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

[smaller]

smaller, the limited atonement you preach is this.

only the predistened to salvation get it.

Not so jason. There is what Paul termed 'present election' in Romans 11.

Paul put an interesting observation on the table in Romans 11:25-32 pertaining to ALL OF ISRAEL that quite easily refutes Calvinism. Though many that read therein will gloss over and not be able to see it.

let's be civil. we know that god didnt die for the devil, but for a men, and any men can get that atonement if they just repent.

Indeed. The Good News is in fact FOR all mankind and AGAINST all devilkind.

There is only one measure of a christian. It is those who actually do love their neighbors as themselves. This is the ONLY DOCTRINE that counts and is the entire basis of God and His Word. IF one is led to understand ALL the damnation, condemnation and wrath Words, they need only look to the logical OTHER PARTY in these matters that are 'with' man, and those are DEVILS. It's so simple any child could understand.

IF we see the later involved with our own SIN, then we should rightfully apply EVERY WORD OF GOD to ourselves, even the BAD ONES, knowing what we carry in our own flesh/mind. This is the hardest place to go.

perservance of the saints , they way smaller present is that even though a christian murders he is still saved.

Uh, no, that is NOT correct. The EVIL IMPETUS of the DEVIL upon that murderer WILL find itself in the LAKE OF FIRE and the SLAVE will go free. This IS the Gospel.

i dont see that,if one can cold heartedly do that and never repent. how dwelleth god in thee?

As stated prior, ANY PERSON who SINS is a SLAVE OF SIN. SIN is of the DEVIL.

No believer should view another person or even themselves as ALONE in these matters of Gods Words.

A MANcentric belief system is NOT a scriptural view and NOT the way God made this present world.

We ALL live in a WICKED WORLD. We ALL are sown in corruption, weakness, dishonour and in a natural body...regardless of our states of beliefs.

Christians are intentionally LED AWAY from these facts by the same powers of darkness that BLIND the unbelievers.

They only want to LOOK at the GOOD WORDS for themselves and heap up the BAD ONES upon other people. Any who practice such do not have spiritual eyes or ears and are in fact under a covering.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[mondar]

Hello Dadof10 and JasonCran, and others,

This is your friendly neighborhood Calvinist... : ). I must admit chuckling at the ignorance in this thread. It is also so very interesting. Long ago, one heretic was burned in Geneova by the name of Michael Servitus. Oddly enough he was a non-trinitarian. How is that for irony? More on that later.

One of the problems with such discussions as found above is that few of you have any knowledge of history or biblical theology. i observe the misrepresentations and I often wonder who these Calvinists might be. Where are they? I certainly am not one of the Calvinists you talk about and neither are any of the Calvinists I know what you talk about. I know one of the greatest Calvinists face is that other protestants so commonly misrepresent Calvinist theology that non-Calvinists are only aware of the misrepresentations and caricatures of Calvinists. While that is certainly a powerful way to argue (to exaggerate or misrepresent the other side) it is dishonest. Unfortunately, it is about all most protestants do.

Lets just talk about history for a little. To associate modern day Calvinists with a historical definition of heresy could only be done as a modern day invention. In history, no protestant would have dreamed of saying such a thing. The only one who could honestly call me a heretic in the group above from a historical point of view would be Dadof10. And to him I express my thanks in his restraint. I am guessing he is aware of some of these things, but chose not to mention them. I find his restraint in good taste. It is true that a number of anathema's were pronounced upon protestants like me at Trent. Except for Dadof10, you so called protestants to suggest that I am a heretic could only be done through a massive lack of knowledge of history and biblical theology.

First, JWs are quite close to Arians. As Dadof10 hinted at, trinitarianism was defended in the early Church councils. JWs, Mormons, and other non-trinitarians are outside Orthodoxy because of Nicea, Chalcedon. Many protestants would be outside orthodoxy because of the 2nd Council of Orange. Anyone following the theology of the great evangelist named Charles Finney would be Pelagian, and outside orthodoxy. Can anyone point to any of the great ecumenical councils ( before Trent) and say that Calvinists are outside orthodoxy? Actually, no. In fact I would challenge you readers to look up the 2nd Council of Orange. The 2nd Council of Orange does not sound that different from the Synod of Dort. It sounds almost like a munch of Calvinists attacking Arminians. Who then is outside Orthodoxy?

I admit that Calvinists are a vast minority. I also admit that Calvinists stand apart from most protestants and Catholics in their understanding of the gospel. Most of today's protestants and Catholics have a common soteriology as opposed to Calvinists. In Calvinism the source of faith is not in humanity, but in God (God elects) and thus Calvinists do not have a theology of human merit in salvation. The division between the average arminian protestant and catholic is usually ecclesiology, or Mariology, but not soteriology. My point is that Calvinists are a minority even within protestantism, and certainly a minority in world "Christianity." That does not mean we are heretics. We are simply just a minority.

As for Calvin killing people... that one is a gross misrepresentation of history. The person that is the most common issue is the burning of Michael Servitus, as I mentioned above. I am not aware of any other executions that Calvin was involved in. Even then, it was not Calvin that burned him, it was the town Council in Geneova. Calvin's part was merely to pronounce him a heretic (as the pastor), and then to hand him over to the two council. If you read the account, Calvin risked his own life to travel to France and requested Servitus not come to Geneova. Servitus came anyway. Then Calvin spent many hours trying to convince Servitus that Modalism was error and heresy. Servitus refused. Calvin then requested of the town council a more humane form of execution then burning, the council refused. Calvin was a man of his own culture, his own times, and was part of a state Church. To call him a murderer is gross ignorance of the historical setting and historical events.

Well, enough for now. Good day all.

 

[Oats]

Hello Dadof10 and JasonCran, and others,

This is your friendly neighborhood Calvinist... : ). I must admit chuckling at the ignorance in this thread. It is also so very interesting. Long ago, one heretic was burned in Geneova by the name of Michael Servitus. Oddly enough he was a non-trinitarian. How is that for irony? More on that later.

One of the problems with such discussions as found above is that few of you have any knowledge of history or biblical theology. i observe the misrepresentations and I often wonder who these Calvinists might be. Where are they? I certainly am not one of the Calvinists you talk about and neither are any of the Calvinists I know what you talk about. I know one of the greatest Calvinists face is that other protestants so commonly misrepresent Calvinist theology that non-Calvinists are only aware of the misrepresentations and caricatures of Calvinists. While that is certainly a powerful way to argue (to exaggerate or misrepresent the other side) it is dishonest. Unfortunately, it is about all most protestants do.

Lets just talk about history for a little. To associate modern day Calvinists with a historical definition of heresy could only be done as a modern day invention. In history, no protestant would have dreamed of saying such a thing. The only one who could honestly call me a heretic in the group above from a historical point of view would be Dadof10. And to him I express my thanks in his restraint. I am guessing he is aware of some of these things, but chose not to mention them. I find his restraint in good taste. It is true that a number of anathema's were pronounced upon protestants like me at Trent. Except for Dadof10, you so called protestants to suggest that I am a heretic could only be done through a massive lack of knowledge of history and biblical theology.

First, JWs are quite close to Arians. As Dadof10 hinted at, trinitarianism was defended in the early Church councils. JWs, Mormons, and other non-trinitarians are outside Orthodoxy because of Nicea, Chalcedon. Many protestants would be outside orthodoxy because of the 2nd Council of Orange. Anyone following the theology of the great evangelist named Charles Finney would be Pelagian, and outside orthodoxy. Can anyone point to any of the great ecumenical councils ( before Trent) and say that Calvinists are outside orthodoxy? Actually, no. In fact I would challenge you readers to look up the 2nd Council of Orange. The 2nd Council of Orange does not sound that different from the Synod of Dort. It sounds almost like a munch of Calvinists attacking Arminians. Who then is outside Orthodoxy?

I admit that Calvinists are a vast minority. I also admit that Calvinists stand apart from most protestants and Catholics in their understanding of the gospel. Most of today's protestants and Catholics have a common soteriology as opposed to Calvinists. In Calvinism the source of faith is not in humanity, but in God (God elects) and thus Calvinists do not have a theology of human merit in salvation. The division between the average arminian protestant and catholic is usually ecclesiology, or Mariology, but not soteriology. My point is that Calvinists are a minority even within protestantism, and certainly a minority in world "Christianity." That does not mean we are heretics. We are simply just a minority.

As for Calvin killing people... that one is a gross misrepresentation of history. The person that is the most common issue is the burning of Michael Servitus, as I mentioned above. I am not aware of any other executions that Calvin was involved in. Even then, it was not Calvin that burned him, it was the town Council in Geneova. Calvin's part was merely to pronounce him a heretic (as the pastor), and then to hand him over to the two council. If you read the account, Calvin risked his own life to travel to France and requested Servitus not come to Geneova. Servitus came anyway. Then Calvin spent many hours trying to convince Servitus that Modalism was error and heresy. Servitus refused. Calvin then requested of the town council a more humane form of execution then burning, the council refused. Calvin was a man of his own culture, his own times, and was part of a state Church. To call him a murderer is gross ignorance of the historical setting and historical events.

Well, enough for now. Good day all.

Thank you

 

[smaller]

I have no problems with Divine Sovereignty.

I doubt very much that the TOTALLY DEPRAVED are able to accurately define or state what that means or consists of because it is LOGICALLY inconsistent to connect those two matters of the TOTALLY DEPRAVED then DETERMINING what DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY IS and consists of.

In short it is just another PALE REFLECTION of what is contained in the Word, as ALL views are.

s

 

[dadof10]

I could support Calvinism....my point is that its a disputable matter....Why can we judge one another

To refute Calvinism at its core is impossible- for its core is the Cross;)

My point is that EVERYONE HERE thinks his position is the only fully Biblical one (myself included). To ask us to "provide scriptures to refute Calvinism at its core" has been done for centuries by many people. Refutations of Lutheranism, Catholicism, Baptists, etc. have also.

 

[dadof10]

uh, no. that fide part includes the works , as faith without works is dead.

if we did it your way. then if i didnt repent over one little lie and i knew it, (and died)off to hell with ya.

solo fide is more then then you think. mondar a calvinist showed me that.

but lets not turn this into a catholic vs protestant thing here.

but perhaps at a later time i will engage more on the things that catholics that have come to my church have admitted to me. rather interesting things.

Ok. Some other time, then. Maybe in the 1 on 1 forums.

 

[watchman F]

I never said you are "good with me" (whatever that's supposed to mean). I only said that those who believe in the Trinity are Christian,

This is absolutely ridiculous. I believed in the Trinity my whole life, yet I was not a christian, I live in open rebellion to God and His word. It wasn't until after I got saved, and studied scripture for myself that I realized the truth. The fact that i believed in the Trinity did not make me a christian.

 

[watchman F]

I never said you are "good with me" (whatever that's supposed to mean). I only said that those who believe in the Trinity are Christian, those who don't are not, for the most part. I'm sure you can find some small sect out there that teaches the Trinity and also believes in some other freaky doctrines, but by and large, the Trinity is the dividing line. People who are in error on certain doctrines are still Christian, they just don't hold to all Truth.

You seem a little defensive, Watchman. Is it because your finding it difficult to give a definition of "Christian"? A little harder than it seems at first blush, huh? It's easy to throw around terms until someone asks for your definition.

I find it easy to define christianity, and my definition is way different than yours. No belief can make you a christian. True Christian are in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Your definition is very religious. I do not believe that ost religious christians are truly saved at all. That would include most calvinist. (and catholics)

 

[watchman F]

HAVE YOU NOT READ ROMANS 14?

Oh, just about 150-200 times, matter of fact I read the whole book of Romans yesterday.


I didn;t see anything in there about it being ok to promote false doctrine?????????

 

[watchman F]

Originally Posted by jasoncran
smaller, the limited atonement you preach is this.

only the predistened to salvation get it.

Not so jason. There is what Paul termed 'present election' in Romans 11.

Romans 11 has nothing at all to do with election. You might be thinking of Romans 9, however that is referring to the election of Israel as the nation that would produce Christ, not about individuals elected to Heaven or Hell, but I guess like a good Calvinit would you twist it to suit your agenda.

 

[smaller]

My point is that EVERYONE HERE thinks his position is the only fully Biblical one (myself included). To ask us to "provide scriptures to refute Calvinism at its core" has been done for centuries by many people. Refutations of Lutheranism, Catholicism, Baptists, etc. have also.

There are many 'good' refutations of Calvinism that do not revolve around Calvin, the man. Calvin's overall construct was imho, actually quite good and semi-sound reasoning, but missing a lot of components that make it a FALSE position. Not 'totally' false, just misled and NOT ALL encompassing. I certainly cannot FAULT the Calvinist or determinist for seeing the scripture sets that justify the position as they ARE there and they ARE accurate to a point. I also believe that the TULIP construct itself is quite brilliant. It just has MISSING components that make it JADED, not that the overall TULIP principles are FALSE, they are just not 'completely truthful.'

One of the best refutations of Calvinism is contained in Romans 11:25:32 where Paul shows us that ALL OF ISRAEL shall be saved, even the ENEMIES of the Gospel. I have debated vast numbers of Calvinists and determinists on this single matter and NONE of them seem to be able to address that scripture set and NONE of them seem to accept that ENEMIES OF THE GOSPEL are in fact BELOVED and SAVED. Many of them push this matter off to the 'future' but the tense Paul uses for ENEMIES is up to the present that Paul wrote that statement and the unbelievers PAST...inclusive of ALL OF ISRAEL. NONE of them seem to be able to acknowledge that ENEMIES of the Gospel are in fact THE BELOVED OF GOD for the sake of their fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Another fatal flaw (imho) is the FACT that ALL OF ISRAEL (believer and unbeliever alike) are openly taught in the O.T. to be GODS CHILDREN. This is believed by Jews to this day and taught in Deut. 14:1, Psalm 82:6, Mal. 2:10 and affirmed by Jesus in Matt. 23:9.

On this basis alone there is NO TOTAL DEPRAVITY as God cannot POSSIBLY have had TOTALLY DEPRAVED CHILDREN. Therefore the position DOESN'T COMPUTE as Calvin describes same.

Paul goes on to a SIMILAR deduction about ALL mankind being GODS offspring in Acts 17:28-29. So again, there are problems with TOTAL DEPRAVITY. It is not until we bring SATAN into the picture, being IN mankind do we see THE TRUEST picture of TOTAL DEPRAVITY. And at that point Total Depravity IS TRUE. We ALL know that it is the 'god of this world' that BLINDS MINDS to the Gospel, so THERE is a perfect picture of TOTAL DEPRAVITY when we see 'the god of this world' WITH mankind and NOT just 'mankind alone' because that can NOT possibly be TRUE.

So again, Calvin wasn't that far off, but he was off. Calvinism has no barriers for criticism erected in this direction yet, so the critiques are valid and they really have no answers for these issues. IF they examine the facts (briefly stated) herein they would change to accept the facts, God allowing, and would not have to step that far off their doctrinal track they already have.

I believe Romans 11:25-32 rips a big hole in a LOT of doctrines, particularly freewillism.

s

 

[smaller]

Romans 11 has nothing at all to do with election. You might be thinking of Romans 9,

Try reading it sometime and see that 'at the present time' GOD HAS A REMNANT. That is 'present election.' Paul elaborates on it quite sufficiently if you bother to read it.

Romans 11:
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Compare YOUR RED statement to Paul's statement and YOUR statement is FALSE.
It's that simple. Nothing about ELECTION?

lol and move ON.

however that is referring to the election of Israel as the nation that would produce Christ, not about individuals elected to Heaven or Hell, but I guess like a good Calvinit would you twist it to suit your agenda.

Paul solves the problem of unbelieving Israel also quite sufficiently. God PLACED a SPIRIT OF SLUMBER upon them, also in their present life so THEY COULD NOT BELIEVE, SEE OR HEAR. That too was DIVINE ELECTION to BLINDNESS and unbelief.

We see this IDENTICAL PRINCIPLE deployed by Paul in other scriptures, particularly in 2 Cor. 4:4 where the 'god of this world' is THE BLINDING PARTY. It is not difficult to see that the SPIRIT OF SLUMBER is in fact 'the god of this world.'

At this point you should also realize that ALL OF US were ONCE COVERED by that same blinding party. No, you were NOT alone in your "UN-belief." Nor were any of us.

Your intentions to INFLICT slurs rather than engage in DETAILED and REASONED discussions speaks VOLUMES for your underlying motives. I could say the same of MANY posters.

Look at the DATA in GODS WORDS and deal with same, and save the malarkey.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[smaller]

I find it easy to define christianity, and my definition is way different than yours. No belief can make you a christian. True Christian are in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Your definition is very religious. I do not believe that ost religious christians are truly saved at all. That would include most calvinist. (and catholics)

According to YOU Calvinist believers are NOT your brothers in faith.

I believe THEY ARE. Are you your brothers KEEPER or his KILLER?

Your bolded statement makes you your BROTHERS KILLER.

s

 

[Dennyh]

I could support Calvinism....my point is that its a disputable matter....Why can we judge one another

To refute Calvinism at its core is impossible- for its core is the Cross;)

No, the core of Calvinism is not the Cross, it is favortism. A Calvinist believes that he/she is chosen by God to be saved, and others are not chosen (or chosen not to be). In other words you believe God favors you over me(for example) because you were chosen and I wasn't. Calvin says you are better than me. Do you honestly believe you are better than me(in God's eyes)?

 

[Oats]

No, the core of Calvinism is not the Cross, it is favortism. A Calvinist believes that he/she is chosen by God to be saved, and others are not chosen (or chosen not to be). In other words you believe God favors you over me(for example) because you were chosen and I wasn't. Calvin says you are better than me. Do you honestly believe you are better than me(in God's eyes)?

I'm not going to argue...How much do you actually know about Calvinism....I could explain it to you but You think I'm ignorant....I'm presbytarian btw

 

[watchman F]

According to YOU Calvinist believers are NOT your brothers in faith.

I believe THEY ARE. Are you your brothers KEEPER or his KILLER?

Your bolded statement makes you your BROTHERS KILLER.

s

Seeing that someone is dead, and killing them are far from the same.

 

[smaller]

Seeing that someone is dead, and killing them are far from the same.

No, the hatred you carry is far worse. You are not satisfied with death, but seek to burn other believers alive in fire forever.

Yes, Grace and Truth has brought that HATRED to the surface IN believers for ALL to see.

s

 

[Dennyh]

I'm not going to argue...How much do you actually know about Calvinism....I could explain it to you but You think I'm ignorant....I'm presbytarian btw

Oats, I don't think you are ignorant at all. I have read several of your posts on these forums and can see that you love God and want to learn all you can bout Him.
However I do feell that you don't want to discuss my post because deep down you do feel that if you were chosen and I wasn't then you are favored over me(or at least been taught to believe that).
Again, your opinion is your opinion I don't have a problem with you having an opinion that differs from mine. What I have a problem with is people telling other people that they might have no chance at eternity with God. That is completely un-Biblical and out of God's character.

Try reading the entire New Testament with an open mind and you will see the error with Calvinism.

 

[Oats]

Oh, just about 150-200 times, matter of fact I read the whole book of Romans yesterday.


I didn;t see anything in there about it being ok to promote false doctrine?????????

How are the doctrines false?

 

[francisdesales]

Hello Dadof10 and JasonCran, and others,

This is your friendly neighborhood Calvinist... : ). I must admit chuckling at the ignorance in this thread. It is also so very interesting. Long ago, one heretic was burned in Geneova by the name of Michael Servitus. Oddly enough he was a non-trinitarian. How is that for irony? More on that later.

One of the problems with such discussions as found above is that few of you have any knowledge of history or biblical theology. i observe the misrepresentations and I often wonder who these Calvinists might be. Where are they? I certainly am not one of the Calvinists you talk about and neither are any of the Calvinists I know what you talk about. I know one of the greatest Calvinists face is that other protestants so commonly misrepresent Calvinist theology that non-Calvinists are only aware of the misrepresentations and caricatures of Calvinists. While that is certainly a powerful way to argue (to exaggerate or misrepresent the other side) it is dishonest. Unfortunately, it is about all most protestants do.

Lets just talk about history for a little. To associate modern day Calvinists with a historical definition of heresy could only be done as a modern day invention. In history, no protestant would have dreamed of saying such a thing. The only one who could honestly call me a heretic in the group above from a historical point of view would be Dadof10. And to him I express my thanks in his restraint. I am guessing he is aware of some of these things, but chose not to mention them. I find his restraint in good taste. It is true that a number of anathema's were pronounced upon protestants like me at Trent. Except for Dadof10, you so called protestants to suggest that I am a heretic could only be done through a massive lack of knowledge of history and biblical theology.

First, JWs are quite close to Arians. As Dadof10 hinted at, trinitarianism was defended in the early Church councils. JWs, Mormons, and other non-trinitarians are outside Orthodoxy because of Nicea, Chalcedon. Many protestants would be outside orthodoxy because of the 2nd Council of Orange. Anyone following the theology of the great evangelist named Charles Finney would be Pelagian, and outside orthodoxy. Can anyone point to any of the great ecumenical councils ( before Trent) and say that Calvinists are outside orthodoxy? Actually, no. In fact I would challenge you readers to look up the 2nd Council of Orange. The 2nd Council of Orange does not sound that different from the Synod of Dort. It sounds almost like a munch of Calvinists attacking Arminians. Who then is outside Orthodoxy?

I admit that Calvinists are a vast minority. I also admit that Calvinists stand apart from most protestants and Catholics in their understanding of the gospel. Most of today's protestants and Catholics have a common soteriology as opposed to Calvinists. In Calvinism the source of faith is not in humanity, but in God (God elects) and thus Calvinists do not have a theology of human merit in salvation. The division between the average arminian protestant and catholic is usually ecclesiology, or Mariology, but not soteriology. My point is that Calvinists are a minority even within protestantism, and certainly a minority in world "Christianity." That does not mean we are heretics. We are simply just a minority.

As for Calvin killing people... that one is a gross misrepresentation of history. The person that is the most common issue is the burning of Michael Servitus, as I mentioned above. I am not aware of any other executions that Calvin was involved in. Even then, it was not Calvin that burned him, it was the town Council in Geneova. Calvin's part was merely to pronounce him a heretic (as the pastor), and then to hand him over to the two council. If you read the account, Calvin risked his own life to travel to France and requested Servitus not come to Geneova. Servitus came anyway. Then Calvin spent many hours trying to convince Servitus that Modalism was error and heresy. Servitus refused. Calvin then requested of the town council a more humane form of execution then burning, the council refused. Calvin was a man of his own culture, his own times, and was part of a state Church. To call him a murderer is gross ignorance of the historical setting and historical events.

Well, enough for now. Good day all.

Hello Mondar,

I have chosen to remain out of this discussion, just following it; I am glad you responded, and am wondering if you get this sort of thing often. We Catholics get it a lot... For example, your idea that Catholics believe that the source of faith is man... And not many Protestants believe in infused (implying "done from above") righteousness. Hmmm.

One side note, however. At the 2nd Council of Orange, the concept of double predestination was utterly condemned. What is "modern-day" Calvinism towards this idea? How comfortable are the Calvinists you know about the slippery slope that can lead to "God created evil"? I am asking because you are in a better position to know this.

Regards