B57 was the Calvinist in question. There was no mockery involved in the question posed to this particular Calvinist in the particular thread. He still has not answered the question.
You could have simply stated that clearly in your post I responded to instead of your broadly worded "Tambora one time asked a Calvinist:". Why the omission as if to give the impression that any person claiming to be a Calvinist is unwilling to answer?
I do not believe God predestined people to salvation/damnation.
I believe God predestined His Plan of Salvation - Jesus Christ and His work at the Cross.
Whosoever (man/woman/boy/girl) will call on the Name of the Lord, the Lord will save.
Whosoever (man/woman/boy/girl) name will be found written in God's book, God has saved.
Then you actually do believe in predestination. Only the folks like b57 believe God created from an
unfallen mass of humanity persons destined for Hell. The Reformed believe that this lump of clay was a
fallen mass of humanity out of which merciful God chose some to be saved and chose not to choose others to be saved, leaving them therefore in their sin. A fallen humanity deserves nothing but justice from God, not mercy. Mercy is getting what you do not deserve, justice is getting what you do. That God chose to save even one single person should make all rejoice in His bountiful mercy.
If I understand you correctly, your stated view is that God's predestined plan to redeem any and all who call upon the Lord based upon the Lord's active and passive obedience will be saved and that those so saved actually have their names in the Book of Life. I certainly believe all who call upon the Lord will be saved and no one but God knows who those persons are, too. I am not seeing how you think you have escaped believing that God actually chose those that will actually call upon Him. Did God not know?
One of the reason I dislike immensely, I mean immensely, names/titles over people, e.g., I'm a Calvinist, etc., all it does is bring divisiveness in the BOC, the same when people say, I'm African-American, etc., all it brings is divisiveness in this Country.
No, I am a Christian.
No, I am an American.
You used two labels, so there is that.
Accordingly, these sort of "I refuse to be labeled" claims ring hollow to me and piques my normal curiosity. As soon as someone begins to lay out what he or she believes, there is normally an appropriate, albeit not always exact, label for said beliefs. These labels move a discussion about sacred matters forward, else much time is spent sorting out what one believes about this or that when all the while descriptors for said beliefs exist to jump start the discussion. Stating you are a "Christian" is wonderful for most situations. Yet, the Mormon or JW knocking on my door says the same. Are you a Mormon? A JW? How do I (or anyone) know with whom I am discussing a matter of deep importance with without a more accurate understanding of where their beliefs begin and end? If you are content to be a "Christian" (a label) and you are greeting another who uses the same label who after some discussion you learn to be a Mormon or a JW, do you not think "He or she is not a Christian?" Again, "not a Christian" is a label.
In discussions involving Scripture doctrine, one must be more precise and fortunately history of the church militant has afforded various labels to aid in that precision. We should not fear these labels, but embrace them where they are generally accurate and, if necessary, take the time to explain where one may depart from what the label assumes. Are you a Protestant? Another label. Do you know what you are protesting as a
Protestant?
That said, I wholeheartedly agree that labels may lead to distress. I am comfortable being labeled Reformed and/or Calvinist. One need not look far to see (as in this thread) how these labels lead to all manner of nonsense from those that do not take the time to actually understand what the labels actually mean. Sadly, persons constructing straw men of Calvinists' or Reformeds' views by claiming we operate from the same presuppositions
they do and therefore believe about our beliefs what
they believe about
our beliefs leaves no real hope for honest discussion.
If such persons would avail themselves of an accurate summary of our beliefs, e.g.,
WCF, with a nice exposition of the same
here, much clarity would ensue. Unfortunately some prefer to just parrot others in discussion forums and not dig deeper.
AMR
