Why are Calvinist concidered Christians, but JWs, and Mormons are not?

[Mike]

I do believe they hold the core tenets of our faith, and I won't listen to a Calvinist tell me I'm not a Christian either.

And can you point to a Calvinist that ever said anything like what you suggest?

Not on the boards, no. I wasn't going to say anything, but it's interesting that YOU ask me this question. I don't save my PM's for long. If you don't clear your "sent" box, perhaps you can look through it and answer your own question.

Still waiting....

I was waiting too, but apparently mondar wants to forget he asked me the question. That's fine.

 

[mondar]

I was waiting too, but apparently mondar wants to forget he asked me the question. That's fine.

Why are you waiting? I asked the question, and I am waiting for an answer. Why would I want to forget I asked the question?

Mike, moral accusations are sometimes an easy way (but a cheap way too) to win an argument, I hope you were not stooping to that level.

 

[francisdesales]

I think one of my Roman Catholic friends (I forget which one) questioned if my view of double predestination is the usual Calvinist view. I did want to comment that my view of passive double predestination is the main stream Calvinist view. In fact my view is easily within the boundaries of Calvinist creeds. Let me quote from the 1689 LBC.
( 1689 LBC: Chapter 3: "Of God's Decree" )
"1._____ God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree."
*** In the above quote you can see how Calvinists affirm that God decrees sin, but is not the "author" of sin. It might be good for me to take the time to explain what this creed means by the term "second causes," but I don't want to write too much.

"3._____ By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice."
*** In the 3ird statement from the 1689 LBC you can see the term "predestinated." Also, you can see how Calvinists see Gods acts of reprobation are passive. God reprobates by leaving some to their own sin and then their just condemnation. God does not restrain the sin of all men.

I am aware that the Calvinist doctrine of God's predestination of sin is not an easy doctrine to believe, but the things that we believe should not be based upon personal preference, or upon misrepresenting Calvinist doctrine as more radical then the scripture, but upon scripture. Therefore, let me comment upon a few verses.

***Eph 3:11 in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will;
*** The underlined phrase is difficult. Does God will that sin happen? Does he work "all things" based upon a decree that happened in a council? What else could that verse possibly be saying?

***Romans 9:18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.
*** Remember, Calvinists believe that God does not magically make men more sinful, they are already sinful, and God chooses to reprobate or harden some by allowing thier sin nature to go unrestrained.

***Acts 4:27-28 for of a truth in this city against thy holy Servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, were gathered together,
28 to do whatsoever thy hand and thy council foreordained to come to pass.
***John 19:11 Jesus answered him, Thou wouldest have no power against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath greater sin.
*** What greater sin could there possibly be then to take the perfect and sinless Son of God, and murder him in the most horrible way that man has devised. What could possibly be uglier then this sin of the crusifixion of the Son of God? The verses above indicate that God had a "council" and that in this council, it was "foreordained" that the greatest sin of the murder of Jesus was to happen. Did God foreordain the death of his own Son?

People will rail against Calvinists and yet be very ignorant of what Calvinsts believe. I think it would be better to forget the terms Calvinist and lets just talk about the death of Christ. Can anyone deny that God predestined the most evil sin in all of history on the basis of scripture?

I am the Catholic "friend" you are referring to.

I would say that "ordaining" Christ to die on the cross is a rather unique situation, since it is God Himself OFFERING to die for us, not as some punishment against the will of the Victim. Naturally, if a man is "foreordained" to hell, this is quite a different situation, it smacks of "fate" and other such pagan ideas. Is this far removed from active double predestination?

Yes, Catholics believe in predestination, but it is generally predestination to the Church, the People of God, not to eternal life/death. In addition, there are a variety of "schemes" that are acceptable to Catholic teachings. Such as God foreordains without knowledge of merits/with knowledge of merits. Neither can be condemned teaching as they stand.

Thanks again for your explanation - but could you further explain #1 that you cite above

God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein.

Perhaps your explanation can better show that this is not double talk, since the former appears to give and the later seems to take away... But that is a surface observation and your follow up may better explain it.

Thanks

 

[Mike]

Why are you waiting? I asked the question, and I am waiting for an answer. Why would I want to forget I asked the question?

Mike, moral accusations are sometimes an easy way (but a cheap way too) to win an argument, I hope you were not stooping to that level.

Mondar, I did answer the question, if you were following along. If it isn't obvious how I answered your question, read my response again. Reading this should jog your memory. :gah

Not on the boards, no. I wasn't going to say anything, but it's interesting that YOU ask me this question. I don't save my PM's for long. If you don't clear your "sent" box, perhaps you can look through it and answer your own question.

 

[mondar]

Mondar, I did answer the question, if you were following along. If it isn't obvious how I answered your question, read my response again. Reading this should jog your memory. :gah

No, you did not answer the question, but you gave me some sort of riddle. I have no record of anything that you are talking about.

Mike, is this the typical way you present evidence against Calvinists? You make moral accusations against Calvinists and then muddy the waters of what you are saying. This is getting old.

 

[Mike]

No, you did not answer the question, but you gave me some sort of riddle. I have no record of anything that you are talking about.

Mike, is this the typical way you present evidence against Calvinists? You make moral accusations against Calvinists and then muddy the waters of what you are saying. This is getting old.

Okay, I had never planned on sharing this, but since you're playing naïve and refusing to acknowledge it, you PM'd me months ago and very oddly asked me if I was a Christian. I gave a response that of course I am, asking why this would be a question. You responded by asking how I felt about OSAS. When I replied that I didn't hold to it and asked you some follow ups, you dropped off, and I never heard from you again. Is that clear enough?

Regardless, I've been conistant here in this thread, including both sides of this issue in the Church.

 

[mondar]

Okay, I had never planned on sharing this, but since you're playing naïve and refusing to acknowledge it, you PM'd me months ago and very oddly asked me if I was a Christian. I gave a response that of course I am, asking why this would be a question. You responded by asking how I felt about OSAS. When I replied that I didn't hold to it and asked you some follow ups, you dropped off, and I never heard from you again. Is that clear enough?

Regardless, I've been conistant here in this thread, including both sides of this issue in the Church.

Well, I dont know how to check my records yet with the new program. I can only find one recent PM conversation. Also, the PM was obviously not memorable to me because I dont remember the PMs. When you say I "dropped off" that sounds like me, I do come and go depending upon spare time and interest.

However, it sounds to me like you read accusations or emotion into the PM. You need to be more cautious about reading voice inflection or sarcasm into written words. If I did write some Email to you, and asked the question "Are you a Christian," I am sure at that point that it was a simple strait forward question. If I was accusing you of not being a Christian, I would have been very blunt and stated "I don't think you are a Christian."

Finally, you sound kind of hyper-sensitive. What should you care what my opinion on that matter might be? My guess is that you really don't care. The statement that you first made... No Calvinist is going to tell me I am not a Christian... seemed crafted to attack Calvinists with some sort of moral accusation to suggest that Calvinists are some sort of hyper-Fundamentalists that run around telling everyone if they are not Calvinists they are not Christians. I have yet to meet even one Calvinist with that attitude. If that is what you were suggesting, it was a straw man, very weak, moral accusation. And now you seem to be saying that you drew these conclusions from some from misunderstanding from some PM?

Mike, this is becoming really sad. Moral accusations are made, counter accusations are made, and what profit is any of it? It all becomes convoluted. If you think Calvinism is such a wrong doctrine, is this really the apologetical methodology you want to use?

 

[watchman F]

The statement that you first made... No Calvinist is going to tell me I am not a Christian... seemed crafted to attack Calvinists with some sort of moral accusation to suggest that Calvinists are some sort of hyper-Fundamentalists that run around telling everyone if they are not Calvinists they are not Christians.

Mike has said nothing like that at all in this thread. Matter of fact just the opposite. To me it sounds like you are the hyper-sensitive one reading things into Mike's post that are there.

 

[Mike]

However, it sounds to me like you read accusations or emotion into the PM. You need to be more cautious about reading voice inflection or sarcasm into written words. If I did write some Email to you, and asked the question "Are you a Christian," I am sure at that point that it was a simple strait forward question. If I was accusing you of not being a Christian, I would have been very blunt and stated "I don't think you are a Christian."

So, what would you have done with my reply PM stating that in rejecting OSAS, I am fully a part of the Body of Christ and asking why you believe otherwise when you came back to the board? You would have to have deleted it without responding.

You're original cryptic PM came after we had our first (seemingly uneventful) meeting in a thread here. http://www.christianforums.net/f43/convert-me-29817/index4.html#post434192

When I didn't recall the name James White, who debates with other "liberal" Christians, you said this prompted you to wonder about me. And then you went straight to the OSAS question.

Finally, you sound kind of hyper-sensitive. What should you care what my opinion on that matter might be? My guess is that you really don't care.

I don't know about "hyper-sensitive". It is sad to me that a fellow Christian would create this divide within the Body of Christ, which is why I've spent my time in this thread arguing for Calvinists as Christians. I'd long since moved on until you, of all people, asked when a Calvinist has ever said this to me.

The statement that you first made... No Calvinist is going to tell me I am not a Christian... seemed crafted to attack Calvinists with some sort of moral accusation to suggest that Calvinists are some sort of hyper-Fundamentalists that run around telling everyone if they are not Calvinists they are not Christians.

Now, who's sounding over-sensitive? In one post I said that non-Calvinists shouldn't be told that they aren't Christians and I won't hear it from them about me as well. This post wasn't directed at Calvinists. It was directed toward Watchman. Feel better?

Mike, this is becoming really sad.

Agreed. Anything else I have to say, I'll do in PM's between us - with little confidence that you'll engage me. All this was to point out the hypocrisy of telling fellow Christians who hold to the core tenets of our faith that they are "not Christians". This didn't need to be said, except for the fact that you came out of no where and asked me "the question".

 

[mondar]

So, what would you have done with my reply PM stating that in rejecting OSAS, I am fully a part of the Body of Christ and asking why you believe otherwise when you came back to the board? You would have to have deleted it without responding.

You're original cryptic PM came after we had our first (seemingly uneventful) meeting in a thread here. http://www.christianforums.net/f43/convert-me-29817/index4.html#post434192

When I didn't recall the name James White, who debates with other "liberal" Christians, you said this prompted you to wonder about me. And then you went straight to the OSAS question.

Yes, the thread is an athiest vs Christian thread. I even mentioned that we never talked and merely was asking which side of the fense you were on. If we never talked before, how was I to know which side you would be on?

I am puzzled why I would ask about OSAS?

I don't know about "hyper-sensitive". It is sad to me that a fellow Christian would create this divide within the Body of Christ, which is why I've spent my time in this thread arguing for Calvinists as Christians. I'd long since moved on until you, of all people, asked when a Calvinist has ever said this to me.

No, I do not see things in the way you write above. In your post you stated that you would not tolerate others saying Calvinists are not Christians, and then you added that you would not tolerate Calvinists saying you are not a Christian.

Later in our conversation you suggested that because I asked if you were a Christian in some PM, that I was implicitly challenging your Christian credentials. I am suggesting that I may have asked the question (but I dont have a record), but you read into the question that I was challenging your Christian credentials. You also said this publically implying a public accusation.

Now, who's sounding over-sensitive? In one post I said that non-Calvinists shouldn't be told that they aren't Christians and I won't hear it from them about me as well. This post wasn't directed at Calvinists. It was directed toward Watchman. Feel better?
Agreed. Anything else I have to say, I'll do in PM's between us - with little confidence that you'll engage me. All this was to point out the hypocrisy of telling fellow Christians who hold to the core tenets of our faith that they are "not Christians". This didn't need to be said, except for the fact that you came out of no where and asked me "the question".

Fair enough, I will try to remember to check my PMs.

 

[Free]

Mike has said nothing like that at all in this thread. Matter of fact just the opposite. To me it sounds like you are the hyper-sensitive one reading things into Mike's post that are there.

5th or 6th time asking: where does the definition of Christianity fail according to the definition given by Merriam-Webster?

 

[watchman F]

5th or 6th time asking: where does the definition of Christianity fail according to the definition given by Merriam-Webster?

Free you want your precious religion, you can have it. As for me I will simply love the Lord.

 

[Free]

Free you want your precious religion, you can have it. As for me I will simply love the Lord.

Why this false division between religion and "loving the Lord"? Why are you evading what should be a very simple answer?

Christianity is a religion, that is a fact, and it stands until you can show me on where Christianity fails to be a religion, according to accepted definitions. As someone said earlier, you have completely redefined the term "religion" to mean something that makes your question in the OP unanswerable. That is where your problem lies. The real answer is quite easy.

 

[mondar]

Mike has said nothing like that at all in this thread. Matter of fact just the opposite. To me it sounds like you are the hyper-sensitive one reading things into Mike's post that are there.

Maybe I was, maybe I was overly sensitive toward Mike, but I am not hyper-sensitive toward you.

 

[mondar]

Free you want your precious religion, you can have it. As for me I will simply love the Lord.

Odd that use the term "religion" as an accusation against Free. Her "religion" could be the kind strait from James 1:26-27 and that would be a good thing.

James 1:26If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. 27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.