What's wrong with Calvinism

[Hans Deventer]

Dr. Jerry Walls gives a pretty good explanation of the heart of the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism. And I agree, it ultimately deals with the character of God. (Happy to see I'm not the only one who thinks this way!)

Which is why I have less problems (though I do have many problems) with the role of the pope or Mary in the Roman Catholic Church than with this issue. Watching both videos will take some time but I think he does a good job of explaining.

The first is introductionary, the second zooms in on the problem.





I have doubted if I could post this on NazNet. But NazNet, after all, is a Nazarene friendly site and its perfectly suitable for such a site to point out why in fact we are not Calvinists.

[David Graham]

Thanks Hans for the Video's, I couldn't agree more. An excellent arguement put forward by Dr. Walls.

It also tells me that most of my Calvinist friends are not really "Calvinists" after all..... since they believe that Jesus Loves all people unconditionally and indeed died for them.

This brings me to a puzzling point; some people call themselves 2 or 3 point Calvinists.....
The accept the "T" and the "P" of TULIP but reject the "U" and the "I" (or the "L").....
Yet can they really do that and maintain any consistency in their arguement?
Or are they in reality Arminians who still want to come under the Calvinist banner?

IMHO, it's either one or the other...... there cannot exist any middle ground between such different polarised points of view as contained in the "ULI" between Calvinism and Arminianism.

In fact I really wonder about the "T" position as well...... can we really believe in "Total Depravity" and be Arminian?

[Hans Deventer]

It also tells me that most of my Calvinist friends are not really "Calvinists" after all..... since they believe that Jesus Loves all people unconditionally and indeed died for them.

That is my experience as well. My dad, for instance, only subscribed to the Perseverance of the Saints.

In fact I really wonder about the "T" position as well...... can we really believe in "Total Depravity" and be Arminian?

Yes we can. Wesley was in fact stronger than most Calvinists when it comes to the T. But he didn't really have a problem with the idea, because he ascribed every good action to God's grace. So it didn't really matter to him how depraved we are, "natural man" was kind of a logical abstraction to him, with little if any practical application, but to ascribe all good to the grace of God.

"For allowing that all the souls of men are dead in sin by nature this excuses none, seeing there is no man that is in a state of mere nature; there is no man unless he has quenched the Spirit, that is wholly void of the grace of God. No man living is entirely destitute of what is vulgarly called natural conscience. But this is not natural. It is more properly termed preventing grace. Everyone has sooner or later good desires; although the generality of men stifle them before they can strike deep root. . . So that no man sins because he has not grace, but because he does not use the grace which he hath." Works, VI, 512.

[Ian Gentles]

I always find these articles rather limiting, though confess he is good. When we try to fit peoples beleifs into pigeon holes we go wrong.
Most reformed/calvanist folks would concider Arthur Pink, who was a very peculier chap, extreme. He didnt even find the Free Church of Scotland as calvanistic enough for him. I mean, they are very reformed. So quoting Pink is silly.
I do chuckle when I here folks say, "We are Calvanistic Baptists" Errrr Calvin persecuted Baptists!!
On other hand Wesley held in ordination vows to a Calvanistic position, Mmmmm.
I really dont see most Nazarenes as Wesleyan, more American Holiness Movement, which I am not.
I'm waiting to get to Heaven, have a good chat with Wesley and Calvin etc, ask what they really meant/beleived?
Meantime I will work out my own salvation with "Fear and trembling", because thats "predestined."

[Kevin Jackson]

Here's part #3

[Dennis M. Scott]

I am not much impressed with debate, whether the other side is represented live or not. I pretty much agree with what he said, but would not choose to say it in his manner. Admittedly, there are people who revel in this kind of treatise.

One of the areas with which I agree is that for some time I've been convinced that the primary purpose of God's revelation to us is that we might discover His nature and character. Each generation, each person, must make that discovery anew. In that context, people make a decision about whether or not to embrace Him, and engage in relationship. More than revealing to us how to be saved, the Bible intends that we discover what God is like. Further, that revelation is best represented in Christ, biblical and personal.

Seems to me that Christian theologs will be either Arminian, or neo-Calvinists who have a distinct Arminian flavor.

[Hans Deventer]

Seems to me that Christian theologs will be either Arminian, or neo-Calvinists who have a distinct Arminian flavor.

Dennis, I don't quite understand this sentence, can you explain a little more?

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Thanks Hans for the Video's, I couldn't agree more. An excellent arguement put forward by Dr. Walls.

It also tells me that most of my Calvinist friends are not really "Calvinists" after all..... since they believe that Jesus Loves all people unconditionally and indeed died for them.

This brings me to a puzzling point; some people call themselves 2 or 3 point Calvinists.....
The accept the "T" and the "P" of TULIP but reject the "U" and the "I" (or the "L").....
Yet can they really do that and maintain any consistency in their arguement?
Or are they in reality Arminians who still want to come under the Calvinist banner?

IMHO, it's either one or the other...... there cannot exist any middle ground between such different polarised points of view as contained in the "ULI" between Calvinism and Arminianism.

In fact I really wonder about the "T" position as well...... can we really believe in "Total Depravity" and be Arminian?

Actually, you have to believe in Total Depravity to be an Arminian.

To deny Total Depravity is to become a Pelagian.

[Benjamin Burch]

Actually, you have to believe in Total Depravity to be an Arminian.

To deny Total Depravity is to become a Pelagian.

Not true. Arminian and Calvinist aren't the only two options in Christianity. There are many more.

Likewise, Total Depravity is an Augustinian concept. Many Christians who are not Augustinian do not believe in Total Depravity and are not Pelagians.

To deny Original Sin is to be Pelagian. To deny the necessity of grace is Pelagian. Denying Total Depravity is not.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Not true. Arminian and Calvinist aren't the only two options in Christianity. There are many more.

Likewise, Total Depravity is an Augustinian concept. Many Christians who are not Augustinian do not believe in Total Depravity and are not Pelagians.

To deny Original Sin is to be Pelagian. To deny the necessity of grace is Pelagian. Denying Total Depravity is not.

Please explain the difference you see in the effect of Original Sin and that described by Total Depravity.

And btw, the Third article of the Remonstrants is quite clearly Total Depravity. If you point to an earlier and clearer foundational statement of Arminianism I would love to see it.

[Benjamin Burch]

Please explain the difference you see in the effect of Original Sin and that described by Total Depravity.

You'd probably need to talk to an Orthodox Christian in order to get a good response but the simplest way I can put it is that we have a propensity towards sin and are in need of divine grace, but are not "totally depraved."

I would even go so far as to say that we are enslaved to sin and in need of divine deliverance, but even I am uncomfortable with the "totality" of the picture offered in Augustinian anthropology.

And btw, the Third article of the Remonstrants is quite clearly Total Depravity. If you point to an earlier and clearer foundational statement of Arminianism I would love to see it.

I don't understand the statement. Just so that I'm clear, I did not say that "T" was not a part of Arminianism - it is. I also don't know that there would be any earlier foundational statement for Arminainism.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

You'd probably need to talk to an Orthodox Christian in order to get a good response but the simplest way I can put it is that we have a propensity towards sin and are in need of divine grace, but are not "totally depraved."

I would even go so far as to say that we are enslaved to sin and in need of divine deliverance, but even I am uncomfortable with the "totality" of the picture offered in Augustinian anthropology.

What you describe is semi-Pelagianism.

Either we are both unable to do good and unable to recognize our need for God.... or we are able to do something.

Total Depravity is the idea that universally mankind is sinful, unable to recognize his evil and unable to recognize God.

Anything short of that is the idea that man is somehow able to recognize his evil or work towards salvation, both which are Pelagian ideas.

I don't understand the statement. Just so that I'm clear, I did not say that "T" was not a part of Arminianism - it is. I also don't know that there would be any earlier foundational statement for Arminainism.

There isn't as far as I know. I was trying to make it quite clear that if one identifies oneself as an Arminian they inherently adhere to Total Depravity.

[Benjamin Burch]

What you describe is semi-Pelagianism.

Either we are both unable to do good and unable to recognize our need for God.... or we are able to do something.

Total Depravity is the idea that universally mankind is sinful, unable to recognize his evil and unable to recognize God.

Anything short of that is the idea that man is somehow able to recognize his evil or work towards salvation, both which are Pelagian ideas.

I'm sorry. This simply isn't true unless, of course, we're excluding all Eastern and Orthodox Christians from orthodoxy and labeling them all heretics.

Semi-Pelagianism is a nonsensical heresy. It was an attempt by politics in the West to give their previous ruling in favor of Augustine more footing and beat back the opponents. In so doing, the Church ended up condemning basically what it had always believed, and what the East still believed (and still does to this day).

[Benjamin Hobbs]

I'm sorry. This simply isn't true unless, of course, we're excluding all Eastern and Orthodox Christians from orthodoxy and labeling them all heretics.

Semi-Pelagianism is a nonsensical heresy. It was an attempt by politics in the West to give their previous ruling in favor of Augustine more footing and beat back the opponents. In so doing, the Church ended up condemning basically what it had always believed, and what the East still believed (and still does to this day).

I think you have this quite confused. From what I have read the Orthodox church do actually believe in the "sin nature" of Total Depravity. Which, if one denies leads to Pelagian thought.

Total depravity is again, having a "sin nature", being in a sinful world and being unable to recognize the need for salvation. This is very clearly taught in the Bible. Most explicitly in Romans.

[Benjamin Burch]

I think you have this quite confused. From what I have read the Orthodox church do actually believe in the "sin nature" of Total Depravity. Which, if one denies leads to Pelagian thought.

Total depravity is again, having a "sin nature", being in a sinful world and being unable to recognize the need for salvation. This is very clearly taught in the Bible. Most explicitly in Romans.

If you want to dilute TD that far, it sounds good to me.

However, I personally find a much larger difference than this, if only from the harsh contrast in rhetoric between Eastern and Augustinian anthropologies on the one hand and, more specifically, the Post-Reformation articulation of Total Depravity.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

If you want to dilute TD that far, it sounds good to me.

However, I personally find a much larger difference than this, if only from the harsh contrast in rhetoric between Eastern and Augustinian anthropologies on the one hand and, more specifically, the Post-Reformation articulation of Total Depravity.

Article 3.
That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostacy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing."

That's definitely Post-Reformation and definitely isn't watered down.

Total Depravity isn't Original sin. You aren't guilty of any sin but your own, which is where I believe the confusion lies.

[Benjamin Burch]

Article 3.
That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostacy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing."

That's definitely Post-Reformation and definitely isn't watered down.

Total Depravity isn't Original sin. You aren't guilty of any sin but your own, which is where I believe the confusion lies.

It is the bold which seems to just go too far beyond reason and doesn't seem to be the way that the East articulates it. Maybe I am wrong, and they really do but I do not believe I've seen it.

It requires too much mental gymnastics in order to define away "truly good" into something meaningless in order to defend the position. Suddenly true acts of charity and goodness are no longer "truly good". (A) That is ridiculous. (B) It has lent itself to even more absurd speculation about how even though the act was good, the motivation was evil, ergo....

There is a distinct difference, in my opinion, between saying these two things:

(1) Humans have an inclination towards sin and is in need of the grace of God in order to have faith and live righteously

(2) Humans can of and by themselves neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good

If you don't see a difference, that is fine. I do, and I find it to be a significant one.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

It is the bold which seems to just go too far beyond reason and doesn't seem to be the way that the East articulates it. Maybe I am wrong, and they really do but I do not believe I've seen it.

It requires too much mental gymnastics in order to define away "truly good" into something meaningless in order to defend the position. Suddenly true acts of charity and goodness are no longer "truly good". (A) That is ridiculous. (B) It has lent itself to even more absurd speculation about how even though the act was good, the motivation was evil, ergo....

There is a distinct difference, in my opinion, between saying these two things:

(1) Humans have an inclination towards sin and is in need of the grace of God in order to have faith and live righteously

(2) Humans can of and by themselves neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good

If you don't see a difference, that is fine. I do, and I find it to be a significant one.

Matthew 5:28 is a good starting point. For whether adultery is committed in physical form or not, the mental adultery is still a sin.

In the same way, humans have a sin nature and are unable to act or think on anything which is good. Any charity given is given for a sinful purpose.

[Doug Ward]

There is a distinct difference, in my opinion, between saying these two things:

(1) Humans have an inclination towards sin and is in need of the grace of God in order to have faith and live righteously

(2) Humans can of and by themselves neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good

If you don't see a difference, that is fine. I do, and I find it to be a significant one.

Ben, thanks for articulating this. This is an apt description of my view. I believe in Depravity, it is the Total that goes too far. And no, I am not Pelagian.... most of the time.

[Doug Ward]

Matthew 5:28 is a good starting point. For whether adultery is committed in physical form or not, the mental adultery is still a sin.

In the same way, humans have a sin nature and are unable to act or think on anything which is good. Any charity given is given for a sinful purpose.

Here is where we need the inclusion of a good understanding of Prevenient Grace, or common grace. This description strips the very meaning of goodness and charity, to a point of meaninglessness.

[Benjamin Burch]

Matthew 5:28 is a good starting point. For whether adultery is committed in physical form or not, the mental adultery is still a sin.

In the same way, humans have a sin nature and are unable to act or think on anything which is good. Any charity given is given for a sinful purpose.

Mental gymnastics and, imo, pure stupidity. No offense, and it's fine if someone wants this deleted. It is what it is and I have no interest in tip-toeing around it to be PC. If something is outright stupid, we should call it that.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Ben, thanks for articulating this. This is an apt description of my view. I believe in Depravity, it is the Total that goes too far. And no, I am not Pelagian.... most of the time.

What do you say of Romans 3:9-18?

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Here is where we need the inclusion of a good understanding of Prevenient Grace, or common grace.

One must be careful as common grace and Prevenient grace are different things. CG is part of PG but PG is not part of CG.

This description strips the very meaning of goodness and charity, to a point of meaninglessness.

An act of charity may still be a sin, correct?

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Mental gymnastics and, imo, pure stupidity. No offense, and it's fine if someone wants this deleted. It is what it is and I have no interest in tip-toeing around it to be PC. If something is outright stupid, we should call it that.

Then Ben, why if everyone has the ability to think good thoughts and recognize God do they not do it?

Are you going to pull out the "free agency" card? Or are you going to ignore Christ's words on the sinful thoughts of men?

[Benjamin Burch]

One must be careful as common grace and Prevenient grace are different things. CG is part of PG but PG is not part of CG.An act of charity may still be a sin, correct?

No, an act of charity may not still be sin. Something else someone does -- i.e. the thoughts one is motivated by or the way one boasts about such actions -- might be. However, an act of charity itself is not sinful.

[Benjamin Burch]

Then Ben, why if everyone has the ability to think good thoughts and recognize God do they not do it?

Are you going to pull out the "free agency" card? Or are you going to ignore Christ's words on the sinful thoughts of men?

You're going to have to explain your entire line of thought, as well as the actual words you speak of, or just articulate your question much better because, so far, as it stands, it doesn't actually address anything I've said so far.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

You're going to have to explain your entire line of thought, as well as the actual words you speak of, or just articulate your question much better because, so far, as it stands, it doesn't actually address anything I've said so far.

If as you state that

Humans have an inclination towards sin and is in need of the grace of God in order to have faith and live righteously

Doesn't this explicitly mean that it is not just the body but also the mind desires sin? And then, that any action considered good in itself (like feeding the poor, living selflessly,etc) is also done with a sinful purpose and thus is sin?

This results in this...

(2) Humans can of and by themselves neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good

Or are you of the variety that believes that man was always wanting to do good but somehow "trapped" into a propensity to sin?

[Benjamin Hobbs]

No, an act of charity may not still be sin. Something else someone does -- i.e. the thoughts one is motivated by or the way one boasts about such actions -- might be. However, an act of charity itself is not sinful.

I believe it is. For actions done for sinful reasons will certainly damn an individual and glorify God as much as the thoughts.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Dennis, I don't quite understand this sentence, can you explain a little more?

While we might be able to in theory create polarities, there are likely very few pure Calvinists (or even pure Arminians, for that matter). Most of us are either Arminian or flavored Arminian.

Walls might better have titled his discourse, "If there was such a thing as a five point Calvinist, this would be the problem with them."

Theory sometimes bellows well where no man lives.

[Benjamin Burch]

If as you state that Doesn't this explicitly mean that it is not just the body but also the mind desires sin? And then, that any action considered good in itself (like feeding the poor, living selflessly,etc) is also done with a sinful purpose and thus is sin?

This results in this...Or are you of the variety that believes that man was always wanting to do good but somehow "trapped" into a propensity to sin?

Your questions are logically incoherent and do not flow from one another. You're simply throwing a bunch of random accusations together. This conversation has lost its interest very quickly.

Nothing I've said suggests that humans are or were "always wanting to do good."

[Doug Ward]

What do you say of Romans 3:9-18?

Ben, you seem to desire Romans 3 to contort and fit your understanding of Total Depravity, as if Paul even had this in mind when he composed these words. This would wrench these words away from their intended meaning to their original audience. Paul is writing primarily to the Jewish believers in the Roman church. These Jewish believers tended to believe that sin was a Gentile problem. They, of course, possessed the law, and adhering to the law marked them as God's people, and not one of these "Gentile sinners."

Paul here launches an OT tour de force, in order to demonstrate that sin is also a Jewish problem. Even further, Paul is telling the Jews that the law does not fix sin, rather it identifies and labels sin. if one continues through Romans one might also see the intricate way Paul uses the word "hamartia" (missing the mark), with "paraptoma" (stepping over the line). Yes, hamarta is in the world, but hamartia is not charged to one's account. It is only when the law comes and makes hamartia utterly sinful, or paraptoma. To follow Paul's reasoning, he would agree that we live in a fallen, or depraved world. However, that is not intensified, or become total in scope until we gain a knowledge of the law, and rebel agaist it.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Ben, you seem to desire Romans 3 to contort and fit your understanding of Total Depravity, as if Paul even had this in mind when he composed these words. This would wrench these words away from their intended meaning to their original audience. Paul is writing primarily to the Jewish believers in the Roman church. These Jewish believers tended to believe that sin was a Gentile problem. They, of course, possessed the law, and adhering to the law marked them as God's people, and not one of these "Gentile sinners."

Paul here launches an OT tour de force, in order to demonstrate that sin is also a Jewish problem. Even further, Paul is telling the Jews that the law does not fix sin, rather it identifies and labels sin. if one continues through Romans one might also see the intricate way Paul uses the word "hamartia" (missing the mark), with "paraptoma" (stepping over the line). Yes, hamarta is in the world, but hamartia is not charged to one's account. It is only when the law comes and makes hamartia utterly sinful, or paraptoma. To follow Paul's reasoning, he would agree that we live in a fallen, or depraved world. However, that is not intensified, or become total in scope until we gain a knowledge of the law, and rebel agaist it.

I agree completely with what you have said above. But where does the universal condemnation suddenly no longer become applicable?

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Your questions are logically incoherent and do not flow from one another. You're simply throwing a bunch of random accusations together. This conversation has lost its interest very quickly.

Nothing I've said suggests that humans are or were "always wanting to do good."

I think I'm done here... Apparently words and orthodox concepts have lost all meaning.

[George Wallace]

I'm sorry. This simply isn't true unless, of course, we're excluding all Eastern and Orthodox Christians from orthodoxy and labeling them all heretics.

Semi-Pelagianism is a nonsensical heresy. It was an attempt by politics in the West to give their previous ruling in favor of Augustine more footing and beat back the opponents. In so doing, the Church ended up condemning basically what it had always believed, and what the East still believed (and still does to this day).

Ben,
How do you reconcile the statement above, particularly "Semi-Pelagianism is a nonsensical heresy." with your two posts from the closed: -John Piper on Why “It’s Right for God to Slaughter Women and Children Anytime He Pleases” and Why I Have Some Major Problems- thread?

Your post #57

Nope, it means I'm a classical semi-pelagian who believes in the necessity of grace... you know, like the Orthodox Church has always believed, and what the Catholic Church believed for most of its history until Aquinas...

Your Post #61

The East has always been semi-pelagian (for lack of a better term). That should be clearer. Regardless of what any council declared, the church in the West believed and practiced in a way consistent with semi-pelagianism for most of its history before Aquinas. Any reading of Western Church history I have read has said exactly that. It was condemned in word, but continued on as the dominant position for most of their history until Aquinas.

Likewise, the East and West always existed, and functioned "separately" since at least 375, if not earlier. As far as Catholic/Orthodox, neither existed until 1054. It would be inaccurate to say that only one of them did not exist.

(emphasis added)

???

It seems on one hand you claim that Semi-Pelagianism is a nonsensical heresy and on the other you claim you are semi-pelagian and that the East (for which you have an affinity) has always been semi-pelagian. I realize you used a qualifier "classic" and stated, "for lack of a better term" But I still can't help but read this and say WTH???

[Kyle Borger]

Wish I could stir the pot up some more, but I can't think of anything smart enough to say.

But I guess I will try and say something and hope I don't make a fool of myself!

God is good. All good things come from God. Nothing good can happen outside of God. Our existence as we know it is only because God allows or chooses for it to happen. We do not have the ability to create or do anything without God allowing it to happen. We are nothing without God. Sounds like Total Depravity.

But Adam was with God before he chose against God. Adam had the perfect relationship with God prior to denying God. Can we then say that there is nothing within man who was created in God's image to do good? Does the decision to choose to follow God represent that one thing? Does the ability to give God control of our lives represent that one thing that happens outside of God's control and refutes absolute Total depravity?

Are we totally deprave except for the ability to choose God? If your view is that God only chooses some and they have no choice in the matter then yes there is absolute total depravity because man can't even chose to follow God.

But if you believe that God created man in His image with the ability to chose or deny God, then there is at least one decision man can make outside of God that is good. Everything else good could certainly be because of God or following God and everything bad can be because of not following God, but submitting to God on our volition must be seen as good.

[Dale Cozby]

What's wrong with Calvinism? There are five points wrong with Calvinism
Total depravity
Unconditional election
Limited atonement
Irresistible grace
and Preserverance of the Saints.
Other than those 5 points I am ok with it generally speaking.

Any other questions you need answered?

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben,
How do you reconcile the statement above, particularly "Semi-Pelagianism is a nonsensical heresy." with your two posts from the closed: -John Piper on Why “It’s Right for God to Slaughter Women and Children Anytime He Pleases” and Why I Have Some Major Problems- thread?

Your post #57


Your Post #61

(emphasis added)

???

It seems on one hand you claim that Semi-Pelagianism is a nonsensical heresy and on the other you claim you are semi-pelagian and that the East (for which you have an affinity) has always been semi-pelagian. I realize you used a qualifier "classic" and stated, "for lack of a better term" But I still can't help but read this and say WTH???

By "nonsensical heresy", I mean the idea that it has been called a heresy at all is nonsensical. It was never heresy and was pretty close to what the Church had always believed, yet included the slight defense of Pelagius.

Essentially, if Pelagius had never come around, Semi-Pelagianism would never have been deemed heretical.

It is only because the Church had already over-corrected in choosing Augustine and seeming to leave what the Church had been believing that others got upset and started to try and teach their beliefs again, while also trying to defend Pelagius. The Church responded by calling these people -- and this teaching -- heresy, even though it would never have been thought to be heresy had the previous issue never come up and gone so far in its ruling.

Still don't know if I'm making sense. haven't slept much lately and have been in and out of sleep all day and just now woke up again.

[Benjamin Burch]

I think I'm done here... Apparently words and orthodox concepts have lost all meaning.

There's nothing strictly "orthodox" about the definition of total depravity you gave above, nor about the idea that good things done by non-Christians must be done out of some ill-will.

And no, words haven't lost any meaning. We've been communicating pretty well so far with words. You specifically asked questions which have no foundation in the conversation. However, I'm more than happy to end this conversation with you.

[George Wallace]

While we might be able to in theory create polarities, there are likely very few pure Calvinists (or even pure Arminians, for that matter). Most of us are either Arminian or flavored Arminian.

Walls might better have titled his discourse, "If there was such a thing as a five point Calvinist, this would be the problem with them."

Theory sometimes bellows well where no man lives.

Dennis,
Pardon me as I both agree and disagree with you. . I have to say by way of disagreement (please bare in mind I am not trying to be pugnacious) that your proposed question "If there was such a thing as a five point Calvinist, this would be the problem with them." Reveals a rather limited area of experience, for there certainly is a plethora of died-in-the-wool, Full Sovereign-Grace 5 Point (Soteriology) Calvinist denominations, that are currently active, vibrant and growing. (Admitting that this is not true for all and in all places)

Here are numerous examples:

http://www.naparc.org/member-churches/

http://www.icrconline.com/members.html

Additionally, there are a significant number of (usually small) denominations that are not part of either association.

The RPCUS -(Theomomists)
Sovereign Grace Ministries- (Non-Cessationist)
The RPCGA
The RPC Hanover Presbytery
Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States
The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland
The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster/USA (Ian Paisley)
The Protestant Reformed Churches of America (often labeled Hyper-Calvinistic because of their rejection of Common Grace and the Free Offer of the Gospel)

And literally dozens more micro-denominations, and I've not even included the Credo-Baptists such as the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches (ARBCA) and the Fellowship of Reformed Evangelicals (FIRE) and many others. Also not included are the Non-Confessional, Neo-Calvinist (Those who hold to a 5 Point Soteriology, but not much else) Those like Piper, Alistair Begg, or Francis Chan, and Mark Driscol and his Acts 29 organization. And finally those above do not include those that are in denominations that are flexible or broad, allowing for Calvinism, Arminianism or other isms-- The Anglican Church, The E Free Church and the CCCCs come to mind.

Here is a link Reformed and Presbyterian Denominations: A Primer that lists the a gambit of Reformed denominations from Liberal to Conservative.

Now by way of agreeing with you, I have to say that the question you ask and the thought and experiences behind it, reveals the predominant thought about Confessional or Conservative (5 Point) Calvinism. Your question really does reflect what a lot, and I mean a lot of people think.

But, this mindset can usually be attributed to two factors, 1) To use the title of a Drury Article - The Triumph of Arminianism for if one is really only familiar with the larger (and most often more liberal) denominations like the PCUSA, the RCA and the CRC which to one degree or another are functionally Arminian no matter what their Creedal Documentation states. Here too, many who have grown up in and really only associate with Arminians really have no frame of reference, or no real contact with True or Consistent Calvinists and therefore the natural presumptions is that (Based upon personal anecdotal experiences) this animal no longer exists.

The second reason or factor is really just an extension of the first, Triumph of Arminianism, in that the Grand total of membership in all the dozens and dozens of Consistent Calvinist denominations on the planet would probably not equal the number of Nazarenes World wide coupled with the number of US Episcopalians. So, when in the big scheme of things, that is, Global Christianity our numbers are relatively small and thus the impression that gives rise to your question is most certainly incorrect, but also most certainly understandable.

So in answer to your question "Yes, Virginia there is a Santa Claus!" (Consistent Calvinist ) And so many people beleive that there isn't that they absolutely FREAK OUT when they find out that they truly exist!

We are here and we are watching you!

[George Wallace]

What's wrong with Calvinism? There are five points wrong with Calvinism
Total depravity
Unconditional election
Limited atonement
Irresistible grace
and Preserverance of the Saints.
Other than those 5 points I am ok with it generally speaking.

Any other questions you need answered?

Humorous, quite humorous actually. But alas untrue from a W/A perspective, for the Grand Difference between as Classic or Remonstrance Arminian and a W/A is the "T". Now you can qualify it, say it isn't "exactly" the same, I'll disagree, but will admit to hearing some good arguments for that position.

But, if you 'totally" reject the the "T" then you have no need for Previenient Grace and need to reject that as well. The Classic or Remonstrance Arminian does not need Previenent Grace only the W/A does.