Featured is Hyper calvinism even to be considered 'real cal?"

Well then, if you are so concerned about Lurkers then you must detail what your referencing

Taken from Wiki:

The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion are the historically defining statements of doctrines of the Church of England with respect to the controversies of the English Reformation. First established in 1563, the articles served to define the doctrine of the Church of England as it related to Calvinist doctrine and Roman Catholic practice.[1] The full name for the articles is commonly abbreviated as the Thirty-Nine Articles or the XXXIX Articles.

ARTICLE XVII. Of Predestination and Election.
Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

 

Okay,why do so many Baptists here --especially the non-Calvinistic ones here,deny even being Protestant then?

Being Reformed is not a broader label; but a more restrictive one than the term Protestant.

 

I have no idea.

I didn't know many did deny this...

My understanding is that the REFORMATION was against the abuses and some doctrinal issues within the Catholic church. Both Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic believers were among those who joined that movement of reforming the church. I understand that certain labels take on more specific meanings, but I'm referencing the original historical label, not what many have made it today.

Most Calvinists today wouldn't affirm Luther's take on many of these finer soteriological perspectives, yet he was seen as the father of the reformation. I'm not sure how the detailed finer point of soteriology among the reformers was relevant. Where was the line drawn? Did you have to affirm all 5 points, or were the 4 pointers included? What about supra or infras? Did one of those groups lose the label too? See my point? I think we draw lines where lines didn't exist in those days.

 

I don't know what percentage of Christians constitute "in the world today" but I suspect it is marginal. (Did you mean the non-Christian world?)Many non-Cals say they agree with OSAS. But that is a watered-down "perseverance of the saints". Most non-Cals who believe in OSAS deny the bulk of the Canons of Dort. There is no way that they should be termed Calvinistic. That's turning meanings inside out. They are Arminianistic!

 

Whats interesting about this statement is that it is kind of written like the Baptist Faith and Message is now. It is vague enough for either group to affirm it depending on how one understands/interprets the words. For example, the phrase, "to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind," can be affirmed by the non-Calvinists because we too believe God chooses 'in Christ.' And since the phrase doesn't specifically define the grace as being effectual, we could likewise affirm that part of the statement. I AM NOT attempting to argue the authors weren't Calvinistic...I'm simply saying they kept the statement vague enough to be more inclusive of those who may not see it the exact same way as they do.

 

Early Lutherans were Calvinistic soteriologically. Did you ever read Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will? Now he is one guy who out-Calvins John Calvin in that regard. And as the Reformation movement picked up speed over all of Europe it was 90% or more Calvinistically driven.

Soteriologically-speaking most Calvinists would agree with Luther quite a lot. Again,I am speaking of the soteriological realm alone.

 

Here is one for you to consider. I start going to a "Non Denominational" Church. So when I start having one on one conversation with the pastor he tells me I MUST believe in all 5 of the Tulip points. Then when I tell him I'm having trouble with Definate Atonement, he tells me to look for another church. I also in quire about being a confessional church and he tells me no but they are more of a New Covenant Theology church. Figure that out. Now if he attempted to do that with a Roman Catholic, I can see why it would take him 11 weeks to retrain them.

 

10% is some, thus the point is made. Even still, the driving issue was not the this specific soteriological difference. Cals and Arms would have been seen much closer to each other at that time. That was not the point of the divide, though you may be correct that the major players tended to be more Calvinistic soteriologically...yet still very diverse even within their views of these issues.

 

One other point...

Go read some of Arminius' works...he sounds Reformed in the most Calvinistic sense of the word. In fact, most Calvinists today would probably love 95% of what he wrote. He wasn't some Joel Osteen sounding namby pamby feel good preacher that most equate to 'arminian' theology today.

 

Says who? You? Meaningless.

What a surprise! So you think when Spurgeon believes scripture literally that is a poor message? I would have never guessed that in a million years.

Yeah, everybody knows Calvin was infallible.

I've never seen a Calvinist admit he is hyper, and I've never seen a Calvinist admit he is inconsistent. All Calvinists believe they are just right. (and elect)

Wow, a REAL Calvinist. That's a first. :laugh:

 

Maybe we should begin categorizing it by Gold, Silver or Bronze

 

Typically. Yes.

 

So if I went to a Reformed Baptist Church without that element (Covenant Theology) being studied, then I would be prohibited from joining similar to when I went to this Non Denomination place & told them I wasn't solid with Limited Atonement & they told me to take a hike.

So lets say I was a Presbyterian & I believed in Paedo Baptism, would the same rules apply in a Reformed Baptist Church that I could not join? Of course, I would not know why I would want to, right.

 

It is not required of MEMBERS that they agree with Covenant Theology. Members must agree to submit to the official position of the church and not advocate against it.

Membership is based on a credible profession of faith and being scripturally baptized. That means professor-only baptism. We will not accept for membership those who have been baptized as infants without first submitting to professor-only baptism.

 

Let me ask you this -- do you value any other message of Spurgeon's or just this Arminian-slanted one?

If you think CHS interpreted this passage literally --do you think he interpreted any other portion of Scripture literally?

And please define the term literally.

You are a silly man. I was just saying that Spurgeon's take on this passage was not a serious exegetical study. Calvin is not the end-all when it comes to biblical interpretation. Gill,Turretin,Owen,Thomas Goodwin,Warfield and many others can be consulted who would be superior to Calvin at certain points. But when commenting on this passage Calvin's take is more biblical than the esteemed Charles Spurgeon --who over all is quite excellent.

That's because Calvinists are not to be confused with hyper-Calvinists! If you can't differentiate properly --you need to study with much more discernment.

And have you ever admitted that you are?

And do you believe you are right? Hmm... you ar certainly not winning here.

As I said,I am not a moderate Calvinist and neither am I a hyper-Calvinist. I am betwixt the two points. I am in that sweet spot --hence a real Calvinist.

 

I like his Arminian messages. :thumbs:

I would hope so.

When something is said to be literal, it means what it obviously says. When scripture says God is not willing that any should perish, it means God is not willing that any should perish.

Why do you need to consult any of these persons, can't you understand scripture?

Calvinists themselves cannot decide who is "hyper". Many Calvinists consider Arthur Pink to be a hyper-Calvinist, but those at Outside the Camp consider him to almost be Arminian.

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/nopink.htm

I can honestly say I have never admitted to being a Calvinist of any kind.

If I thought I was always right I would not be a Christian. The first thing you must admit before you can be a Christian is that you have been wrong many times.

Oh, I heard you the first time. You are a REAL Calvinist. (elect too)

When you find a Calvinist who does not believe he is the REAL deal, let me know. And if you find one who does not believe he is elect, point him out as well, I would like to see that.

 

Name another other than his message on the above referenced one. You will come up empty.

Right now I will not rehash a Cal vs. Arminian argument. But since you mention this passage..."not willing that any should perish" literally means not willing that anyone should die. But that is not the intended meaning. The real meaning is that the folks in question will not expreience the Second Death --not just their natural death.

There is no need,but one is silly not to consult the writings of established exegetes of the Word of God. I answered you plainly enough. No need to repeat my point.

Many? I would say a distinct minority.

Here is where your lack of discernment is way off the charts. The Outside the Camp folks make hyper-Calvinists look like semi-Pelagians in comparison.

Can't you read? You had said :"And I've never seen a Calvinist admit he is inconsistent." I replied :"And have you ever admitted that you are?" Then you come back with the inane remark that "You I can honestly say I have never admitted to being a Calvinist of any kind." You aren't too bright there.

You asked the question -- I gave the answer.

Yes I am elect. You don't believe you are? The Scripture enjoins us to examine ourselves to determine that our calling and election are genuine.

Any true believer in the Lord is elect. One can't be saved yet non-elect. The Scripture would be against you on that as it is against many of your beliefs.

 

It is not my practice to read Spurgeon sermons, but I have read a few over the years. I like Warrant of Faith:

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0531.htm

I especially like this statement in this sermon which is very anti- Calvinist

I have in fact quoted this passage several times to show that Spurgeon believed faith precedes regeneration. Actually, Spurgeon believed they happened at the same moment, but Spurgeon did not believe regeneration precedes faith. This is far more in agreement with non-Cal or Arminian theology than Reformed/Calvinism.

I have read a few other statements by Spurgeon I liked as well, but I would have to search to find them.

Not quite sure what you are trying to say, it is appointed unto men once to die, then the judgment. So, it is certainly not speaking of the first death, everybody understands that.

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Obviously when the scriptures say God is not willing that any should perish, it is speaking of the second death.

Only if your "established exegetes" are properly interpreting scripture. If they teach error, then it is worse than silly to study them. The scripture warns of false teachers, they are out there you know. And I would propose that those who teach Calvinism are false teachers. I have shown MANY scriptures that easily refute Calvinism in the last few years. Calvinism is so far out in right field it is not even in the parking lot.

Really? Google Pink and hyper Calvinist and literally dozens of articles will pop up, most written by fellow Calvinists.

My discernment? Outside the Camp are simply consistent Calvinists. In some respects I have a lot of respect for that site. They are gutsy, they stand firm and strong for Calvinism. It is full blown error, but at least they are going down in flames. That is far better than luke-warm Calvinists.

I understood what you were asking, and it was actually a very clever answer and you KNOW it. :thumbs:

Yes, you are a REAL Calvinist. You are the standard all others should be judged by. Got it.

Oh, I know I am elect, because I believe Jesus died for all men. That means ME.

You don't believe Jesus died for all men, you have no idea who is elect or not. Calvinists say this all the time. If you do not know if others are elect, then you do not know you are elect either.

Just because you have convinced yourself you are elect doesn't make it so. Your faith does not determine reality. You could believe a glass of poison is simply water and safe to drink, and it will kill you if you drink it.

This is common with Calvinists, you believe that if you believe you are elect that it must be so. That is total nonsense, Jesus either died for you personally or he did not, no matter what you personally believe.

I don't have that problem, Jesus died for ALL MEN. That puts my name on the list.

Not if Limited Atonement is true. If Jesus did not die for you personally, it doesn't matter what you believe, your faith is vain.

You are doing the very thing you accuse Arminians of, you are choosing yourself. But if Calvinism is true, you are only elect if God chose you, and you have no idea whom he chose, including yourself.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too, it won't work.

 

Skan,

I think Mr. Olson is taking some poetic license in linking Arminianism to the Reformation, at least in a positive sense. Most Arminians bristle at the thought of being considered as Protestants. One can say that Arminians are a product of the Reformation only in a highly qualified sense. Arminianism was born during the Reformation period. The Reformation and Reformed Theology are linked, with the latter proceeding from the former. Arminianism went its own direction and was officially repudiated by the Reformed churches at the Synod of Dordt.

In order to be intellectually honest I need to state that Reformed Baptist Churches are not Reformed according to the historical use of the word. The Reformed churches born out of the Reformation followed the theological tradition of Heinrich Bullinger, Huldrych Zwingli, and John Calvin. The first Calvinistic Baptists did not refer to themselves as Reformed. Because of their particular stand on definite atonement they became known as Particular Baptists. The term "Reformed Baptist" is uniquely American, having entered usage in the 1960's. It came into use to describe an understanding of the Bible represented by the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. The term was more comprehensive than "Particular Baptist" which centered one point of Calvinism. So, in that sense, Particular and Reformed Baptists are products of the Reformation and can be described as Protestants.