Does the sovereignty of God nullify the grace of God?

Calvin's doctrine, as far as I have been told, is not the same doctrine as the one that Jesus taught. Calvin's doctrine is very similar, but not right on. If I am not mistaken, he believes that everything mankind does is predestined, and that would make God responsible for mankind's sins.

Calvin's teaching came out of the reformation period in the 1500's, as did most all of the other false doctrines that are in existence today.

The history of the church that Jesus set up, as I have read it, is not in the inspired scriptures, but strictly from history. Some time after the church began, there arose a dispute among two of the elders, as one of them wanted to implicate ways to increase their membership, by adding enticing things to attract people.

The other elder believed that the scripture guidelines of prayer, a cappella singing and preaching was sufficient for God to add to the church daily such as should be saved (delivered) from the things of the world.

As the history goes, The elder's church, that added things to attract more people, grew rapidly in its membership, so much that the Roman empire became concerned with their size, and included them as part of their government, and they became known as the Roman Catholic church, which persecuted the original church, in which scripture says that Paul took part in, which caused them to go into hiding for their worship, known as the dark ages. History says the original church actually increased in membership during this period..

The original church was never a part of the reformation period.

Even before David "looked out the window", he was not where he was supposed to be: He was supposed to be with his men "going forth to battle", instead he was being lazy and lounging in his house.

Where does scripture say that a king must go into every battle with his armies and may not take time off from participating in warfare.?

God refuses to allow David to build the temple because he had shed too much blood. So, arguably, refraining from shedding more blood was better.

Also, according to Calvin, all the feelings, thoughts, intentions and actions of David were foreordained by God so that he could not possibly desire to go to that war; nor to avoid looking out the window; nor to restrain himself from lust for Bathsheba; nor to do other than order the army's desertion of Uriah. Do you agree with Calvin?

I have a theory why people develop predestined beliefs

2 Samuel 11
1And it came to pass, after the year was expired, at the time when kings go forth to battle, that David sent Joab, and his servants with him, and all Israel; and they destroyed the children of Ammon, and besieged Rabbah. But David tarried still at Jerusalem.
2And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king's house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon.

Was that not all, in every minute detail, decreed/foreordained by God to happen, and decreed before He created anything, according to Calvin?

No, the natural man cannot discern spiritual things. But even the natural man knows right from wrong, good from evil. God even stated the Adam knew good from evil when he sinned. Here is an excerpt I clipped from a movie video starring George C. Scott who is speaking with a prostitute. I clipped out the parts with foul language. But I hope it illustrates how the world can discern what is evil.
https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkxw0ae1bKJJMEhqcMzSWoY6J0SRaucTai9?si=h-sWV4YRbSv4ufab

I think predeterminists project their lust for power onto God. Unless we take to heart God's radical revelation of Himself through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we project what we idolise onto God.

I hope you can understand my commitment, in that I believe that scripture proves scripture when they all harmonize, and they are the only source of my studies, so I apologize for not viewing your movie video.

The natural man, as far as the scriptures teach, learns right from wrong by what he sees and hears from man's laws. Not from spiritual laws that he cannot discern, and thinks them to be foolishness.

Good morning, Cameron .. I am just making/drinking my morning coffee, and have the radio on...
how serendipitous is it that Charles Stanley said in his program now, "You reap what you sow."?
Yes, sometimes we do reap what we sow, and others times, one plants, another waters, and yet
another reaps. Everything that happens to us in life cannot be boiled down to, you deserved that.
The things some people say have no basis in fact, and when they repeatedly cling to their delusions
even in the face of being shown irrevocably how wrong they are, that other person simply cannot be
reasoned with. God says, "Come, let us reason together." Wouldn't it be great if people could be reasonable?

Ah, a pipe dream, I know...

Think about it, the all powerful God working in and through all the decisions of everyone on the earth at the same time. Wow!

Was that not all, in every minute detail, decreed/foreordained by God to happen, and decreed before He created anything, according to Calvin?

I get accused of being a Calvin follower, because my beliefs are close to some of his, which I am not.

God predetermining every action of mankind is a false doctrine that would make God guilty of man's sins. We call that
false thinking as "absolutism". People who believe that are not taking accountability for their sins, and are blaming God.

From Acts 17:26-28

This scripture is true, if everyone would interpret it in the right way. The key words are "we are his OFFSPRING"

Equivocation:
the use ofambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself: prevarication.
"It was David who put the whole plan into action. Without his actions, nothing would have happened. He would be considered the first cause. He, however, would be culpable. Murder is a sin."

"In one sense, from the time of creation, God is the first cause of all that follows.
But creating isn't a sin, so God is not culpable for the actions that follow."

"I'm not making a case either way. But I see people being critical of Calvinism who don't actually understand his arguments. What people believe or don't believe is up to them. But one should at least understand the argument they are critical of. That is often not the case with those critical of Calvin."

"The equivocation fallacy refers to the use of an ambiguous word or phrase in more than one sense within the same argument. Because this change of meaning happens without warning, it renders the argument invalid or even misleading." https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/equivocation-fallacy/#:~:text=The equivocation fallacy refers to,argument invalid or even misleading.

Under Calvin's exhaustive divine determinism, God meticulously planned, predetermined and decreed every thought, intention, emotion and action of every entity in the universe for all time. According to Calvin, He ordained every evil thing from before creation began. According to Calvin, God has decreed all things and man can do nothing to change what God before creating decreed would be. According to Calvin, God as the supreme monarch is not subject to his own moral laws and because He cannot be punished by His creatures, He can simply decree Himself perfectly good, and by so decreeing that He is perfectly good, even though He has caused every evil - not by merely allowing it, but by meticulously planning and decreeing it - He thereby escapes culpability for all the evil He invented, planned and irresistibly decreed.

You say God creating, i.e. the first cause of His creations evil developments, was not evil per se. However, His creating was preceded by a prior cause: His determination a priori to generate a creation in which He irresistibly ordained that His creatures would imagine, plan and perform abominations. And you say that since creating per se is not evil, God is not culpable for the planned and decreed downstream consequences of His creating.

In that case, David looking out his window, i.e. the first cause of his adultery and murder, was not per se evil. He was not planning todo evil before he looked out the window. Therefore, by your logic, David is even less culpable than God for the downstream consequences of His looking out the window.

Professing Calvinists - I say professing, because many don't actually agree with Calvin, so are not true Calvinists - use equivocation to conceal the truth they actually believe, or to avoid committing themselves to a systemic they do not truly believe.

But one is pre-selected for heaven and the other for hell. Preaching makes no sense. The elect doesn't need it and the other one can't respond to it.

God knits everyone together while in the womb, yes?


Ezekiel 18:4 plus 32

God knits everything together in the new spiritual birth. Christ is the only begotten Son, the elect are his adopted children.

Ezk 18 is speaking of spiritual Israel. Verse 22 also has reference to spiritual Israel. The "wicked" in this verse has reference to the wicked children of God. When a child of God commits a sin, they die=separate themselves from their fellowship with God, temporary, until they repent, because God will not fellowship sin, even turning his back on his only begotten Son on the cross, as he was bearing our sins. They do not die=separate themselves from the promise of an inheritance of eternal heaven.

I think predeterminists project their lust for power onto God. Unless we take to heart God's radical revelation of Himself through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we project what we idolise onto God.