What is Hyper-Arminianism?

[Allan]

I see brother. But it that has been identified is a "growing concern" yet not named and personified in actuality, such as hyper-armianism is linked to Jerry Savelle, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, Kenneth Copeland and others. I think I could also put Joel Osteen in this same category. This is not nearly as ambiguous as "hyper-calvinism" is and I have not met a hyper calvinist personally.

However, let's pretend that whatever point they (hyper-cals) believe in be true, what is its ultimate and logical end? I contend that it would be that it is All God. And at the end of the day, if their tenets were absolutely true, would we still, Glorify God, and still, ultimately trust in Him, and believe that all of His Sovereign control and purposes are Just and Holy (as HE can be none other)?

What if this (hyper-cal) became readily indentifiable in a real local church, yet they preached the Gospel, baptized regularly, attributed all of it (and we know they would say all of it!!) was due to God, and all glory to Him? I can't sit here and say I would have a problem with that whatsoever.

Now, I do have a serious issue with hyper-arminianism. That is for certain.

I appreciate the links, and have been there often looking at what is said. Thank you.

I think one problem here you and some others don't seem think they 'are' readily identifiable (unless you mean public personalities) which I can state, there are some on this board who hold to many of these points. I personally know of man in my friends family who holds to 4 out of 5 of those condensed points. However this is basically just restating what I quote Phil Johnson saying.

There are those on here that state 'God has no kind of love for the non-elect', and that 'the gospel is NOT offered to the non-elect', as well as 'a person does not need to repent or believe in order to be 'eternally' saved. Remember that 'hyper' is to go beyond the normal affirmed tenants of that view into a realm that view does NOT identify nor agree with.. and though it comes 'from' a view it does not in fact or in reality reflect the view from which it originated.

But the problem is that 'at the end of the day' BOTH 'hyper views' teach either an unbiblical understanding of God or worse, a false god but most assuredly both teach a false gospel as the term 'hyper' depicts .. and not just on one end of the spectrum.

 

[JesusFan]

Not all Calvinists are the same.
I answered that to some degree here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1698636&postcount=61


As for you, I am not sure what your are.

Christian!

 

[preacher4truth]

I think one problem here you and some others don't seem think they 'are' readily identifiable (unless you mean public personalities) which I can state, there are some on this board who hold to many of these points. I personally know of man in my friends family who holds to 4 out of 5 of those condensed points. However this is basically just restating what I quote Phil Johnson saying.

There are those on here that state 'God has no kind of love for the non-elect', and that 'the gospel is NOT offered to the non-elect', as well as 'a person does not need to repent or believe in order to be saved'. Remember that 'hyper' is to go beyond the normal affirmed tenants of that view into a realm that view does NOT identify nor agree with.. and though it comes 'from' a view it does not in fact or in reality reflect the view from which it originated.

But the problem is that 'at the end of the day' BOTH 'hyper views' teach either an unbiblical understanding of God or worse, a false god but most assuredly both teach a false gospel as the term 'hyper' depicts .. and not just on one end of the spectrum.

Brother, we're going in circles with you describing hypers over and over. I got the definition, so we can move forward off of that. I say this in respect, it serves no purpose. I hope you realize, and I say this as a brother, that all of your identifying them is purely subjective, there is no real proof other than what you say.

Also, I can guarantee that the word-faith, "we control god like a genie "god" is definitely and patently a false god and a false Gospel.

I have no tangible proof to nail this to a real hyper, as this "phantom" still alludes us.

Now, back to this. If, lets say there were a hyper-cal church, that faithfully preached the Gospel, saw many saved/baptised, and attributed it all to the Glory of God, then what problem do we have with them? I believe also their stating that God loves the elect, and not the non-elect, they will tie to Gods dealings with Esau. I think we find these things hard ti digest, because we have trouble separating this from a Holy God who cannot be tainted by this. He is Just in doing so. Why? It becomes redundant, but, because He is Perfect, and He is Just. He can do no other.

The problem people have with accepting this is they say "it's unfair" which is really stating "God is unjust." But we know He can never be. He is "just, and the justifier" so in both ways, giving justice, and granting mercy,He is still God.

What if God hates someone? Does this hatred vitiate His Holiness and being Just? I say that is impossible, He is perfect in His being. Only He and He alone can possess things we see as negative, and yet it cannot effect negatively our immutable God. This is why I can accept His hatred toward Esau, and showing mercy to whom He wills to do so, and to whom He wills not to do so, He is still just.

 

[Allan]

Brother, we're going in circles with you describing hypers over and over. I got the definition, so we can move forward off of that. I say this in respect, it serves no purpose. I hope you realize, and I say this as a brother, that all of your identifying them is purely subjective, there is no real proof other than what you say.

Sorry, but it is patently not subjective but 'objective'.
The proof is that those who understand Calvinism and reformed doctrine better than you or I, have already (and in fact has already been) set out by them. Not non-Cals, Arminians, nor any other group but Reformed/Calvinistic believers. My proof is their declaration! So the very purpose it serves is to prove that the mainline Reformed community (both Reformed Baptist and Presby's) 'disagrees' with your assumption on this in that it serves no purpose cause it is merely 'subjective'.

Thus if a person declares 'such-and-such' is their view, and that view is in contradiction to the defined historical mainline views of that system of belief, then you tangible and verifiable proof, especially in light of the fact if that particular group has already identified views that go beyond the established system and into the realm of Hyper-ism.

Also, I can guarantee that the word-faith, "we control god like a genie "god" is definitely and patently a false god and a false Gospel

I agree and have never stated otherwise.

I have no tangible proof to nail this to a real hyper, as this "phantom" still alludes us.

Yes you do, as the proof is in the statements of those who hold to this and can be shown such views are 'contrary' or contradictory to the historical position of the view in question.. and these have gone on to point out just where the hyper goes beyond the teachings that were and are proven to be the histiorical main body of belief. The proof is not in the opponents word (against that general system of belief .. ie Cal vs Arm) but in the words of those who actually 'hold' the historical view describing the hyper view.. regardless of Arminian or Calvinism

Now, back to this. If, lets say there were a hyper-cal church, that faithfully preached the Gospel, saw many saved/baptised, and attributed it all to the Glory of God, then what problem do we have with them?

Problem #1.. they don't preach the gospel message due to the fact they don't believe they are to give the gospel to all men. They do not believe it is, in general, man's duty to repent either.. thus it can not be said they 'faithfully preach the Gospel'.

I believe also their stating that God loves the elect, and not the non-elect, they will tie to Gods dealings with Esau. I think we find these things hard ti digest, because we have trouble separating this from a Holy God who cannot be tainted by this. He is Just in doing so. Why? It becomes redundant, but, because He is Perfect, and He is Just. He can do no other.

Your premise falls short based on the fact the do not present the gospel because it is not an offer. This display is established in the fact that God has no love for the non-elect nor common grace.

The problem people have with accepting this is they say "it's unfair" which is really stating "God is unjust." But we know He can never be. He is "just, and the justifier" so in both ways, giving justice, and granting mercy,He is still God.

No.. it has nothing to do with being 'fair' or 'unfair' and any classical Arminian or non-cal will tell you that every time it is communicated incorrectly as their argument.

 

[JesusFan]

Brother, we're going in circles with you describing hypers over and over. I got the definition, so we can move forward off of that. I say this in respect, it serves no purpose. I hope you realize, and I say this as a brother, that all of your identifying them is purely subjective, there is no real proof other than what you say.

Also, I can guarantee that the word-faith, "we control god like a genie "god" is definitely and patently a false god and a false Gospel.

I have no tangible proof to nail this to a real hyper, as this "phantom" still alludes us.

Now, back to this. If, lets say there were a hyper-cal church, that faithfully preached the Gospel, saw many saved/baptised, and attributed it all to the Glory of God, then what problem do we have with them? I believe also their stating that God loves the elect, and not the non-elect, they will tie to Gods dealings with Esau. I think we find these things hard ti digest, because we have trouble separating this from a Holy God who cannot be tainted by this. He is Just in doing so. Why? It becomes redundant, but, because He is Perfect, and He is Just. He can do no other.

The problem people have with accepting this is they say "it's unfair" which is really stating "God is unjust." But we know He can never be. He is "just, and the justifier" so in both ways, giving justice, and granting mercy,He is still God.

What if God hates someone? Does this hatred vitiate His Holiness and being Just? I say that is impossible, He is perfect in His being. Only He and He alone can possess things we see as negative, and yet it cannot effect negatively our immutable God. This is why I can accept His hatred toward Esau, and showing mercy to whom He wills to do so, and to whom He wills not to do so, He is still just.

Think that the big concern is that a Hyper cal might refuse to witness, either themselves or sending forth missionaries, thus denying someone the actual means to become saved.....

believe that all of the elect of God shall be saved, but that God has choosen the Gospel as way to have them get saved...

God sends foreth enabling grace to sinner,,person now in a condition to hear and be able to respond in saving faith!

 

[DHK]

Brother, we're going in circles with you describing hypers over and over. I got the definition, so we can move forward off of that. I say this in respect, it serves no purpose. I hope you realize, and I say this as a brother, that all of your identifying them is purely subjective, there is no real proof other than what you say.

I think it is a matter of soul liberty on one hand, and a matter of the autonomy of the local church on the other.
If William Carey's church existed here today we probably wouldn't have any fellowship with them, and automatically deem them hyper-Calvinistic. In spite of many of them discouraging Carey from going to the mission field he went anyway.
There is a reformed Baptist Church in our city, but we don't fellowship with them. It is not what it sounds like. We don't go out of our way to fellowship with all the Baptist churches in the city. Nor do we say: "You are Calvinistic; you are cursed of the devil." Neither one is true. The point is that we are an IFB church, and being such we have enough on our plate to take care of our own church business than to interfere with the business of other churches. If they want to believe reformed doctrine then they are perfectly within their right to do so. That is soul liberty.

If you don't like the doctrine of our church you don't have to join it; neither do you have to join the reformed church if you don't like their doctrine. We have our choices--and they are FREE choices.

Within a city of a million there are only two or three other churches with which we have some fellowship. That is not because of exclusivity, it is because of practicality. We don't belong to a convention/association/fellowship/denomination/hierarchy/papal organization/ecumenical movement/WCC/etc. We are totally independent. We have enough on our plate with our own people, our own business than to be concerned with the business of other churches through other organizations.

Search out the church you feel is most biblical and be active in it.
If the church next door is "hyper-Calvinistic" or at the other end of the spectrum, then so what. "What is that to me?"

 

[JesusFan]

I think it is a matter of soul liberty on one hand, and a matter of the autonomy of the local church on the other.
If William Carey's church existed here today we probably wouldn't have any fellowship with them, and automatically deem them hyper-Calvinistic. In spite of many of them discouraging Carey from going to the mission field he went anyway.
There is a reformed Baptist Church in our city, but we don't fellowship with them. It is not what it sounds like. We don't go out of our way to fellowship with all the Baptist churches in the city. Nor do we say: "You are Calvinistic; you are cursed of the devil." Neither one is true. The point is that we are an IFB church, and being such we have enough on our plate to take care of our own church business than to interfere with the business of other churches. If they want to believe reformed doctrine then they are perfectly within their right to do so. That is soul liberty.

If you don't like the doctrine of our church you don't have to join it; neither do you have to join the reformed church if you don't like their doctrine. We have our choices--and they are FREE choices.

Within a city of a million there are only two or three other churches with which we have some fellowship. That is not because of exclusivity, it is because of practicality. We don't belong to a convention/association/fellowship/denomination/hierarchy/papal organization/ecumenical movement/WCC/etc. We are totally independent. We have enough on our plate with our own people, our own business than to be concerned with the business of other churches through other organizations.

Search out the church you feel is most biblical and be active in it.
If the church next door is "hyper-Calvinistic" or at the other end of the spectrum, then so what. "What is that to me?"

IF a Church is a "Bible believing/practicing" Church, regardless if arm/cal whatever, aren't we all preaching same jesus same Gospel, just differing in aspects of it?
A" in house" debate?

 

[preacher4truth]

Sorry, but it is patently not subjective but 'objective'.
The proof is that those who understand Calvinism and reformed doctrine better than you or I, have already (and in fact has already been) set out by them. Not non-Cals, Arminians, nor any other group but Reformed/Calvinistic believers. My proof is their declaration! So the very purpose it serves is to prove that the mainline Reformed community (both Reformed Baptist and Presby's) 'disagrees' with your assumption on this in that it serves no purpose cause it is merely 'subjective'.

Thus if a person declares 'such-and-such' is their view, and that view is in contradiction to the defined historical mainline views of that system of belief, then you tangible and verifiable proof, especially in light of the fact if that particular group has already identified views that go beyond the established system and into the realm of Hyper-ism.
I agree and have never stated otherwise.


Yes you do, as the proof is in the statements of those who hold to this and can be shown such views are 'contrary' or contradictory to the historical position of the view in question.. and these have gone on to point out just where the hyper goes beyond the teachings that were and are proven to be the histiorical main body of belief. The proof is not in the opponents word (against that general system of belief .. ie Cal vs Arm) but in the words of those who actually 'hold' the historical view describing the hyper view.. regardless of Arminian or Calvinism


Problem #1.. they don't preach the gospel message due to the fact they don't believe they are to give the gospel to all men. They do not believe it is, in general, man's duty to repent either.. thus it can not be said they 'faithfully preach the Gospel'.


Your premise falls short based on the fact the do not present the gospel because it is not an offer. This display is established in the fact that God has no love for the non-elect nor common grace.


No.. it has nothing to do with being 'fair' or 'unfair' and any classical Arminian or non-cal will tell you that every time it is communicated incorrectly as their argument.

No, I am sorry, I do not know of any, just because someone wrote about them doesn't mean they exist. I know of no calvinists, and no hyper-calvinists who believe any of what you say they believe, nor do I believe there are hyper-cals that refuse to preach the Gospel.

Can you name one?

I gather what you are saying is that hyper-c's exist, and refuse to preach, yet they themselves heard the message from someone, and subsequently got saved, yet now, they refuse to do the same? This sounds as hard to find as Big Foots blond cousin. I am not buying it, although I am hearing what you are saying.

I think you completely missed my point on the "God hates" part.

I believe it has everything to do with being fair or unfair. To dogmatically say "no it doesn't" is again, your subjectivity, thus opinion. That is the Arminian argument, they argue it is against reason that God elects some, not others. Some receiving Grace, others, Justice. They argue it is unfair, which is really "unjust."

If I run into one of these hyper-cals, we'll probably have a long talk. :thumbsup:

 

[DHK]

IF a Church is a "Bible believing/practicing" Church, regardless if arm/cal whatever, aren't we all preaching same jesus same Gospel, just differing in aspects of it?
A" in house" debate?

It would be nice to look at it that way--that brothers in Christ could dwell in unity. Bit it was Amos that said:

How can two walk together unless they be agreed.
There is one Calvinist on this board (at least) that doesn't believe one is saved unless he is a Calvinist; that Calvinism is the equivalent to the gospel. Now, with that in mind, how can any non-Cal have fellowship with such a person or a church that follows such a person. They are entitled to their beliefs. But that is as far as it will go concerning our church. That is all I am saying.

 

[Dr. Bob]

"Calvinism is the Gospel" ~ Charles Haddon Spurgeon.

Obviously, it is a "shorthand" or "simple formula" that summarizes the Gospel of Grace (not works) and that salvation is the Lord, not man.

I once thought all Arminian/semi-pelagian types were not truly born again, but trusting in their works, their decision, their will, their words. Do it right or lose it and go to hell. Works to gain, works to keep salvation.

My seminary prof related that he had been raised Arminian and was "saved" 50+ times between age 10-20. Maybe more.

I asked when he was REALLY saved. He said God saved him the first time. He said he was confused, thought he'd lost it, messed up by theological baggage of his church. But he added, "My confusion did not change the fact that God had saved me at age 10. God wasn't confused; I was".

This is why I give the benefit of the doubt to those enmeshed in the Arminian baggage. (And hope they do for me with my sovereignty baggage! ) God alone does the work in the heart. His Spirit's work in unseen but we are regenerated, whether we think it all of grace or if we think we must say xyz or pray just the right way or walk an aisle, etc.

God saves sinners. God changes the hearts of His enemies and makes us run to Him for mercy. He's good that way!!

 

[psalms109:31]

Do not doubt believe

Matthew 8 :
18Now when Jesus saw great multitudes about him, he gave commandment to depart unto the other side.

19And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.

20And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.

21And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.

22But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

23And when he was entered into a ship, his disciples followed him.

24And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep.

25And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish.

26And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.

27But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!


Jesus said we will be saved not maybe, but we will be saved.

We will go through great trials and tribulations (storms) in life, but God said we are going to the other side we are going to the other side.

 

[DHK]

"Calvinism is the Gospel" ~ Charles Haddon Spurgeon.

Obviously, it is a "shorthand" or "simple formula" that summarizes the Gospel of Grace (not works) and that salvation is the Lord, not man.

I once thought all Arminian/semi-pelagian types were not truly born again, but trusting in their works, their decision, their will, their words. Do it right or lose it and go to hell. Works to gain, works to keep salvation.

My seminary prof related that he had been raised Arminian and was "saved" 50+ times between age 10-20. Maybe more.

I asked when he was REALLY saved. He said God saved him the first time. He said he was confused, thought he'd lost it, messed up by theological baggage of his church. But he added, "My confusion did not change the fact that God had saved me at age 10. God wasn't confused; I was".

This is why I give the benefit of the doubt to those enmeshed in the Arminian baggage. (And hope they do for me with my sovereignty baggage! ) God alone does the work in the heart. His Spirit's work in unseen but we are regenerated, whether we think it all of grace or if we think we must say xyz or pray just the right way or walk an aisle, etc.

God saves sinners. God changes the hearts of His enemies and makes us run to Him for mercy. He's good that way!!

Spurgeon was very balanced in his "Calvinism."
A good exegesis of Eph.2:8,9 shows how that not only the grace of God is necessary but faith as well. Salvation by grace through faith. It is the gift of God, and thus must be accepted by faith. When one stresses that it is all of grace to the elimination of faith they are wrong. Faith is not a work. But faith is necessary for salvation.
Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
--This was Luther's great proclamation during the Reformation--justification by faith. Without faith there is no salvation.

The non-Cal can rightly say that salvation is all of God, and at the same time say that faith (not a work) is absolutely necessary for salvation. I don't believe any of us on the board here take the total Arminian view and believe that we can lose our salvation.

 

[drfuss]

Dr. Bob writes:
"My seminary prof related that he had been raised Arminian and was "saved" 50+ times between age 10-20. Maybe more."

You know Bob, it is examples like above that really causes confusion among Calvinists about Arminians. I have been an Arminian for 58 years and never once thought I needed to be "resaved". Over the years, I have known many Arminians; And only a very few of them believed they needed to be "resaved", and for those that did believe their spiritual condition required.that, it was only a few times in their Christian life.

 

[quantumfaith]

"Calvinism is the Gospel" ~ Charles Haddon Spurgeon.

Obviously, it is a "shorthand" or "simple formula" that summarizes the Gospel of Grace (not works) and that salvation is the Lord, not man.

I once thought all Arminian/semi-pelagian types were not truly born again, but trusting in their works, their decision, their will, their words. Do it right or lose it and go to hell. Works to gain, works to keep salvation.

My seminary prof related that he had been raised Arminian and was "saved" 50+ times between age 10-20. Maybe more.

I asked when he was REALLY saved. He said God saved him the first time. He said he was confused, thought he'd lost it, messed up by theological baggage of his church. But he added, "My confusion did not change the fact that God had saved me at age 10. God wasn't confused; I was".

This is why I give the benefit of the doubt to those enmeshed in the Arminian baggage. (And hope they do for me with my sovereignty baggage! ) God alone does the work in the heart. His Spirit's work in unseen but we are regenerated, whether we think it all of grace or if we think we must say xyz or pray just the right way or walk an aisle, etc.

God saves sinners. God changes the hearts of His enemies and makes us run to Him for mercy. He's good that way!!

Thank YOU!!!:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

I see brother. But it that has been identified is a "growing concern" yet not named and personified in actuality, such as hyper-armianism is linked to Jerry Savelle, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, Kenneth Copeland and others. I think I could also put Joel Osteen in this same category. This is not nearly as ambiguous as "hyper-calvinism" is and I have not met a hyper calvinist personally.

I just listed you several groups who would be considered Hyper-Cal. I'm not sure why you are claiming this is be "phantom" and pretending as if we have not answered you and shown you proof of groups who believe and support these teachings.

However, let's pretend that whatever point they (hyper-cals) believe in be true, what is its ultimate and logical end? I contend that it would be that it is All God.

So are you saying that you don't believe it is "all God," because you seem to equate their "end" with your beginning while simply ignoring any existence of error.

 

[Skandelon]

nor do I believe there are hyper-cals that refuse to preach the Gospel.

Can you name one?

We already listed you several anti-evangelistic groups P4T and we've provided quote after quote from Calvinistic scholars who address those who tend toward this hyperism. What else do you need? It seems you are just denying clear historical facts now. I'm not sure how one can reason with you if you are not willing to acknowledge and deal with verifiable historical facts.

If I run into one of these hyper-cals, we'll probably have a long talk. :thumbsup:

Go to one of the meetings of one of the groups I listed and meet one. Say "hi" to Big Foot's blond cousin while you're there.

 

[preacher4truth]

I just listed you several groups who would be considered Hyper-Cal. I'm not sure why you are claiming this is be "phantom" and pretending as if we have not answered you and shown you proof of groups who believe and support these teachings.


So are you saying that you don't believe it is "all God," because you seem to equate their "end" with your beginning while simply ignoring any existence of error.

lol. Pretending? :love2:

You've proved nothing. I've never met nor seen one, nor does the internet prove it's true. And since there are so many of them, where is one of their sects plainy a local ministry or church?

Name one by name. You avoid that. Thus, it's "phantom." I apologize my belief in this angers you.

Nope. I believe it is ALL GOD. Same end. No need to malign me over this or call it into question. You've seen many times I say it is ALL God.

I hope I'm not in any eternal trouble for believing it's all Him.

And not only have you spotted these, you've spotted Big Foots blond sister? :laugh: :thumbsup:

 

[preacher4truth]

We already listed you several anti-evangelistic groups P4T and we've provided quote after quote from Calvinistic scholars who address those who tend toward this hyperism. What else do you need? It seems you are just denying clear historical facts now. I'm not sure how one can reason with you if you are not willing to acknowledge and deal with verifiable historical facts. Go to one of the meetings of one of the groups I listed and meet one. Say "hi" to Big Foot's blond cousin while you're there.

Also note that the end of hyper/armininanism, and the false teachers thereof are presented in Scripture as being false, and their traits and demeanor and teachings are shown as an apostatizing from truth, or in other words not true believers.

Show me in Scripture believing it is ALL God is presented as false teaching as hyper-arminians are.

 

[Robert Snow]

I feel like Hyper-Arminism is much preferable to Hyper-Calvinism. Although I don't feel like either of the two are correct, the Hyper-Calvinist tends to be more judgmental and less prone to show Christian love than the Hyper-Arminian. And, after all, love is the defining characteristic of a Christian, or at least should be!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I feel like Hyper-Arminism is much preferable to Hyper-Calvinism. Although I don't feel like either of the two are correct, the Hyper-Calvinist tends to be more judgmental and less prone to show Christian love than the Hyper-Arminian. And, after all, love is the defining characteristic of a Christian, or at least should be!

I dont know, maybe Im confused but I see Hyper Arms as Semi-Pelagian gravitating towards full Pelagian theology.....thats a no no & I perseive Hyper Cals allowing for no deviation from a Calvinistic path (absolutely none). Ive had run ins with Presbyterian Hyper Cals about the death of my child....I was told I'd put my kid in hell because I & my wife were not a part of their belief system, so at the time they said my child was relegated to hell. Insult to injury....both my wife & I put the child there! To me thats Hyper Calvinism IE no flexibility, no compassion & very rigid. They fail to reach for answers beyond their scope of understanding of their rigid system. I will say further that I dont see Old School types like PB's as being that. My experiences have been the opposite.

Both hyper types begin to focus on self rather than Christ & it is Christ who saves. Indeed that is where you & I would agree.