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

[mondar]

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.

Of course you make the obvious mistake of equating a decree with participation in an evil deed. How simpleminded to make such a straw man misrepresentation of Calvinism. I know of not one Calvinist that would teach that a predestined decree of God means God participates in the evil deed. You have obviously not read Calvinists on the issues and you are speaking from ignorance on what Calvinists believe. God's decree to allow evil in now way makes him evil.

Was the judge and jury as evil as the murderer. Was it like they participated in the Murder?

 

[Mike]

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

Yes, I got your response. I just really wanted to get away from this discussion and couldn't help myself when I saw the judge/jury analogy. Had to step in.

I understand where you are coming from, and we agree on the doctrine, but we don't agree on their status as Christians. I do believe they hold the core tenets of our faith, and I won't listen to a Calvinist tell me I'm not a Christian either.

 

[watchman F]

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.

But according to you it was God's will that Adam sin and those born frmHim would have a sinful nature, and that this murderer would adventually murder this girl. Thats according to you and your doctrine that is.

 

[watchman F]

Of course you make the obvious mistake of equating a decree with participation in an evil deed. How simpleminded to make such a straw man misrepresentation of Calvinism. I know of not one Calvinist that would teach that a predestined decree of God means God participates in the evil deed. You have obviously not read Calvinists on the issues and you are speaking from ignorance on what Calvinists believe. God's decree to allow evil in now way makes him evil.

Was the judge and jury as evil as the murderer. Was it like they participated in the Murder?

so if I decree to my son to murder the little girl across the street, and he does it. You are sayin I am not just as guilty as my son of the murder

 

[watchman F]

Yes, I got your response. I just really wanted to get away from this discussion and couldn't help myself when I saw the judge/jury analogy. Had to step in.

I understand where you are coming from, and we agree on the doctrine, but we don't agree on their status as Christians. I do believe they hold the core tenets of our faith, and I won't listen to a Calvinist tell me I'm not a Christian either.

I believe their are calvinistic christians. I just dont believe their doctrine is christian.

 

[Free]

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

Still awaiting your response watchman.

 

[dadof10]

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.

Mondar,

I appreciate the time you took to post this and I hope to get to it soon. I haven't forgotten and am not ignoring it. I'm just extremely busy now. I'll try to read the posts following this one that refer to it so my response isn't redundant. Sorry for the delay.

Mark

 

[dadof10]

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.


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

Nor I yours, so if you'll permit me to ask a clarifying question?

Are you saying that the Devil is responsible for Man's "Total Depravity", not God or Man himself?

It seems Calvinism puts the onus on God for those in Hell, Catholics (and others) put the onus on Man. Are you putting the onus on the Devil?

It may seem like I don't get it, but you have to understand it's impossible to fully get your entire theological system from a couple of posts. Usually I don't read posts in a thread unless they are addressed to me because of time constraints. Also, there are thousands of differing Protestant systems which teach differing doctrines, which I can't possibly keep up with.

If you hold that Man's total depravity is primarily due to the influence of the Devil, that's a new one on me. It also takes some explanation on your part.

 

[dadof10]

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.

It wasn't a rant, I apologize if it came off as one. Your definition (if it can be called that) is not consistent with your previous posts. As I said, you are putting Calvinists in the same boat as Mormons and JW's due to their BELIEFS (TULIP), not due to their RELATIONSHIP, then when asked for a definition, you say they lack a RELATIONSHIP!!!

All I'm asking for is your DOCTRINAL definition of "Christian". You have one for "cult" and "not Christian" (i.e., what Calvinists, Mormons, JW's and Catholics BELIEVE), what is it for Christian?

 

[smaller]

Nor I yours, so if you'll permit me to ask a clarifying question?
Are you saying that the Devil is responsible for Man's "Total Depravity", not God or Man himself?

It would be quite pointless to say the devil ISN'T totally depraved or NOT involved with sin. Therefore Calvins understanding is off by the exclusion of these facts, but true on the final solution when applied to the facts. See how that works?

Man apart from that working of the devil is NOT even in the text to make that determination.

It seems Calvinism puts the onus on God for those in Hell, Catholics (and others) put the onus on Man. Are you putting the onus on the Devil?

I certainly can't discount that operation. When Jesus looked at Peter and spoke to Satan there was then Peter and Satan. Same with Judas. Same with all who sin. Why wouldn't such a fact be in mind is more of a question.

It may seem like I don't get it, but you have to understand it's impossible to fully get your entire theological system from a couple of posts. Usually I don't read posts in a thread unless they are addressed to me because of time constraints. Also, there are thousands of differing Protestant systems which teach differing doctrines, which I can't possibly keep up with.

I understand. Common problem. I don't admire any discussion that lands on the dispute over a single word, such as the term 'religion.' Not going to waste my own time over such contemplations for long anymore.

If you hold that Man's total depravity is primarily due to the influence of the Devil, that's a new one on me. It also takes some explanation on your part.

That's the nice thing about facts. IF they are facts openly shown, there isn't much to dispute about.

s

 

[watchman F]

All I'm asking for is your DOCTRINAL definition of "Christian". You have one for "cult" and "not Christian" (i.e., what Calvinists, Mormons, JW's and Catholics BELIEVE), what is it for Christian?

I will give St. John's Difinition.

1st John 2
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

Someone who knows Christ, and is able to demonstrate that through His walk, having the love of God perfected in im enabling Him to keep the commandments of Christ.

 

[mondar]

Yes, I got your response. I just really wanted to get away from this discussion and couldn't help myself when I saw the judge/jury analogy. Had to step in.

I understand where you are coming from, and we agree on the doctrine, but we don't agree on their status as Christians. I do believe they hold the core tenets of our faith, and I won't listen to a Calvinist tell me I'm not a Christian either.

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

 

[mondar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mike]

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

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

 

[handy]

I will give St. John's Difinition.

1st John 2
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

Someone who knows Christ, and is able to demonstrate that through His walk, having the love of God perfected in im enabling Him to keep the commandments of Christ.

Well then, rest assured Watchman, Christians are right in admitting Calvinists into the fold as full brothers and sisters in the Lord. I've lived with and amongst Calvinists pretty near all my life, and they most certainly fit your description here.

Mondar, yes, what you have posted certainly fits right in with the teachings of my former church, as well as the Presbyterian Church of America that I was member of when I lived in North Carolina. I have yet to meet (in person, though I've come across a few on the web) a Calvinist who teaches that God actively causes or forces anyone to sin.

A question more in line with Calvinist thought would be, "Why would God create so many people, only predestine a relative few for salvation and decree that the rest must perish?

This is a fair enough question. But, pretty much the same question can be leveled at Arminians as to "Why would God leave in the hands of rebellious and woeful sinners something as important as their own salvation, when in His foreknowlege He knew so few would choose to follow Him."

The truth is, no matter if one falls in line with Calvinist, Arminian, or Catholic teaching, one still serves a God Whom, fore-knowing that man would fall and most men would wind up in hell, went ahead and created them anyway.

Calvinists believe that God shows His love by not leaving such a woeful choice in the hands of those who would by nature choose to hate Him. Others believe that God shows His love by freely accepting all who come to Him. All Christians believe that it is through the atoning work of Christ on the cross which made forgiveness of anyone's sins possible. Which I know separates us from the Mormons and the JW's.

 

[watchman F]

All Christians believe that it is through the atoning work of Christ on the cross which made forgiveness of anyone's sins possible. Which I know separates us from the Mormons and the JW's.

This is not true according to the calvinistic teaching of limited attonement. Christ's sacrifice on the cross only made forgiveness of sin for the elect

 

[handy]

Which was why I used the word "anyone's" sins. Not "everyone's".

Even Calvinists believe that it is the atoning work of Christ on the cross that secures the forgiveness of the elect.

I don't agree with limited atonement, but atonement is purchased by Christ's death on the cross.

 

[mondar]

>>>>Material posted by handy to Watchman deleted<<<<<<

Mondar, yes, what you have posted certainly fits right in with the teachings of my former church, as well as the Presbyterian Church of America that I was member of when I lived in North Carolina. I have yet to meet (in person, though I've come across a few on the web) a Calvinist who teaches that God actively causes or forces anyone to sin.

My question here would be "are those Calvinists, or HyperCalvinists." Certainly such so called Calvinists would not be in agreement with either the 1648 Westminster Confession, or the 1689 London Baptist Confession. If you happen to find a URL on the internet in which regular Calvinists state that God created evil, please post the URL or send it to me PM. I believe the PCA and OPC would defrock a preacher for affirming that God created evil. I doubt any Reformed Baptist, or even the Reformed group in the SBC would allow such a teaching. So even if it is on the internet, it would only be some crackpot that is not in accord with the PCA, OPC, Reformed Baptists, or any of the Dutch Reformed groups.

A question more in line with Calvinist thought would be, "Why would God create so many people, only predestine a relative few for salvation and decree that the rest must perish?

Of course I cannot answer the question since there is no scripture that answers this question.

This is a fair enough question. But, pretty much the same question can be leveled at Arminians as to "Why would God leave in the hands of rebellious and woeful sinners something as important as their own salvation, when in His foreknowlege He knew so few would choose to follow Him."

The truth is, no matter if one falls in line with Calvinist, Arminian, or Catholic teaching, one still serves a God Whom, fore-knowing that man would fall and most men would wind up in hell, went ahead and created them anyway.

This is a good point. Inconsistency is always the mark of a failed argument. It seems to me that the only consistent argument is the Calvinist argument or the Open Theism argument. As long as arminians, catholics, semi-pelagians, etc, believe in the foreknowledge of God, any argument presented against Calvinism in this matter also applies to them. I suspect your logic will not be addressed here.

Calvinists believe that God shows His love by not leaving such a woeful choice in the hands of those who would by nature choose to hate Him. Others believe that God shows His love by freely accepting all who come to Him. All Christians believe that it is through the atoning work of Christ on the cross which made forgiveness of anyone's sins possible. Which I know separates us from the Mormons and the JW's.

handy, do you think any view of the atonement is sufficient to call one a Christian? Did not Pelagius, Charles Finney, and a few others like them have some sort of view of the atoning work of the cross making "forgiveness of anyone's sins possible? Of course if you were in the PCA, they would also ask you if the atonement makes forgiveness "possible" (your word) or did the crosswork of Christ make forgiveness actual? Did it really save, or only make all men saveable?

 

[Free]

Still awaiting your response watchman.

Still waiting....

 

[handy]

My question here would be "are those Calvinists, or HyperCalvinists." Certainly such so called Calvinists would not be in agreement with either the 1648 Westminster Confession, or the 1689 London Baptist Confession. If you happen to find a URL on the internet in which regular Calvinists state that God created evil, please post the URL or send it to me PM. I believe the PCA and OPC would defrock a preacher for affirming that God created evil. I doubt any Reformed Baptist, or even the Reformed group in the SBC would allow such a teaching. So even if it is on the internet, it would only be some crackpot that is not in accord with the PCA, OPC, Reformed Baptists, or any of the Dutch Reformed groups.

I agree that the OPC and the PCA would defrock a preacher for affirming that God created evil. The view was one that was taught to me by Calvinists as being Hyper-Calvinist.

handy, do you think any view of the atonement is sufficient to call one a Christian? Did not Pelagius, Charles Finney, and a few others like them have some sort of view of the atoning work of the cross making "forgiveness of anyone's sins possible? Of course if you were in the PCA, they would also ask you if the atonement makes forgiveness "possible" (your word) or did the crosswork of Christ make forgiveness actual? Did it really save, or only make all men saveable?

I don't necessarily think that a particular view on the atonement is sufficient to call one a Christian. The key word here being "sufficient".


But, a false view on the atoning work of Christ certainly can be a dividing point as to when one is dealing with a non-Christian. For instance, the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses the OP alludes to: their views about the atonement certainly divorce them from Christian truth. The JW's hold that Christ's atonement on the cross was for only the 144,000, and others are saved via their adherence to Watchtower Teachings. The Mormon's plan of salvation is so theologically unsound starting from the spirit-children of heaven, that the atoning work of Christ (which took place in the Garden of Gethsemane and only finished on the cross) is hardly a scratch of the surface of false teaching.