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

[mondar]

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.

OK, well, most classic Calvinists will teach something very similar or identical to what I believe. Classic Calvinists believe in a passive double predestination.

Let me again define what I mean by the term passive double predestination. Something that is commonly misunderstood about Calvinists is that we do not believe the predestination of the elect and the predestination of the reprobate are equal. God is active in the predestination of the elect for righteousness, but he is not active in the same way with the predestination of the reprobate. In the predestination of the reprobate (double predestination) I am saying that while God did not really do anything, but he intended for sin and rebellion to happen. He is not the primary cause of any sin. Man bears the responsibility of Original Sin when we were all in Adam (most Calvinists are of course big on Original Sin). On the other hand, no Calvinist thinks that the rebellion of man caught God by surprise, and that God could have restrained sin, but did not. So then, God chooses. God chooses to restrain sin at times, but at times refuses to restrain sin and allows the process of the hardening of the heart to happen. He at times chooses to allow sin and judge it, and at times chooses to restrain sin and show grace.

(That is the whole point of Pauls quote of Exodus in Romans 9:14-------------------------------
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
and Romans 9:18--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

All classic Calvinists that I know of believe in something similar to what I am calling passive double predestination. This is true in history, and is also true today. As for Hyper-Calvinism, I am not sure but I think some of them believe in active predestination. But of course I don't think that is correct exegetically.

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

If I can focus on one part of the quote above.....
"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"."

The CE is correct in mentioning that Calvin, and Calvinists believe in the positive predestination of the elect for Eternal life. However, while most (or all) Calvinists believe in both predestination of the elect and reprobate, they do not see the mechanisms of those predestinations as equal. As I have been stressing, God is passive in reprobation. Since Calvinists believe mankind as evil after the fall, and incapable of pleasing God, for God to reprobate man, he needs merely to do.... nothing. That is certainly not equal to the predestination of the elect where God is active in saving man.

There are a few other Calvinists floating around, you really should also get their opinions.

 

[smaller]

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...

Yeah, that is kinda the point. But the later goes too far for me. At that point the IMPERFECT measure of mens determinations becomes a potential damnation instrument between the adherent and the non-accepter. That methodology is both primitive and blunt. It also takes one OFF the primary directives and puts ones self in jeopardy. (Romans 2:1)

We are not saved by 'proper doctrines.' Heart matters are vastly more important. When the intellectuals came to the church, they took control by intellect and remain there, beating their victims into submissions. (of course imho)

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

The Gospel is that I'm NOT OK and you're not OK, but that's OK. God has settled the matters at the cross. And there really are other legitimate avenues of judgment in text that are NOT mancentric.

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...

I would submit that the primary directives really are the only thing that matters. Any doctrine that forgets that has lost it's sight, in some cases nearly completely in the dark.

Were we to 'measure' loving our neighbors and measure to others as we would be measured top priority and set THAT as thee measure of ALL OTHER DOCTRINES, hardliners on others are themselves lost within and have themselves been captured by darkness.

THEREIN lies the PITFALL of the Gospel. Many have fallen headlong into captivity. Such have ascended the throne that the EVIL ONE desires to have within them.

s

 

[Free]

No it is not

Then please show where the definition of religion fails in regards to Christianity.

 

[HisSheep]

I am a Calvinist and I am a Christian.

Under any other doctrine, God doesn't get all of the glory. Some of the credit must fall to those who have "decided" to believe. I just can't accept that. All glory will go to God. If you decide to believe and/or follow Jesus, it is because the Spirit moved you to do so. There is nothing good within a man that would cause Him to take up a cross and follow. To the flesh, this is too painful a path. In the absence of the Spirit, one is surely lost.

I also don't think that anyone "decides" to believe anything.

I believe that God will get His way. He'll get everything and everyone He wants. See Isaiah 46:10-11 for confirmation.

Arminians are deluded and have a politically-correct notion of God and Christianity that is not found in the scriptures. Just as He needed the enemies of Israel in order to destroy them, He needs the tares to be among His wheat. See Joshua 11:20 for confirmation.

Jesus didn't come to provide a path by which we might save ourselves... He came to actually do the saving entirely.

Praise God!

-HisSheep

 

[francisdesales]

OK, well, most classic Calvinists will teach something very similar or identical to what I believe. Classic Calvinists believe in a passive double predestination.

Let me again define what I mean by the term passive double predestination. Something that is commonly misunderstood about Calvinists is that we do not believe the predestination of the elect and the predestination of the reprobate are equal. God is active in the predestination of the elect for righteousness, but he is not active in the same way with the predestination of the reprobate.

I would agree with this - but is this more a modern term, a "correction" of Jean Calvin himself, or do you believe from reading "Institutes" that "passive double predestination is what he intended. It would seem odd to me if you believe that Jean Calvin taught the "passive" idea, since I think Catholicism would not have so readily condemned his idea, since your explanation is acceptable (Catholic teachings are not "dogmatic" on this matter and allow some flexibility on the concept of predestination).

I would have to read the history of development of Calvinism as Jean Calvin taught it. I am more familiar with Luther and Melanchthon's corrections that would lead the way for "modern" Lutherism than I am with how the Reformed tradition developed. But as per my statement before, I THINK that Calvin himself was more strict on this specific matter and later followers corrected his notion, referring to what you call a "passive double predestination".

In the predestination of the reprobate (double predestination) I am saying that while God did not really do anything, but he intended for sin and rebellion to happen. He is not the primary cause of any sin. Man bears the responsibility of Original Sin when we were all in Adam (most Calvinists are of course big on Original Sin). On the other hand, no Calvinist thinks that the rebellion of man caught God by surprise, and that God could have restrained sin, but did not. So then, God chooses. God chooses to restrain sin at times, but at times refuses to restrain sin and allows the process of the hardening of the heart to happen. He at times chooses to allow sin and judge it, and at times chooses to restrain sin and show grace.

I appreciate your explanation - it is very easy to go down the slippery slope - if God actively reprobates, then God is the active and primary cause of sin... Naturally, sin does not "catch God by surprise", that is impossible, since God "Lives" in all times simultaneously, seeing both creation and the end of time as one moment. It appears that your explanation is more synergistic than other monergists would state. But as the article you state notes, the hyper-Calvinists are more intent on being strictly monergists while "typical" Calvinists do see some form of synergy existing between God and man.

All classic Calvinists that I know of believe in something similar to what I am calling passive double predestination. This is true in history, and is also true today. As for Hyper-Calvinism, I am not sure but I think some of them believe in active predestination. But of course I don't think that is correct exegetically.

It would be interesting to trace the development of Calvin's ACTIVE double predestination to when it became PASSIVE double predestination (I have never heard these distinctions before between active/passive - however, Catholics do believe in predestination, knowing that God gives grace to all, but some reject it - and God knows who will, so it is a similar idea without the active/passive part.)

I suppose we view predestination as an active function, while God allows those who He knows will become reprobate to become so. The term "double predestination" appears to have an active sense in both the elect and the reprobate.

If I can focus on one part of the quote above.....
"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"."

The CE is correct in mentioning that Calvin, and Calvinists believe in the positive predestination of the elect for Eternal life. However, while most (or all) Calvinists believe in both predestination of the elect and reprobate, they do not see the mechanisms of those predestinations as equal. As I have been stressing, God is passive in reprobation.

Like I said, history doesn't view Calvin in that way - but that the first reformers (Luther and Calvin) were later "reformed" by their followers. I believe the post-Calvin Calvinists made the proper decision on this. What is interesting is how Calvinists are STILL misunderstood on this, if this "passive double predestination" was taught very early in its existence. I suppose I'd have to do some more reading on that subject to see at what point this change took place.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Yeah, that is kinda the point. But the later goes too far for me. At that point the IMPERFECT measure of mens determinations becomes a potential damnation instrument between the adherent and the non-accepter. That methodology is both primitive and blunt. It also takes one OFF the primary directives and puts ones self in jeopardy. (Romans 2:1)

To become an "alternate Christ", we are to act as Christ, to include being obedient to proper authority. We all face such tests - to think we know better, etc., than those whom God has put in authority over us. However, spiritually-speaking, God is developing the virtue of humility within us. Jesus Himself told the Apostles to obey the Pharisees, proper authority of the day, but not their example (Matthew 23). Jesus lived this way of life, a life of humility by submitting Himself to proper authority, to include His parents...

As to Romans 2, I think that is addressed above, "don't follow their example, but obey them". If we teach people not to steal, then don't steal. Etc. If we find poor examples within the heirarchy, we don't follow that example.

We are not saved by 'proper doctrines.' Heart matters are vastly more important. When the intellectuals came to the church, they took control by intellect and remain there, beating their victims into submissions. (of course imho)

God desires that we know the truth, don't you agree? Jesus calls satan the "father of lies" and God is the author of truth. You better believe that "proper doctrines" are important, if Jesus brings up such things and if the Apostolic writers condemn false teachers throughout the NT. Heart matters are indeed important, but that doesn't make intellectual knowledge unimportant.

The Gospel is that I'm NOT OK and you're not OK, but that's OK. God has settled the matters at the cross. And there really are other legitimate avenues of judgment in text that are NOT mancentric.

The Gospel is indeed one of joy, not one of relativism...

I would submit that the primary directives really are the only thing that matters. Any doctrine that forgets that has lost it's sight, in some cases nearly completely in the dark.

What are the "primary directives"? Did Jesus make mention of this? didn't He say "teach ALL that I taught"? I don't recall "teach only what you think is important and the rest is just opinions..."

Were we to 'measure' loving our neighbors and measure to others as we would be measured top priority and set THAT as thee measure of ALL OTHER DOCTRINES, hardliners on others are themselves lost within and have themselves been captured by darkness.

I agree that love is the measure of our faith, our belief in God. Our doctrines lead us to love, since doctrines are understanding of WHO God is and what He has planned for us. Knowing WHO God is and His plan is instrumental in determining our response to the God Who calls us.

Regards

 

[smaller]

To become an "alternate Christ", we are to act as Christ, to include being obedient to proper authority. We all face such tests - to think we know better, etc., than those whom God has put in authority over us.

And there again we simply will have to see differently. Men are sinners all who ALL see only in part and as in darkness. There is no conglomeration of such who have IT ALL, regardless of their claims. That is not only UNreasoned, but an open logical fallacy. Why? Because WE ALL see only IN PART and as through DARKNESS. Not one group of men on this planet or any conglomeration of men SEE PERFECTLY, no, not even the POPE and his cohorts. That is simply not possible.

When any man claims absolute and PERFECT DIVINE AUTHORITY, they have usurped SIMPLE SCRIPTURAL FACTS of their OWN conditions.

The WORD is PERFECT and the WORD says MEN ARE NOT Perfect seeing only IN PART. No man has PERFECT VISION. Ones who claim they DO will remain ever SUSPECT in my eyes because WORD SAYS not possible.

They 'wrestled' with the realities laid forth in the Gospel just as WE do. No 'mere mortal' has released themselves from the wrestling match.

IF you want to submit to that type of 'authority' you are certainly WELCOME. I too will submit, to FINDINGS OF FACTS that are contained in scriptures. If 'they' say TRINITY and I can CONFIRM in text, then TRINITY IT IS. But, if they COMMAND that I potentially DAMN another person over this matter, a mystery matter, I say NO to their condemnation requirements. The primary command has not MOVED. Love your neighbor as youself is GOD LIVING in a person. When we 'let go' of that on a partial sighted view, then GOD is no longer LIVING in us. No man or authority is going to REPLACE God living in me and loving my neighbors, ALL.

That authority, I REJECT.

However, spiritually-speaking, God is developing the virtue of humility within us. Jesus Himself told the Apostles to obey the Pharisees, proper authority of the day, but not their example (Matthew 23). Jesus lived this way of life, a life of humility by submitting Himself to proper authority, to include His parents...

I'm sorry but 'some men' have totally EXCEEDED their authority. You are certainly welcome to TOTALLY RELINQUISH your heart to PARTIAL SIGHT.

As to Romans 2, I think that is addressed above, "don't follow their example, but obey them". If we teach people not to steal, then don't steal. Etc. If we find poor examples within the heirarchy, we don't follow that example.

In-DEED.

Likewise, when any 'sect' or 'group' condemns ME for loving my neighbors as myself as a primary directive of GOD, or command ME to CONDEMN my NEIGHBORS in order to BELONG to their SECT, I can no longer participate.

God has THE SOLE RESERVE on that matter, PERIOD. When any group of partial sighters ascend the THRONE of 'possible' ETERNAL DAMNATION, they have totally EXCEEDED their 'authority.' Some in your group know this, but MANY have outright stated opposite and say THEY KNOW for a FACT that those I love are going to be BURNING ALIVE FOREVER.

I say to those ones, YOU may 'possibly' be VERY VERY wrong. God has not only commanded me to LOVE my neighbors, but to PRAY for ALL MEN, both LIVING and PAST in the HOPES of their salvation.

Any partial sighted view that contradicts that dictate and INSISTS that I believe my prayers are INEFFECTIVE and WITHOUT MERIT is, imho, controlled by EVIL taken root in their TOTAL AUTHORITY. This is the 'infection' of EVIL in the church. And it is RAMPANT and VISCIOUS.

I will give hats off the Pope, John Paul II, an outstanding spokesman of GOD, in this HOPE and his ecumenical services TO GOD in Christ in these matters. But 'some men' I will not heed, nor can I. And that includes the current Pope who seems to know for a fact that people will burn in hell, even while praying for [THOSE SAME ALL MEN.] His prayers have been eliminated by his own lips.

God desires that we know the truth, don't you agree?

I am satisfied with PERFECT TRUTH. Do you have that? Is YOUR GROUP that? I'm sorry but the reality of life does not convey that to us. We are all securely and thankfully TEMPORARILY planted/sown in weakness, corruption, dishonour and in a natural body. I look PAST the temporary in HOPE of the PERMANENT matters of the ETERNAL LIFE that is to come apart from these temporal things.

No amount of supposed spiritual reasonings are going to be getting past the obvious unless one has a desire for intentional blindness, and deem that FAITH.

There is only ONE evidence of FAITH and ONE thing that matters.

Here is evidence of FAITH and the ONLY thing that counts:

Galatians 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

You can 'equate' DOCTRINE to LOVE or WARNINGS to LOVE or 'whatever' is desired to INSERT itself OVER LOVE, and I will say....NO, LOVE is of God and GOD is not a doctrine, a warning, a 'whatever you care to insert.' None of these 'alternatives' are LOVE who IS GOD.

I desire GOD to LIVE in me, not 'warnings, doctrines, or anything else' that says this IS LOVE. God is SPIRIT. Not doctrines, warnings, or anything else.

His Word has invited me to SHARE in HIM, this SPIRIT. His Spirit, I desire because I am His child.

Your group, your authority CAN NOT perform these things for me or in my behalf. That again is NOT possible, nor will I take their COMMANDS that say YOU CAN NOT DO THIS or be A NON-HERETIC if you do 'not belong' and 'agree' with EVERYTHING WE SAY AND DETERMINE.

No man, group or authority can STOP GOD from being in a persons heart, no matter how HIGH they think they sit or how many religious lawyers they have in their behalves.

I know this poses a problem for many 'sects.' So be it. IF they cannot ENTER IN by this way, they are already OUT of THE WAY of Love.

Jesus calls satan the "father of lies" and God is the author of truth. You better believe that "proper doctrines" are important,

Point your finger some other direction please. I know what I believe and why quite fine, thank you very much. There is NO LIE in LOVE available for SATAN nor can SATAN deceive me by loving my neighbors as myself.

if Jesus brings up such things and if the Apostolic writers condemn false teachers throughout the NT. Heart matters are indeed important, but that doesn't make intellectual knowledge unimportant.

They have 'their' determinations. I can not buy ALL of those determinations for MANY reasons. I do not participate in mass delusions.

What are the "primary directives"? Did Jesus make mention of this? didn't He say "teach ALL that I taught"? I don't recall "teach only what you think is important and the rest is just opinions..."

Freewill is part of a foundation that many groups reside upon. I don't buy it and can't buy it. Unbelievers are slaves of SIN. Slaves are NOT FREE. Slaves do NOT free themselves by 'deciding' it is so. The 'god of this world' is their master and they are NOT free to decide otherwise. Gods Grace ALONE grants RELEASE from that PRESENT BINDING. Men do NOT conjure up GRACE by 'making their own decisions.'

Where The Spirit of God IS, there IS freedom. NONE of us have THE ENTIRE SPIRIT OF GOD. We know in part, we see in part. When we lose LOVE we lose ALL.

I agree that love is the measure of our faith, our belief in God. Our doctrines lead us to love, since doctrines are understanding of WHO God is and what He has planned for us. Knowing WHO God is and His plan is instrumental in determining our response to the God Who calls us.

Regards

Gods Word and Spirit has NOT led me down MANY paths, and will continue to do so. No other 'man' can do that. Those who claim they can are claiming themselves and my 'complete' understandings be RELEGATED to those who see IN PART. This is NOT a command of the Gospel. Paul did not die for me nor did the Pope.

That I cannot 'in good faith,' do and practice.

s

 

[Free]

Keep the thread on topic.

 

[francisdesales]

And there again we simply will have to see differently...

Probably should have stopped there, then that long rant of self-righteousness. Rather than respond to it and point out the specific problems, I'll just point to the overall tone of condescension and leave it at that.

OK, Free, back on topic...

Regards

 

[smaller]

Probably should have stopped there, then that long rant of self-righteousness. Rather than respond to it and point out the specific problems, I'll just point to the overall tone of condescension and leave it at that.

OK, Free, back on topic...

Regards

If loving our neighbors is 'self' righteous, then I reject your claims and you are welcome to disengage.

s

 

[watchman F]

I am a Calvinist and I am a Christian.

Under any other doctrine, God doesn't get all of the glory. Some of the credit must fall to those who have "decided" to believe. I just can't accept that. All glory will go to God. If you decide to believe and/or follow Jesus, it is because the Spirit moved you to do so. There is nothing good within a man that would cause Him to take up a cross and follow. To the flesh, this is too painful a path. In the absence of the Spirit, one is surely lost.

I also don't think that anyone "decides" to believe anything.

I believe that God will get His way. He'll get everything and everyone He wants. See Isaiah 46:10-11 for confirmation.

Arminians are deluded and have a politically-correct notion of God and Christianity that is not found in the scriptures. Just as He needed the enemies of Israel in order to destroy them, He needs the tares to be among His wheat. See Joshua 11:20 for confirmation.

Jesus didn't come to provide a path by which we might save ourselves... He came to actually do the saving entirely.

Praise God!

-HisSheep

So what you are also saying is that it is God will that some burn in Hell, and that He receive the credit for that as well right????????????

 

[francisdesales]

If loving our neighbors is 'self' righteous, then I reject your claims and you are welcome to disengage.

s

Sigh...

I have PM'ed you. I am disengaging from this conversation because I have been told to "remain on topic". Didn't you so recently grant kudos on my loving neighbors post? How could you so quickly come up with "loving neighbors is self righteous"?

It's a rhetorical question, no need to reply.

Regards

 

[smaller]

Sigh...

I have PM'ed you. I am disengaging from this conversation because I have been told to "remain on topic". Didn't you so recently grant kudos on my loving neighbors post? How could you so quickly come up with "loving neighbors is self righteous"?

It's a rhetorical question, no need to reply.

Regards

I already did reply AND there was no offense intended in that post.

There is NO SIN in loving our neighbors as ourselves.

The balance relates to ANY man's constructs or total authority whether it be CALVIN or Roman, JW's or Mormons, or any given sect. You may not agree with the observations, but they are imho valid on the basis stated therein and I believe worthy of at least a contemplation or two.

For the record I believe all RCC members are saved as well and as previously stated for the reasons also stated in the post it was stated within.

That really is the best I can convey. Sorry to offend you by THAT!?

enjoy!

s

 

[mondar]

So what you are also saying is that it is God will that some burn in Hell, and that He receive the credit for that as well right????????????

I once sat in the trial of a guy who was whacked out on drugs and murdered a little 3 yr old girl for crying. It was not easy watching this trial. The prosecution went through the event, blow by wicked blow. They stated what happened internally to the little girl with each blow. They showed pictures of the area's of that little bruised and battered body. It was horrible.

The judge and jury ruled that the murderer was guilty and they order his imprisonment. Do you think it was a terrible thing for that judge and jury to execute justice by condemning that man to prison?

 

[watchman F]

I once sat in the trial of a guy who was whacked out on drugs and murdered a little 3 yr old girl for crying. It was not easy watching this trial. The prosecution went through the event, blow by wicked blow. They stated what happened internally to the little girl with each blow. They showed pictures of the area's of that little bruised and battered body. It was horrible.

The judge and jury ruled that the murderer was guilty and they order his imprisonment. Do you think it was a terrible thing for that judge and jury to execute justice by condemning that man to prison?

This has nothing to do with what we are talking about, but since you bring it up. According to you and the Calvinist teaching it was God will that this girl get murdered in such a manner. Afdter all who can resist God's will. So as I said the god of Calvinism is evil, much more evil than the man that murdered that little girl, because The man was sdimply carrying out the will of your god.

 

[Mike]

I once sat in the trial of a guy who was whacked out on drugs and murdered a little 3 yr old girl for crying. It was not easy watching this trial. The prosecution went through the event, blow by wicked blow. They stated what happened internally to the little girl with each blow. They showed pictures of the area's of that little bruised and battered body. It was horrible.

The judge and jury ruled that the murderer was guilty and they order his imprisonment. Do you think it was a terrible thing for that judge and jury to execute justice by condemning that man to prison?

Just a follow-up question I have. Are you going to include in this scenario that the judge and jury created this person with the sole purpose that he would spend his life in jail?

This seems unrelated to predestination, if not.

 

[watchman F]

Hey mike did you ever read mty response to your question????

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

 

[Dennyh]

This has nothing to do with what we are talking about, but since you bring it up. According to you and the Calvinist teaching it was God will that this girl get murdered in such a manner. Afdter all who can resist God's will. So as I said the god of Calvinism is evil, much more evil than the man that murdered that little girl, because The man was sdimply carrying out the will of your god.

Well said.

 

[mondar]

I was just reading a "Christianity Today" article about Al Mohler here The Reformer | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

I thought of this thread. Calvinism is resurgent in the Southern Baptist Convention. When thinking about this thread, and the question why are Calvinists considered Christians, I also thought of the PCA, OPC, and several other reformed denominations. I thought of Reformed Baptists and the groups on that side of the spectrum. I attended an independent Baptist congregation for a while, they were Calvinistic. I am aware of some in a small group of Churches called "Bible Fellowship" that are Calvinistic.

In fact before the 1700s, the number of non-Calvinist protestants were a small minority within protestantism. It was not until the revivals of the 1800s that non-Calvinism became resurgent.

Within the protestant world, a question like the one in the title of this thread could only be posed by one who is tremendeously ignorant of history and theology. I think it is assumed that Semi-Pelagian protestantism define the term protestant. It does not. The history of the term "protestant" is much more related to Calvinist theology. Calvinism in the past was the "Protestant Orthodoxy."

The question asked in the OP, could only be asked by one who knows little about the history of heresy in the whole Church, and is also ignorant of the history of the protestant Church.

Let me rephrase the question of the OP in terms of the early Church Fathers....... why was Augustine considered a Christian and Arius was not?

 

[mondar]

Just a follow-up question I have. Are you going to include in this scenario that the judge and jury created this person with the sole purpose that he would spend his life in jail?

This seems unrelated to predestination, if not.

Mike, the answer to this question seems so obviously simple. It is shocking to me that anyone would ask it.

Answer----> To make the parallel, the judge and jury created Adam, and they created Adam sinless. Nevertheless, Adam sinned. God created Adam. God did not create Adam with a sin nature. God created Adam knowing he would sin, even predestining his sin, but God did not create Adam with sin.