Church killed them for even reading the Bible. Suddenly, a Monk named Martin Luther decided he didn't like the Popes charging people for prayers to get out of purgatory, but, if you read his 95 Thesis, he didn't have an issue with such a place actually existing for believers (unbiblical), but just objected to people being charged for prayers to get out of it. Because of this "brave action", even though it was not a condemnation of the Roman Catholic Church itself at all, this spurred what is known as 'The Reformation'. Soon, people like John Calvin sprang up and decided it was time, now that the Bible has been made available to the masses thanks in large part to the Gutenberg's in 1454 when they started printing and distributing the Word of God, to put some understanding to the Word. Why? The Church survived fine and would have continued to grow despite the Reformation. The Church survived horrible Roman persecution in the early years, Jewish persecution, The Inquisition, and God only knows how many other ways of persecution. But, if you read the examples in the Bible, the TRUE Church only grows when it is persecuted, and that is by the Spirit, not man's interpretations.

   All the reformation did was begin to divide up the camp of Christ into 'Denominations' because of man devised interpretations of the Scriptures. Yes, it was a complicated time, there were Roman Catholic interpretations of Scriptures out there, versions in different languages, and from different time periods, but, the Lord, who is Sovereign, was able to preserve His written truth. What John Calvin did, which is like any other false teaching out there (cult or otherwise) that used the written Word of God, was to put his own interpretation of what Paul and the Apostles taught, and created his own understanding of what predestination is. It is almost as if he completely focused on a handful of scriptures that Paul wrote, who was given more understanding on certain topics than even Jesus' original disciple Apostles were given, and made them into what HE felt Paul was saying. Mind you, Paul has been dead for over 1600 years! If you took the Scriptures by themselves that they use, Acts 13:48, Romans 8:29 & 9:16, Ephesians 2:1, Galatians 5:17 they really do sound like Paul was saying God pre-chose us to be saved, or not saved. But that unfortunately was John Calvin's MISINTERPRETATION of what Paul really was saying. As I said above, there are so many Scriptures that indicate free will, and even state, that we have a choice whether we follow Christ or not. What God predestines is His will, what he appoints, who he elects and certainly our salvation, comes from our hearing of the Gospel, our willingness to surrender, and our free will to chose life over death in Christ Jesus (in this present age).

   I pray these words, which have come from me (not copied from others unless noted) by the Spirit, will comfort and encourage you to read and study God's Word, and reject the teachings of men that do not agree with the full council of God, His entire Word, not just a few select verses.

God Bless.