Find a flaw in Calvin's theology

If free will does not exist we're essentially play things for a sadistic arbitrary entity.

"Free will doesn't exist" ins't really a Calvinist though, although you can justify that claim using Calvinist theology. Calvinism pretty much only says we have no say in salvation and damnation.

Receiving Interest from Banks and Investments is Acceptable.

Other the years usury has received a bad reputation. The Bible does provide strict guidance concerning usury, but it also tells us that it is an acceptable profession. Matthew 25:27 tells us of the Parable of the Talents and the practice of usury.

Matthew 25:27, “Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.”

Not corresponding to reality is a fairly basic one, or even the subset of "reality" that would be the Old Testament it's supposedly based on; while I can't posit the actual true state of things like the nature of the universe's creation or the purpose of humanity, I can spot obvious contradictions in what is supposed to be a completely inerrant work. If Christainity is true, then the works that it holds to be true and completely accurate must themselves be accurate, and their flaws are inherited.

So, things like Paul's complete unawareness of the Gospels positing Jesus's crucifixions being on two separate days; or his confusion as to whether Jesus' crucifixion was a type of sin-offering or a paschal offering, seemingly blind to them being separate offerings; his statement that with Jesus's crucifixion, no further offerings of any sort need to be made because sins have been atoned for, ignoring that there were many other types of offering, many nothing to do with sin and remission, and furthermore contradictory to other scripture like Ezekiel.

>Calvinism pretty much only says we have no say in salvation and damnation.
Which is exactly what the Bible says.

Yep. But it doesn't outright say free will doesn't exist.

Can you focus on a single supposed flaw? Which is the biggest one you think?

I cannot address so many points at once.

it is not the one and only Christ's church. it's as simple as that.

We have "free will" in worldly things, like, choosing AMD or Intel

But we don't have a choice when it comes to salvation / damnation.

You mean that idolatrous Whore of Babylon that worships Mary and Saints, and thinks it has as much authority as the Bible?

>We have "free will" in worldly things, like, choosing AMD or Intel
That's debatable. Bible doesn't outright say we have or don't have free will.

>But we don't have a choice when it comes to salvation / damnation.
Correct.

The single biggest flaw is that Christianity claims that the stuff in the Old Testament is both absolutely true and supportive of Christianity when it is very clear nothing of the sort. Seriously, check out Ezekiel 45:17, which talks about the Messiah bringing a sin offering on behalf of the people to inaugurate his reign. Not "Is a sin offering", brings one (45:22). And with that, pretty much every tenet of Christianity is already disqualified, unless of course you just want to throw out a prophet's work because you clearly know better.

>I cannot address so many points at once.
Why not? Bear in mind, for Christianity to be true, you need to in fact beat down every flaw in its superstructure, since that whole "perfect and inerrant" thing is by definition free from error.

He also said go and disciple all the nations.

TULIP isn't in the Institutes. Calvin never conceived of "5 points of Calvinism," and arguably, neither did the Council of Dordt from whence the "5 points" derive. It's likely that the TULIP formulation is only as old as the 20th century.

Most Reformed standards and dogmatics have a chapter on free will (or liberum arbitrium), and argue in the affirmative. What is denied specifically is the freedom of an unregenerated sinner to procure salvation. That is, in both Calvinism AND LUTHERANISM, a strictly monergistic work of God in which man cannot cooperate. With respect to particular action and in general, non-salvific matters, freedom of contrariety and freedom of contradiction, I'm not really aware of any Calvinist who denied it until Jonathan Edwards wedded philosophical determinism to Reformed theology.

Its the single most wicked and inaccurate religion in the world, a monstrous deformation of Christianity, its single worst sect.

It butchers most of the theodicies that justify the divine justice, and turns God into a cruel, arbitrary puppetmaster more befitting of Lovecraft then Jesus. And to top it all off its boring.

Truly God is great, that it is so lacking in adherents.

>arbitrary puppetmaster
Except that Calvin denies any coersion to the will in any way. He held to a rather traditional scholastic Aristotelian faculty psychology in which the will necessarily retains freedom of choice, coerced neither by the intellect nor by some puppetmaster. When he is discussing free will in a negative sense, it is restricted only in a soteriological sense. Both the unregenerate and the regenerate's will is fundamentally uncoerced and incoercible.