For All you Calvinists, and otherwise

[Havensdad]

It could be seen that way, but there really is no way of defining hyper-Calvinism if we toss it off of the continuum. I disagree that one can be hyper-Calvinistic and not at least Supralapsarian. The main distinction (and I believe it says this in the chart) is that hyper-Calvinists often see God's election as preceding any other of the acts, and thus, nothing else really matters because it was all decided and decreed (determinism) before hand, so there is no other recourse than to the decree.

That position is, then, mutually exclusive to anything south of Supralapsarian.

It is a misunderstanding of this and other issues that drives much of our debate about these issues on the board. If one can be both a hyper-Calvinist AND an Infralapsarian, then all rules are off and there is no apt descriptor. But that is not the case, and thinking so mostly means that the person who holds that anyone can be a hyper-Calvinist apart from their category is mainly tossing out a pejorative and a fundamentalistic view as a means to gain a foothold in a debate apart from the theological facts of the case.

Brother,

You may be able to make an argument that a Hyper Calvinist has to be supralapsarian, logically (although that would not prevent them from being illogical, and holding it anyway). But you are failing to understand that you are speaking in two different categories. Hyper-Calvinism is not a matter of the decrees, even if you can tie them together, logically. It is a completely different way of looking at the issues.

And the problem is, that you can be a supralapsarian and NOT a Hyper Calvinist, logically. You can believe that election takes preeminence, and still believe that it is necessary to evangelize the lost, and offer salvation to all who will take it, without any logical contradictions. So even if your argument works one way (i.e. a hyper Calvinist must be a supralapsarian), it does NOT work the other way (i.e. a supralapsarian must be a hyper calvinist).

And you are correct; it IS a misunderstanding of these issues that drives much of the debate on these boards. So let's be precise, shall we?

 

[quantumfaith]

Molinism, or "middle knowledge" fits within elements in the table above in the Arminian semi-Pelagian areas, though some would also consider that it extends to Amyraldian area as well.

Middle knowledge is an attempt to reconcile the free will actions of humans with the divine sovereignty of God by, in essence, suggesting that God knows all possible worlds (or conditions) and has an adequate plan that takes into account all free actions. This position, of course, takes away from the Divine control of the cosmos and places more things in the natural realm.

It gets very complicated, and it is also (mostly) a very human and logical construct, not something that we can find based solidly in Scripture, but that is what a lot of theology is, and that is not really a problem -- theology is not "Scripture proof-texting" but rather a means of describing what it is that we see in Scripture as principles and doctrines.

Thank you for that humble and honest observation. Blessings

 

[quantumfaith]

Brother,

You may be able to make an argument that a Hyper Calvinist has to be supralapsarian, logically (although that would not prevent them from being illogical, and holding it anyway). But you are failing to understand that you are speaking in two different categories. Hyper-Calvinism is not a matter of the decrees, even if you can tie them together, logically. It is a completely different way of looking at the issues.

And the problem is, that you can be a supralapsarian and NOT a Hyper Calvinist, logically. You can believe that election takes preeminence, and still believe that it is necessary to evangelize the lost, and offer salvation to all who will take it, without any logical contradictions. So even if your argument works one way (i.e. a hyper Calvinist must be a supralapsarian), it does NOT work the other way (i.e. a supralapsarian must be a hyper calvinist).

And you are correct; it IS a misunderstanding of these issues that drives much of the debate on these boards. So let's be precise, shall we?

We know it as a syllogism. "all women are human beings, but not all human beings are women".

 

[glfredrick]

I'm sorry, you don't get off that easy. You made a charge, you need to back it or retract is. When I disagreed with your doctrine you automatically defaulted me to your false understanding and applied your "label" to me, to which I immediately corrected you.

The Arminianism of most on this board is the Wesleyan form, which points more toward Pelagianism than does classical Arminianism

Webdog... I'm actually trying not to engage you, mainly because I've seen from multiple postings of yours that trying to engage you is akin to nailing Jello to a wall. I've asked you before to state clearly what your actual position is, but you have refused, and I am supposed to discover it from reading your posts. You then become offended, something else I've seen regularly.

How about you clear up the mystery and just come out and state your position.

Others on the board are all over the place, but the staunch Arminians who argue hard for the free will of man are definitely in the category that I suggest -- Wesleyan Arminianism, trending to semi-Pelagianism and at times even drifting to complete Pelagianism. To "prove" that point, I would have to dredge through countless posts (as I did with the ad hominem thing) and quote multiple people. I'd be happy to do so, but for the time it takes. Perhaps in a day or so, I'll do just that, but I predict that it will make people angry, so I wonder at the wisdom of doing such. Perhaps you'll just have to forgive me and press on... :saint:

 

[webdog]

Webdog... I'm actually trying not to engage you, mainly because I've seen from multiple postings of yours that trying to engage you is akin to nailing Jello to a wall. I've asked you before to state clearly what your actual position is, but you have refused, and I am supposed to discover it from reading your posts. You then become offended, something else I've seen regularly.

Completely dishonest. You asked my point blank a couple weeks back on a particular view and I gave it. I didn't try to wiggle out of it like you are doing here in not providing proof to back your erroneous claim. Besides, "what your actual position is" is relative to what we are discussing, no? You want me to outline every biblical view I have on every biblical topic there is? Really?

How about you clear up the mystery and just come out and state your position.

How about you just come out and put your money where your mouth is and back your claim as it was asked of you or admit you have misrepresented a large number of people here.

It's a cop out to state it is too challenging to "dredge through countless posts" in order to prove that someone who doesn't hold to your soteriology believes man can come to God apart from any work by God on their life and that they are born "good" apart from the curse of sin. That should be an easy task. You made the claim, so obviously it is based on something you have read since you joined in August. You only have 650 posts, it shouldn't be that tough to know which thread you interacted with this person on.

My guess is there is no person, and there is no post, it is much easier to read what you want to hear rather than what is written. I would hope someone proofing dissertations would be doing this from the start.

 

[glfredrick]

Brother,

You may be able to make an argument that a Hyper Calvinist has to be supralapsarian, logically (although that would not prevent them from being illogical, and holding it anyway). But you are failing to understand that you are speaking in two different categories. Hyper-Calvinism is not a matter of the decrees, even if you can tie them together, logically. It is a completely different way of looking at the issues.

And the problem is, that you can be a Supralapsarian and NOT a Hyper Calvinist, logically. You can believe that election takes preeminence, and still believe that it is necessary to evangelize the lost, and offer salvation to all who will take it, without any logical contradictions. So even if your argument works one way (i.e. a hyper Calvinist must be a Supralapsarian), it does NOT work the other way (i.e. a Supralapsarian must be a hyper Calvinist).

And you are correct; it IS a misunderstanding of these issues that drives much of the debate on these boards. So let's be precise, shall we?

I do not disagree with what you just said...

It is a one-way street. One can be a Supralapsarian without being a hyper-Calvinist, but cannot be a hyper-Calvinist without being "at least" a Supralapsarian. There is no logical inconsistency here.

I just went back and review my initial post. I see that my clipping to make the post fit eliminated the sentences that explained this one-way street. I apologize for any confusion that has created. Our post limit of 10K characters meant that I had to trim the original material somewhat and I wished for everything to be in one post.

 

[glfredrick]

Completely dishonest. You asked my point blank a couple weeks back on a particular view and I gave it. I didn't try to wiggle out of it like you are doing here in not providing proof to back your erroneous claim. Besides, "what your actual position is" is relative to what we are discussing, no? You want me to outline every biblical view I have on every biblical topic there is? Really?
How about you just come out and put your money where your mouth is and back your claim as it was asked of you or admit you have misrepresented a large number of people here.

It's a cop out to state it is too challenging to "dredge through countless posts" in order to prove that someone who doesn't hold to your soteriology believes man can come to God apart from any work by God on their life and that they are born "good" apart from the curse of sin. That should be an easy task. You made the claim, so obviously it is based on something you have read since you joined in August. You only have 650 posts, it shouldn't be that tough to know which thread you interacted with this person on.

My guess is there is no person, and there is no post, it is much easier to read what you want to hear rather than what is written. I would hope someone proofing dissertations would be doing this from the start.

Like I said... :thumbsup:

 

[webdog]

Like I said... :thumbsup:

Like I said...cop out. Sort of like calling someone reformed a pelagian on a recent thread, no?

 

[Jarthur001]

This means what exactly?

I believe you have said more than a few times, that a man must SIN before he becomes a SINNER.


If i'm wrong, than I have misunderstood you.

 

[webdog]

I believe you have said more than a few times, that a man must SIN before he becomes a SINNER.


If i'm wrong, than I have misunderstood you.

I have. What does that have to do with man being good without the curse of sin affecting him? What does that have to do with man being able to come to God on their own?

Like I pointed out, holding to one particular view doesn't mean you hold to the whole. You believe Augustine in regards to sin, I doubt you believe him in regards to the necessity of infant baptism or their eternal destiny apart from it.

 

[preacher4truth]

How about you just come out and put your money where your mouth is and back your claim as it was asked of you or admit you have misrepresented a large number of people here.

This is normal operation for him here, unforunately. I was accused of being "pelagian" by his statement that I did works "to assure my position in Christ." Not directly, but indirectly by that statement. This he drummed up all on his own, because I belonged to IFB churches, and that he in fact also knows that not only do I teach this, do to his derivation, but that IFB churches teach this as well. The false logic is since I belonged to them, then therefore... He is frankly wrong to do this and assume this. And that is what it is, pure assumption, and accusational. Basically he took occasion to label me as pelagian. Not one church in all the IFB's that I know teach this, nor assume this, nor even portray this false doctrine, even though some are quite, what we would call, legalistic. Yet even this tag, "legalisitic" is abused and over used, as is our friends willingness to label many as pelagian. It's akin to the same spirit wherein he would need to look at every ones preaching manuscripts who think they are preaching expositorily, in order that he can determine whether or not they are, because he's a self-proclaimed expert on this also.

:sleep:

 

[Luke2427]

This is normal operation for him here, unforunately. I was accused of being "pelagian" by his statement that I did works "to assure my position in Christ." Not directly, but indirectly by that statement. This he drummed up all on his own, because I belonged to IFB churches, and that he in fact also knows that not only do I teach this, do to his derivation, but that IFB churches teach this as well. The false logic is since I belonged to them, then therefore... He is frankly wrong to do this and assume this. And that is what it is, pure assumption, and accusational. Basically he took occasion to label me as pelagian. Not one church in all the IFB's that I know teach this, nor assume this, nor even portray this false doctrine, even though some are quite, what we would call, legalistic. Yet even this tag, "legalisitic" is abused and over used, as is our friends willingness to label many as pelagian. It's akin to the same spirit wherein he would need to look at every ones preaching manuscripts who think they are preaching expositorily, in order that he can determine whether or not they are, because he's a self-proclaimed expert on this also.

:sleep:

And this is what you do regularly- yoke up with webdog and gang bang somebody who points out the error in your thinking.

Somebody gets your goat and you embark on a crusade against them and try to get as many people to join you as you can and try to turn as many people on baptistboard against the person as you can.

Why don't you just stick to the arguments rather than rousing a witch hunt against everybody who opposes you?

 

[quantumfaith]

bigot: n: One who holds obstinately and zealously to an opinion or position different from my own. (A. Bierce)

:smilewinkgrin:

 

[glfredrick]

I have. What does that have to do with man being good without the curse of sin affecting him? What does that have to do with man being able to come to God on their own?

Like I pointed out, holding to one particular view doesn't mean you hold to the whole. You believe Augustine in regards to sin, I doubt you believe him in regards to the necessity of infant baptism or their eternal destiny apart from it.

Like I said in another post above... Some people don't like the labels that their personal theological positions are tied to. Yet, their positions are just what they are.

You are welcome to be inconsistent if you like, but if you are inconsistent, how can any of the rest of us possibly engage you?

 

[preacher4truth]

And this is what you do regularly- yoke up with webdog and gang bang somebody who points out the error in your thinking.

Somebody gets your goat and you embark on a crusade against them and try to get as many people to join you as you can and try to turn as many people on baptistboard against the person as you can.

Why don't you just stick to the arguments rather than rousing a witch hunt against everybody who opposes you?

Where is my error in this? Which error of mine was pointed out? It was all assumption. No facts. If stating facts of what people say turns others against them, well, so be it. Everything I said here is true. You coming into the midst to say he accused me of error is totally false, as this is not what happened. Accusing is never pointing out error, it's pure assumption to which was admitted that he was wrong. Yet, he carries on with his accusations against "all the pelagians." Another assumptive accusation not based in fact.

I've stuck to the arguments. You do the same and practice what you preach.

Do I get another invite to ask for your address so we can meet, by PM?

BTW, since you are so factual, go find where my error was pointed out in the above accusations laid upon me, fact man. Since he himslef couldn't do so after it was addressed. And an apology followed. But now? It's back at it with accusations.


So, let's stick to the facts.


:saint:

 

[quantumfaith]

Just had an idea, and at this stage in my life, I need to record it before it departs my synapses.

Something I think would be of great benefit to most if not all of us on BB, would be an emoticon depicting "well-intentioned, gentle sarcasm". Use of it might help us at times to maintain reasonable blood pressure levels.

So, any of you who might be of the creative flair, help us out.

 

[Luke2427]

Where is my error in this? Which error of mine was pointed out? It was all assumption. No facts. If stating facts of what people say turns others against them, well, so be it. Everything I said here is true. You coming into the midst to say he accused me of error is totally false, as this is not what happened. Accusing is never pointing out error, it's pure assumption to which was admitted that he was wrong. Yet, he carries on with his accusations against all the pelagians. Another assumptive accusation not based in fact.

I've stuck to the arguments. You do the same and practice what you preach.

Do I get another invite to ask for your address so we can meet, by PM?

BTW, since you are so factual, go find where my error was pointed out in the above accusations laid upon me, fact man. Since he himslef couldn't do so after it was addressed. And an apology followed. But now? It's back at it with accusations.


So, let's stick to the facts.


:saint:

:laugh:
hopeless
:laugh:

 

[Amy.G]

Just had an idea, and at this stage in my life, I need to record it before it departs my synapses.

Something I think would be of great benefit to most if not all of us on BB, would be an emoticon depicting "well-intentioned, gentle sarcasm". Use of it might help us at times to maintain reasonable blood pressure levels.

So, any of you who might be of the creative flair, help us out.

How 'bout this one?

 

[Havensdad]

This thread has degenerated into sad bickering, once again. It is well past the page limit...

Time to lock, Mr. Moderator.

 

[quantumfaith]

How 'bout this one?

Great one, but isnt it a bit subtle? (By the way, that was also "gentle sarcasm" )