The disparity (disunity) in Calvinism

[justbyfaith]

All the passages of John 6 pertaining to being drawn have been put under the microscope of biblical hermeneutics and exegesis four or five times and disproved your position every time. You have not bothered to put it under either of those things but just keep repeating "John 6:44, John 6:44" over and over again. Do your homework and show your work!

Nope, you have not disproved my position at any time.

 

[justbyfaith]

What is clear is that you are making up your own doctrine and own meanings of scripture without ever bothering to care if they are right or wrong. John 6:44 says nothing even close to what you claim, you have been shown this repeatedly. It doesn't even work if you leave out all the context as you do.

You poor thing...you are a victim of what is written in 1 Corinthians 2:14, 2 Corinthians 4:4.

 

[justbyfaith]

What does that have to do with what I said?

It has to do with your eternal destiny...which is always pertinent to the conversation.

 

[justbyfaith]

Pro 19:11, The discretion of a man deferreth his anger; and it is his glory to pass over a transgression.

 

[justbyfaith]

Trolling. That section of Post 144 is abject baiting, flaming, trolling. It's all off-topic. None of it has anything to do with the subject being discussed. You've been asked to stop and asked to stop for your own benefit, not just ours. Stop it.

Not trolling at all.

But you are taking on the nature and employment of the accuser of the brethren in accusing me of doing so (Revelation 12:10-11).

However, I am redeemed by the blood of the Lamb (v.11).

 

[Josheb]

If you don't want to accept the plain meaning of John 6:44 as saying what it says because of your Calvinistic bias, then that is on you. God will hold you accountable; because His Spirit testifies that John 6:44 speaks of the fact that, in drawing a person to Christ, He enables them to either receive or reject Christ. They cannot come to Christ unless the Holy Spirit draws them; and therefore when the Holy Spirit draws them, they become able to receive or reject Christ. That is clear to me; I am uncertain as to why it is not also clear to you.

Red herring.

I understood your rationale before I asked the question. It is one I have read many times before. It is an inferential reading of scripture. I assume you know the difference between explicitly read scripture and inferentially read scripture, or scripture read literally, exactly as written and scripture read with inferences assigned to its reading. I want you to provide me with something explicit (if you can), not something inferential. John 6:44 does not explicitly state anything about enabling. You are inferentially reading that into the text.

The disagreement has nothing to do with my accepting scripture. It has everything to do with the facts in evidence: you were asked a very specific question containing specified criteria and you have yet to answer the specified criteria of the specific question asked. The problem is not my lack of acceptance. The problem is your failure to read scripture as written, your propensity to read things into selectively separated scriptures, and your refusal to answer the question asked according to the criteria stipulated. I am, therefore, going to give you one more opportunity to answer the specific question asked according to the criteria stipulated. Pay attention to the word "explicitly". Pay attention to the fact I excluded any and all inferential reading.

Have you got scripture EXPLICITLY stating a person is enabled to receive Christ at the point of being drawn to Christ?​

Last chance.

 

[justbyfaith]

Red herring.

I understood your rationale before I asked the question. It is one I have read many times before. It is an inferential reading of scripture. I assume you know the difference between explicitly read scripture and inferentially read scripture, or scripture read literally, exactly as written and scripture read with inferences assigned to its reading. I want you to provide me with something explicit (if you can), not something inferential. John 6:44 does not explicitly state anything about enabling. You are inferentially reading that into the text.

The disagreement has nothing to do with my accepting scripture. It has everything to do with the facts in evidence: you were asked a very specific question containing specified criteria and you have yet to answer the specified criteria of the specific question asked. The problem is not my lack of acceptance. The problem is your failure to read scripture as written, your propensity to read things into selectively separated scriptures, and your refusal to answer the question asked according to the criteria stipulated. I am, therefore, going to give you one more opportunity to answer the specific question asked according to the criteria stipulated. Pay attention to the word "explicitly". Pay attention to the fact I excluded any and all inferential reading.

Have you got scripture EXPLICITLY stating a person is enabled to receive Christ at the point of being drawn to Christ?​

Last chance.

Hi @Josheb,

I suppose that we will have to agree to disagree about what is truly said by John 6:44; and maybe some day the Holy Spirit will testify to you of its true meaning.

I think that at that juncture, the Holy Spirit will very likely be drawing you to Christ and testifying to you that you have a choice to make about whether or not you will receive Jesus as your Lord and Saviour from sin.

As it is, I think that many Calvinists erect Calvinism as smoke screen so that they can adequately avoid making the decision to receive Christ Jesus as Lord and Saviour from sin.

Since they believe that regeneration comes before faith, therefore in their view, regeneration can occur apart from faith;

And in believing this, they cast off their responsibility to believe in, receive, and follow Christ.

You yourself may have received Christ.

But if you have, then why not just acknowledge that this is the reason why you are of the elect; and leave it at that?

Because clearly, in holy scripture, there is something that we must do in order to procure salvation (Hosea 14:2, Romans 10:9-13, Acts 2:38-39).

Those who do it are saved / of the elect. Those who do not do it are not saved / of the non-elect; until the moment comes when they shall do what it takes in order to be saved; if they ever do that. Then they cross over from being of the non-elect to being of the elect (for lack of better wording; and from the perspective of man).

I would encourage you, if you have never received Jesus as your Lord and Saviour from sin, that you lower your smoke screen and do what it takes to inherit salvation.

Because if you say, "I was regenerated apart from faith" as an excuse, God is going to say to you, "No, you weren't"...

Because the testimony of scripture is that a man cannot be regenerated apart from faith; and that therefore a person is not regenerated before they come to faith in Jesus.

 

[TMSO]

TULIP is an acronym of the teachings on that subject found in Calvinism. Calvinism came first and then the acronym. And those teachings are found in the Bible and supported with the Bible, systematically and consistently. You can disagree with them if you like, but you cannot prove that it was not a systematic process, taken on with all seriousness of integrity with the scriptures, and by theologians whose life work was to get it right for the glory of God. And who dealt honestly with the word with a much higher degree of knowledge and know how than any of us. So again, you are not dealing with what is being said at all.

TULIP doesn't work well as Calvinism, because Calvin did not work to fit his teachings into five letters. His followers threw them together to go up against the five remonstrances of arminianism. They are clunky, and I get a little miffed when someone says that there are solid, invioilable definitions for each letter that cannot be explained in any other way. (Such as Limited Atonement and the idea of sufficiency/efficiency. I cracked the book on Calvin, and I can already tell that there isn't any easy way to truly understand what Calvin taught/believed. It is really, really deep.

 

[Josheb]

Hi @Josheb,

I suppose that we will have to agree to disagree about what is truly said by John 6:44; and maybe some day the Holy Spirit will testify to you of its true meaning.

No, if there is to be any agreement it will be that one day the Holy Spirit testifies to you about the true meaning of the verse AND teach you how not to proof-text, ignore contexts, read scripture as written without all the volitional assumptions, and how to keep the posts about the posts, not the posters.

 

[Josheb]

TULIP doesn't work well as Calvinism, because Calvin did not work to fit his teachings into five letters. His followers threw them together to go up against the five remonstrances of arminianism. They are clunky, and I get a little miffed when someone says that there are solid, invioilable definitions for each letter that cannot be explained in any other way. (Such as Limited Atonement and the idea of sufficiency/efficiency. I cracked the book on Calvin, and I can already tell that there isn't any easy way to truly understand what Calvin taught/believed. It is really, really deep.

Care to test those statements here in the thread?

 

[Arial]

TULIP doesn't work well as Calvinism, because Calvin did not work to fit his teachings into five letters. His followers threw them together to go up against the five remonstrances of arminianism. They are clunky, and I get a little miffed when someone says that there are solid, invioilable definitions for each letter that cannot be explained in any other way. (Such as Limited Atonement and the idea of sufficiency/efficiency. I cracked the book on Calvin, and I can already tell that there isn't any easy way to truly understand what Calvin taught/believed. It is really, really deep.

It is really, really deep. I am amazed at the minds of those centuries ago, and their dedication, when I read their writings. And they are difficult to follow and absorb at times, at least for me, because the use of language and grammar was so different from what it is today. Thus a lot of the misunderstandings in what is being said. We read it in today's common usages. I did not start reading Calvin himself, though I did eventually read the Institutes, or his other writings, and still have not read much of him. I started with contemporary theologians and writers, R.C. Sproul, MacArthur (though I disagree with him now on eschatology---dispensational oriented rather than covenant, which is Reformed), James White etc. Voddie Baucham has some good youtube videos.

I don't particularly care for the acronym and it is what a great many rely on to arrive at their dislike of Calvinism. It is too easy to not even come close to what Calvin was actually saying simply because of the words. Total depravity would be better described as Radical or utter depravity and even then it needs to be explained. The same with all the letters even though U is really election by God not based on any merit or demerit in the person, L is an atonement that did exactly what it was intended to do, I is effectual grace that does what God sends it to do, P is God preserving those in Christ and could also be stated as perseverance of the saints. But in my post I was countering someone who said the doctrines in the theology were not in the Bible but he just made them up.

 

[makesends]

TULIP doesn't work well as Calvinism, because Calvin did not work to fit his teachings into five letters. His followers threw them together to go up against the five remonstrances of arminianism. They are clunky, and I get a little miffed when someone says that there are solid, invioilable definitions for each letter that cannot be explained in any other way. (Such as Limited Atonement and the idea of sufficiency/efficiency. I cracked the book on Calvin, and I can already tell that there isn't any easy way to truly understand what Calvin taught/believed. It is really, really deep.

While you have a point, it is really very simple. It is self-determinism, and the declaration of independence of the believer as opposed to God, that sees it as complicated. And it is the answer to the self-determinist's objections that grows complicated.

Sovereignty

 

[TMSO]

Care to test those statements here in the thread?

T- Total Depravity is connected at the hip to Total Inability, as in one is due to the other.
U- Unconditional Election - Consider the parable of the wheat and the tares. Note how the Master planted His seeds, and then the evil one came and planted his seeds. What should we notice from here. God did not plant the tares. Hence it is not double predestination. It is unconditional because God planted the seeds, and each and every one is wheat. The tares were NEVER part of His garden. Yet the care of the garden falls on all. They get watered, and even fertilized, due to proximity. This is why I say that there is a default condition, everyone is considered the same until harvest. (The master said, don't rip out the tares so you don't accidentally pull out any wheat. Wait until it is grown when they can be recognized and properly separated.
Limited Atonement - Sufficiency/Efficiency - Jesus death is sufficient to save everyone, but only efficient for the elect, that is for those who believe in Him. The only one who knows who the elect are is God. The only place we have is if someone dies saved, then we can know that they were part of the elect. If they die unsaved, they were not. It is that cold, as logic is cold. Logic has no emotion, it just is. There is no, don't preach the gospel because someone who is not elect may accept. Only the elect will accept. Only the elect will be saved. Remember, some plant the seed (go to the parable of the four soils), some water (a necessary part of gardening), but it is God who gives the increase. Why? It is God who chose.
Irresistible Grace- This is difficult to explain as is. The idea is that if you are elect, the circumstances of life, your worldview, your understanding of life, your mental framework, will be radically changed to the point that salvation is the foregone conclusion. You will be changed, and you will not be the same. It is difficult to understand what this kind of transformation is like, unless you have experienced it. (It is not limited solely to this arena. If you have ever believed someone, and trusted someone whole heartedly, and they utterly betrayed you and your trust, the reason it is difficult to impossible to trust them again is that your understanding of them has been radically transformed. You now know something you didn't know before that runs utterly contrary to what you knew. There is no way to go back from there. (The whole, what has been seen cannot be unseen.) Multiply that by infinity to understand what the person transformed by grace now knows. They can't go back. They can only go forward. If God has drawn the person to Jesus, they will go forward. It may take time, they may strive against that narrow gate for some time, but the ending is inevitable. The grace irresistible. You didn't choose to no longer trust your friend, the situation you found yourself in caused it. It is a reaction.
Perseverance of the Saints - This differs greatly from Once Saved, Always Saved. First, note how here it says perseverance OF the saints, not by the saints. This speaks to an outside agency. Jesus in John 6 says that He will not lose a single one of whom the Father has given to Him. Where do we find out about them? Ephesians 1. Having foreordained us to the adoption as children through Christ Jesus.... What do we find about the believers. Jesus will not lose a single one, Jesus will not cast them out, nothing, no created thing can separate us from God's love, and no one can pluck us out of His hand. (Those last two include US by definition. We are created things, and we are included in no one.) Jude 24-25 has Jude, under God's inspiration praising God for being able, and doing. For being able to present us holy and blameless in His presence, and understood... doing it. He is the author and perfecter of our faith. He is the one who began the good work (salvation is not of works), and, as the one who began it, it is HE that will finish it.

The above only scratches (barely) a summary of what Calvin's followers may (if I am accurate) say is Calvinism. However, it doesn't even scratch the surface of what John Calvin taught and did. It is only the surface, and in some ways, it is forced (due to trying to come up with points from what John Calvin taught to counter the five remonstrances of arminianism. Calvin did not believe in a cold gospel. He was a humanist lawyer. He very much believed that preaching the gospel was a battle with the soul of the hearer. He would try to persuade the people into the gospel. Why? Consider the elect in this way. God knows His own. It doesn't matter what we do, we cannot change that. So... persuade away. Preach like their life depends on it (it does!) Some plant the seed, some water, but God gives the increase. There is no use in striving against the wind. Just do as God commands, and preach. You will either be the one who plants the seed, or the one who waters. God is the one who ultimately saves and gives the increase. Don't be disheartened, just preach, and know God's will will be fulfilled.

Where some may have difficulty is believing that we have control. Jesus Himself spoke of how difficult, nay, how impossible it is for us to be saved. His answer to the disciples when asked "Then who can be saved" was basically NO ONE. "It is impossible for man..." Full STOP. There is no situation where it is possible for man. As long as we lean on man, nothing will happen. We will delude ourselves into believing we have saved ourselves. Jesus concluded this statement with "but with God, all things are possible". There is no room for man there. He didn't say that God makes things possible. He said WITH God, all things are possible. He didn't say, with God AND man, just with God. There is no room for man. There is no room for boasting. There is only room for humility and the thought "What does/can God see in me that He would save this wretched sinner?" That should be our question, in line with the meaning of life. Just what does God see in us that He would save anyone? It isn't because of who we are. Unconditional election tells us that. It is because of who He is, and what He sees. (Wretched sinners one and all, yet He still loved and loves us. He still puts up with us. Consider what God said about Noah through Peter. That one hundred years building the ark. God's LONGSUFFERING, God putting up with the sin that was constantly in His view, in His hearing. He put up with it for the sake of Himself. His promise of the ultimate redemption of man pronounced to Eve. One of her seed, not Adam's seed, one of Eve's seed would crush the serpents head, while being bitten in the heal. And then, God came to earth in the form of a human, having taken upon Himself flesh, and He was the lamb who took our place on the altar, as the ram replaced Isaac on the altar. Our death became His death, that His life might become our life. He fulfilled the Law where we could not. All for His adopted children, His elect.

(Sorry, that is quite a bit overboard...)

 

[Ladodgers6]

Thanks. How about you @Carbon, @Arial, @makesends, @DialecticSkeptic, @David1701, @atpollard, @fastfredy0, is @Ladodgers6 around? Can you each post you understand?

Can we get
ALL THE CALVINISTS HERE IN THIS THREAD
to openly declare
they understand they are responsible to receive Christ
and they will be held accountable if they reject him?​

Help this guy, @justbyfaith out.

Before I reply to this, may I ask RV and others to detail this out for me, thanks.

 

[Arial]

Before I reply to this, may I ask RV and others to detail this out for me, thanks.

Hey Ladodger6, it is so wonderful to see you back on the forum!

I would answer your post, but I am not sure what you are asking.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Hey Ladodger6, it is so wonderful to see you back on the forum!

I would answer your post, but I am not sure what you are asking.

Thanks Arial for your kind words. As for my inquiry, I am seeking clarity from RV and Josheb, or with anyone who would like to share. Because the Synergistic theologies try to locate their Salvation in their response, rather than in the the Gospel itself. This was one of the main points of the Reformation against Rome.

So Grace Alone means the gratuity of God Alone saves us. It doesn't mean he's given us something that empowers and enables us (Prevenient Grace).

Synergistic theologies will talk about an infusion of something, but that does not justify. What justifies, what causes God to declare us righteous, is solely and only and always the imputed righteousness of Christ, his dying and rising, PSA, for the sake of sinners by his Gracious work that is not merited or deserved, but given freely.​

 

[Josheb]

(Sorry, that is quite a bit overboard...)

Yes, it is; especially since one single word, "yes" or "no" would have sufficed.

 

[Josheb]

T- Total Depravity is connected at the hip to Total Inability, as in one is due to the other.

Correct.

Before proceeding, let's focus because the one specific claim you made is that Calvinism doesn't work, and my one request was to have your view Calvinism does not work tested. Nothing more. Here's what you said.

"TULIP doesn't work well as Calvinism, because Calvin did not work to fit his teachings into five letters. His followers threw them together to go up against the five remonstrances of Arminianism. They are clunky, and I get a little miffed when someone says that there are solid, inviolable definitions for each letter that cannot be explained in any other way. (Such as Limited Atonement and the idea of sufficiency/efficiency. I cracked the book on Calvin, and I can already tell that there isn't any easy way to truly understand what Calvin taught/believed. It is really, really deep."​

And you say the "T" in TULIP, which means "Total Depravity," or "total Inability," and I agree. So here we have a Calvinist and a non-Calvinist agreeing the "T" means "Total Inability," BUT that does not go very far because it does absolutely nothing to address the fact Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, and Wesley ALL agree the sinner is unable to come to God for salvation without God's grace enabling him/her to do so. It does absolutely nothing to address the fact that either every single saved person in the Bible either lived in an already-existing covenant relationship with God or God was at work in that person's life for the express purpose of the individual's salvation, and (more importantly) there's not a single example in the entirety of scripture of anyone coming to God for salvation in the might of their own flesh or scripture ever explicitly stating a nonbeliever turned themselves into a believer.

That is what you have to overcome, and I do not see you even making an effort beyond stating the obvious (which is something on which everyone but the heretics agree). If your intent is to negate Calvinism because of Total Inability, then you will end up negating all of Christian thought going back through the ECFs well past Calvinism into the Arminian views.

Please do not post another lame one-sentence argument like the above again. Show up for the discussion and show up with substance (well-rendered scripture and reasonable, rational, coherent case made thereof.

 

[Arial]

U- Unconditional Election - Consider the parable of the wheat and the tares. Note how the Master planted His seeds, and then the evil one came and planted his seeds. What should we notice from here. God did not plant the tares. Hence it is not double predestination. It is unconditional because God planted the seeds, and each and every one is wheat.

Though some do see the U as stating double predestination, it is not really what it is stating in my understanding. The elect were not chosen because of anything good or bad in them and the non-elect were not chosen because they were worse than any other.

Limited Atonement - Sufficiency/Efficiency - Jesus death is sufficient to save everyone, but only efficient for the elect, that is for those who believe in Him.

That is the correct statement of the doctrine, but only the elect believe in Him.

The only one who knows who the elect are is God. The only place we have is if someone dies saved, then we can know that they were part of the elect. If they die unsaved, they were not. It is that cold, as logic is cold. Logic has no emotion, it just is. There is no, don't preach the gospel because someone who is not elect may accept. Only the elect will accept. Only the elect will be saved. Remember, some plant the seed (go to the parable of the four soils), some water (a necessary part of gardening), but it is God who gives the increase. Why? It is God who chose.

This has nothing to do with the doctrine of limited atonement but is a different subject.

Irresistible Grace- This is difficult to explain as is. The idea is that if you are elect, the circumstances of life, your worldview, your understanding of life, your mental framework, will be radically changed to the point that salvation is the foregone conclusion.

If it is stated as it actually is in the doctrine, as effectual grace, it means it accomplishes what God sends it to do, and in the case of salvation, actually saves. By grace you are saved. The change is a result of this grace.

Perseverance of the Saints - This differs greatly from Once Saved, Always Saved.

I believe the TULIP says "preservation of the saints" and the perseverance of the saints is because God is preserving them----according to what you stated---His doing it in us. But it also does mean once saved, always saved.

 

[Josheb]

U- Unconditional Election - Consider the parable of the wheat and the tares. Note how the Master planted His seeds, and then the evil one came and planted his seeds. What should we notice from here. God did not plant the tares. Hence it is not double predestination. It is unconditional because God planted the seeds, and each and every one is wheat. The tares were NEVER part of His garden. Yet the care of the garden falls on all. They get watered, and even fertilized, due to proximity. This is why I say that there is a default condition, everyone is considered the same until harvest. (The master said, don't rip out the tares so you don't accidentally pull out any wheat. Wait until it is grown when they can be recognized and properly separated.

Sooo..............

You do not correctly understand the terms, do you? The entire portion of your post pertaining to Unconditional Election is a straw man!

The "U" in TULIP stands for "Unconditional Election," which is defined within Calvinism to say simply God did not condition His election on any attribute of the one being saved, such as whether or not that individual was a good or moral person or had done something making him/her worthy of being chosen for salvation. God conditioned His choice (and His work) solely upon His will and His purpose and nothing to do with the sinner being saved from sin. Nothing less and nothing more.

Double predestination has nothing to do with Unconditional Election. However, if it did have something to do with UC then the parable you selected and the way you chose to render it would be proof of the doctrine because the two different kinds of plants (wheat and tares) can never be the other and the destinies of both sets is pre-determined without they plant having any choice or input. There is another problem with your criticism, though, because double predestination is an outlier view within Calvinism, not the orthodox position. Failing to grasp that you've committed a composition error, assuming what is true of an outlying point of view is true and applicable to all of Calvinism. It is not.

Here's what Calvin wrote about the parable in question.

"In order to reap the advantage of this parable, it is necessary to ascertain the object which Christ had in view. Some think that, to guard a mixed multitude against satisfying themselves with an outward profession of the Gospel, he told them, that in his own field bad seed is often mixed with the good, but that a day is coming, when the tares shall be separated from the wheat. They accordingly connect this parable with the one immediately preceding, as if the design of both had been the same. For my own part, I take a different view. He speaks of a separation, in order to prevent the minds of the godly from giving way to uneasiness or despondency, when they perceive a confused mixture of the good along with the bad. Although Christ has cleansed the Church with his own blood, that it may be without spot or blemish, yet hitherto he suffers it to be polluted by many stains. I speak not of the remaining infirmities of the flesh, to which every believer is liable, even after that he has been renewed by the Holy Spirit. But as soon as Christ has gathered a small flock for himself, many hypocrites mingle with it, persons of immoral lives creep in, nay, many wicked men insinuate themselves; in consequence of which, numerous stains pollute that holy assembly, which Christ has separated for himself. Many persons, too, look upon it as exceedingly absurd, that ungodly, or profane or unprincipled men should be cherished within the bosom of the Church. Add to this, that very many, under the pretense of zeal, are excessively displeased, when every thing is not conducted to their wish, and, because absolute purity is nowhere to be found, withdraw from the Church in a disorderly manner, or subvert and destroy it by unreasonable severity.​

​

In my opinion, the design of the parable is simply this: So long as the pilgrimage of the Church in this world continues, bad men and hypocrites will mingle in it with those who are good and upright, that the children of God may be armed with patience and, in the midst of offenses which are fitted to disturb them, may preserve unbroken steadfastness of faith. It is an appropriate comparison, when the Lord calls the Church his field, for believers are the seed of it; and though Christ afterwards adds that the field is the world, yet he undoubtedly intended to apply this designation, in a peculiar manner, to the Church, about which he had commenced the discourse. But as he was about to drive his plough through every country of the world, so as to cultivate fields, and scatter the seed of life, throughout the whole world, he has employed a synecdoche, to make the world denote what more strictly belonged only to a part of it.​

​

We must now inquire what he means by the wheat, and what by the tares These terms cannot be explained as referring to doctrine, as if the meaning had been that, when the Gospel is sown, it is immediately corrupted and adulterated by wicked inventions; for Christ would never have forbidden them to labor strenuously to purge out that kind of corruption. With respect to morals, those faults of men which cannot be corrected must be endured; but we are not at liberty to extend such a toleration to wicked errors, which corrupt the purity of faith. [211] Besides, Christ removes all doubt, by saying expressly, that the tares are the children of the wicked one And yet it must also be remarked, that this cannot be understood simply of the persons of men, as if by creation God sowed good men and the devil sowed bad men. I advert to this, because the present passage has been abused by the Manicheans, for the purpose of lending support to their notion of two principles. But we know that whatever sin exists, either in the devil or in men, is nothing else than the corruption of the whole nature. As it is not by creation that God makes his elect, who have been tainted with original sin, to become a good seed, but by regenerating them through the grace of his Spirit; so wicked men are not created by the devil, but, having been created by God, are corrupted by the devil, and thrown into the Lord's field, in order to corrupt the pure seed."​

Calvin did not read the parable as double predestination. We, therefore, see you have, once again, totally screwed up what Calvinism teaches and argued against the screwed-up version. That is called a straw man. You (or your sources) screwed up.

Learn Calvinism correctly. Stop arguing straw men.