I think that you should take that in context, and then remember what we are talking about.

Speaking about Calvin here really will not do much, that I agree. but there are doctrines that he created that I feel is very detrimental to Christianity and the way that Christianity is looked upon by others.

Namely predestination.

Temper, temper!

I've always said the book was FLEXIBLE. Its like the application of law in that respect. And what is more flexible than spirit?

Right. Its flexible when its convenient for you. But when someone interprets it in a way that leads them to persecute homosexuals or kill some Jews, then they are doing it wrong. Then its no longer flexible.

All things considered, if it came down to you reading the Bible, and putting your interpretation up against Calvin's on the issue of predestination (IOW, pretend you dont have a million other brilliant guys with a million other interpretations to choose from) wouldnt even YOU have to take Calvin's side every single time? Wouldnt you have to conclude that it is way, way more likely that you just got it wrong and Calvin is right?

You're preaching to the choir. I'm a pacifist. I'd only approve a fight in certain self defense situations.

I've never persecuted any homosexuals and I may be the best friend a Jew has.

Well he was very Platonic in form and intent---I assume that's what you mean. But then Nietzsche described Christianity as "Platonism 'for the people'", so not surprising. (Preface to Beyond Good and Evil)

That's hardly relevant, in any case. You notice the "SAINT" in front of Augustine's name? By authority of the Church, St. Augustine was and is transcendent, now ensconced in glory.

If you're rejecting both the traditions of Calvin and St. Augustine as fallacious interpretations of Scripture, I don't know what to say.

Except maybe, who THE HELL do you think you are?

If Calvin was right, by destroying Servetus he saved multitudes from being led into apostasy and hellfire. Hardly bizarre. (Given his premises.)

Where is the science, math, or philosophy? Logic and reason rules here. Faith is not sufficient reason for anything. Want to prove me wrong? Visit your nearest oncologist with cancer and when he tells you "It will get better without treatment, just have faith." don't get pissed/go to another doctor.

I believe in God and have faith in Him. Does this mean that I have a propensity towards irrationality in science, logic and everyday life?

I would expect every reasonable person to answer, either "no" or "not necessarily", but hey, life is full of surprises.

I've never detailed where I agree and disagree with Calvin. I maintain that he was enormously important to Christianity, as were Augustine, Aquinas and others, but they're all flawed. You wouldn't go far wrong if you did accept all of Calvin, but you don't have to. And you don't have to believe Subfallen's miserable misrepresentation - you could continue to read that chapter of Institutes and find this:

Book 1 Chapter 15 Section 8

I believe what Calvin said in Sub's post, and what he says above, but I also believe there's more. I've never accepted the idea that fallen man's free will isn't involved in salvation. I think there is an area that we simply can't understand, that Reformers and Arminians are both right and both wrong, and that it isn't that important anyway because they all agree you must repent and accept God's free gift of salvation.

Baloney.

Aside from all that, I am curious if you would agree with me that Jib, actually would have a chance to get you to change your mind about some of these technicalities.

Can you give us a working definition of faith? If we get to decide what an atheist is, you (and other theists) should get to decide what faith is.

If you want to know about the foundations of Christian beliefs why wouldn’t you interview people who have spent most of their lives studying Jewish history and whatever they can find out about the life and teachings of Jesus?

I think it is a valid expectation that theologians will tend to give a biased viewpoint, but in all practicality – who is better qualified to represent the case for Christ? If we want to hear a strong case, let’s hear it from expert advocates - as they are best able to represent that viewpoint.

You are right. You would then go to lets say 4 other doctors. If all of the doctors then said the same this as the first that "It will get better without treatment" not that any doctor would say that, but you would then have faith that they are correct. The question is how many doctors would need to say the same thing for you to believe?

Now in the end, even if you went to 100 doctors, if the all said the exact same thing, you would not be in a position to prove any of them wrong or right but would just have to trust their judgement and have faith in what they say.

So faith is not the absence of evidence, but the absence of 100% proof. You do not know, if you are married, that your wife will never cheat on you. But you still got married because you had enough evidence to convince you that she would not. So you have faith in light of the evidence that you had.

That is the type of faith that I have. Just like you have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow.

The person best-qualified to present the case for Christ is not the person best-qualified to do an objective analysis of the evidence.

What if God intended that?

I mean if there were overwhelming objective evidence isn't it always falsifiable and/or can't the evidence be tampered with?

Subjective evidence is on the inside and nobody on the outside can tamper with it unless you let them.

http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html

How did I misrepresent him at all, much less miserably? We clearly live after the Fall, so BookIChap2Sec27 is what is relevant to our love of God.

So if OP feels that love has meaning because it is freely willed, then BookIChap2Sec27 implies that OP's love is meaningless.

Am I missing something here?

So now you're a mystic (I approve). But---

---ugh, right back to logic-ing life into your preferred narrative before the period.

Try inverting your values. When Scripture hints at "areas we simply can't understand", it invites us to internal silence. Not too shabby. But the trite mythologies only lead to noisy moralizing. Don't spend much time on those.

About 90% of the issue. The quote you gave is Calvin's position on the nature of fallen man, which mainstream Arminian's agree with. You also left out the part that describes the fact Christians freely love God after conversion, also agreed to by most Christians. The differences come over the part man's will plays in conversion - and even here, Calvin did not think we are coerced to believe. I disagree with Calvin on some points but there is no simplistic way to discuss the issue, and a quote like the one you gave miserably misrepresents the problem and Calvin's discussion of it.

I believe there is much God hasn't revealed to us, which the Bible also states. I also believe that what it reveals can be understood by us. It's neither trite nor mythological.

OP can I ask what you think about people like me, who have looked into Christianity more than most Christians have, but who still believe that it is all a pile of bs? Am I not going to "be saved" for not believeing, even though my non-belief is not voluntary?

I am very confident that if there is a God, then I will be good enough. And although it sounds selfish, if I am not good enough then I don't want anything to do with that God.

Another thing, if you were simply born in another part of the world, you would be following another religion just as confidently as you follow Christianity.

Hmm, not the impression I get.

Calvin (to his credit) noted that theologians and philosophers alike had an extremely confused idea of "free will" (sc. B2CIIS2-9 "Concerning the Opinions of Others"). But he took the solution to be pretty simple: re-orient free will as a qualitative expression of God's sole sufficiency for the good.

In other words, Calvin got rid of a logical problem by subsuming it into a moral imperative. (All's fair in love and theology!)

This is a simplistic way to TERMINATE the issue, although (as you say) it still did not provide a simplistic way to DISCUSS the issue.

Because, of course, the issue is a false one---'will' is an empty abstraction that vanishes at the probing of more nuanced fingers. (READ YOUR DENNETT! )

Its like its impossible to get you to get the point of a post.