In the Gospel of John, God the Son said that no one can come to Him unless the Father draws him, all that the Father gives Him will come to Him, and that He will lose none that the Father gives Him.
Are you opposing Calvin or Jesus?
Feel free to do the first, but not the second.
I am vehemently oppose Calvin. And every Christian should do as well for number of reasons as mentioned in this thread. I would hate to oppose Jesus.
If I held a religion that would require me to hate my parents, all I had to do is quote Luke 14:26,
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. But it is obvious, this is wrong hermeneutical approach. In the same way passages from John 6:35-40, 64-65 (with apparent presence of predestination, irresistible grace, and eternal security) cannot void other passages that state differently. For example, in John 12: 32, Jesus says
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. If your rebuttal will be, well, it was Jesus doing the drawing not the Father, then I will concede and move to the next point. It would be mean Jesus' intention and Father's intention diverge. I do not think it is so. All of us who are saved have been drawn by God. But sometimes people do not reciprocate to God even when drawn, as shown by Matthew 23:37,
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
John 17:12, Our Savior prays about apostles
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. Right away we see that by Father giving does not guarantee that nothing will be lost.
From John 15:6,
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. From here we are learning that there is a possibility for a branch to be part of the vine but not getting nutrients from the vine resulting in being cast away. Therefore eternal security is conditional on remaining in Christ. And here is another passage that confirms that salvation is conditional on remaining in Him, 1 John 2:24, "
Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father."
Revelation 3:16 contains threat
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
Looking at John 6:35-40, 64-65 I accept that if the Father would not have reached out to me, I would not be able to come to Him. And as far it depends on the Father, He will not lose me, but I can lose Him by me deciding to do so. It will be my choice by failing to abide in Him. He will not violate my choice. Hebrews 10:38,
Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. It is possible to read and understand John 6:35-40, 64-65 without Calvinist goggles.
soteriology101.com
true. I've had the same experience and even had to stop listening to the teachings of some men because of it. Mike Winger being an example. I used to love how well he dumbed down scripture for me. Recently, when he got himself involved in the polygyny debate on Youtube, I realized just how easily he can be persuaded to cherry-pick and misinterpret scripture for his fanbase of butt-hurt women. It's no different than most churches. Now I can't listen to him with a straight face.