Calvinism Examined

Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. - Acts 13:48

1. This verse tells us, that if God draws someone, then they can come to Christ, not they will come, but can come - meaning are able to come to Christ. There is nothing showing irresistible grace in this verse. 
2. Calvinism teaches that John 6:44 teaches that one CANNOT believe in God unless God ordains their belief.  However, John told us later in the book:

John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

So Calvinism literally states THE OPPOSITE of what the writer says he wrote the signs elaborated in his book for.

Romans 9:32

Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

We see in Romans 9:32 that works are not faith.

Romans 4:5

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

In the above scripture we see that the person who has faith, who believes, is not performing a work. Thus, faith is not a work.

In Edwards' own words: [emphasis added]

... though a man may be said remotely to choose or prefer flying; yet he does not prefer, or desire, under circumstances in view, any immediate exertion of the members of his body in order to it; because he has no expectation that he should obtain the desired end by any such exertion and he does not prefer, or incline to, any bodily exertion under this apprehended circumstance, of its being wholly in vain. So that if we carefully distinguish the proper objects of the several acts of the will, it will not appear by this, and such like instances, that there is any difference between volition and preference; ... 1

Here Edwards states that a man might want to fly, while not trying to fly (like a bird; Edwards wrote this long before airplanes were invented). This seems like distinguishing between wanting to fly, and not exerting the will (or volition) to fly, so wanting or preferring is not the same as the will. Then Edwards claims the man, though he wants to fly, does not want to take actions (flapping his arms like a bird?) that he knows will be futile. This is then tacitly taken to justify the claim of identity between wanting (preferring) and willing (volition). 

Such a leap is not justified. At best, it merely shows the first argument to not be valid. 

Showing one argument against a thesis to be invalid is not proof of the thesis! Yet this is what Edwards is doing here. 

For example, let our thesis be that 1 plus 1 is 98, obviously incorrect. 

Now suppose someone argues against our thesis by claiming that “Grass is green; therefore 1 + 1 = 98 is wrong!”

Well, we can pretty easily convince most people that the argument against our thesis is invalid. 

But, does this mean that our thesis is correct?

Obviously not - otherwise, 1 + 1 really is 98!

As noted above, this is precisely what Edwards is doing here.

• 1Edwards, Jonathan (1703-1758) Part I. Section I. Concerning the nature of the will. Freedom of the Will. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/will.html

In Edwards' own words: [emphasis added]

... in every act of will whatsoever, the mind chooses one thing rather than another; it chooses something rather than the contrary or rather than the want or non-existence of that thing. So in every act of refusal, the mind chooses the absence of the thing refused; ... the Will's determining between the two, is a voluntary determination; but that is the same thing as making a choice. 1

This implies that simply not choosing the non-elect, is still a choice made by God. This contradicts some claims that God does not choose (or ordain) the non-elect to damnation.

In other words, not electing some, not choosing them for salvation, is itself a choice - admittedly a choice to not choose them for election, but still a choice.

A decision to not accept an offer is still a decision, which in many cases may have involved much time, discussions, and even prayer. Such a rejection was a choice in any sense of the word.

Playing with semantics, with words, lets us (via these word games) declare that deciding to not do something is not a decision! Or, that choosing to not do something, is not a choice. 

The "emperor" still does not have any clothes, regardless of claims.  (Clothes here being validity of the claim that deciding to not elect is not a decision, or that choosing no is not a choice.) Choosing no is just as much a choice as choosing yes. Choosing no for election to eventual regeneration, is still just as much a choice as choosing yes for the eventual regeneration of the "elect."

At least, this seems to be what Edwards says here. Any claims to the contrary are logically inconsistent. In https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/double-predestination/ Sproul argues for logic in theology.

• 1Edwards, Jonathan (1703-1758) Part I. Section I. Concerning the nature of the will. Freedom of the Will. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/will.html

Thomas Jefferson said in a letter to John Adams (both men were early US presidents) ...

I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his 5 points is not the god whom you and I acknowledge and adore, the Creator and benevolent and governor of the world, but a daemon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin. 1

Regarding the intelligence of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the US Declaration of Independence, US President Kennedy said at a dinner honoring Nobel prize winners ...

I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone. 2

• 1From Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 11 April 1823. Founders Online. National Archives. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-3446
• 2https://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/1856

Dr. Durant won the Pulitzer prize and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, awarded by US President Gerald Ford. Durant was a historian and philosopher.

Durant's book The Story of Philosophy is credited with introducing philosophy to more people than any other book ever written in the world.

His multi-thousand page, 11 volume historical work, The Story of Civilization, took 5 decades to write. 1

Below is a quote from Will Durant regarding John Calvin:

But we shall always find it hard to love the man who darkened the human soul with the most absurd and blasphemous conception of God in all the long and honored history of nonsense. 2

• 1http://will-durant.com/bio.htm/, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Durant
• 2Durant, Will (1957) Chapter XXI, John Calvin. Volume VI The Reformation, The Story of Civilization. Simon & Schuster, NY, p. 490

Calvinism says (erroneously):

God ordained me to be the sinful way I am.

The resultant fruit is too often the conclusion:

So why fight against my being the (sinful) way that God ordained me to be?