Featured Way of Arminian Baptists forum

This is a false accusation. Iconoclast has never, to my knowledge, stated that no sharing of the gospel should happen because God will save whom he wills anyway. That would be hyper calvinism. Instead, what is shared is the biblical truth that God causes everyone who believes...to believe. God leaves all others to their natural outcome of separation from Him by virtue of their own wickedness.

Your accusation against God is that you think he is unfair if he causes one human to believe, but doesn't cause all humans to believe. You have a humanistic concept of fairness.

If you want God to be fair, then you want all humanity to burn in hell as we justly deserve. You want God's just fairness and thus hate his loving grace given to whomever he wills.

 

Paul showed to us otherwise though!

 

God is not a Universalist, is He?

 

I hold to it as same way Dr Sproul did
"Double" Predestination by R.C. Sproul

 

You cannot define a Calvinist or a hyper Calvinist.

 

Norman Geisler saw any 5 pointers as being by definition a Hyper cal!

 

Interesting that people use the term "Five Point Calvinists", when Calvin himself never belived in the "L"! The pastor of my first Church in London, the American Dr R T Kendall, of Westminster Chapel (Lloyd-Jones), actually was a Calvinist, but reminded me during our weekly Bible study questions/answers, that he himself was only a 4 Pointer, like Calvin was!

 

There is a vigorous in house debate on just what Calvin held in that!

 

Calvin on

Colossians 1:14, "He says that this redemption was procured through the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated".

Mark 14:24, "Which is shed for many. By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race; for he contrasts many with one; as if he had said, that he will not be the Redeemer of one man only, but will die in order to deliver many from the condemnation of the curse."

 

His fancy way of stating that Jesus death sufficient to save all, but will only save those intended by God to get saved!

 

Then WHY did he not say this? As I said Dr Kendall did a thesis on this for his doctrate in the UK, and wrote a book showing from Calvins own writings, that he never believed in the "L". As did my good pastor friend, who is a 5 Point Calvinist, whose wife translated Calvin's commentary on Galatians, that Calvin did not believe in the "L"! These are Reformed scholars who say this!

 

I know, just as there are many who state that he did hold to Limited view though!

 

From his writings

 

Yes, but the context and what was meant and addressed come into play here!

 

First, does it occur to you that even if Calvin didn't expressly state that penal substitutionary atonement is limited to the elect, it doesn't matter? Let me be the first to say that not everything Calvin believed was a correct view. This is precisely why it is foolish to label a person as a Calvinist. That implies I follow Calvin (whom I have read only snippets of commentary). Instead, let scripture alone determine if penal substitutionary atonement is limited to the elect or is given to all humans.

 

So some have gone beyond even what Calvin himself would admit?...wait, isn't there a term for that?

 

It's called exegesis of scripture and letting scripture speak.

Shall I call you a hyper-free willyite? (Why do I picture you next to a killer whale?)

 

I fully agree with you, as disagree with Calvin on how he view Double predestination and Infant Baptism for example!

 

Yes, calvinism!