You are arguing against fatalism, not Calvinism. You are not factoring in that Reformers believe in secondary causes and/or moral human responsibility/accountability . . which is a big piece of the puzzle you attempt to figure out.
So, you give lip service to moral responsibility and call the fact that it conflicts with your core doctrines an "antinomy" and that's supposed to make it alright?
The fact that your doctrine is intentionally self-contradictory is only more reason to reject it!
The spiritual principle you are omitting, and which real Calvinists teach, is Genesis 50:20 and Romans 8:28.
Man only falls short; God always works good.
Man falls precisely as short as your god himself predestined that they would fall, Nang!
I remind you again of AMR's statement that if something is accomplished it was your god's will that it be so. There is no event, no good deed, no sin, no help and no harm that your god did not predestine to happen before he created the first second of time. That is what Calvinism teaches and it is what you believe and teach!
That is the substance of God's decrees, as well as the reality of human history.
The reality of human history existed in the mind of god before time began according to your doctrine! How can you not see the blatant and constant and continuous contradictions in every sentence that you speak? I mean every sentence contradicts itself and the sentence that came before and the sentence that comes after. It is literally the most completely irrational jumble of stupidity that the religious world has ever devised! Taoism is more rationally consistent that Calvinism is. Calvinism just basically has a list of things it says it believes and anything that doesn't fit together is called a mystery or antinomy and one's willingness to accept it in spite of it not making sense is the measure of their faith and piety. Like I said before, I don't even really understand why you bother opening the bible in the first place. It makes no difference what it says or how blatantly it contradicts your doctrine because that contradiction is also chalked up as an antinomic mystery that cannot be understood by us mere mortals. If such treatment of the scripture is allowable, one wonders why the bible exists at all, nevermind why one might bother to read it.
Resting in Him,
Clete
P.S. For those reading this exchange, I would point out how Nang does not deny believing the things I quoted in my last post. Notice how she ignores them and deflects the discussion away from such clear statements of what Calvinism does teach and what she DOES believe.
