Calvinism is heretical

Here is why Calvinism is heretical and not Biblical: Heresy- anything not in line with orthodox Biblical doctrine Now, Calvinism uses an acronym to describe their five major points or doctrines. Its called TULIP. T-Total Depravity of Man, U-Unconditional Election, L-Limited Atonement I-Irrisitable Grace P-Perseverance of the saints(not to be discussed) Now, Calvinism is all about definitions. I agree with Total Depravity, man is so wicked that he is depraved. However, Calvinism defines it as Total Inability. This means that man is so depraved that he cannot repent and accept the Gospel by his own free will. God has to regenerate you and only if your one of the elect. This contradicts Ephesians 1:13 where we believe first, then are saved, John 1:12 because we receive Christ first, and John 3:16 where God saves those who believe, not who He chooses. Further, when God told Adam to not eat from the tree, God was really willing it for Adam to eat from the tree. It wasn't Adam's free will that did it, God willed it to happen and then punished Adam for it afterwards! Why would God say, "that WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH" when He already chose the elect before the foundation of the world? It wasn't really "whosoever" if it was JUST the elect, now is it? Ephesians 1:13 says "ye believed" AFTER "ye were sealed with the holy Spirit of promise." You BELIEVE FIRST, THEN get saved. John 1:12 says God gave power to "as many as received Him" FIRST. You must receive Him before you get power. 2 Peter 3:9 contradicts Unconditional Election because, "God is NOT WILLING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH" which includes the non-elect. If God was not willing that "the elect should perish" as the calvinist interprets it, then what would be the point of the verse. God already knew that the elect would not perish before the foundation of the world. The verse is nonsensical according to Calvinist theology. The idea of God creating some people to be saved and others not to be saved is BLASPHEMOUS. Calvinism is saying God created some people to be saved and others to ,"Fuel the fires of Hell"(R. C. Sproul- Calvinist). I am not exaggerating one bit. Calvinists admit that man has no free will to receive Christ and God arbitrarily chose some to be saved and others to fuel the fires of Hell. Doesn't this border on the definition of a cult? Further, 1 Peter 1:2, IT DESTROYS UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION because ELECTION is based on God's foreknowledge of a person appropriating Christ's blood atonement for sin and sanctification of the Spirit. IT IS NOT based on God's sovereign pleasure. Now with Limited Atonement, my opponent is going to have to ignore a plethera of verses. Consider 1 Timothy 2:4, [God] "who will have ALL MEN TO BE SAVED." Verse 6, "Who gave himself a ransom for ALL." 2 Peter 2:1 says false prophets were BOUGHT by the Lord. To be bought, means God atoned for their sins. Limited Atonement is refuted by 1 John 2:2,"And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Let me stop and say that if this point were true that God did not die for the sins of the unelect, thus God created them just to fuel the fires of Hell! Do you really think that is Biblical? Hebrews 10:29 destroys Limited Atonement. It says, "how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden underfoot the Son of God, and HATH COUNTED THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHEREWITH HE WAS SANCTIFIED, AN UNHOLY THING,(God ATONED for his sins), AND HATH DONE DESPITE UNTO THE SPIRIT OF GRACE? There also goes Irrisistable Grace out the window because someone resisted the Spirit of grace. Irrisistable Grace basically says that God regenerates or saves a sinner against the sinners will because he is too "corrupt"(Total Inability) to receive Christ on his own. Its irrisistable because the elect cannot refuse it. Yet Christ said to Jerusalem, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem...how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and YE WOULD NOT! That looks like they refused God to me. My opponent claims that men just cant refuse the Gospel if they are elect, but they can refuse other things. Well, the Jews were God's chosen people(elect), and they refused their Saviour who brought the Gospel. Further, heretical doctrine has to defend itself by means of violence, which Calvin resorted to. He burned Michael Servetus to the stake. Why? Because Servetus disagreed with him on doctrine. That's why. Nice guy, right? Arminius never killed anyone and showed respect to his enemy-John Calvin. Further let me mention that John Calvin grew up as a Roman Catholic and kept many of their traditions: infant baptism, transubstantion, the sacraments, amillenial(my opponent is a Baptist and most Baptists are premillenial!) and killed those who disagreed with him. Jacob Arminius was much more Protestant than Calvin, after all, Arminius rejected the sacraments of the Catholic Church. Moreover, John Calvin burned people to the stake for the crime of "witchcraft" when plagues occured in Geneva. He beheaded a little girl in Geneva for disobeying her parents. Evidently, John Calvin resorted to the Old Testament a lot. Now, remember, this is the guy that Calvinists say fully expounded upon the doctrines of grace. Some founder. Even if Calvinists go and say, "Augustine was the actual founder" they are still confronted with a problem. Augustine believed in the same Roman Catholic dogma a Calvin. He was a Catholic before Catholicism started. This should be good for now.