Puritanism

[DaveXR650]

I’d kinda like to hear what Dave considers are the qualifiers of Hyper Calvinists… like what makes them hyper? Too much perhaps

A hyper-Calvinist theologically speaking, is anyone more Calvinistic than me.
Really, it is usually defined as someone who believes that justification of people who are elect takes place either in eternity past, or at the latest, at the time of Jesus's death on the cross. Most Calvinists believe justification is by faith alone and therefore would take place when or right after a person believes. Do you fit in somewhere in that scheme of things? Or were you really asking in a serious way?

 

[DaveXR650]

In reality, you've 'attacked' a whole group of Christians with your unsubstantiated smear.

Well. There you go. That's a good place to start. Glad you agree. So when someone says to a free will person that they have turned faith into a work and therefore they have a false gospel I would call that an attack. And if I say that you must call on people to repent of their sins and if you were to say that that was also a false gospel I would call that an attack. Have you never heard any of that on here?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

A hyper-Calvinist theologically speaking, is anyone more Calvinistic than me.
Really, it is usually defined as someone who believes that justification of people who are elect takes place either in eternity past, or at the latest, at the time of Jesus's death on the cross. Most Calvinists believe justification is by faith alone and therefore would take place when or right after a person believes. Do you fit in somewhere in that scheme of things? Or were you really asking in a serious way?

I find the label to be a pejorative frankly

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well. There you go. That's a good place to start. Glad you agree. So when someone says to a free will person that they have turned faith into a work and therefore they have a false gospel I would call that an attack. And if I say that you must call on people to repent of their sins and if you were to say that that was also a false gospel I would call that an attack. Have you never heard any of that on here?

Well then, so you consider a Free Will person biblical? Do Calvinists believe that they are legitimately true Christians? Let me preface this by letting you know that I personally believe that Free Will people are Christian but they are in rebellion against a Sovereign God, and that is coming from a sin nature that cannot accept the Creator as total.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well then, so you consider a Free Will person biblical? Do Calvinists believe that they are legitimately true Christians? Let me preface this by letting you know that I personally believe they are Christian but they are in rebellion against a Sovereign God, and that is coming from a sin nature that cannot accept the Creator as total.

Genesis 18:25. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

 

[Brightfame52]

davexr650

Really, it is usually defined as someone who believes that justification of people who are elect takes place either in eternity past, or at the latest, at the time of Jesus's death on the cross.

Thats exactly what I believe because the scripture teaches it, Gods elect were Justified before God before the world began by the Purpose of God when Grace was given the Elect in Christ Jesus their Surety Mediator before the world began 2 Tim 1:9

9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

They were Justified at the Cross by the actual death of Christ in time Rom 3:24

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Rom 4:25

25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Then sometime in their life they are given Spiritual life and receive a spiritual persuasion, evidence of their Justification before God by Faith Rom 5:1

Therefore being justified, by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

So one can be Justified by Faith only because they were already Justified before God from eternity and at the cross.

The Just/Justified shall live by Faith

Now if one says they were Justified before God because of their act of believing, that's works and denial of grace.

 

[DaveXR650]

I find the label to be a pejorative frankly

I guess this is my mistake but this is a good example of what happens. You didn't answer the question but instead indicate that you have been insulted. Now right below you Brightframe explains that he believes what I wrote. I don't know what he thinks of the label, but he agrees with the accuracy of the definition. One of the other guys that believes that same way posted an article himself on here that is called "Why I am a HyperCalvinist". So your only contribution is that you are offended. I didn't invent the label. Some of the guys who believe that way use it themselves. Do you believe that way yourself? And maybe explain why. If you do, it may be wordy and if you mention counter arguments then you'll be considered wishy washy or a mugwump but at least you will be in what's called a discussion.

 

[Van]

If the waters are muddy, they are muddy. Reducing the volumes of theology and sermons over the past 500 years to your own interpretation of an acronym that Sproul didn't even like won't make it clearer.

Again addressing me as a dodge while running for your unbiblical doctrines.

 

[DaveXR650]

Therefore being justified, by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

So one can be Justified by Faith only because they were already Justified before God from eternity and at the cross.

The Just/Justified shall live by Faith

Now if one says they were Justified before God because of their act of believing, that's works and denial of grace.

Thanks for explaining. I just don't think that that is the correct way to look at it. Even R.C. Sproul said that an elect person, before he is saved, is lost. You are not justified until you believe. And, you are correct in that if you view faith with any more merit than that of taking hold of God's offer of pardon or of contributing more than being what links you to Christ then it would be a work.

Also. And like I said, you are always a gentleman, but in the scope of an internet discussion, when you tell someone that their take on the order of salvation is "a denial of grace", I consider that an attack on their beliefs. I can see how you can logically come up with the order of salvation you do. I can see how using the same logic you can come up with a strict limited atonement. But I don't think either of those things are the right way to express what is going on. Because of that I tend to get slammed by both sides on occasion.

 

[Van]

Roger Williams was a fruit of Puritanism. Much of what he did was done while still a Puritan. There is a lot of debate about whether he stayed a Baptist long in terms of how we view a Baptist.

That is like saying Calvin was the fruit of Popeism.

Bottom line, another taint so post from those dreading truth.

 

[Van]

]Anyone who believes as all Calvinists do, including Puritans, that individual election for salvation was completed before creation, must muddy the waters when it comes to "limited atonement" and preaching to those who cannot seek God or trust in Christ.

The Decoded TULIP:

T = total spiritual inability, no capacity to seek God or trust in Christ.

U = Unconditional Election, God chose individuals before creation not based on any of their characteristics.

L = Limited Atonement, Christ provides salvation only for supposedly previously chosen elect individuals.

I = Irresistible Grace, God alters and enables the elect to seek God and trust in Christ.

P= Once saved, always saved. (The only point of the TULIP that is valid)

The Word of God:

God's word says the lost seek God. Romans 9:16

God's word says everyone believing into Him shall not perish, but have eternal life, thus salvation is conditional. John 3:16

God's word says Christ became the means of reconciliation for the whole world, all of humanity. 1 John 2:2

God's word says God credits our faith, rather than instilling righteous faith. Romans 4:23-25

God's word says once saved, always saved, for we shall never perish. John 3:16

 

[DaveXR650]

Again addressing me as a dodge while running for your unbiblical doctrines.

Thank you Van. I'm looking for examples for Ky and once again you come through. I consider brushing off what I write in a post with the dismissive statement of "unbiblical doctrines" an attack. (In the internet debate board sense, of course).

That is like saying Calvin was the fruit of Popeism.

Bottom line, another taint so post from those dreading truth.

Good. Keep 'em coming. You see. I get this as if I'm the most militant Calvinist around and then from the hypers as advocating the evil works based system of the Puritans and MacArthur.

Of course, then, someone comes on and says, not works based, but because you believe in election. As above.

Now Van. I have said before on here and you can go back and look it up. This infuriates the Calvinists but if you have looked into their theology and you find it lacking what I would suggest to you is that you reject it and don't use it. You come to Christ by faith and you repent of your sins. You do not have to be a Calvinist. I have looked into it too and as a system I think it is better organized than other systems and more logical in giving an overview of the history and method of the salvation of men. But it is very diverse in the ways different groups interpret it, even among it's adherents, and it makes some logical leaps that I think may be the result of men intruding into areas we can't possibly understand. So I would suggest to you that you not try to become a Calvinist and don't let anyone tell you you have to. But if you get on a debate board where there is a debate about aspects of Calvinism expect rebuttal when you make a definitive statement against it.

 

[Van]

Anyone who believes as all Calvinists do, including Puritans, that individual election for salvation was completed before creation, must muddy the waters when it comes to "limited atonement" and preaching to those who cannot seek God or trust in Christ.

The Decoded TULIP:

T = total spiritual inability, no capacity to seek God or trust in Christ.

U = Unconditional Election, God chose individuals before creation not based on any of their characteristics.

L = Limited Atonement, Christ provides salvation only for supposedly previously chosen elect individuals.

I = Irresistible Grace, God alters and enables the elect to seek God and trust in Christ.

P= Once saved, always saved. (The only point of the TULIP that is valid)

The Word of God:

God's word says the lost seek God. Romans 9:16

God's word says everyone believing into Him shall not perish, but have eternal life, thus salvation is conditional. John 3:16

God's word says Christ became the means of reconciliation for the whole world, all of humanity. 1 John 2:2

God's word says God credits our faith, rather than instilling righteous faith. Romans 4:23-25

God's word says once saved, always saved, for we shall never perish. John 3:16

Is it true many Calvinist say they disagree with their decoded doctrine? Yes

Is it true my posts indicate I am a Calvinist or want to be a Calvinist? Nope

Is it true Calvinists will say what they do not believe, but will not specifically say what they do believe? Yes

Behold the defense of the undefensible.

 

[Van]

What was "good" about Puritanism?

1) It exerted profound influence on our developing "American Culture." Hard working, studious, godly.

2) Justification by faith, and not by Popeish approval fostered "individualism."

3) The Mayflower Compact laid the foundation of “popular sovereignty” or self-government.

4) The need for public education, based on godly values, to help us out of our fallen nature in Adam.

 

[JonC]

What was "good" about Puritanism?

1) It exerted profound influence on our developing "American Culture." Hard working, studious, godly.

2) Justification by faith, and not by Popeish approval fostered "individualism."

3) The Mayflower Compact laid the foundation of “popular sovereignty” or self-government.

4) The need for public education, based on godly values, to help us out of our fallen nature in Adam.

And the hats. They had good hats.

 

[kyredneck]

I'd just love to know what you consider to be an 'attack' on a debate forum.

in the scope of an internet discussion, when you tell someone that their take on the order of salvation is "a denial of grace", I consider that an attack on their beliefs.

I consider brushing off what I write in a post with the dismissive statement of "unbiblical doctrines" an attack. (In the internet debate board sense, of course).

when you tell someone that their take on the order of salvation is "a denial of grace", I consider that an attack on their beliefs.

when someone says to a free will person that they have turned faith into a work and therefore they have a false gospel I would call that an attack. And if I say that you must call on people to repent of their sins and if you were to say that that was also a false gospel I would call that an attack.

Good grief, this is the iron that [should] sharpen your iron and cause you to dig deeper into the scriptures (in your case, a commentary).

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I guess this is my mistake but this is a good example of what happens. You didn't answer the question but instead indicate that you have been insulted. Now right below you Brightframe explains that he believes what I wrote. I don't know what he thinks of the label, but he agrees with the accuracy of the definition. One of the other guys that believes that same way posted an article himself on here that is called "Why I am a HyperCalvinist". So your only contribution is that you are offended. I didn't invent the label. Some of the guys who believe that way use it themselves. Do you believe that way yourself? And maybe explain why. If you do, it may be wordy and if you mention counter arguments then you'll be considered wishy washy or a mugwump but at least you will be in what's called a discussion.

I’m not offended… I don’t care if truth is known. Frankly it’s irrelevant.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Thank you Van. I'm looking for examples for Ky and once again you come through. I consider brushing off what I write in a post with the dismissive statement of "unbiblical doctrines" an attack. (In the internet debate board sense, of course).

Good. Keep 'em coming. You see. I get this as if I'm the most militant Calvinist around and then from the hypers as advocating the evil works based system of the Puritans and MacArthur.

Of course, then, someone comes on and says, not works based, but because you believe in election. As above.

Now Van. I have said before on here and you can go back and look it up. This infuriates the Calvinists but if you have looked into their theology and you find it lacking what I would suggest to you is that you reject it and don't use it. You come to Christ by faith and you repent of your sins. You do not have to be a Calvinist. I have looked into it too and as a system I think it is better organized than other systems and more logical in giving an overview of the history and method of the salvation of men. But it is very diverse in the ways different groups interpret it, even among it's adherents, and it makes some logical leaps that I think may be the result of men intruding into areas we can't possibly understand. So I would suggest to you that you not try to become a Calvinist and don't let anyone tell you you have to. But if you get on a debate board where there is a debate about aspects of Calvinism expect rebuttal when you make a definitive statement against it.

In other words Van, MAN UP

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Thanks for explaining. I just don't think that that is the correct way to look at it. Even R.C. Sproul said that an elect person, before he is saved, is lost. You are not justified until you believe. And, you are correct in that if you view faith with any more merit than that of taking hold of God's offer of pardon or of contributing more than being what links you to Christ then it would be a work.

Also. And like I said, you are always a gentleman, but in the scope of an internet discussion, when you tell someone that their take on the order of salvation is "a denial of grace", I consider that an attack on their beliefs. I can see how you can logically come up with the order of salvation you do. I can see how using the same logic you can come up with a strict limited atonement. But I don't think either of those things are the right way to express what is going on. Because of that I tend to get slammed by both sides on occasion.

RC Sproul was a Presbyterian. What does Presbyterian Covenant theology have to do with the Baptist Board forum?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Good grief, this is the iron that [should] sharpen your iron and cause you to dig deeper into the scriptures (in your case, a commentary).

You haven’t noticed that he quotes RC Sproul vs . Next, a formal partnership with a free will Pelagian. . Any evidence he digs deep into scripture?!? Get real!