A proposition (Calvinistic or no?)

[Josheb]

It remains that in Calvinism, the sovereignty of the Lord is exalted as a doctrine to the exclusion of Him being righteous and holy.

Prove it.

 

[justbyfaith]

1 + 1 = 2 ... right?

• "Those the Father has given me will come to me" (John 6:37).
• "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them" (v. 44), "has enabled them" (v. 65; "gives them to me," NLT).

Ergo, one who is drawn to Christ is necessarily given to Christ. "My Father, who has given them to me, ..." (John 10:29).

That no one can come to Christ unless they are drawn to Christ does not mean that those who are drawn to Christ are necessarily given to Christ.

Those who are drawn to Christ are enabled to come to Christ....from there, they have a choice.

You really need to deal with how Christ himself limited the atonement:

• "I lay down my life for the sheep" (John 10:15).
• "You are not my sheep" (v. 26).

You are correct that if irresistable grace is true then either limited atonement or universalism is true—and universalism is not.

Jesus may have as well said to some of them that, "you are not yet my sheep"

For is it not true that many of the priests later believed (Acts 6:7).

My man, there is nothing meritorius about our faith. If there were, grace would no longer be grace.

Agreed.

Please hear me when I say this: It is not your faith that saves you, it is Christ who saves you (through whom we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand). You contribute nothing meritorious. You contribute nothing but your debt of sin. If you ever start to think there might be something meritorius you bring to God, just remember Isaiah 64:6, "All our so-called righteous acts are like a menstrual rag in your sight."

Yes we are saved through what Jesus did for us on the Cross; but not apart from faith.

As you said, faith is not meritorious.

As we sing in that old hymn, "Nothing in my hands I bring, simply to thy cross I cling."

It is Christ and his faithfulness that is meritorious.

But it wasn't because he needed us. Salvation is entirely of grace. He doesn't need us, but he wants us.

False, and at the most basic level, too.

When you say "before they call on the name of the Lord," I get the impression that you're talking about election. If you want to critically scrutinize Calvinism, you need to understand that salvation includes election but is much more than that. Being saved involves the whole gamut, from election through to glorification and all the things in between (e.g., justification). I would recommend reading John Murray on the ordo salutis.

I believe I have heard many Calvinists teach that regeneration precedes faith.

Which Calvinists were those? Links, please.

I am not going to provide a link because it would take too long to find the specific posts. You are going to have to take my word for it or else continue to call me a liar.

Can one Calvinist have greater theological knowledge than another Calvinist?

The answer, of course, is yes.

The follow-up question is, then, "Would that explain why their answers differ?"

The answer, again, is yes.

That is disparity, not disunity.

What I find perplexing is how you failed to deduce that yourself.

What I am saying is that certain Calvinists say that what other Calvinists teach is not the doctrine of Calvinism...they disagree as to what Calvinism actually teaches. If they actually said that perhaps Calvinism did teach that but they were not aware of that teaching in Calvinism, then it might be more in accordance with what you are saying here.

I suspect that no Calvinists on these boards have said that. Feel free to prove otherwise.

Again, that would be too time-consuming for me. Suffice it to say that the record is here on these boards and if someone wants to search for it, they will be able to find it. And also, I feel that you are calling me a liar (the Lord judge between me and you).

What you have been presenting in this thread are strawman caricatures of Calvinism. I am willing to grant that those caricatures are too complicated for you.

They're also not Calvinism.

If that is the case, then there are many Calvinists who teach as Calvinism what is actually not Calvinism.

Again, I attribute this to disunity.

 

[justbyfaith]

No one said it was.

The basic premise in Calvinism, however, is that if I am saved by faith and am not regenerated first, then I can boast about my faith and therefore my faith is meritorious.

 

[justbyfaith]

The New Testament interprets the Old, not the other way around. That is because there was much of redemption and in prophecy in the OT that was not fully revealed and had not been fulfilled. Surely you have heard it said that Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. So when Jesus or the apostles quote something from the OT *and the NT is filled with them doing that* it is saying "This is what that meant. This is how it is fulfilled."

The Old Testament also interprets the Old. You never heard of immediate context in hermeneutics?

 

[justbyfaith]

I too began in true faith with the poster. However when you see him going from thread to thread repeating the same straw man fallacies as though they had never been addressed and clarified, then starting a new thread as is done here, to repeat the same fallacies, while he is still engaged in other threads on the same subject and same fallacies---yeah I would call that a troll.

I feel that I am being misrepresented here.

 

[Mr GLee]

Let's say you, a non-LDS person, were debating an LDS and had never read anything LDS in its original source. The only way you'd have any means for doing so is by using second-hand (someone who had themselves read LDS sources) or third hand sources (someone using a second-hand source but hadn't themselves done so. You might even be basing your dissent of fourth-hand or further removed sources trusting each person in the telephone-tag line of information was correct. You'd have placed your trust in others not knowing whether or not they been honest and accurate.

So I read the book of Mormon, the writings of Jospeh Smith, Brigham Young, some of the Presidents' in their own words, their articles of faith, and basic doctrines. I've also read my Bible and read it from cover to cover as written and in chronological order many times. I can make comparisons without second-hand or third-hand sources. So could you if you had it in you to do so. Be careful though because folks will call you arrogant and condescending, and attack you for posting original sources and plainly read scripture.

I am reminded In the Treasury the ones assigned to counterfeiting study the original as a light it exposes the counterfeit .

In one sense saying what the Calvinist think compared to another is like what does each of think when studying the word.. . . . endless

Like with the gospel the knowledge of God commanding us with it get understanding. its the understanding . . studying takes time

Proverbs 23:23 Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding

He warns of the antichrists' as false apostles, false prophets as a false teaching authority adding there stamp of approval "oral traditions of each man" like that of Calvin

We do not need any man to teach us according to John 14. The promised Holy Spirit will teach. . guide. . . comfort and last but not least bring to our memory the precious things he has taught . He propmised if he began the good teaching work-in us he will continue until we take our last breath (Philippians 1:6) He is our confidence

(1 John 2:26-27 These things have I written unto you concerning them (false prophets false apostles) that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him

 

[justbyfaith]

You don't have to say it to me. Just post your exegesis. It seems it would be a necessary ingredient to successfully counter what you are trying to disprove. Especially since you say you can easily do it. To clarify I will repost the question.

Re; 1 John 2:2

1 John 2:2 is speaking of the fact that the propitiation of Christ is not for us only (as referring to the elect) but also for the sins of the whole world (again, the elect? there is a problem there...because the whole world is a greater number than "us only" according to the verse).

 

[justbyfaith]

The universalism in that view is that it also says that Jesus made propitiation for the sins of the whole world, with world being all people without exception. If propitiation is what propitiation is, that would mean all without exception have been reconciled to God. So after the fact of having said that they add the caveat, but only for those who choose Christ. Which of course makes an oxymoron out of 1 John 2:2 and of their own doctrine.

Propitiation is a provision that not all to whom it is done for take advantage of and appropriate.

I have mentioned this before; so in repeating this argument, are you not being a troll according to your own definition?

This too is a logical fallacy, Changing the goal posts, deflecting, by casting doubt on the salvation of others rather than stick with the actual subject.

Only wear the shoe if it fits.

Fact is, if you don't do certain things, you will not be saved on your day of judgment (Hosea 14:2, Romans 10:9-13, Acts 2:38-39).

I say these things, not as a logical fallacy; but as an evangelistic appeal to those Calvinists who are making a smoke screen out of their Calvinism over the fact that they have never received Christ; thinking that because they believe in Calvinism, they will not be held accountable for their rejection of Christ; since in Calvinism, regeneration comes before faith and therefore faith is not really necessary if one is going to be regenerated.

I say these things as logical conclusions of what is taught by Calvinism; I am not saying that it is the specific teaching of Calvinism.

Only that you can come to these conclusions if you believe what Calvinism teaches.

 

[Josheb]

Because, certain Calvinists have contended that God is the First Cause of everything.

Take it up with them and do not over-generalize their views thinking "certain Calvinists" are representative of the whole.

But if that is the case, then He is the First Cause of murder, rape, and incest.

Then you will not have any difficulty refuting their determinism or their departure from WCF 3.1.

I would contend that God is the First Cause of everything good;

Calvinists agree. However, God is also the first cause of everything else simply because creation would not exist at all - nothing not-good would exist absent creation's existence - but that does not mean God directly caused evil. WCF 3.1 implicitly affirms the existence of secondary causes. It implicitly affirms their contingencies (look up the definition of "contingency", and it explicitly states God did them no violence even having established them. Calvinism does NOT teach the sovereign righteous, holy God sinned or in any way shape or form acted evilly contrary to his righteousness and holiness.

It remains that in Calvinism, the sovereignty of the Lord is exalted as a doctrine to the exclusion of Him being righteous and holy.

Prove it.

And that the sin of Adam and Eve (their free will decision) or else satan's pride (also a result of free will; otherwise God is responsible for it) are the First Cause of everything sinful in the Universe.

Here's what Calvin wrote about Genesis 3:6.

"Many persons are surprised that Moses simply, and as if abruptly, relates that men have fallen by the impulse of Satan into eternal destruction, and yet never by a single word explains how the tempter himself had revolted from God. And hence it has arisen, that fanatical men have dreamed that Satan was created evil and wicked as he is here described. But the revolt of Satan is proved by other passages of Scripture; and it is an impious madness to ascribe to God the creation of any evil and corrupt nature; for when he had completed the world, he himself gave this testimony to all his works, that they were very good. Wherefore, without controversy, we must conclude, that the principle of evil with which Satan was endued was not from nature, but from defection; because he had departed from God, the fountain of justice and of all rectitude. But Moses here passes over Satan's fall, because his object is briefly to narrate the corruption of human nature; to teach us that Adam was not created to those multiplied miseries under which all his posterity suffer, but that he fell into them by his own fault. In reflecting on the number and nature of those evils to which they are obnoxious, men will often be unable to restrain themselves from raging and murmuring against God, whom they rashly censure for the just punishment of their sin. These are their well-known complaints that God has acted more mercifully to swine and dogs than to them. Whence is this, but that they do not refer the miserable and ruined state, under which we languish, to the sin of Adam as they ought? But what is far worse, they fling back upon God the charge of being the cause of all the inward vices of the mind, (such as its horrible blindness, contumacy against God, wicked desires, and violent propensities to evil as if the whole perverseness of our disposition had not been adventitious. The design, therefore, of Moses was to show, in a few words, how greatly our present condition differs from our first original, in order that we may learn, with humble confession of our fault, to bewail our evils. We ought not then to be surprised, that, while intent on the history he purposed to relate, he does not discuss every topic which may be desired by any person whatever.

We must now enter on that question by which vain and inconstant minds are greatly agitated; namely, Why God permitted Adam to be tempted, seeing that the sad result was by no means hidden from him? That He now relaxes Satan's reins, to allow him to tempt us to sin, we ascribe to judgment and to vengeance, in consequence of man's alienation from himself; but there was not the same reason for doing so when human nature was yet pure and upright. God, therefore, permitted Satan to tempt man, who was conformed to His own image, and not yet implicated in any crime, having, moreover, on this occasion, allowed Satan the use of an animal which otherwise would never have obeyed him; and what else was this, than to arm an enemy for the destruction of man? This seems to have been the ground on which the Manichaeans maintained the existence of two principles. Therefore, they have imagined that Satan, not being in subjection to God, laid snares for man in opposition to the divine will, and was superior not to man only, but also to God himself. Thus, for the sake of avoiding what they dreaded as an absurdity, they have fallen into execrable prodigies of error; such as, that there are two Gods, and not one sole Creator of the world, and that the first God has been overcome by his antagonist. All, however, who think piously and reverently concerning the power of God, acknowledge that the evil did not take place except by his permission. For, in the first place, it must be conceded, that God was not in ignorance of the event which was about to occur; and then, that he could have prevented it, had he seen fit to do so. But in speaking of permission, I understand that he had appointed whatever he wished to be done. Here, indeed, a difference arises on the part of many, who suppose Adam to have been so left to his own free will, that God would not have him fall. They take for granted, what I allow them, that nothing is less probable than that God should he regarded as the cause of sin, which he has avenged with so many and such severe penalties. When I say, however, that Adam did not fall without the ordination and will of God, I do not so take it as if sin had ever been pleasing to Him, or as if he simply wished that the precept which he had given should be violated. So far as the fall of Adam was the subversion of equity, and of well-constituted order, so far as it was contumacy against the Divine Law-giver, and the transgression of righteousness, certainly it was against the will of God; yet none of these things render it impossible that, for a certain cause, although to us unknown, he might will the fall of man. It offends the ears of some, when it is said God willed this fall; but what else, I pray, is the permission of Him, who has the power of preventing, and in whose hand the whole matter is placed, but his will? I wish that men would rather suffer themselves to be judged by God, than that, with profane temerity, they should pass judgment upon him; but this is the arrogance of the flesh to subject God to its own test. I hold it as a settled axiom, that nothing is more unsuitable to the character of God than for us to say that man was created by Him for the purpose of being placed in a condition of suspense and doubt; wherefore I conclude, that, as it became the Creator, he had before determined with himself what should be man's future condition. Hence the unskilful rashly infer, that man did not sin by free choice. For he himself perceives, being convicted by the testimony of his own conscience, that he has been too free in sinning. Whether he sinned by necessity, or by contingency, is another question; respecting which see the Institution, and the treatise on Predestination."​

I've just done what you should be doing: PROVING my claims and doing so using original source material without quote-mining it.

Exodus 20:16
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Proverbs 6:16-19
There are six things which the LORD hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, a false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers.

You do not, in fact, correctly understand Calvinism, the thread has become a rank strawman, a willful resistance to learning the truth is demonstrably evident, and it fleshly nature is increasingly revealed. This is what relying on second-hand and third-hand sources has brought upon you. It took me 23.63 seconds to find Calvin's commentary on Genesis online. It took me another 17.01 seconds to copy and paste the relevant text and format it in this post. You certainly could have, and should have, taken all of 50 seconds to do your due diligence before lying to everyone about Calvinism and disrespecting every Cal in the forum. There is no excuse for Post 166. It commits composition errors and strawman.

It is depraved.

 

[justbyfaith]

"The sins of the whole world" is not what is being interpreted as the sins of the elect. Propitiation is what is applied to the sins of the elect. The whole world is interpreted to mean that salvation is available to all nations etc, is powerful enough to save all, but limited to the elect in its purpose, that Christ is the only means of salvation and the remission of sins.

That is Unlimited Atonement, to say that the "propitiation" is available to all.

It is also what I believe.

So, thanks for agreeing with me.

 

[justbyfaith]

A FIRST CAUSE is an “uncaused cause” … it has no outside force that acts on or controls it.
Do you really advocate, rejecting the absolute control of Biblical Calvinism, a DUAL “god“ system where Satan and God are both “uncaused causes” in competition?

• Job (the book) disagrees … God clearly controls evil by setting boundaries.
• Romans 1:24,26,28 disagree … God restrains evil and lifts His restraint.

Of course God limits the sovereignty of men and angels.

However, He does give them a certain degree of sovereignty; since they are made in the image of God.

 

[Mr GLee]

But we are to trust a poster who adversarially and deliberately chooses second-hand biased sources? Can you smell the hypocrisy?

Irony.

Yes the smelt of the oral traditions of men that make the word of God desolate No man can serve two good teaching masters coming from one unsen Holy Father as Lord

The Greek can be helpful in revealing the counterfeit.

Take the Greek word Angelos its English interptation "messenger" or "sent one" . . . "apostle"

The Greek false apostles hundreds of years later came up with the fake word "angel" disqualifying the true apostles as in how beautiful are their feet of t he true apostles .shod with gospel (sola scriptura)

Not shod of their own human thoughts (faithless) They venerated a selected few to lord it over the non-venerable pew warmers faith as a understanding. And in turn use the false apostles with the oral tradition of the dying father's as what some call "patron saints" disembodied workers a family on earth spirit rejecting our Holy Father not seen. It was passed down from the old testament atheist Jewish fathers and is still active in deceiving the non venerable.

 

[justbyfaith]

Nope. That is a Uber-Fail. No one has ever said that; I did not mean to imply or insinuate any such premise. I was speaking more about your bias than Smith's. Logically, if someone wanted to understand something they would start with those thinking, believing, or practicing that thing.

You didn't.

One of my practices that irritate others the most is my use of original sources. I do NOT tend to appeal to extra-biblical sources but when I do it's either because that source is the subject of discussion or an original source in his/her own words. I get accused of posting doctrine when post after post after post after post of mine is scripture, scripture, scripture, scripture read exactly as written or properly exegeted. I'm not one to "read" things into scripture (like you) that scripture does not actually state. It is profoundly revealing, for example, to show someone where an epistle explicitly states it was written to the saints, those chosen of Christ, and then read, "The letter was not written to the saints; it was written to Jewish Christians." I'm not the one "interpreting" scripture, denying what it actually states, and/or imposing my personal doctrines on the thread. The use of extra-biblical sources always runs the risk of creating fallacious appeals to authority. It's bad practice. When it comes to diverse subjects like soteriology it also runs the risk of construction errors whereby one source is generalized to be representative of the whole when it is not. That too is bad practice. Happens a lot in this board.

This op happens to be explicitly on Calvinism. The op asserts an analogy that isn't actually an analogy. If an analogy from Smith was going to correctly be submitted for thought and discussion it would have been a statement different from mainstream Calvinism. There's is no comparison between like statements because there are no differences to compare. That is all on you. And yet, despite that foolishness the posts were kept about the posts and the op addressed with manners and respect.

In order to understand Calvinism correctly, find a source who understands Calvinism correctly and link to the source so others can verify its context to makes sure any quotes are not quote-mines. That is not a particularly difficult concept to know, understand, apply, or practice with others.

How would anyone know what to criticize if the source hadn't been consulted.

Let's say you, a non-LDS person, were debating an LDS and had never read anything LDS in its original source. The only way you'd have any means for doing so is by using second-hand (someone who had themselves read LDS sources) or third hand sources (someone using a second-hand source but hadn't themselves done so. You might even be basing your dissent of fourth-hand or further removed sources trusting each person in the telephone-tag line of information was correct. You'd have placed your trust in others not knowing whether or not they been honest and accurate.

So I read the book of Mormon, the writings of Jospeh Smith, Brigham Young, some of the Presidents' in their own words, their articles of faith, and basic doctrines. I've also read my Bible and read it from cover to cover as written and in chronological order many times. I can make comparisons without second-hand or third-hand sources. So could you if you had it in you to do so. Be careful though because folks will call you arrogant and condescending, and attack you for posting original sources and plainly read scripture.

Of course I can defeat mormonism simply by quoting a single verse in holy scripture (Jude 1:3). The gospel was "once delivered to the saints".

And I did it without having to reference the book of mormon or any other mormon documents.

And you would be wrong.

Nope.

And op after op shows 1) you don't, 2) the effort is not made to learn on your own, and 3) you're not willing to learn from others. What's the evidence for that?

I posted three points about Calvinism from Calvinism as a Calvinist in direct reply to this opening post and we are now two exchanges into this discussion, and you have not dicsussed any of them!!!

I may have missed your post. Are you willing to re-post it (either using the quote feature or else copying and pasting it here)?

No one made you do that but you. It does not look like you are genuinely here to Calvinism. It looks like you're trolling.

That is a hateful accusation.

The next post will prove the matter because you'll either ignore all the off-topic material and get back on Calvinism relevant to the op or you won't.

I will; as soon as the subject comes up again in this post.

They are not.

I've offered cursory explanations how and why and they've been ignored in favor of the non sequitur....

Everything I have said have not been non-sequitir but have been things that logically follow from certain teachings in Calvinism.

But in mentioning "non-sequitir" it shows that you are in debate mode; which is a sinful mode to be in

Rom 1:29, Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Rom 1:32, Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Utter foolishness no one here believes, but that is where your mind took you.


Now, do you intend to discuss your own op or not.

• The "analogy" isn't an actual analogy.
• Not being elect does preclude choosing but that's not a specifically Calvinist position.
• Calvinist theology starts with God's sovereignty.
• Calvinist soteriology is monergist.

"monergist" is a term that most Calvinists don't understand and bears definition, so you define it.

I will only say this:

Jde 1:16, These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

• Calvinist soteriology does not start with election; it starts with the universal salvific depravity of humanity (which is also shared by synergistic, non-Pelagian views).

My point in this is that I agree with John 6:44 that no one can come to Jesus unless they are drawn.

My contention has always been that if someone is drawn to Christ, they are not necessarily given to Christ.

Because if that were the case, Universalism would be the teaching.

Since all are at some point in their lives drawn to Christ (John 12:32).

• Calvinism believes the Bible when teaches the unregenerate non-believer cannot see the door, understand the writing on it, and does enter it it without God working in the individual for the specific purpose.

All are specifically drawn to Christ at some point in their lives (John 12:32).

And if you'd studied Calvinism there would not be any debate about what I just posted or about what Calvinism teaches, and we'd be discussing one or more of the points found in Post 112 without the foolish rhetoric found in Post #164. Don't get mad at me for calling you on the subterfuge.

Of course I study the Bible. And if the Bible agreed with Calvinism, I would also agree with Calvinism.

Just get back on topic.

Pick a point and discuss it as rationally as you can using well-rendered scripture and/or original source material wherever you have the ability to do so.

I have picked a few points and have referenced scripture for you as concerning those points.

 

[justbyfaith]

But we are to trust a poster who adversarially and deliberately chooses second-hand biased sources? Can you smell the hypocrisy?

Irony.

Jesus said to me that if I followed Him, I would be hated of all men for His name's sake.

I can just feel the love oozing from your pores, friend.

 

[justbyfaith]

Prove it.

I suppose that I can't prove it because you will say that what is spoken by certain Calvinists is not the actual teaching of Calvinism.

But one Calvinist, even in this thread, said that God, in Calvinism, is the First Cause of everything.

If that is the case, then He is entirely responsible for murder, rape, and incest.

 

[justbyfaith]

But the revolt of Satan is proved by other passages of Scripture; and it is an impious madness to ascribe to God the creation of any evil and corrupt nature; for when he had completed the world, he himself gave this testimony to all his works, that they were very good. Wherefore, without controversy, we must conclude, that the principle of evil with which Satan was endued was not from nature, but from defection; because he had departed from God, the fountain of justice and of all rectitude.

Here, we find that Calvin agrees that satan's choice to defect from God is the first cause of everything sinful in the Universe.

This was made possible because satan was made in the image of God and therefore had free will from the beginning.

Free will being something that is very good; but which satan used to make a choice against God.

 

[justbyfaith]

nothing is less probable than that God should he regarded as the cause of sin,

Of course Calvin dost protest too much; as some of his other doctrines give credence to this very thing.

 

[justbyfaith]

the unskilful rashly infer, that man did not sin by free choice.

And of course, again, Calvin dost protest too much, as his doctrines often deny man the capacity of free will.

 

[justbyfaith]

You do not, in fact, correctly understand Calvinism, the thread has become a rank strawman,

I am simply going on what has been preached to me by many Calvinists; believing that what has been preached to me by them is the beliefs of Calvinism.

But if Calvinists do not believe in Calvinism, how shall the kingdom of Calvinism stand?

 

[justbyfaith]

a willful resistance to learning the truth is demonstrably evident, and it fleshly nature is increasingly revealed. This is what relying on second-hand and third-hand sources has brought upon you. It took me 23.63 seconds to find Calvin's commentary on Genesis online. It took me another 17.01 seconds to copy and paste the relevant text and format it in this post. You certainly could have, and should have, taken all of 50 seconds to do your due diligence before lying to everyone about Calvinism and disrespecting every Cal in the forum. There is no excuse for Post 166. It commits composition errors and strawman.

It is depraved.

I love you, too.

And I will say (again) that I have only been going on what is preached to me by many Calvinists.

Apparently, Calvinists don't really know what Calvin taught; because they are constantly teaching against his views and saying that it is Calvinism.

But if Calvinists do that, is not Calvinism divided against itself? How then shall its kingdom stand?

For certain doctrines in Calvinism do verily contradict other views in Calvinism;

Otherwise you would not have one Calvinist saying one thing; and another Calvinist saying that "this is not the teaching of Calvinism".