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

[handy]

Religious christians think that belasue their ''religion'' is cistianity they are saved. They have beliefs like, because their mother was a christian then they are, or because they were baptized or attend church they are a christian or because they are American they are a christian. This is religion ot relationship.

Now I am in agreement with this. There are many, of all denominations who are like this. I knew a pastor once, who gave up his ministry because he came to realize that, even though he was raised in a Christian home, baptized as a teen, and went through seminary, he wasn't saved.

But, as Francisdesales pointed out it can also happen that someone who decides that they have no need of the Body of Christ or "church" (not a biblical point-of-view) can also be steeped in fallacious beliefs rather than standing upon solid faith.

 

[Mike]

I believe they would be. However IMO it is much easier to tell who isn't a christian than to tell who is.

Matthew 7
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Not everyone tha claims christianity is a Chistian, not even everyone that one the outside seems like they are.

Watchman, I'm hoping you're not feeling ganged up on to the point that you feel you can't concede this stance you have. I'm not saying or suggesting you are, but I'm saying "if" you are. You ARE a Godly man, and you have much passion for your faith. :yes

But others who claim Jesus and have different interpretations of scripture, while still holding our core tenets, have righteous passion as well. And that reminds me of something Jesus said.

Mark 9
" 38"Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us." 39"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40for whoever is not against us is for us. 41I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward."

 

[francisdesales]

Joe, I have a problem with the whole "personal relationship with Jesus" thing as well. I don't see where the "personal relationship" is touted in the Scriptures as what separates the sheep from the goats.

Don't get me wrong, I know that we who believe in Him who was sent by the Father to die for us do indeed have a personal relationship with Him, but that is what grows from our belief and our obedience to His commandments. Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will obey My commandments." A personal relationship with God is a by-product of our belief and faith, not a replacement of it.

I do pray to the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power and intercession of the Holy Spirit and He listens and answers my prayers, speaks to me, mainly through His word, but also within my heart, and yes, I do have that "personal relationship" with God. But, that is not all there is to it. To say that we can jettison all doctrine not only is disobeying God, as His word tells us to be nourished by both faith and doctrine,(1 Tim 4:6) but opens us up to exactly what Paul warned the Ephesians about when he said that God gave us apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers to equip us so that we are not tossed around by every wind of doctrine. (Eph 4:11-16).

We do have personal relationship with God, but this cannot be at the expense of our relationship within the Body of Christ, whom we are to love as we love our own selves.

Agree. I have found that our relationship with God is absolutely dependent upon our relationship with others. It is clear to me that these are the teachings of the New Testament, and those who claim a "me and Jesus" relationship need to ensure that they work on the "me and my neighbor" relationship. For without the later, you don't have the former.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Actaully most reigious christians are the opposite of legalist. They think because they have a religion they are saved regardless of their actions.

Watchman,

Perhaps that is the type of Christians you deal with, but as a Catholic, I rarely run into such people among my fellow Catholics. It is the "legalists" that I encounter who are enamoured with doing this or that just so to prove they love God... Or it is the lackadaisical, but I suppose those types, the lukewarm, are everywhere.

Regards

 

[smaller]

Agree. I have found that our relationship with God is absolutely dependent upon our relationship with others. It is clear to me that these are the teachings of the New Testament, and those who claim a "me and Jesus" relationship need to ensure that they work on the "me and my neighbor" relationship. For without the later, you don't have the former.

Regards

Seldom would I give 2 kudos to the same poster in one thread...

You got some serious and legitimate spiritual traction in that fact.

Now if only that 'group' would stop terming outsiders as heretics condemned to the potential of hell, life would seem a little rosier at least between us.

Ah well. Love 'em anyway. And don't do what they do.

s

 

[francisdesales]

Seldom would I give 2 kudos to the same poster in one thread...

You got some serious and legitimate spiritual traction in that fact.

Now if only that 'group' would stop terming outsiders as heretics condemned to the potential of hell, life would seem a little rosier at least between us.

Ah well. Love 'em anyway. And don't do what they do.

s

I guess every 5000 posts or so, I am bound to say at least one thing worthy of a double kudos!

It would seem to be a Catch-22 on your sidebar. On the one hand, we are told to love and not condemn our fellow Christians. On the other hand, the Bible is pretty clear about condemning false teachers - to include those who were "Christian" in that they believed that Jesus was the Messiah and rose from the dead. These false teachers were at least at one time part of the community. They are treated harshly by Paul, John, Peter, James, and Jude. And of course, we see Paul excommunicating a fellow in 1 Cor 5 for scandalous BEHAVIOR... Other Scriptures tell us to separate ourselves from false teachers (excommunicate de facto...)

Now, it may appear "loveless" to withhold communion to a ravid "Catholic" abortionist or to condemn a false theology (such as double predestination), but the expression of the Truth is the motive and must be the motive - to win back the fellow to that Truth - since Love = Truth (remember who is the Way, TRUTH, and the Life?). Paradoxically, this is an expression of love, analogous to a parent correcting their teenage child who "knows everything already..."

So that is the position that "group" is in. Outsiders condemn that "group" no matter what they do, either too harsh or too lenient... Jesus told us we wouldn't win too many popularity contests among men.

Regards

 

[mondar]

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...?

The history of Hyper-Calvinist thinking can be searched by using wiki. However, if you want something that is talked about among Calvinists as a definition for hyper-Calvinism, many will use a small internet definition by Phil Johnson here A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism

While I am aware that there are Hyper-Calvinistic groups out there, I am not that familiar with them. Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism do not mix very well.

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.

I believe your first comment was that Orange has canons against double predestination (I assume you meant the kind of passive double predestination I have articulated). I assume that is what you are talking about when you say "the idea existed at least in the 6th century." That would be an interesting discussion.

As far as saying that there is any direct relationship between Hyper-Calvinism and Orange would be some sort of historical anachronism since Calvin lived in the 1500s and Hyper-Calvinists did not appear until the 1700s.

 

[smaller]

I guess every 5000 posts or so, I am bound to say at least one thing worthy of a double kudos!

It would seem to be a Catch-22 on your sidebar. On the one hand, we are told to love and not condemn our fellow Christians. On the other hand, the Bible is pretty clear about condemning false teachers - to include those who were "Christian" in that they believed that Jesus was the Messiah and rose from the dead. These false teachers were at least at one time part of the community. They are treated harshly by Paul, John, Peter, James, and Jude. And of course, we see Paul excommunicating a fellow in 1 Cor 5 for scandalous BEHAVIOR... Other Scriptures tell us to separate ourselves from false teachers (excommunicate de facto...)

Well, for the record I believe all of you are saved regardless of perfect doctrinal accuracy even if y'all are not allowed to see things that way....:yes

Jesus showed me this little known or used back door to Heaven, you know, the 'how you measure to others is how you will be measured.' I said, wow, that's not a bad way to go!

Then He said, yeah, remember that 'love your neighbor as yourself' command? I sez, yeah, He says, that really is the only thing that counts. If you got all the balance right and missed that one you are like, you know, nothing...inside...get it? I sez, wow, you mean that really IS true? Yep, sez He! ..and He says GO LOOK IT UP if you think I'm fibbin'! So, I looks them up and sure enuf, there it all was, black on white...He says, SEE! So we shook hands and then did the chicken dance. Well, maybe some of this was my 'personal relationship.'

Yeah, I adhere firmly to the TRINITY, but if I have to eat a condemnation meal to another over that Mystery, I have to say no to that groups insistence and a pass on that portion, as I don't see it as very healthy, you know, to the primary directives OR my heart.

s

 

[watchman F]

Now I am in agreement with this. There are many, of all denominations who are like this. I knew a pastor once, who gave up his ministry because he came to realize that, even though he was raised in a Christian home, baptized as a teen, and went through seminary, he wasn't saved.

But, as Francisdesales pointed out it can also happen that someone who decides that they have no need of the Body of Christ or "church" (not a biblical point-of-view) can also be steeped in fallacious beliefs rather than standing upon solid faith.

Well i do not think I have no need for ''church'' I attend a local pentecostal church, attend a house of prayer fashioned simular to IHOP in K.C., I attend a home church of very mature believers, and pastor a home church where I am teaching some that are in need of maturation, with the help of a few others that attend my home church who are mature. So I am constanly assembling with the body, not only to learn or to teach but to do both. I learn from those wiser than me, andtteach those less wise.

 

[watchman F]

Watchman, I'm hoping you're not feeling ganged up on to the point that you feel you can't concede this stance you have. I'm not saying or suggesting you are, but I'm saying "if" you are. You ARE a Godly man, and you have much passion for your faith. :yes

But others who claim Jesus and have different interpretations of scripture, while still holding our core tenets, have righteous passion as well. And that reminds me of something Jesus said.

I really do appreciate your kind approach. However as I stated before I just cannot believe someone who knows Jesus personally would believe what Calvinist teach.

 

[watchman F]

Well, for the record I believe all of you are saved regardless of perfect doctrinal accuracy even if y'all are not allowed to see things that way....:yes

Well none of us are 100% correct doctrinally. However there is certain things we just cannot believe about God. And Calvinism teaches many of those things. The God of Calvinism is a liar, a raptist, and a murderer. He is unjust, unmerciful, and unloving. I just do not get how someone who believes this way can be concidered a christian. That is just me. My God love us all, His mercies are renewed each day, and He is just, not partial, but will judge all men equally. This is the God of the bible. The God of Calvinism is no more the God of scripture than the Muslim god.

 

[smaller]

Well none of us are 100% correct doctrinally. However there is certain things we just cannot believe about God. And Calvinism teaches many of those things. The God of Calvinism is a liar, a raptist, and a murderer. He is unjust, unmerciful, and unloving.

Maybe you haven't read the Old Testament lately? Seriously. God did a LOT of things that people just can't seem to accept. I could list them as 'caused adultery, definitely and directly killed people (however you want to excuse it) and definitely created and used evil and lying spirits. I mean really. Let's face the music on matters of fact. Retributive EVIL by God is very much entrenched in the Old Testament, and let's not even TALK about Gods Involvement in the Death of His Own Sinless Son/Self...

I just do not get how someone who believes this way can be concidered a christian. That is just me.

Let me ask you this. IF you believe that all unbelievers end up in hell (notwithstanding your beliefs on who you term false believers) isn't HOW they got there secondary to the supposed FACT that they GET THERE? The 'basis' is secondary to the final result. Calvinists and Freewillers BOTH believe the identical people wind up in HELL, that being the unbelievers. What's the difference in how they get there if your bottom lines are identical, and THEY ARE identical.

My God love us all, His mercies are renewed each day, and He is just, not partial, but will judge all men equally. This is the God of the bible. The God of Calvinism is no more the God of scripture than the Muslim god.

Calvinists say that if God is just, then ALL are deserving of hell. Some are selectively spared. You believe no different again. The only difference is the selection process. You believe the potential damned decide for themselves and thereby avoid, and you don't have to BLAME GOD. They say God could have saved them IF He wanted to. I say the Calvinists are TRUE on this matter. God CAN do that IF He wants to.

I don't get the problem.

s

 

[Mike]

Watchman, I'm going to try another approach with you. If you had asked this in a PM, I wouldn't put this out here. But since you asked this in a public forum, I believe it's open to discuss. I believe a thread in the "Christian Talk & Advice" forum had gotten a bit off topic, and we somehow got to talking about the Trinity and how that nature of God captures Christianity. You asked another person if you weren't a Christian in her/his mind, because you reject the Trinity. I couldn't tell from your question if you were asking because you were angry, hurt, or otherwise, but you were clearly put off that you would not be considered a Christian.

This is what puzzles me about your hard stance on this position. You've been on the side of feeling you are wrongly being considered non-Christian, yet you're doing the same to people who read scripture in a different light than you do.

I can't get inside the mind of someone who holds to predestination, but I do see them defending their theology with a lot of scripture. Right or wrong, they've found a lot of scripture to defend their belief, and they see it differently.

 

[handy]

Well none of us are 100% correct doctrinally. However there is certain things we just cannot believe about God. And Calvinism teaches many of those things. The God of Calvinism is a liar, a raptist, and a murderer. He is unjust, unmerciful, and unloving. I just do not get how someone who believes this way can be concidered a christian. That is just me.

That's just it, it is just you. Just you that thinks that Calvinists believe all these horrible things about God. I was a member of a Calvinist church for years and lived with Calvinists for even longer. I promise you, none of them believe such things about God, not even remotely.

Watchman, honestly sweetie, I think you have fallen into error because you are believing a lie about what Calvinism even is.

Disagree with Calvinists, many people do, I do myself. But, at least disagree with what they actually teach, not bigoted prejudices about them.

 

[watchman F]

That's just it, it is just you. Just you that thinks that Calvinists believe all these horrible things about God. I was a member of a Calvinist church for years and lived with Calvinists for even longer. I promise you, none of them believe such things about God, not even remotely.

Watchman, honestly sweetie, I think you have fallen into error because you are believing a lie about what Calvinism even is.

Disagree with Calvinists, many people do, I do myself. But, at least disagree with what they actually teach, not bigoted prejudices about them.

It is what they teach that i disagree with. I disagree that He is partial, I disagree that He forces Himself on those He chooses, and I disagree that He creates other to be evil and then condemns them without the opportunity for Salvatin. Whether you believe those ''horrible'' things about God or not, it is what calvinism teaches. And that is why I oppose it, not simply because i think it is inccorect, but becasue of what it makes God out to be.

 

[watchman F]

Watchman, I'm going to try another approach with you. If you had asked this in a PM, I wouldn't put this out here. But since you asked this in a public forum, I believe it's open to discuss. I believe a thread in the "Christian Talk & Advice" forum had gotten a bit off topic, and we somehow got to talking about the Trinity and how that nature of God captures Christianity. You asked another person if you weren't a Christian in her/his mind, because you reject the Trinity. I couldn't tell from your question if you were asking because you were angry, hurt, or otherwise, but you were clearly put off that you would not be considered a Christian.

This is what puzzles me about your hard stance on this position. You've been on the side of feeling you are wrongly being considered non-Christian, yet you're doing the same to people who read scripture in a different light than you do.

I can't get inside the mind of someone who holds to predestination, but I do see them defending their theology with a lot of scripture. Right or wrong, they've found a lot of scripture to defend their belief, and they see it differently.

I understand what you are saying, and I appreciate your view. However this is where I believe the difference is in betweenclaiming a non trinitarian is not christian, and why I question why calvinism is accpeted within Christianity.

Whether someone believe Jesus is God the Son 1/3 of the Trinity, or God the Father incarnate (as I do) or The son of God, none of these views makes God evil. I believe that the predestination, and limited attonement teaching of Cavinism makes God out to be partial and evil.

So it is not just a doctirinal difference but the inference tha God is evil that makes me question why calvinism is concidered a christian doctrine.

P.S. Let me state that I do not question the heart of all calvinist, just the doctrine they adhere to.

 

[Free]

The ''religion'' of christianity is just as bad as any other religion. It produces hypocrites that have no idea of their need for repentants that will one day wake up in Hell to realize Jesus never knew them.

Irrelevant to whether or not Christianity is a religion.

True Christianity is NOT a religion.

Yes, it is. Since you have yet to address the definition of religion I provided from Merriam-Webster, I would appreciate it if you would show me which part of this definition cannot be applied to Christianity:

Definition of RELIGION
1
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

 

[watchman F]

Originally Posted by watchman F
True Christianity is NOT a religion.

IYes, it is.

No it is not

 

[francisdesales]

Yeah, I adhere firmly to the TRINITY, but if I have to eat a condemnation meal to another over that Mystery, I have to say no to that groups insistence and a pass on that portion, as I don't see it as very healthy, you know, to the primary directives OR my heart.

s

I think it would be more proper to condemn a teaching - and those who reject religious authority on such matters are in danger of rejecting Him Who taught the Apostles...

He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. Luke 10:16

I know this sounds "harsh" to those who worship at the throne of relativism, where "I'm OK and you're OK and what I believe is true and what you believe is true", all for the politically correct pundits out there, but Christ wants us to know truth. Jesus came - knowing full well that as a result, father would hate son, mother would turn against daughter, and so forth...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

The history of Hyper-Calvinist thinking can be searched by using wiki. However, if you want something that is talked about among Calvinists as a definition for hyper-Calvinism, many will use a small internet definition by Phil Johnson here A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism

While I am aware that there are Hyper-Calvinistic groups out there, I am not that familiar with them. Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism do not mix very well.



I believe your first comment was that Orange has canons against double predestination (I assume you meant the kind of passive double predestination I have articulated). I assume that is what you are talking about when you say "the idea existed at least in the 6th century." That would be an interesting discussion.

As far as saying that there is any direct relationship between Hyper-Calvinism and Orange would be some sort of historical anachronism since Calvin lived in the 1500s and Hyper-Calvinists did not appear until the 1700s.

Mondar,

Thanks for the link. I don't find anything there about "double predestination", so I cannot tell whether that is a "hyper Calvin" notion or whether it is a "Calvinist" notion supported by all Calvinists (generally). My initial side note was on double predestination and you mention hyper Calvinism, but I don't see this distinction made by the article you cite. From my limited knowledge of Calvinism, double predestination was a teaching of original Calvinism, not some "hyper-Calvinism" that later developed... And indeed, it appears that double predestination is a major issue with some Christians here who look down upon Calvinism.

Luther having denied the freedom of the will in sinful man as also freedom in the use of grace, logically placed the eternal destiny of the individual solely and entirely in the hands of God, who without any regard to merit or demerit metes out heaven or hell just as He pleases. Zwingli endeavoured to obviate the grave consequences that this principle necessarily produces in the moral order by the vain excuse that "just as God incited the robber to commit murder, so also He forces the judge to impose the penalty of death on the murderer" (De provid. Dei, in "Opera" ed. Schuler, IV, 113). Melanchthon taught expressly that the treason of Judas was just as much the work of God as was the vocation of St. Paul (cf. Trident., Sess. VI, can. vi, in Denzinger, n. 816). Calvin is the most logical advocate of Predestinarianism pure and simple. Absolute and positive predestination of the elect for eternal life, as well as of the reprobate for hell and for sin, is one of the chief elements of his whole doctrinal system and is closely connected with the all-pervading thought of "the glory of God". Strongly religious by nature and with an instinct for systematizing, but also with a harsh unyielding character, Calvin was the first to weave the scattered threads which he thought he had found in St. Paul, St. Augustine, Wyclif, Luther, and Bucer, into a strong network which enveloped his entire system of practical and theoretical Christianity. Thus he became in fact the systematizer of the dread doctrine of predestination. Although Calvin does not deny that man had free will in paradise, still he traces back the fall of Adam to an absolute and positive decree of God (Instit., I, 15, 8; III, 23, 8).

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Predestinarianism

This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia on Predestinarianism. A lot is said on tracing the origins of the heresy in the West to the era of Augustine. It appears that Luther's teachings lead to the idea, but Calvin positively taught it.

Regards