FYI on Hyper-Calvinism:

[kyredneck]

Brother, you are trifling with the Word of God........

but we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by the manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man`s conscience in the sight of God. 2 Cor 4:2

There is nothing 'trifling' about the outright lies, deceit, and making merchandise of the flock that has arisen from the man made 'great commission' of the Church to populate heaven.

 

[kyredneck]

My intention was not to ridicule Primitive Baptists, merely to give people some historical context in how the term "Hyper-Calvinist" has historically been used.
Primarily it was to correct some on this board who consider Calvinism & Hyper-Calvinism to be essentially the same.

I actually hoped the PB would see this and give us some helpful clarifications. Such as:

-Is it the Title "Hype-Calvinist" that you disagree with, while agreeing with the position that we are not to preach the Gospel to every man, elect and non-elect? ...Or is there some nuance that we who are outside of PB are not getting?

-Is it simply that you think the title "Hyper-calvinist" should be used, since it was invented as negative term to describe those with opposite views....or do you see a real error in "Hyper-Calvinism" that Primitive Baptists would disagree with?

Someone has said:

"Everyone to the right of me is hyper".

I think that explains a lot of it.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Someone has said:

"Everyone to the right of me is hyper".

I think that explains a lot of it.

Define "Right" .... could it be I'm right & your wrong? Conclusion your a Cult & a heretic & Im Gods other son..... :tongue3:

 

[glfredrick]

Wait a moment Guy.....may I ask, do you seriously believe that bringing the gospel alone to someone who is without the help of the Holy Spirit will have any effect? I assure you it wont without the Holy Spirit.

We preach to all men, for WE do not sort out the elect, nor the effectually called, but we are commanded to preach the word, in season and out, ignoring those who suggest otherwise, for we rightly understand that they say so because of a wrong doctrine.

GOD sends His Spirit as He chooses (John 3) to whom He choses, when He choses, and yes, without the Holy Spirit, the Word will do nothing of consequence regarding one's salvation.

One of the great heresies of the church has been this concept put forward by some that the gospel was only for those already regenerated (Why? Is not the purpose of the gospel to BRING regeneration?) and/or that the gospel can only be preached TO the elect. How can we know?

Also note that a PB believes in preaching for the comfort and instruction of the Lord's people IE the elect (Isa. 40: 1-2, 9; Eph.4: 11-16).

The gospel is for that, but not exclusively...

I cite Paul:

Romans 10:14-15 (ESV) 14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!"

And this, from Jesus, Himself:

Acts 1:8 When the Holy Spirit has come upon you, you will receive power and will tell people about me everywhere — in Jerusalem, throughout Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.

Doesn't classify people. Doesn't say preach only to the elect. Doesn't say preach only to those who are already in a church. Says to the ends of the earth.

Those who say that the missio dei is not to carry the gospel to every person on earth are in a class unto themselves and have so utterly misunderstood the Word of God as to be of no value to His kingdom.

 

[12strings]

but we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by the manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man`s conscience in the sight of God. 2 Cor 4:2

There is nothing 'trifling' about the outright lies, deceit, and making merchandise of the flock that has arisen from the man made 'great commission' of the Church to populate heaven.

Here is where I see the primary difference. You can correct any misrepresentation of PB you find.

Primitive Baptist believe that all the commands to repent and believe, as well as all of the good news proclaimed in the Gospel, has no ETERNAL effect on whether one comes is Eternally saved or not? They are ALL simply to make our lives better here on earth (temporal salvation(s)?
-This is driven by a strong belief that God get ALL credit for salvation, and by many passages that say God has mercy on whom he wills, and man can contribute nothing to his salvation.

Calvinists (even Baptist Calvinists who disagree with much of Calvin's other teachings) believe that While God Elects, and the salvation of the elect is certain, The Spread of the gospel is the MEANS by which God effectually calls his Elect, and the faith he gives them is means by which they receive the gift of salvation.
-This is driven by a belief in unconditional election, but also by many passages that link response to God in this life with an effect on the eternal soul.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Here is where I see the primary difference. You can correct any misrepresentation of PB you find.

Primitive Baptist believe that all the commands to repent and believe, as well as all of the good news proclaimed in the Gospel, has no ETERNAL effect on whether one comes is Eternally saved or not? They are ALL simply to make our lives better here on earth (temporal salvation(s)?
-This is driven by a strong belief that God get ALL credit for salvation, and by many passages that say God has mercy on whom he wills, and man can contribute nothing to his salvation.

Calvinists (even Baptist Calvinists who disagree with much of Calvin's other teachings) believe that While God Elects, and the salvation of the elect is certain, The Spread of the gospel is the MEANS by which God effectually calls his Elect, and the faith he gives them is means by which they receive the gift of salvation.
-This is driven by a belief in unconditional election, but also by many passages that link response to God in this life with an effect on the eternal soul.

My brother, a Baptist youth Pastor approached me almost every day with the gospel & I spurned him & rebuked him. His efforts in fact caused me to move further away. No man, not my beloved brother, not a local pastor, not a bible sitting on my bureau was ever able to penetrate. Nothing save the direct intervention ever had any effect. I, in fact hated God & I had (I thought good reason). The devil on the other hand was very generous & gifted me with much success & I enjoyed that life....my most fun life was in the devils company. I find it difficult to believe that a 53 year life of debauchery & sinful living would have ever been arrested & turned around without Divine intervention.

 

[12strings]

My brother, a Baptist youth Pastor approached me almost every day with the gospel & I spurned him & rebuked him. His efforts in fact caused me to move further away. No man, not my beloved brother, not a local pastor, not a bible sitting on my bureau was ever able to penetrate. Nothing save the direct intervention ever had any effect. I, in fact hated God & I had (I thought good reason). The devil on the other hand was very generous & gifted me with much success & I enjoyed that life....my most fun life was in the devils company. I find it difficult to believe that a 53 year life of debauchery & sinful living would have ever been arrested & turned around without Divine intervention.

You are exactly right, but you are not interacting with what I said. When the direct interaction came, what made you know you had been changed? Did you have a love for the gospel that you once hated? If so, it was still a gospel that you had heard and knew of, even though for many years you resisted it. I, and every other calvinistic person is NOT saying you would turn to God on your own, but rather that the hearing of Gospel (that God grants) and the Faith in the Gospel (That God grants) is MEANS God uses to save the elect.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You are exactly right, but you are not interacting with what I said. When the direct interaction came, what made you know you had been changed? Did you have a love for the gospel that you once hated? If so, it was still a gospel that you had heard and knew of, even though for many years you resisted it. I, and every other calvinistic person is NOT saying you would turn to God on your own, but rather that the hearing of Gospel (that God grants) and the Faith in the Gospel (That God grants) is MEANS God uses to save the elect.

The gospel (after regeneration) became an important tool to furthering me as did other reference points. Of course, you cant eliminate them.

 

[Amy.G]

There is nothing 'trifling' about the outright lies, deceit, and making merchandise of the flock that has arisen from the man made 'great commission' of the Church to populate heaven.

What lies and deceit are you talking about? How is preaching the gospel "making merchandise" of the flock?

Why do you say the great commission is man made?

 

[kyredneck]

....Primitive Baptist believe that all the commands to repent and believe, as well as all of the good news proclaimed in the Gospel, has no ETERNAL effect on whether one comes is Eternally saved or not?

Correct. His sheep hear Him. Our reliance on Christ is the biggest indicator we have that we are born of God.

They are ALL simply to make our lives better here on earth (temporal salvation(s)?

Profession saves the lost sheep into the kingdom, which benefits can hardly be overstated. However, something that is generally missed with the majority of folks is that God does actually refuse some entrance (or reinstatement), for whatever reasons, into His kingdom, i.e., Heb 3:11, 18,19, 6:6. The tendency is to view repentance and belief as an absolute necessity rather than the wonderful privilege that it is. Our salvation is the most precious possession we can have, nothing can satisfy like a relationship with Christ and being partakers of the divine nature, and living with the clear conscience that comes from it. Nothing. And our enjoyment in this salvation is very much dependent on us, 2 Pet 1:4-11.

-This is driven by a strong belief that God get ALL credit for salvation, and by many passages that say God has mercy on whom he wills, and man can contribute nothing to his salvation.

Man has nothing to do with his birth [Jn 1:13], but has everything to do with his walk [Jn 1:12].

Calvinists (even Baptist Calvinists who disagree with much of Calvin's other teachings) believe that While God Elects, and the salvation of the elect is certain, The Spread of the gospel is the MEANS by which God effectually calls his Elect, and the faith he gives them is means by which they receive the gift of salvation.
-This is driven by a belief in unconditional election, but also by many passages that link response to God in this life with an effect on the eternal soul.

Reformed folks hold to gospel regeneration, PBs hold to immediate regeneration.

 

[kyredneck]

What lies and deceit are you talking about? How is preaching the gospel "making merchandise" of the flock?

Why do you say the great commission is man made?

The notion that it is the duty of the Church to populate heaven is false and man made.

 

[12strings]

Our reliance on Christ is the biggest indicator we have that we are born of God.

But Forest has said he believes that ANY spiritual interest at all is evidence of being born of God, even the case of a secular Old Testament proffessor who totally rejects the historicity and truth of the Bible, but studies it as literature, and is in fact working to discredit everything God has said in it. Forest seems to say the PB position is that the fact that he does have some interest in the OT shows that he is born of God.

 

[Amy.G]

The notion that it is the duty of the Church to populate heaven is false and man made.

So are you saying that when someone shares the gospel, he is lying and being deceitful?

 

[kyredneck]

But Forest has said he believes that ANY spiritual interest at all is evidence of being born of God, even the case of a secular Old Testament proffessor who totally rejects the historicity and truth of the Bible, but studies it as literature, and is in fact working to discredit everything God has said in it. Forest seems to say the PB position is that the fact that he does have some interest in the OT shows that he is born of God.

I don't have any say so over Forest's opinions, and I don't know that you're correctly conveying the gist of what he means. My opinion is that anyone who consistently demonstrates virtue and a genuine care (read agape) for their fellow man is showing evidence of the law written upon their hearts. Paul had this to say of the Jews:

For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, even as it is written. Ro 2:24

I don't believe the Gentiles have done any better with the tenets of the second covenant than the Jews did with the first, in fact the similarities of their errors are quite astonishing to me. I've no doubt there's many of His lost sheep who want nothing to do with the Church because of what they've seen or experienced of it.

 

[JonC]

Forest....Im sure you have studied others including Calvinists like Arthur Pink &/ or perhaps Charles Spurgeon....but i take you point to mean that you dont Identify with John Calvin. Many great Calvinists dont either. No Baptist could identify with Infant Baptism.

If you are talking about historic Calvinism, there are reasons other than paedobaptism that would prohibit a Baptist from being a Calvinist. Historic Calvinism was completely at odds with any denomination that would be described as free church – the primary difference being ecclesiological, not soteriological. The soteriological debate was primarily from within Calvinism. Baptists did not grow out of a reformation, but a reconstruction. It was very much a rejection of Calvinistic esslesiology.

The problem that I see is that many will say Calvinism derives its beliefs from previously held positions in Scripture– so all those before Calvin and all after who hold some of those beliefs (primarily sovereign election) are Calvinists. But those seperate positions do not constitute historic Calvinism. Just because a church would have affirmed Calvinistic soteriology does not make them Calvinists – it means that Calvin came to the same conclusion as others who have gone before and perhaps others afterwards. It helps to validate Calvinistic soteriology, but it does not make all who would agree with this soteriology Calvinists.

I reject righteousness by works because it is in the Bible – this does not make me a Jovianist.

 

[kyredneck]

So are you saying that when someone shares the gospel, he is lying and being deceitful?

No, and you know I'm not. My dialog with you is over.

 

[Amy.G]

No, and you know I'm not. My dialog with you is over.

No, I'm only trying to understand what you're saying. Here is your quote again.

There is nothing 'trifling' about the outright lies, deceit, and making merchandise of the flock that has arisen from the man made 'great commission' of the Church to populate heaven.

I'm asking you to explain this. Give me an example of "outright lies, deceit, and making merchandise of the flock".

You are accusing the church of deception. You need to explain your charge.

 

[kyredneck]

No, I'm only trying to understand what you're saying. Here is your quote again.



I'm asking you to explain this. Give me an example of "outright lies, deceit, and making merchandise of the flock".

You are accusing the church of deception. You need to explain your charge.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1617780&highlight=horrendous#post1617780

Take note of post #33

You're not just a wee bit fickle are you?

 

[Amy.G]

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1617780&highlight=horrendous#post1617780

Take note of post #33

You're not just a wee bit fickle are you?

No I'm not fickle. We do not personally cause the damnation of souls (reminds me of Jack Chick tracts I've seen), but that is different from a directive for the church to carry the gospel to the world.
When you say the church is lying and being deceptive, it requires an explanation don't you think?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If you are talking about historic Calvinism, there are reasons other than paedobaptism that would prohibit a Baptist from being a Calvinist. Historic Calvinism was completely at odds with any denomination that would be described as free church – the primary difference being ecclesiological, not soteriological. The soteriological debate was primarily from within Calvinism. Baptists did not grow out of a reformation, but a reconstruction. It was very much a rejection of Calvinistic esslesiology.

The problem that I see is that many will say Calvinism derives its beliefs from previously held positions in Scripture– so all those before Calvin and all after who hold some of those beliefs (primarily sovereign election) are Calvinists. But those seperate positions do not constitute historic Calvinism. Just because a church would have affirmed Calvinistic soteriology does not make them Calvinists – it means that Calvin came to the same conclusion as others who have gone before and perhaps others afterwards. It helps to validate Calvinistic soteriology, but it does not make all who would agree with this soteriology Calvinists.

I reject righteousness by works because it is in the Bible – this does not make me a Jovianist.

So your going to label Primitive Baptists as Calvinists? Good luck with that brother.