An Anti - Calvinist Parody - Circa 74 B. C. (Yes, You Read Rightly)

[Five Solas]

On the “Mars Hill Church in Phoenix” thread, Vance responded to Pa Pa’s assertion that Calvinism constitutes “the most destructive cult that calls themselves Christian” with the following regarding Calvinists (post #120)--

 

They are found in the Book of Mormon!!!
(But they were called "Zoramites" back then)

 

For the uninitiated, Vance was referring to Alma Chapter 31 wherein a purported subset of the Native American population were “perverting the ways of the Lord” (v. 1).  And as we delve into the chapter, we find this improbable clan giving thanks for the doctrine known over the past couple hundred years as double-predestination, these “Zoramites” describe it--

 

…and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell (v. 17)

 

Regardless of what one thinks of the Biblical merits of this particular doctrine (and I don’t care to debate it on this thread) there’s no debate the concept originated with John Calvin’s observation found in Institutes of the Christian Religion Book III, Chapter 21--

 

Of the eternal election, by which God has predestinated some to salvation, and others to destruction

 

In this “Zoramite” parody of Reformed theology in the Book of Mormon, we plainly have an anachronism.  The purported episode takes place “about 74 B.C.” according to the LDS chapter heading.  That not only predates Calvin, it predates any mention of the words “election” and “predestined” in the Bible (those words appear several times each in the New Testament, but not the Old).  Here’s the rub: There’s no argument for any hypothetical Zoramites to make in 74 B.C.--because the basis for Calvin’s 16th century A.D. observation hadn’t yet been written into the Bible.  But Joseph Smith, acquainted with the opposing doctrinal positions of 19th century Methodists (Arminian) and Presbyterians (Calvinist) and whose sympathies came to lie with the former, would certainly have been familiar and seemingly couldn’t resist a little dig at the latter in his own work.

 

Vance, I’m surprised you’d want to introduce BoM Zoramites into a discussion of Calvinism.  Best case (for a defender of the LDS faith) Zoramites have nothing to do with adherents of Reformed theology.  Worst (and likely) case—you’ve highlighted further evidence Joseph Smith was the principal author of that book.

 

Out of genuine curiosity for LDS on the board—how could a knowledgeable reader avoid the conclusion that Alma 31 contains a theological anachronism, undermining the LDS Church’s claims of origin?

 

--Erik 

[strappinglad]

I just read Alma 31 again and the actions and beliefs of the Zoramites were quite well spelled out. They were not in any sense Christian in that they denied any way to know of future events. They were not the first peoples to say they were chosen by God in the history of the world. They were not the first people to think the rest of humanity was going to burn in hell.

And , the book of Alma was edited by Mormon who may have used the language of election and predestination to represent the gist of the matter. That is , however , unknowable.

To say that John Calvin was the first and only person to have considered such beliefs is wishful.

[volgadon]

Are you seriously arguing that the concept of Israel's election doesn't predate the New Testament?

[The Nehor]

Cute, but no. Although the words were not used the idea of predestination exists in many western faiths. Judaism had a concept similar to predestination. Some concepts in Islam come close and both predate Calvin. Some Pagan religions had the idea that those of their group would receive a better afterlife then their enemies just like the Zoramites. They are closer to the Zoramites then Calvinists as the Zoramites are clearly not Christian. Vance was wrong to call them Calvinists though there is a superficial similarity.

I would debate the idea thay Calvin invented the idea that some people are headed for a better afterlife.

Your claim about anachronism is unclear. Are you arguing it because you do not think the same idea can be had by different people in different locations without cultural contact? A quick perusal of history will show that it happens regularly and often.

I am honestly more worried about unknowledgeable readers making your arguments and not knowledgeable readers leaving the church because two religious groups separated by space and time hold beliefs that are superficially similar.

[teddyaware]

On the “Mars Hill Church in Phoenix” thread, Vance responded to Pa Pa’s assertion that Calvinism constitutes “the most destructive cult that calls themselves Christian” with the following regarding Calvinists (post #120)--

 

They are found in the Book of Mormon!!!

(But they were called "Zoramites" back then)

 

For the uninitiated, Vance was referring to Alma Chapter 31 wherein a purported subset of the Native American population were “perverting the ways of the Lord” (v. 1).  And as we delve into the chapter, we find this improbable clan giving thanks for the doctrine known over the past couple hundred years as double-predestination, these “Zoramites” describe it--

 

…and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell (v. 17)

 

Regardless of what one thinks of the Biblical merits of this particular doctrine (and I don’t care to debate it on this thread) there’s no debate the concept originated with John Calvin’s observation found in Institutes of the Christian Religion Book III, Chapter 21--

 

Of the eternal election, by which God has predestinated some to salvation, and others to destruction

 

In this “Zoramite” parody of Reformed theology in the Book of Mormon, we plainly have an anachronism.  The purported episode takes place “about 74 B.C.” according to the LDS chapter heading.  That not only predates Calvin, it predates any mention of the words “election” and “predestined” in the Bible (those words appear several times each in the New Testament, but not the Old).  Here’s the rub: There’s no argument for any hypothetical Zoramites to make in 74 B.C.--because the basis for Calvin’s 16th century A.D. observation hadn’t yet been written into the Bible.  But Joseph Smith, acquainted with the opposing doctrinal positions of 19th century Methodists (Arminian) and Presbyterians (Calvinist) and whose sympathies came to lie with the former, would certainly have been familiar and seemingly couldn’t resist a little dig at the latter in his own work.

 

Vance, I’m surprised you’d want to introduce BoM Zoramites into a discussion of Calvinism.  Best case (for a defender of the LDS faith) Zoramites have nothing to do with adherents of Reformed theology.  Worst (and likely) case—you’ve highlighted further evidence Joseph Smith was the principal author of that book.

 

Out of genuine curiosity for LDS on the board—how could a knowledgeable reader avoid the conclusion that Alma 31 contains a theological anachronism, undermining the LDS Church’s claims of origin?

 

--Erik

Coincidentally, my present reading through the Book of Mormon has me just finishing Alma 31. The Zoramites were bitterly anti-Christ and decidedly anti-Christian in their theology and outlook. As a consequence, the only similarity I can see between Zoramism and Calvanism is the belief in election. Therefore, the notion that some permutation of the doctrine of election could occur to the fertile human mind only once in the history of the world is quite presumptuous.

 

Even worse, the fact that Old Testament passages that predate Lehi's voyage and which speak of election and foreordination were ignored or forgotten in this analysis is inexcusable, especially in light of the confidence exhibited by the writer in making his case (it must be remembered that much of the Old Testament was had among the Book of Mormon peoples). The following are some Old Testament verses (again, predating Lehi's voyage) that speak to the doctrines of election and foreordination:

9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: (Isaiah 46)

1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. (Isaiah 42)

4 For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me. (Isaiah 45)

9 And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there. (Isaiah 65)

3 I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,

4 Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. (Psalms 89)

5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. (Jeremiah 1)

 

 

In addition to the above, we also have the following verses from the Pearl of Great Price that also predate Lehi's voyage:

 

 

2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning , (Moses 4)

23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born. (Abraham 3)

 

While there are more examples, the above passages will suffice for now. But I must say I find the OP of this thread to be  particularly weak. In light of the above quoted verses of scripture, the sarcastically presented claim that Alma 31 is anachronistic is utterly without merit.

Edited January 8, 2014 by teddyaware

[Vance]

I think that Five S has fessed up to more than he realizes.

Regardless of what one thinks of the Biblical merits of this particular doctrine (and I don’t care to debate it on this thread) there’s no debate the concept originated with John Calvin’s observation found in Institutes of the Christian Religion Book III, Chapter 21--

It is true that "Calvinism" neither originated from scripture nor revelation.

Glad to see that one who subscribes to "Sola Scriptura" is willing to admit this.

In this “Zoramite” parody of Reformed theology in the Book of Mormon, we plainly have an anachronism.  The purported episode takes place “about 74 B.C.” according to the LDS chapter heading.  That not only predates Calvin, it predates any mention of the words “election” and “predestined” in the Bible (those words appear several times each in the New Testament, but not the Old).  Here’s the rub: There’s no argument for any hypothetical Zoramites to make in 74 B.C.--because the basis for Calvin’s 16th century A.D. observation hadn’t yet been written into the Bible.  But Joseph Smith, acquainted with the opposing doctrinal positions of 19th century Methodists (Arminian) and Presbyterians (Calvinist) and whose sympathies came to lie with the former, would certainly have been familiar and seemingly couldn’t resist a little dig at the latter in his own work.

LOL!!

Do you really think, that in the history of the world, there could NEVER have been any other person or group that would have fabricated false doctrine similar to some of the false doctrine found in Calvinism?

Vance, I’m surprised you’d want to introduce BoM Zoramites into a discussion of Calvinism.

Why not? I find it very interesting that some of the false doctrine of Calvinism was had by ancient apostates.

Best case (for a defender of the LDS faith) Zoramites have nothing to do with adherents of Reformed theology.

Other than having similar false doctrine, no they don't have any similarities.

But, then again, THAT IS THE ONLY POINT I was making.

Worst (and likely) case—you’ve highlighted further evidence Joseph Smith was the principal author of that book.

There is a logical fallacy in there. Do I really have to identify it?

Out of genuine curiosity for LDS on the board—how could a knowledgeable reader avoid the conclusion that Alma 31 contains a theological anachronism, undermining the LDS Church’s claims of origin?

Of course! Why would a "knowledgeable reader" not see the fallacy in your argument?

[Vance]

Vance was wrong to call them Calvinists though there is a superficial similarity.

I think you missed the tongue in cheek aspect of that post.

[halconero]

Gnostic Manichaeism influenced Augustine in election/predestination theology. John Calvin even admited that Augustine had begun to develop the idea before himself.

[The Nehor]

I think you missed the tongue in cheek aspect of that post.

I didn't read the post. I was going off the OP.

[bluebell]

On the “Mars Hill Church in Phoenix” thread, Vance responded to Pa Pa’s assertion that Calvinism constitutes “the most destructive cult that calls themselves Christian” with the following regarding Calvinists (post #120)--

 

They are found in the Book of Mormon!!!

(But they were called "Zoramites" back then)

 

For the uninitiated, Vance was referring to Alma Chapter 31 wherein a purported subset of the Native American population were “perverting the ways of the Lord” (v. 1).  And as we delve into the chapter, we find this improbable clan giving thanks for the doctrine known over the past couple hundred years as double-predestination, these “Zoramites” describe it--

 

…and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell (v. 17)

 

Regardless of what one thinks of the Biblical merits of this particular doctrine (and I don’t care to debate it on this thread) there’s no debate the concept originated with John Calvin’s observation found in Institutes of the Christian Religion Book III, Chapter 21--

 

Of the eternal election, by which God has predestinated some to salvation, and others to destruction

 

In this “Zoramite” parody of Reformed theology in the Book of Mormon, we plainly have an anachronism.  The purported episode takes place “about 74 B.C.” according to the LDS chapter heading.  That not only predates Calvin, it predates any mention of the words “election” and “predestined” in the Bible (those words appear several times each in the New Testament, but not the Old).  Here’s the rub: There’s no argument for any hypothetical Zoramites to make in 74 B.C.--because the basis for Calvin’s 16th century A.D. observation hadn’t yet been written into the Bible.  But Joseph Smith, acquainted with the opposing doctrinal positions of 19th century Methodists (Arminian) and Presbyterians (Calvinist) and whose sympathies came to lie with the former, would certainly have been familiar and seemingly couldn’t resist a little dig at the latter in his own work.

 

Vance, I’m surprised you’d want to introduce BoM Zoramites into a discussion of Calvinism.  Best case (for a defender of the LDS faith) Zoramites have nothing to do with adherents of Reformed theology.  Worst (and likely) case—you’ve highlighted further evidence Joseph Smith was the principal author of that book.

 

Out of genuine curiosity for LDS on the board—how could a knowledgeable reader avoid the conclusion that Alma 31 contains a theological anachronism, undermining the LDS Church’s claims of origin?

 

--Erik 

 

Yeah, i'm not seeing the smoking gun that you seem to think Vance has highlighted here Five.  I mean, think about who you are talking to (not meaning that in a snarky way, but sincerely).  

 

LDS believe that Calvinism is, well, not of God-a false teaching basically (which is exactly how you view Mormonism, i know).  

 

We believe that false teachings are ultimately the creation of the devil (not saying Calvinism is evil, but just that he influences people to warp the true gospel-in their sincerity-to keep them from the whole truth-and yes, i know you probably feel the same about Mormonism).

 

The devil has been around a lot longer than 74 BC.

 

Thus, there is no issue with the BOM describing religions that share some aspects with Calvinism, long before Calvinism was created.  False doctrine in all its varieties has been around since the world began.

[bluebell]

On the “Mars Hill Church in Phoenix” thread, Vance responded to Pa Pa’s assertion that Calvinism constitutes “the most destructive cult that calls themselves Christian” with the following regarding Calvinists (post #120)--

 

They are found in the Book of Mormon!!!

(But they were called "Zoramites" back then)

 

For the uninitiated, Vance was referring to Alma Chapter 31 wherein a purported subset of the Native American population were “perverting the ways of the Lord” (v. 1).  And as we delve into the chapter, we find this improbable clan giving thanks for the doctrine known over the past couple hundred years as double-predestination, these “Zoramites” describe it--

 

…and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell (v. 17)

 

Regardless of what one thinks of the Biblical merits of this particular doctrine (and I don’t care to debate it on this thread) there’s no debate the concept originated with John Calvin’s observation found in Institutes of the Christian Religion Book III, Chapter 21--

 

Of the eternal election, by which God has predestinated some to salvation, and others to destruction

 

In this “Zoramite” parody of Reformed theology in the Book of Mormon, we plainly have an anachronism.  The purported episode takes place “about 74 B.C.” according to the LDS chapter heading.  That not only predates Calvin, it predates any mention of the words “election” and “predestined” in the Bible (those words appear several times each in the New Testament, but not the Old).  Here’s the rub: There’s no argument for any hypothetical Zoramites to make in 74 B.C.--because the basis for Calvin’s 16th century A.D. observation hadn’t yet been written into the Bible.  But Joseph Smith, acquainted with the opposing doctrinal positions of 19th century Methodists (Arminian) and Presbyterians (Calvinist) and whose sympathies came to lie with the former, would certainly have been familiar and seemingly couldn’t resist a little dig at the latter in his own work.

 

Vance, I’m surprised you’d want to introduce BoM Zoramites into a discussion of Calvinism.  Best case (for a defender of the LDS faith) Zoramites have nothing to do with adherents of Reformed theology.  Worst (and likely) case—you’ve highlighted further evidence Joseph Smith was the principal author of that book.

 

Out of genuine curiosity for LDS on the board—how could a knowledgeable reader avoid the conclusion that Alma 31 contains a theological anachronism, undermining the LDS Church’s claims of origin?

 

--Erik 

 

I also don't understand what you are saying here, because you seem to be implying, yourself, that Calvinism is a man-made creation.  That it did not exist before the NT, or worse, John Calvin.

 

If Calvinism is the true gospel of Christ, then it would have originated from God and been taught to Adam, Eve, and every other group of people with access to a prophet of God.  It would not have been absent from the earth until the Apostles or Calvin figured it out and wrote it down. 

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[Vance]

We believe that false teachings are ultimately the creation of the devil (not saying Calvinism is evil, but just that he influences people to warp the true gospel-in their sincerity-to keep them from the whole truth-and yes, i know you probably feel the same about Mormonism).

 

The devil has been around a lot longer than 74 BC.

We also know that the devil inspires murder. And, . . . well, . . . there is this.

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/michael-servetus.htm

[boblloyd91]

We also know that the devil inspires murder. And, . . . well, . . . there is this.

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/michael-servetus.htm

 

In a similar vein, in studying early American History, I have found that the Calvinistic puritans were none too kind to the Pequots or the Quakers.... 

[teddyaware]

Here's a follow-up to my previous post on this thread:

Another important element in response to the OP'S contention is that it's perfectly logical the Zoramites would have developed a strong predestinationist component to their religion's theology and here's why:

 

The Zoramite religion was anti-Christ and as a consequence placed little importance on the destructiveness of sin and the need for repentance from sin. Additionally, when one reads Alma 31, it's also obvious the Zoramites placed little, if any, importance on the need to comply with God's law. So the priests of that religion had to concoct some theological justification as to why God would save some and not save others since faith in Christ, the atonement, repentance and obedience were either of no or little importance.  And as faith in Christ, repentance, the forgiveness of sin, the reception of the Gift of the Holy Ghost and enduring in the faith of Christ to the end were not needed in order to be saved, the Zoramite leaders had to establish at least some requirements that would need to be fulfilled in order for an adherent to merit salvation under that system.

 

So in light of this "do nothing" religion's virtual lack of having to fulfill any real requirements in order to obtain salvation, it doesn't seem beyond the bounds of reason that these people simply came around to saying: "It's a mystery why God chose us to be saved and didn't chose the Nephites, so let's not worry about it and just rejoice (while standing upon the Rameumpton Tower) over the fact that we're among those elected to be saved. It's not our fault we believe in the true God and the Nephites don't. And as belief is all that's required of us, we will be saved and the Nephites will be damned" 

 

Stated simply, radical Predestinationism may be a natural outgrowth of a "belief alone is enough" system of salvation. If there are no real requirements to fulfill in order to be saved, believing you are chosen to be saved for some mysterious reason known only to God will suffice as an explanation.

Edited January 10, 2014 by teddyaware

[boblloyd91]

Here's a follow-up to my previous post on this thread:

Another important element in response to the OP'S contention is that it's perfectly logical the Zoramites would have developed a strong predestinationist component to their religion's theology and here's why:

 

The Zoramite religion was anti-Christ and as a consequence placed little importance on the destructiveness of sin and the need for repentance from sin. Additionally, when one reads Alma 31, it's also obvious the Zoramites placed little, if any, importance on the need to comply with God's law. So the priests of that religion had to concoct some sort of theological justification as to why God would save some and not save others since faith in Christ, the atonement, repentance and obedience were either of no or little importance.  Since faith in Christ, repentance, the forgiveness of sin, the reception of the Gift of the Holy Ghost and enduring in the faith of Christ to the end was not needed in order to be saved, the Zoramite religion had to establish the qualifications needed for an adherent to merit salvation under that system.

 

So in light of this "do nothing" religion's virtual lack of having to fulfill any real requirements in order to obtain salvation, it doesn't seem beyond the bounds of reason that these people simply came around to saying "it's a mystery why God chose us to be saved and didn't chose the Nephites, so let's not worry about it and just rejoice (while standing upon the Rameumpton Tower) over the fact that we're among those elected to be saved. It's not our fault we believe in the true God and the Nephites don't!" 

 

Stated simply, radical Predestinationism may be a natural outgrowth of a "belief alone is enough" system of salvation. If there are no real requirements to fulfill in order to be saved, believing you are chosen to be saved for some mysterious reason known only to God will suffice as an explanation.

 

From what I understand, their explanation for that is that if you weren't righteous and don't do good works, it's evidence you were never saved to begin with. From what I've read, people became super zealous in doing good things so that they are the "elect" or at least can tell themselves that. So in a way folks do lots of good works to prove to others and themselves that they were chosen by God before the foundation of the world. I maybe slaughtering that though, I'm sure Erik will let me know if I misunderstand. I think an example of this could be "Lordship Salvation" which John Macarthur teaches. The danger in this could be that if someone is struggling with the flesh and has long term addictions/weaknesses/etc. and there isn't immediate progress (which there usually isn't) then they could surmise that they aren't of the elect, and are already condemned, so why try  . 

 

Conversely, I do believe you are right that some people can take this idea of predestination, and use it to excuse sins they have committed after they believe they have been saved. For example I was reading a site that was opposed to Calvinism that quoted D. James Kennedy (a now deceased but once influential figure on the religious right) wherein he talked about an associate who committed adultery, but because he believed he was saved, he was in heaven singing with the choirs, even though there was no evidence he repented or felt remorse. Unfortunately this has been a number of years ago and I can't find the exact reference, so I could be misquoting or wrong. 

[teddyaware]

From what I understand, their explanation for that is that if you weren't righteous and don't do good works, it's evidence you were never saved to begin with. From what I've read, people became super zealous in doing good things so that they are the "elect" or at least can tell themselves that. So in a way folks do lots of good works to prove to others and themselves that they were chosen by God before the foundation of the world. I maybe slaughtering that though, I'm sure Erik will let me know if I misunderstand. I think an example of this could be "Lordship Salvation" which John Macarthur teaches. The danger in this could be that if someone is struggling with the flesh and has long term addictions/weaknesses/etc. and there isn't immediate progress (which there usually isn't) then they could surmise that they aren't of the elect, and are already condemned, so why try  . 

 

Conversely, I do believe you are right that some people can take this idea of predestination, and use it to excuse sins they have committed after they believe they have been saved. For example I was reading a site that was opposed to Calvinism that quoted D. James Kennedy (a now deceased but once influential figure on the religious right) wherein he talked about an associate who committed adultery, but because he believed he was saved, he was in heaven singing with the choirs, even though there was no evidence he repented or felt remorse. Unfortunately this has been a number of years ago and I can't find the exact reference, so I could be misquoting or wrong.

Good stuff. Remember, though, my post was an attempt to explain a possible reason for the predestinationist doctrinal strain found in the weird, anti-Christ Zoramite religion, it wasn't an attempt to explain Calvinist predestinationism.

 

Be that as it may, I must say that for me it's much easier, as a Latter-day Saint, to believe God really and truly is a being of perfect love, mercy, fairness and justice. The great program of preaching the Gospel to the dead, the three degrees of glory, and God not giving up on His children until they utterly give up on Him (the sons of perdition) presents a supreme being who knows how to make the most of His own creation. The pathetic, eternal waste of so many, many souls in the unspeakably horrific, everlasting hell of radical Christian Predestinationism is something I believe is beneath the abilities of a Being who is supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent and the embodiment of perfect eternal love.

Edited January 9, 2014 by teddyaware

[boblloyd91]

Good stuff. Remember, though, my post was an attempt to explain a possible reason for the predestinationist doctrinal strain found in the weird, anti-Christ Zoramite religion, it wasn't an attempt to explain Calvinist predestinationism.

 

Be that as it may, I must say that for me it's much easier, as a Latter-day Saint, to believe God really and truly is a being of perfect love, mercy, fairness and justice. The great program of preaching the Gospel to the dead, the three degrees of glory, and God not giving up on His children until they utterly give up on Him (the sons of perdition) presents a supreme being who knows how to make the most of His own creation. The pathetic, eternal waste of so many, many souls in the unspeakably horrific, everlasting hell of radical Christian Predestinationism is something I believe is beneath the abilities of a Being who is supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent and the embodiment of perfect eternal love.

 

Totally agree. Calvinists stress God's sovereignty, which is that God is completely in control of everything (which I actually agree with in many ways) and yet with this same framework God doesn't save everybody, in fact very few from what some of them say. So this means that God, before the foundation of this world, had already planned to eternally torture the majority of his creation in hell which hadn't even been born yet. This flies completely in the face of John 3:16, as well as Paul's letter to Timothy where he "wants all men to be saved", or in Ezekiel where he says that he takes no pleasure in the wicked. Maybe I am misrepresenting what a today's Calvinistic Evangelicals believe, and if I am I apologize. 

[teddyaware]

Totally agree. Calvinists stress God's sovereignty, which is that God is completely in control of everything (which I actually agree with in many ways) and yet with this same framework God doesn't save everybody, in fact very few from what some of them say. So this means that God, before the foundation of this world, had already planned to eternally torture the majority of his creation in hell which hadn't even been born yet. This flies completely in the face of John 3:16, as well as Paul's letter to Timothy where he "wants all men to be saved", or in Ezekiel where he says that he takes no pleasure in the wicked. Maybe I am misrepresenting what a today's Calvinistic Evangelicals believe, and if I am I apologize.

And I agree with you. Mormonism just makes so much more sense. The God of the Latter-day Saints is a being to cherish, honor, praise, adore, deeply respect, admire and wholeheartedly worship. This is a God who really knew what he was doing when He created the world and man; a God who created the most fair, kind, compassionate wise, merciful just and loving plan of salvation for His children that could ever be conceived! Joseph Smith revealed this most wonderful plan of salvation to a world that was cowering in fear, perplexity and superstition. He knew by revelation just how wonderful God's true plan of salvation really is. That's why he waxed rhapsodic and shouted for joy saying...

"22 Brethren, shall we not go on in so great a cause? Go forward and not backward. Courage, brethren; and on, on to the victory! Let your hearts rejoice, and be exceedingly glad. Let the earth break forth into singing. Let the dead speak forth anthems of eternal praise to the King Immanuel, who hath ordained, before the world was, that which would enable us to redeem them out of their prison; for the prisoners shall go free.

23 Let the mountains shout for joy, and all ye valleys cry aloud; and all ye seas and dry lands tell the wonders of your Eternal King! And ye rivers, and brooks, and rills, flow down with gladness. Let the woods and all the trees of the field praise the Lord; and ye solid brocks weep for joy! And let the sun, moon, and the morning stars sing together, and let all the sons of God shout for joy! And let the eternal creations declare his name forever and ever! And again I say, how glorious is the voice we hear from heaven, proclaiming in our ears, glory, and salvation, and honor, and immortality, and eternal life; kingdoms, principalities, and powers!" (D&C 128)

 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Are you seriously arguing that the concept of Israel's election doesn't predate the New Testament?

Only a few thousand years.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On the “Mars Hill Church in Phoenix” thread, Vance responded to Pa Pa’s assertion that Calvinism constitutes “the most destructive cult that calls themselves Christian” with the following regarding Calvinists (post #120)--

--Erik

And Pa Pa was right (for once) it is a doctrine that kills the soul; because they believe through irresistible Grace that they are saved, there is no need repent. My father (God rest his soul) who was a Baptist minister saw Calvinism as a cancer. Also you should read the entire BoM and not cherry pick...Joseph "translated" the book. If not he wrote the most amazing book in the last 2,000 years. Edited January 10, 2014 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Five Solas]

I just read Alma 31 again and the actions and beliefs of the Zoramites were quite well spelled out. They were not in any sense Christian in that they denied any way to know of future events. They were not the first peoples to say they were chosen by God in the history of the world. They were not the first people to think the rest of humanity was going to burn in hell.

And , the book of Alma was edited by Mormon who may have used the language of election and predestination to represent the gist of the matter. That is , however , unknowable.

To say that John Calvin was the first and only person to have considered such beliefs is wishful.

What I wrote, strappinglad, was that the "concept [of double-predestination] originated with John Calvin's observation in Institutes"--which I quoted along with the relevant passage from Alma 31.  And you, my friend, provided no evidence to demonstrate the contrary.  None at all.  Instead, you imply I'm being "wishful."  Afraid the real wishfulness on the thread is the 8 members who awarded you rep points for a post that was pure allegation and no substance. 

;0)

 

--Erik  

[teddyaware]

What I wrote, strappinglad, was that the "concept [of double-predestination] originated with John Calvin's observation in Institutes"--which I quoted along with the relevant passage from Alma 31.  And you, my friend, provided no evidence to demonstrate the contrary.  None at all.  Instead, you imply I'm being "wishful."  Afraid the real wishfulness on the thread is the 8 members who awarded you rep points for a post that was pure allegation and no substance. 

;0)

 

--Erik

 

It's obvious that with your OP you still think you scored a devastating point against the Book of Mormon. I've responded to you, as have several others, and I think we've made a very strong case otherwise. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

Edited January 11, 2014 by teddyaware

[Five Solas]

Are you seriously arguing that the concept of Israel's election doesn't predate the New Testament?

Kindly read what I wrote, volgadon.  I wrote the concept of double-predestination originated in Calvin's Institutes.  If you can provide a quote that expresses the idea at an earlier date (no, Alma 31 doesn't count--because I think that's a 19th century creation) I'll gladly take correction.  And if you can provide a verse in the Old Testament that contains the words "predestined" and/or "election" as they appear in the New--I'll gladly take that correction as well. 

 

It seems we've a trend of LDS defenders who would prefer to argue with what they wish I'd written--rather than what I actually wrote...

 

--Erik

[teddyaware]

Kindly read what I wrote, volgadon.  I wrote the concept of double-predestination originated in Calvin's Institutes.  If you can provide a quote that expresses the idea at an earlier date (no, Alma 31 doesn't count--because I think that's a 19th century creation) I'll gladly take correction.  And if you can provide a verse in the Old Testament that contains the words "predestined" and/or "election" as they appear in the New--I'll gladly take that correction as well. 

 

It seems we've a trend of LDS defenders who would prefer to argue with what they wish I'd written--rather than what I actually wrote...

 

--Erik

Kindly explain what you mean by double predestination.