(I'm dating myself by that thread title.) The people who espouse Calvinism, do not do so because it is superficially easy to understand or because it is a natural or innate point of view. They do so rather, because the Bible clearly teaches it. It seems there reaches a point in most believer's maturity, with enough exposure to scripture, that they start seeing something there that they never noticed before, at least something that was not really pointed out to them in Vacation Bible School or what have you. And it exists all throughout the scripture, in places like Romans 9, which frankly speaks matter of factly for itself and does not need any spin from "Calvinists" or anyone else for its meaning to be transparently plain. And I remember reading that passage sitting in a church pew, when the pastor was talking about something else, and it was a sea change in my perspective, because I did not remember them ever discussing Romans 9 at Bible camp. That's appropriate - its not a teaching for the kiddies really. But the idea, that scripture itself so plainly teaches, that God is ultimately sovereign over all the affairs of men, even extending to those who are born again and those or not, did not engender some internal crisis within me, something I was not psychologically able to deal with. I intuitively understood that this attribute of God did not change what God himself commanded in scripture to man, to spread the gospel and so forth. For whatever reason, then in my late 20's, I was not traumatized by it - in a way I was exhilirated and with maybe a certain degree of pride that I now understood something about God that for whatever reason a lot of people in the church apparently didn't. And then we come to this forum, in which there are SCORES of people (baptists) who are vociferously opposed to the clear teaching of scripture in this matter. They are intractable, and unswayable, and for example can put forth a labored and convoluted interpretation of say Romans 9 in another recent thread that is astonishing in its willfull obliviousness to the truth. What does it say for a person to unequivocally and continually and vociferously oppose the truth, here? I do not know. I pose the question rhetorically I suppose to other "Calvinists" in the forum. But I think about where Christ says Satan is a liar and the father of lies and talks about those born of Satan sharing this same attribute - opposition to the truth. "Calvinism" is not something that I or other "Calvinists" sit around and obsess about. Scripture teaches it, we consider it whenever scripture does so, but move on. It is only when someone comes along and starts asserting that scripture does not teach it is there a compulsion to set the record straight. And for those continually involved in that endeavor in this forum, e.g. Luke2427, PreacherForTruth, and many others, I salute you for your continuing efforts here. Your efforts are probably worthwhile, as those truly sitting on the fence I imagine are remaining quiet, carefully considering the arguments. Those continually and vocally opposing the truth here are the least likely to be swayed. It's a mystery to me, because to reiterate, when I first started to become aware of this teaching of scripture many years ago, it did not traumatize me at all. This is just a statement I'm making - I don't really feel like discussing it. In fact, was hoping this forum would have a myriad of topics to discuss - but no - its calvinism/noncalvinism 24 hours a day. For me anyway, continuing in this debate is giving a false legitimacy to "noncalvinism" that it does not deserve. What does Christ command the disciples - if anyone does not accept your message then wipe the dust from off your sandals (i.e. never have anything to do with them again.) And in another place "do not cast your pearls before swine", "Let the dead bury their own dead", etc. I personally never needed ANYONE to convince me of the truth of "Calvinism". It was clear to me from scripture itself. Those for whom it is not clear even though they have quite evidently seen all the relevant passages, it will probably never be.