Why I Reject Calvinism

My impulse is to say Calvin's commentaries are much more informative and a reliable reflection of his beliefs than "The Institutes..." We must remember "The Institutes..." were originally written as a Catholic and specifically as a treatise on reforms within the Roman Catholic Church. They are not expressly a Protestant treatise. All the early Reformers were RCC. None of them intended to leave the Church and they probably wouldn't have done so had the RCC not sought to kill them. Calvin's Institutes started out as a very small book, something like 20+ brief pleas for reform. It expanded over the course of his lifetime as politics, doctrine, and personal maturity warranted. His commentaries, on the other hand, are a product of specific examination of scripture. 

I also think Calvin was just one of many sharing a certain set of soteriological positions. As you all know, I consider myself monergist, not strictly Calvinist. Calvin believed infant baptism was salvific. That is, of course, absurd. It is one of many examples of his allegiance to RCCism that plagued many of the early Reformers, not just Calvin. We'd have to discard a large swath of the Reformation were we to toss out those men because of some errant belief. They all had them somewhere. That is why I tend to appeal to the WCF and not Calvin. The only time anyone finds me quoting Calvin is when Calvin is the subject. The only time I appeal to the WCF is when monergism is the subject. When salvation is the subject I appeal to scripture and scripture alone. You all know this to be true. My exacting and unyielding reliance on scripture alone to prove my position irritates some of you. I know some theology, but I use scripture. Calvin and Calvinism are not exactly the same thing; the latter has evolved and progressed as others who came after him contemplated, debated, and amended his views and those of the others on his side of the soteriological debate. I have always felt it is a huge mistake to call the Soteriology boards "Arminianism & Calvinism" because it leaves out the Traditionalists, RCC, Pelagians, Wesleyans, Eastern Orthodox, and whoever may fall in between. It ignores the fact the debate of the sinner's volitional agency in salvation has existed almost from the beginning of the closing of the canon. The differences among the ECFs, the debate between Augustine and Pelagius, the debate between Luther and Erasmus, etc. aren't that different from one another. Calvin was rigorous and prodigious, but he wasn't exhaustive or perfect. I find the WCF is a better articulate of monergism than Calvin's Institutes.

Beyond that I'm not sure what you're asking but I will comment by saying the portions quoted are missing one of the most fundamental aspects of theology to which most all of us agree: God is not the author of sin! Neither did God's ordaining cause violence to the will of the creature. Those two quotes don't remind us of that context. When read without that presuppositional context they read as determinism but that is not Calvinism and it's not monergism. Anyone arguing those quotes that way is arguing a straw man. 

God knew humanity would sin. Everyone agrees. 

Given the inevitability humanity would collectively and individually sin and God knew beforehand, it was necessary to address that problem. So everyone is dead in sin and from that state God chose to save some. By default, everyone not chosen to be saved was chosen for destruction but that does not mean God picked up every individual action figure and arbitrarily tossed some in one pile and others in another pile. That view would also be a straw man view of monergism. The default position is everyone dies, and they are all dead because of sin and their choosing sin, neither of which are God's doing. He is not the author of sin and the Creator did NOT do violence to the creature's will. He'll let you die dead in the consequences of your choice. IF He chooses to save you then it is because of His will, His purpose and not because He subordinated His will to the will of the creature's sinful flesh. That latter position would be a contingency. We would then not only have the problem of the Creator's will willfully being subordinated to the creature's sinful will, but we'd also have the problem of The Causal Agent's purpose being subordinated to the contingency of a secondary cause. 

Salvation is not a contingency plan. 

These are some of the reasons I reject volitionalism. 

I find the WCF a better source of appeal than Calvin, but I find scripture sufficient and efficacious. 

Josheb Said: Given the inevitability humanity would collectively and individually sin and God knew beforehand, it was necessary to address that problem. So everyone is dead in sin and from that state God chose to save some. By default, everyone not chosen to be saved was chosen for destruction but that does not mean God picked up every individual action figure and arbitrarily tossed some in one pile and others in another pile

Rockson: Oh come on it does so but I guess all readers will have to decide. You're saying God chose to save SOME and from your way of thinking that means people individuals by name. That means all other individuals he's chosen not to grant the privileges! How can you then say he didn't choose to toss some in one pile and others in another? Sorry but there's nothing about what you're saying that makes any sense.

There is some kind of unspoken assumption that the other poster rests his ideas on. If you knew what that assumption was you could open up to him why what he is stating is illogical double talk. I say this because just like you, the quotes from Calvin are blantantly self contradictory to us, but not to the poster. therefore some unspoken concept exists that smmoths over the illogic.

Plus Gods will is His will regardless of what adjectives one wants to use such as active, permissive, hidden etc.....

Calvinism is a doctrine that they like to summarize as 5 points, acronymized by the word TULIP. Yes, the flower tulip, as though dressing up their sick doctrine with the soft image of a flower would make the acceptance of their message any more likely. A very foolish and earthly tactic, especially for those that claim to rely solely on the “sovereignty” of God for the deliverance of the gospel.

Correct. God is as sovereign or in control directing things as much as he chooses to be. And isn't it ironic that those who are saying he can't choose to have limited control it is they who are really rising up against the true sovereignty of God? Isn't like they're saying, "No God you can't do that!" But who are they to question God? Does he have to ask for their permission?