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

[watchman F]

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

Hatred? now you have falsely accused me. I hate no one, and long for them to come into the truth of God's word and in a saving faith. Religion poisons their minds, and keeps them from a relationship with their creator. I weep for them, not hate them.

 

[watchman F]

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.

Very well stated

 

[stovebolts]

To whome it applies...

http://www.christianforums.net/f15/terms-service-updated-oct-12-2009-a-1332/
5 - Respect each others' opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities.

6 - No Bashing of other members. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.

7 - Any personal problems with another member, then deal with it through private messages.

Please see this as a friendly reminder to take this time to aquaint yourself with our Terms of Service.

If anyone feels they cannot stay within these boundries by way of restraint etc, then please also know that after 3 warnings, your account could be put on suspension.

The next violation I see in this, or any newer posts, an official infraction will be issued.

Thank you.

 

[mondar]

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.

My mistake. I do know better then that. It was a slip up on my part. For the record, Catholics do believe in a universal prevenient work of grace that preceeds faith. So then, Catholics would accept a position that includes a greater concept of grace then many Pelagian protestant groups. I would define the differences in this way....., the Calvinists would speak of the sufficiency of Grace, the Catholic would speak of the necessity of Grace, and many non-Calvinists protestants would not even recognize the need for prevenient grace at all. So it would be many non-Calvinist protestants that would believe man is the source of faith. Fair?

Concerning protestant attitudes toward Calvinists.... Most protestant literature that addresses Calvinism is usually of the same mentality that a Jack Chick tract would be used with Catholics. Do you know what I am saying?

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

I would like to explore the concept of double predestination and the 2nd Council of Orange. Is this the place?

Concerning Calvinism being the "slippery slope" that leads to "God created evil" .... I have heard of a few people that would teach such a doctrine, but they would not be Calvinists. There are "hyper-Calvinist" Churches. I am aware of them, but I do not know that much about them. They are not considered Calvinist by other Calvinists. Calvinists might be quick to ignore issues such as infant or adult baptism, some eschatology things are no considered that important, but the nature of God (being the primary force in creating evil) would not be tolerated among any Calvinists that I know. Most Calvinists would consider that heresy.

Francis, I should also say, that while I am a self admitted Calvinist, I have not been one for that long, only a few years. I am aware of other Calvinists that have been in presbyterian, reformed baptist, or other Calvinist groups a lot longer then me. You might want to open some of your questions to others more then me.

 

[Oats]

My mistake. I do know better then that. It was a slip up on my part. For the record, Catholics do believe in a universal prevenient work of grace that preceeds faith. So then, Catholics would accept a position that includes a greater concept of grace then many Pelagian protestant groups. I would define the differences in this way....., the Calvinists would speak of the sufficiency of Grace, the Catholic would speak of the necessity of Grace, and many non-Calvinists protestants would not even recognize the need for prevenient grace at all. So it would be many non-Calvinist protestants that would believe man is the source of faith. Fair?

Concerning protestant attitudes toward Calvinists.... Most protestant literature that addresses Calvinism is usually of the same mentality that a Jack Chick tract would be used with Catholics. Do you know what I am saying?


I would like to explore the concept of double predestination and the 2nd Council of Orange. Is this the place?

Concerning Calvinism being the "slippery slope" that leads to "God created evil" .... I have heard of a few people that would teach such a doctrine, but they would not be Calvinists. There are "hyper-Calvinist" Churches. I am aware of them, but I do not know that much about them. They are not considered Calvinist by other Calvinists. Calvinists might be quick to ignore issues such as infant or adult baptism, some eschatology things are no considered that important, but the nature of God (being the primary force in creating evil) would not be tolerated among any Calvinists that I know. Most Calvinists would consider that heresy.

Francis, I should also say, that while I am a self admitted Calvinist, I have not been one for that long, only a few years. I am aware of other Calvinists that have been in presbyterian, reformed baptist, or other Calvinist groups a lot longer then me. You might want to open some of your questions to others more then me.

Yup I attend a reformed church...

You sir are correct

 

[smaller]

Hatred? now you have falsely accused me. I hate no one, and long for them to come into the truth of God's word and in a saving faith.

Well, please clarify if you will?

Do you seriously believe NO CALVINIST is 'saved?' Simple question.

Religion poisons their minds, and keeps them from a relationship with their creator. I weep for them, not hate them.

All of us see only in part. I can't hold Calvinist positions against them because they ARE THERE to be seen and handled. Certainly can't condemn a believer for what they see and what is there to see.

s

 

[handy]

It's like a painting.

We all get the main purpose or idea of the painting because it is pretty obvious, but we fret and have different views of the nuances of the painting. No two people look at a painting the same way. The only way to know that the painting really and truly meant was to go to the painter.

The Bible is the same way. We all get the main purpose and idea because it is obvious and in your face. Christians get tangled up in the nuances of the Bible. The minor little things and then we damn one another and claim they do not believe in Christ (un-Christian) because they do not agree with us to the t.

Watchman, I am directing this at you, but it is a general statement that I have noticed lately here and elsewhere and it has just been rubbing me the wrong way.

Safe condemnation until you can personally ask the Big Man up in Heaven. Let Him be the final say, not yourself.

I agree, Pard. Threads like this only serve to show how easily the enemy can spread disunity within the brethren. We should all show humility towards one another in our differences. The One, and only One, who fully understands all of these nuances is God, and His commandment is that we love one another.

Concerning Calvinism being the "slippery slope" that leads to "God created evil" .... I have heard of a few people that would teach such a doctrine, but they would not be Calvinists. There are "hyper-Calvinist" Churches. I am aware of them, but I do not know that much about them. They are not considered Calvinist by other Calvinists. Calvinists might be quick to ignore issues such as infant or adult baptism, some eschatology things are no considered that important, but the nature of God (being the primary force in creating evil) would not be tolerated among any Calvinists that I know. Most Calvinists would consider that heresy.

This is my experience as well. Too often, the folks that revile Calvinists, are folks who have never actually studied what a Calvinist would have to say, but rather what others say that Calvinists say, which is by no means the same thing. And mostly, what others do with Calvinism is take a hyper-Calvinist view and then set a straw man up with it and knock it down as un-Christian.

I had the same sort of experience myself, whilst a member of the OPC, towards Catholicism. I knew I was Protestant, but had very little knowledge of Roman Catholic doctrines. Studying under the Calvinists, I came to the conclusion about Catholics that Watchman seems to have come to about Calvinists, that they couldn't possibly even be Christians.

Then the OPC sent me to Ireland to be a witness to the good Catholics of that country and help build a "true" church of Christ there. Once I got there, I was more than a little surprised to find that the "true" church of Christ, those bonded together by their common faith in Christ, Him crucified for our sins and resurrected, fellowshiped together irregardless of which church they attended. The small "true" Christian community was made up of Calvinists, Baptists, Pentecostals and Catholics. These were true believers in Christ, something rather rare in Dublin. The Catholics were as fully embraced as brothers in the Lord as everyone else. Too often, in Ireland, religion is totally divorced from faith, being far more political in nature. For the faithful, fellowship was just too sweet to divide over non-essentials.

After coming back from Ireland, and after a few changed in my life, I found myself in a Nazarene church where I learned many folks had the same view of Calvinist churches as the Calvinists had towards the Catholics.

That's when I began to smell a rat, and that rat's name is Satan. Satan loves to divide us, and he is especially good at it here in America where there is a different denomination on practically every street, each preaching some variation of the "we're the ones who have it right, everyone else is wrong" mind set.

That mind set is wrong. The mind set we should have is expressed by Paul in his letter to the Romans:

Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus; that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Wherefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God. (Rom 15:5)

I am not saying that the differences that divide us are not important and are not worthy of taking stands. But, while we take stands on important points of doctrine, we should always recognize that just because someone disagrees with us, that doesn't mean he isn't a brother in Christ.

 

[dadof10]

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.

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)

So, it's "absolutely ridiculous" and "very religious" to define someone as a Christian by the DOCTRINES THEY HOLD, yet somehow OK to define a person as a Christian because they CLAIM to have a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ"?? You must be kidding???

Do I even have to point out the obviously convoluted here? Yes, I do.

1) You have been railing against Calvinists because of their BELIEFS for 6 pages now. Not once have you said they are not Christian because of they lack a "relationship with Christ". Which is it, their doctrines or their lack of a "relationship", that makes them not Christian?

2) Do you really think that Calvinist theology as a whole somehow PROHIBITS this relationship? If so, please show where they teach this.

3) You are simply CLAIMING to have a relationship with Christ and ASSUMING that, because of their BELIEFS, Calvinists DON'T.

4) I'm positive Mondar has a "relationship with Christ". So does James White, Hank Hanegraaf (sp?) and every other Calvinist I have either met personally or heard speak. I know DOZENS of Catholics (including myself and my wife) who have a very strong relationship with Christ. You are not insinuating we are all lying or duped, are you?

5) To say the above simply begs the question. What do you consider a "relationship with Christ", and how is it that YOU have one and Calvinists, JW's, Mormons and Catholics don't, EVEN IF WE CLAIM TO?

6) Finally, you are getting into the dangerous area of judging others personal relationships. It's proper to judge DOCTRINES, but not people's feelings toward one another, especially their relationship with Christ.

 

[dadof10]

There are many 'good' refutations of Calvinism that do not revolve around Calvin, the man.

Right, those are the refutations I'm talking about. Not the sensational, he said/she said garbage. This is the A&T forum, not the "Who Killed Who And Which Side Has Shown More Mercy" forum

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.'

I have to disagree. I see some isolated points as somewhat viable, but the conclusion (which is the most important) is absolutely horrible.

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.

According to your subjective reading of Scripture. As I said to Jason, the main problem isn't Calvinism or Lutheranism or any other denomination, the problem is the main driving (false, non-Biblical) doctrine of sola-Scriptura. Calvinists find TULIP within it, dissenters find refutations of TULIP.

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.

Possibly, if they there are arguments that have "no barriers" yet. There could be an argument that brings the whole house down, for most, anyway. Whether this is it or not, I'll leave up to you.

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

You do or don't believe Man has a free will?

 

[dadof10]

I would like to explore the concept of double predestination and the 2nd Council of Orange. Is this the place?

Concerning Calvinism being the "slippery slope" that leads to "God created evil" .... I have heard of a few people that would teach such a doctrine, but they would not be Calvinists. There are "hyper-Calvinist" Churches. I am aware of them, but I do not know that much about them. They are not considered Calvinist by other Calvinists. Calvinists might be quick to ignore issues such as infant or adult baptism, some eschatology things are no considered that important, but the nature of God (being the primary force in creating evil) would not be tolerated among any Calvinists that I know. Most Calvinists would consider that heresy.

I would like to discuss DP more deeply also. We were in the middle of a discussion on the other thread when it got shut down (which might happen here before too long) .

How do you reconcile these two points:

1) God actively creates us.
2) God creates some (most?) for Hell.
3) There is nothing they or anyone else (not even Jesus) can do about it.

I don't see a way out of the facts that:

1) God creates evil people.
2) This arrangement is not just or merciful to the people He creates, two traits of God.

 

[smaller]

I have to disagree. I see some isolated points as somewhat viable, but the conclusion (which is the most important) is absolutely horrible.

Maybe you're not following the drift? Total Depravity is true the instant we connect the DEVIL to SIN in MAN. At that point of fact we see 'who' is really really Totally Depraved, and it's NOT man. That's how close the view is however. Just one missing component and it fits perfectly.

According to your subjective reading of Scripture.

You are welcome to respond with specifics. I can't read yer mind.

Possibly, if they there are arguments that have "no barriers" yet. There could be an argument that brings the whole house down, for most, anyway. Whether this is it or not, I'll leave up to you.

It was actually in the study of some of the prior points I put out in posts back in this thread that brought down the Calvin understanding for me (the making people solely for hell parts.) I was quite set on the determinations prior, but they just didn't hold up across the board. I remain a great admirer of many of their spokes people present and past. L. Sperry Chaefer was a great expositor of unconditional Grace who convinced me of OSAS from his writings on those scripture sets. Hats off to him.

You do or don't believe Man has a free will?

No on multiple counts. Primarily I cannot 'rule out' either God or the devil from the will of mankind. And the will of man is certainly 'less free' than Gods, although I've had freewillers tell me otherwise, that their will is MORE free than Gods!

I say, why trade it in in that case...

For the record I believe Calvinists are believers and I accord their faith the respect it is due notwithstanding pressing on the positions. The main objection MOST other believers have is that we disagree on Gods making unbelieving people for the sole reason of burning them alive forever for His supposed Glory, including children no less. Yes, that does remain more than a tad bit repulsive. Personally revolting for me actually. That sole fact really sticks in the craw of most loving hearts and it should.

Loving our (unsaved) neighbors as ourselves and then calling them totally depraved and made solely for the purpose of being bound for eternal torture doesn't seem to line up real well with loving them for some strange reason....
:o :shocked!:crazy

Apparently that's glorious in some eyes. So be it. I may say that Divine Sovereignty sent Calvinists in this matter in an opposite direction than LOVE. But hey, what do I know. That's just me applying simple human logic as opposed to ? Does that make us kinder than God?

Maybe so. I hope not!

s

s

 

[francisdesales]

My mistake. I do know better then that. It was a slip up on my part. For the record, Catholics do believe in a universal prevenient work of grace that preceeds faith. So then, Catholics would accept a position that includes a greater concept of grace then many Pelagian protestant groups. I would define the differences in this way....., the Calvinists would speak of the sufficiency of Grace, the Catholic would speak of the necessity of Grace, and many non-Calvinists protestants would not even recognize the need for prevenient grace at all. So it would be many non-Calvinist protestants that would believe man is the source of faith. Fair?

Well, we believe in the sufficiency of Grace, but "sufficiency" would include any secondary cause/response that I would be a part of - responding to God's grace is a grace in of itself (paraphrasing Augustine). I would say Catholics are closer theologically to the Calvinistic position than the Pelagian position - for example, my signature line from St. Francis de Sales, who takes more lax view on this subject than Calvin did.

Overall, your follow up is much better.

Concerning protestant attitudes toward Calvinists.... Most protestant literature that addresses Calvinism is usually of the same mentality that a Jack Chick tract would be used with Catholics. Do you know what I am saying?

Unfortunately, yes...

I would like to explore the concept of double predestination and the 2nd Council of Orange. Is this the place?

I don't know, it seems there are more people that would rather talk about whether Calvinists are Christians. I disagree with that idea, but the topic seems to favor that discussion rather than double predestination. The question, of course, is whether some are predestined to evil by divine power, which Catholic teachings have never (as far as I know) even suggest.

It is a pernicious doctrine, but does not make a person "non-Christian", to remain on topic...

Concerning Calvinism being the "slippery slope" that leads to "God created evil" .... I have heard of a few people that would teach such a doctrine, but they would not be Calvinists. There are "hyper-Calvinist" Churches.

I would like to know, from an insider, more about how "hyper-Calvinism" came to be. It is my understanding that this was Calvin's original theology and only later did it "mellow". Perhaps you could instruct me if I am incorrect. It is an unfortunate slippery slope because it changes the Christian view of Who God is from one of Love to Something Other. But who can know the mind of God...?

I am aware of them, but I do not know that much about them. They are not considered Calvinist by other Calvinists. Calvinists might be quick to ignore issues such as infant or adult baptism, some eschatology things are no considered that important, but the nature of God (being the primary force in creating evil) would not be tolerated among any Calvinists that I know. Most Calvinists would consider that heresy.

Again, it would be interesting to hear which Calvinists took on this "hyper" view. Apparently, the idea existed at least in the 6th century for Orange to refute it specifically.

Francis, I should also say, that while I am a self admitted Calvinist, I have not been one for that long, only a few years. I am aware of other Calvinists that have been in presbyterian, reformed baptist, or other Calvinist groups a lot longer then me. You might want to open some of your questions to others more then me.

That's OK, whatever you can say will be appreciated.

Regards

 

[mondar]

I would like to discuss DP more deeply also. We were in the middle of a discussion on the other thread when it got shut down (which might happen here before too long) .

How do you reconcile these two points:

1) God actively creates us.
2) God creates some (most?) for Hell.
3) There is nothing they or anyone else (not even Jesus) can do about it.

I don't see a way out of the facts that:

1) God creates evil people.
2) This arrangement is not just or merciful to the people He creates, two traits of God.

I want to give three answers... phlosophy, theology, and exegesis.

PHILOSOPHY
I am not good at philsosophy, but here goes.

I would differentiate between "ex nehilo" (out of nothing) and secondary creation. God created Adam and Eve, we are the offspring of that creation. So then, when God made the creation, as Genesis says, he created all things good. That does not mean that all creation was unchangeable.

However, let me add this.... I don't think we see creation the same way God does. We live in time, and time is very linear to us. God sees all instants at the same time (so to speak). So then, God does not really look into the future to see what is going to happen, but rather, he is already there. When God created Adam, Eve (and Satan), he was already present at the fall. He created them good, but created them to rebel against that good creation, and created them for the purpose of their fall. The fall was predestined when God choose to create Adam.

The only other consistent view (as I see it) would be Open Theism. In that view God is not in the future, but God is a part of time and only functions on a linear basis. God does then not know the future free will decisions of men. That view has no entanglement with the issues you bring up. The problem here is that the omnipotence of God is denied in that he does not have the ability to foreknow free will decisions.

I am aware that many people want to find a middle ground, but anytime you have a God with foreknowledge you have a God foreknowing that he is creating a future monster in Adam who will need redeemed. Even if God did not predestine Adam to fall, it does not get you around the problem.

THEOLOGY
Here you get into different Calvinist views. It is called "Supralapsarianism" and "Infralapsarianism." In one view, God predestines things before the fall, and the other view God predestines things after the fall. Both are Calvinist positions. If you read what I said above, I lean more toward supralapsaranism. I think the majority Calvinist position is infralapsarian (predestination after the fall).

EXEGESIS
Now let me say that there are exegetical reasons to believe in the predestination of evil. Romans 9 clearly says that he created some as a pot fit for destruction. John 12 and several passages talk about the hardening of the heart. Also, in Romans 9 Paul specifically uses the hardening of Pharaoh's heart as an example.

IMO, Romans 9 is a key passage.

Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.
Rom 9:18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.

Notice how double predestination works. In this passage did God make Pharaoh evil? There is no mention of God making Pharaoh evil in the passage. Why would he? Pharaoh was already evil. Notice the action God did to "hardeneth" Pharaoh's heart. He did "raise thee up." God put Pharaoh in power in one of the most powerful nations on earth at that time and gave him unrestricted authority over his Egyptian empire. Pharaoh could fulfill all his own lusts, all his evil desires. His rebellion against God could run a complete course. God could have had him born in Alaska or Siberia where not so much opportunity for evil and rebellion would be. Why did God hand Egypt over to this man? So that he could harden his heart.

Lets jump to a different text... Romans 1.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves:
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:28 And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

Of course the key phrase is "God gave them up." The idea is that God protects some and keeps them from sinning (Remember how God kept Abimelech from sinning against Abraham?) and others he does not restrain. With some, he pulls his hand of protection away from them, and this hardens their hearts.

So God gave Pharaoh over to his sinful nature to exercise his sinful nature to a greater extent then he did Abimelech.

Does God choose to make some more sinful then others? And he acts upon his sovereign choice by not restraining some from sin, and by restraining others.

God predestines men to be sinners by his own sovereign choice, but he does not participate in their sin.

CONCLUSIONS

1) God actively creates us.
* No, he actively creates Adam and passively created Adams offspring by procreaton

2) God creates some (most?) for Hell.
* No, all are bound for hell and a part of Adams rebellion.

3) There is nothing they or anyone else (not even Jesus) can do about it.
* Arg!*! Of course Jesus can do something about it, that is called the atonement. The cross work of Christ saves to the uttermost all who are under the cross. But I would agree there is nothing we can do about it. If Christ gives us faith, we will be saved.

I don't see a way out of the facts that:

1) God creates evil people.
* I assume you do not mean God created Adam evil, but that he created Adam good, but with the idea that Adam fall from that good. Also, that Adams offspring would be "in Adam" at his fall (original sin).

2) This arrangement is not just or merciful to the people He creates, two traits of God.
* I would disagree, the arrangement is just for those he judges, and merciful for those to whom he gives grace. So then, both the justice and the mercy of God is manifest in history for his glory.

***I would agree that the Calvinistic doctrine of double predestination is the most unnatural doctrine that one could believe. I am fully aware that it will be a hated doctrine. Man becomes so small in the doctrine of double predestination. I do not expect many to believe it because of its unnaturalness. But then most things of God are foolishness to the natural man.

 

[watchman F]

Originally Posted by watchman F
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.
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 most religious christians are truly saved at all. That would include most calvinist. (and catholics)

So, it's "absolutely ridiculous" and "very religious" to define someone as a Christian by the DOCTRINES THEY HOLD, yet somehow OK to define a person as a Christian because they CLAIM to have a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ"?? You must be kidding???

Do I even have to point out the obviously convoluted here? Yes, I do.

1) You have been railing against Calvinists because of their BELIEFS for 6 pages now. Not once have you said they are not Christian because of they lack a "relationship with Christ". Which is it, their doctrines or their lack of a "relationship", that makes them not Christian?

2) Do you really think that Calvinist theology as a whole somehow PROHIBITS this relationship? If so, please show where they teach this.

3) You are simply CLAIMING to have a relationship with Christ and ASSUMING that, because of their BELIEFS, Calvinists DON'T.

4) I'm positive Mondar has a "relationship with Christ". So does James White, Hank Hanegraaf (sp?) and every other Calvinist I have either met personally or heard speak. I know DOZENS of Catholics (including myself and my wife) who have a very strong relationship with Christ. You are not insinuating we are all lying or duped, are you?

5) To say the above simply begs the question. What do you consider a "relationship with Christ", and how is it that YOU have one and Calvinists, JW's, Mormons and Catholics don't, EVEN IF WE CLAIM TO?

6) Finally, you are getting into the dangerous area of judging others personal relationships. It's proper to judge DOCTRINES, but not people's feelings toward one another, especially their relationship with Christ.

Quite a little rant you went on. However you must not have read my post. I never said no catholic or cavinist are christians. I said most are not because they have religion not relationshi. Furthermore I said believing in the Trinity is not what saved you, but faith in Christ does.


P.s. I simply cannot believe that someone who has an intimate relationship with Jesus can believe the thing that Calvinism teaches about God.

 

[jasoncran]

some of the most ardent defenders of the faith here are the catholics and the calvinists here on the forum. i love hissheeps testimony.

a creationist sight uses the the calvinist rc sprouls for biblical questions and answers. ever heard of answers in genesis?

 

[Free]

I never said no catholic or cavinist are christians. I said most are not because they have religion not relationshi. Furthermore I said believing in the Trinity is not what saved you, but faith in Christ does.

A couple of things: 1. Christianity is a religion, and 2. to say "faith in Christ is what saves" merely begs the questions of just who is the Christ and what does "faith in Christ" fully entail?

To answer your opening question, JWs and Mormons are not considered Christian because they do not adhere to the central doctrines which define Christianity, which, afaik, Calvinists do.



Everyone else,

Please stop the debate about Calvinism and stick to the OP.

 

[watchman F]

A couple of things: 1. Christianity is a religion, and 2. to say "faith in Christ is what saves" merely begs the questions of just who is the Christ and what does "faith in Christ" fully entail?

To answer your opening question, JWs and Mormons are not considered Christian because they do not adhere to the central doctrines which define Christianity, which, afaik, Calvinists do.



Everyone else,

Please stop the debate about Calvinism and stick to the OP.

The christianity I practice is not a religion. Although I do realize to most it is nothing more than a religion to them.

 

[Free]

The christianity I practice is not a religion. Although I do realize to most it is nothing more than a religion to them.

For some reason this is a common saying in Evangelicalism, at least in some circles, but is completely lacking in reason. Christianity is, by definition, a religion. There is no getting around that.

 

[handy]

Watchman, as someone who was a member of a Calvinist church and whose Dad, Grandfather and Grandmother died firm in their Calvinistic doctrines, I can assure you that Calvinists most definitely have solid relationships with Christ.

My dad died a couple of years ago, and it was an amazing journey to watch how a man of God lets go of his life here on earth and readies himself for the next chapter. Even when the cancer was so bad, he was no longer able to sit up, the pastor of his church would come and Dad would still fulfill his duties as an elder of the church, literally from his death bed. He trusted God implicitly in every facet of his life, even to his death. My grandfather was very much the same way. I remember the night my grandfather held my grandmother as she slipped from this world to the Lord. Grandpa was strong and calm. Then later at their home, when it was just him, my mom and myself, he started to cry. As the grief washed over him, he just kept repeating, "Abba, Abba". Not have a relationship with the Lord? Of course he did!

Now my grandma, she too had a relationship with Christ that lasted her life. I remember about a month before she died, it was just after Christmas. She could no longer eat real food anymore, she the greatest cook ever. She could no longer read or do knitting or needlework, as she was blind. She could no longer walk and she could no longer hear unless you spoke right into her ear. I knelt on the floor beside her and let her know I was there. She touched my face, I think to truly make sure it was me. When she was sure it was me, she smiled this really big smile. Later, she said to me, "I'm ready to go home. I'm ready to be with the Lord now. I'm done with this body and I'm done with this life. I know Jesus will come for me in His good time, but I'm ready whenever He is." She was completely at peace in the Lord.

To this day, some of the strongest Christians I know are Calvinists.

It's easy to stand on the outside of something that you don't fully understand and make judgments. I know this might sound crazy to you, but you just might want to take some time to actually develop some real relationships with some folks who are Calvinists. Pray with them, listen how they interact with the Lord. It will help you over this very real misapprehension you have that Calvinists do not have a relationship with God.

I did eventually leave the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Calvinistic doctrine, but I have not nor will I ever doubt the faith of those there or their very real relationship with God.

 

[francisdesales]

The christianity I practice is not a religion. Although I do realize to most it is nothing more than a religion to them.

Are you familiar with the term "religion"? It sounds like you have changed the definition of "lifting up the heart and mind to God" to something derogatory. Feel free to look up the word in the dictionary and correct me, if I am mistaken. I believe James defines what religion is, and it is NOT derogatory.

Regards