Hyper-Calvinism Heresy

Once again, take note of the original issue introduced on this thread:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The teaching of limited atonement, that Christ died only for the sins of the elect and not for the sins of the non-elect is heretical doctrine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chris Temple referred us all to a web-site of John Piper, a calvinist, to answer this question. Here is Piper's conslusion:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Therefore I affirm with John 3:16 and I Tim 2:4 that God loves the world with a deep compassion that desires the salvation of all men. Yet I also affirm that God has chosen from before the foundations of the world whom he will save from sin. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So Piper agrees with Psalm 145 so far. He continues:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Since not all people are saved we must choose whether we believe that God's will to save all people is restrained by his commitment to human self-determination or whether we believe that God's will to save all people is restrained by his commitment to the glorification of sovereign grace. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So for Piper, the issue is not for whom Christ died, but how people get saved. Chris seems to agree with this in this statement:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Again, Calvinists interpret this differently. Some interpret it as all elect men everywhere. I think this verse is better interpreted all men universally, as all men universally are responsible to repent, even if they cannot. This passage does no damage to man’s inability to repent on his own. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, though the calvinist argues over "for whom Christ died" he reluctantly agrees that Christ died for all and then subtly shifts the argument to "how people get saved." I don't understand the shell game with words that occurs in the discussion of this issue.

 

"Behold the Lamb of GOD who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29 NKJV) If Christ has taken away the sin of world in the sense of every human without exception, then no person bears the guilt of sin or will suffer justly under the wrath of the Almighty against sin because it was paid for by GOD's Lamb. No, No, the people that heard John the Baptist exclaim that precious truth would not have understood it in the way the modern pop-Arminianism does. They would have known that he was talking about humanity in general, i.e. Jews and Gentiles. This is merely one example. Hypothetical universalism is believed mostly because of tradition and sentiment, not for solid exegetical reasons or experience.

I invite our well meaning bretheren to come to the destiny of those who do not hear the Gospel thread and deal with the harsh reality put forh there.

 

Bro swaimj:

You are the one playing shell games as you've taken both my quote (I was referring to the universal call to repentance) and Piper's out of context.

Piper is a full 5 pointer, and believes that Christ died onyl for the elect.

 

I have been watching this debate for the last couple days, and I am sick at the idea that some people think that God is only willing to die for some people and not others
What ever happend to John 3:16. If God really loved the world then why would'nt he offer salvation to everyone. God offers salvation to all but it's their choice whether they accept it or not. Hyper-calvinism is a cheap way of trying to clear your conscience for all the people you did'nt tell about Jesus, Who today are burning in hell.

 

preacher boy and all other semi pelagians,

Your thinking is all messed up my friend. You have not properly understood the desperate condition of the human race or the offensiveness of sin against a HOLY GOD. GOD is obligated to no man! See Rom.11:33-36. John 3:16 does not mean what your sentiments want it to mean.

I have to ask: Is it the position of all of you that think "limited attonement" is anathema, that the death of CHRIST was substitutionary? If so, it is the height of theological inconsistency and error to hold hypothetical universalism.

The invitation is still open for the "destiny of those who do not hear the Gospel thread."

 

This really is silly. Rm 10:13 For whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Jn 3:16 here is that word whosoever. You can say anything you want to say about the word, but it means all. Then why are not all saved, because God gives us all a free will to decide for our selves. This heresy is like God has a big lottery going on, and who ever gets drawn out is saved and everybody else is just out of luck. I Tim 2:4. Who would have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth.

 

Chris,
First, I have no intention of quoting you out of context. I am not clear as to how I did that since, in my mind, a universal call to repentence fits nicely with a universal provision of salvation for all men. As to Piper's article, has it been a while since you read that article? I did not misrepresent him. Go back and read it again. Piper even goes so far as to say that there are two wills of God. One to save all and one to save only the elect. The fact is that there are separate scriptures that indicate both are true. The difficulty is in reconciling them. Piper actually attempts to do this in the article. Reconciling them requires one to admit that the problem exists. When verses indicating a universal sacrifice are quoted on this thread (see entry #1) you simply respond by quoting the verses that support a sacrifice only for the elect. What? Some verses are more valuable than others? An accurate theology must reconcile the two ideas or at a minimum admit that there is a difficulty. To his credit, Piper acknowledges the difficulty.

 

fwbbcflames,

whosoever will... yes, we believe that, but apart from then ressurecting power of regeneration, by the Spirit of grace, no one will whosoever. You have not properly apprehended the biblical view of man as morally unable to please GOD. See Romans 8:5-8.

 

Chris,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>that they are a worm, worthless with no good in them, and God in his grace and
mercy has chosen them to be saved,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is only partly true. We are depraved, but not incapable. God in His good pleasure
made us in a way that we could respond to the gospel. We are not worthless, we are God’s creation, a creation that He sent His son to redeem. And a creation that has full capability to choose Christ, because that same God gave us that capability. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>not for their sake but for the praise and glory of his name<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If only giving the ability to some gave glory to Gods name, that’s not much glory is it?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have found arrogance in Arminians who believe that their free will is more
important than God’s will.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Fair enough. But I am not an Arminian, just not a
TULIPer. Your not calling me one are you?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Of course the fact of who acts how is insignificant to the larger question of what
does the Bible teach.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good point. But sometimes bad fruit will tell us something about a doctrine.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I find most often that Calvinistic rebuttals are not even considered by
anti-Calvinists, and the same free-will “proof texts” are offered over and over. As in KJVO debates, it gets tiring after awhile repeating the same cogent yet ignored
arguments.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with your feelings. But understand I feel its the opposite. I see the same text (that I feel are miss-used) given by Calvinist, and I find that generally Calvinist ignore the obvious proof text we offer. So an honest and sincere question for you is, what is the answer to our problem? It has been my opinion for a while ( I used to be in other forums) that most of the time (there are some exceptions!) that most people read a post trying to figure out how they will “out whit” the other, or how they will “prove them wrong” instead of really reading a post. Usually you can tell you is really reading and trying, and who isn’t. That’s why it seems that for both of us, we are giving
the same ignored arguments.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Acts 17:30 calls ALL men every where to repent. (this would be impossible if we
were unable. Depravity does not mean inability Again, Calvinists interpret this differently. Some interpret it as all elect men everywhere. I think this verse is better interpreted all men universally, as all men universally are responsible to repent, even if they cannot. This passage does no damage to man’s inability to repent on his own.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think you are missing the point of the proof text. The key words are calls and all He does call all men. You maintain that if we don’t believe in limited atonement we are universalistic. Which is a silly argument. But you base that on the fact that we supposedly believe that God died to offer salvation, you say He died for Salvation. Then you maintain that we believe then that God’s saving power fell short. Well in Acts 17:30, does Gods calling fall short, is it not powerful enough?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ephesians 2:8 teaches that it is though faith that grace is given. Not through grace that faith is given. Absolutely not. This is a case of taking a verse and making it mean what you want. The subject is grace, and everything else flows from it: the faith, the gift of salvation, and the work of believing. That is why no man can boast, because he has done nothing in regards to salvation on his own. It is all of God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually the subject is
Salvation. And Paul explains to them that we did not deserve it. Its only because of Gods
grace that we have it, and in Titus Paul tells us that it is also because of God’s mercy that we did not get what we do deserve. Paul also explains the avenue in which we received Gods grace, and that is through the channel of Faith. Without Faith no Grace.
Mark 5:34
34 And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.
(KJV)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is a strawman argument to intimate that any Calvinist tells anyone to wait to be
chosen. Every Calvinist calls for men everywhere to repent and believe NOW. Yet we
know that our duty is not to convert anyone, only to preach the gospel faithfully. The
work of regeneration and salvation is the work of God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No but with all the verses I supplied about ‘believing’ was to point out that we are called to believe. The Bible has hundreds of verse showing that we must believe. God would not give us a bible to read, with verses that tell us to believe to be saved, but not really give us the ability to believe. That would make God a liar. It would be 'just' to just spill it out. God would say, I am going to chose who I want to have eternal life, the rest of you must continue on the path you will never be able to leave.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thankfully, God does not operate in “Pizza Hut” theology. DO you really want
your eternal destiny in your own hands? I’m much more comfortable with it in God’s
hands, who never makes a wrong decision.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> First of all my theology is from the Word of God, my Pizza Hut story was an analogy, I guess I will let you know next time the difference. Second are all the people who have not been elected, is not their eternity also in that same God’s hands?

Really this topic was started by Psalm 145:3 (who has some great thoughts), with only
one point of the five point system - Limited Atonement. Which is really the weakest of TULIP. I believe the heart of this thinking begins with Total Depravity, and then
Unconditional Election, then Irresistible Grace. If all those TUI were true, then really Calvinist, who cares if Christ died for all or just some. Although atonement was necessary for salvation of the “elect” it didn’t have to be limited to maintain their election. This is what separates limited atonement from the rest of TULIP. Total Depravity demands that God must elect and irresistibly save any man who will ever be saved. So I feel that the worst of the five points is the three mentioned. But I want to make it clear, when the Bible says “all men” I believe it means all men. Christ died for all, but like my pizza analogy, not everyone will claim it.

The scripture I posted was intended to give yet another point. That the gospel says to believe then be saved, not the other way around. Calvinist maintain that we are first saved, then we are made to believe.

Let’s look again at the pool in John 5

John 5:1-3
1 After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the
Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.
(KJV)

Here is the condition of the lost sinner: Impotent (Rom 5:6) Blind (2Cor 4:4) Halt (Rom
3:11) Withered (Is 1:6) There was no man to help him (Acts 8:31) Was the totally
depraved man saved by irresistible grace because God unconditionally elected him and
Christ made a limited atonement for him so he could be preserved? No only in the
philosophical minds of the Calvinist. This man at the pool had to freely accept or reject Christ offer: “Wilt thou be made whole?” Jesus affirmed man’s ability even though man is in a state of depravity: If ye then, Being evil know how to give good gifts unto your children...” (Matthew 7:11)

Because I don’t want to make this post any longer than it already is I will leave with just a few more ‘point questions’ for now.


Luke 5:31-32
31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but
they that are sick.
32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
(KJV)

Does this mean then that Jesus makes all the elect sick first? And does it also mean that
all the elect are sinners, but the non-elect are righteous? I does not say that to me.

Luke 18:23-25
23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they
that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
(KJV)

Why was God sorrowful? If this man was elected then there is more glory to His name
right? If he is not elected the did God make him rich? Does God make the elect poor and
the non-elect poor? Now I know the next verse says with God all things are possible, but is this how the savior works? I don’t think that’s the meaning at all.


Matt 21:31
31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first.
Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
(KJV)

So the are all the elect publican and harlots and all the non-elect not publicans and harlots. Does God choose only the harlots?


With GREAT love,

Chet





[ July 07, 2001: Message edited by: Chet ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> What ever happend to John 3:16. If God really loved the world then why would'nt he offer salvation to everyone. God offers salvation to all <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Calvinists believe John 3:16. It is offered to everyone and the Gospel is to be preached to all.

Calvinist evangelism built Baptist work. John Bunyan, William Kiffin, John Spilsbury, William Carey, JR Graves, B.H. Carroll were all Calvinists. The 1644 London Confession, 1689 Confession, 1744 Philadelphia, 1833 New Hampshire all Calvinist confessions. It wasn't until the 1900's that Baptists abandoned Calvinism for Karl Barth and E.Y. Mullins water down Arminian theology that has become prevalent in most Baptist churches today.

 

Was Anyone Saved at the Cross?

by James White

We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. ---Charles Haddon Spurgeon

There was a time when I called myself a "four-point Calvinist." There are a lot of people who use that term, and, almost all the time, the one point of the five that they reject is the terrible, horrible, "L". Limited atonement. There is just something about the term that doesn't sound right. How can Christ's atonement be limited? And that is exactly what I said until I began to seriously think about the whole issue. It is my experience that most of those who reject the specific, or limited atonement of Christ, do not *really* believe in the complete sovereignty of God, or the total depravity of man, or the unconditional election of God. Most objections that are lodged against the doctrine are actually objections to one of the preceding points, not against limited atonement itself. The "break" in my thinking came from reading Edwin Palmer's book, The Five Points of Calvinism. [Edwin H. Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980) pp. 41-55.] In doing a radio program on the truth of God's electing grace, I was challenged by a caller in regards to the death of Christ. "Why would Christ die for the whole world if God did not intend to save everyone?" I looked at my co-host, and he looked at me, and I made a mental note to do more study into that particular question. I grabbed Palmer's book as soon as I returned home, and began to read the chapter on the atoning work of Christ.

I became a full "five-pointer" upon reading the following section:

The question that needs a precise answer is this: Did He or didn't He? Did Christ actually make a substitutionary sacrifice for sins or didn't He? If He did, then it was not for all the world, for then all the world would be saved. (Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, p. 47.)

I was faced with a decision. If I maintained a "universal" atonement, that is, if I said that Christ died substitutionarily in the place of every single man and woman in all the world, then I was forced to either say that 1) everyone will be saved, or 2) the death of Christ is insufficient to save without additional works. I knew that I was not willing to believe that Christ's death could not save outside of human actions. So I had to understand that Christ's death was made in behalf of God's elect, and that it does accomplish its intention, it does save those for whom it is made. At this point I realized that I had "limited" the atonement all along. In fact, if you do not believe in the Reformed doctrine of "limited atonement," you believe in a limited atonement anyway! How so? Unless you are a universalist (that is, unless you believe that everyone will be saved), then you believe that the atonement of Christ, if it is made for all men, is limited in its effect. You believe that Christ can die in someone's place and yet that person may still be lost for eternity. You limit the power and effect of the atonement. I limit the scope of the atonement, while saying that its power and effect is unlimited! One writer expressed it well when he said,

Let there be no misunderstanding at this point. The Arminian limits the atonement as certainly as does the Calvinist. The Calvinist limits the extent of it in that he says it does not apply to all persons...while the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody. The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively. For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge that goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge that goes only half-way across. As a matter of fact, the Arminian places more severe limitations on the work of Christ than does the Calvinist. (Lorraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1932) p. 153.)

Full article at http://aomin.org/Was%20Anyone%20Saved.html

 

I think that you are a little confused. Jesus was willing to die for all, but his blood is only applied to the sins of the people who accept the gift he offers. He did'nt, however, only choose certain people. The Bible crearly states that hell was created for Satan and not man...man that willfully rejects God's awesome gift of Jesus chooses the place prepared for Satan and his lot. God is Just but also love. How could love deliberatly choose to send a man to hell for no apparent reason except to say "Sorry honey...you just weren't picked!" And unlike other denominations believe, YOU don't get another chance either! Now please tell me you aren't serving the same Almighty God as I am or that you are just pulling my leg!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This poses a huge theological problem. If limited atonement were true, then the unsaved at the great white throne judgement would be able to say, "it's not my fault, God, You were the One who didn't elect me. It's all Your fault I'm going to the lake of fire, not mine."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
RO 9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. [17] For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."* [18] Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

RO 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" [20] But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, `Why did you make me like this?' "* [21] Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chet:
Really this topic was started by Psalm 145:3 (who has some great thoughts)...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chet, first of all, this thread is WAY off-topic. The person who started this thread has yet to demonstrate that he/she has the slightest comprehension what "Hyper-Calvinism" is, or is not. "Hyper-Calvinism" is (generally speaking) something historically definable and is set off in contradistinction to historic Calvinism. I responded with intimations to this regard, and evidently they were too subtle to discern.

As to your remarks...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chet:
...with only one point of the five point system - Limited Atonement. Which is really the weakest of TULIP.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's funny(strange, not ha-ha) that non-Calvinists consistantly trip over the so-called "Limited Atonement" point. When, what it is that they are really chafing against is the unconditional election, or more precisely... election. The issue is, that God ordained a multitude of specific persons to be His people before the foundation of the world, they are called "the elect."

Though there is no time elapsing in God's thought processes, it is helpful I believe for human comprehension to think about(before the foundation of the world) God the Father first choosing whom he would bring to salvation, then secondly commissioning God the Son to go into the world to make atonement for those who & whom have already been chosen.

In this regard, I hope it is obvious that Christ dying for the non-elect would be superfluous. But more then that it would be in contradiction to His mission. (Matthew 1:21)

For the Calvinist, the reason that some men don't come to salvation is because they do not receive the necessary regenerating grace to overcome the debilitating aspects of sin's bondage, which we call spiritual death.

To put it in contrasting relief, God doesn't elect those whom Christ died for, rather Christ died for those whom God has elected.

by His grace, and for His glory,

CNM

[ July 08, 2001: Message edited by: CorpseNoMore ]

 

Excellent points, CNM! As James White said above:

It is my experience that most of those who reject the specific, or limited atonement of Christ, do not *really* believe in the complete sovereignty of God, or the total depravity of man, or the unconditional election of God. Most objections that are lodged against the doctrine are actually objections to one of the preceding points, not against limited atonement itself.

I think that has been born out in this thread.

For a great article and definition of Hyper-Calvinism, see Phil Johnson's Primer on Hyper-Calvinism at http://www.gty.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm

"Hyper-Calvinism, simply stated, is a doctrine that emphasizes divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility. To call it "hyper-Calvinism" is something of a misnomer. It is actually a rejection of historic Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism entails a denial of what is taught in both Scripture and the landmark Calvinistic creeds, substituting instead an imbalanced and unbiblical notion of divine sovereignty.
Hyper-Calvinism comes in several flavors, so it admits no simple, pithy definition. Here are a few definitions to consider. I'll comment briefly on these and then propose a more comprehensive definition:..."

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How could love deliberatly choose to send a man to hell for no apparent reason except to say "Sorry honey...you just weren't picked!" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about the apparent reason of man's sinfulness against the holiness of God? I don't think anything else is needed.

How about the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction as described in Rom 9:22? They were prepared for destruction but God endured them for a time to show mercy to the vessels prepared beforehand for glory. It kind of shoots a hole in your theory.

 

OK, let me put on the gloves and jump in the ring…

We keep trying to make rules for God. We talk about each other limiting the extent, scope, power, etc, of the Atonement. But what is that to God? He does whatever He wants. Who are we to say that if He died for all He must save all? That's our logic, Can anyone definitively prove that statement from Scripture?

Here is my theory for whatever it's worth…

The following interpretation of parable of the hidden treasure is the correct view of the Atonement (IMO).

Matthew 13:44
44 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure (the elect) hid in a field (the world); the which when a man (Jesus Christ) hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath (the Blood Atonement), and buyeth that field.

Christ died for the sin of the world to save the elect out of that world.
The non-elect are also His since He bought them along with the elect. What He does with the non-elect is His business and personally I think we should leave them there in their owner's hand to do with as He pleases.

That the non-elect are God's…
KJV Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

That Christ "bought" the non-elect…
KJV 2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

HankD

[ July 08, 2001: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Try it this way...

Matthew 13:44 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure (eternal life) hid in a field (Christ); the which when a man (a sinner called) hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath (repentance), and buyeth that field(faith).

[ July 08, 2001: Message edited by: CorpseNoMore ]

 

This was written by a friend of mine a few years back.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To me this made sense but I’m sure to most of you it will not and be deemed as an attack against “orthodox historic Biblical Christianity”. I could post much on Calvinism as I have been trying to read up on it. I will not. However, the following is probably a poor example of what “could” happen at the “Great White Throne Judgment”, but I thought it might make the point.

The Bible says that every man shall give an account of himself to God. This implies that man will be able to speak for himself though there isn’t much he can say except “I’m guilty”. But I could picture the following dialog taking place.

I can see billions standing before a holy and righteous God, the heaven and the earth have “fled away”, and there is nothing BUT God and all lost sinners being judged. By most, it is understood that this judgment is ONLY the “lost”, dead in trespasses and sins, awaiting judgment and THEN the “Lake of Fire”.

After millions have been judged, a man we will call “John Doe” steps up to the judgment. Probably more “crawling”, due to brilliance and awesome power and glory of his Creator. He would be weeping and wailing in bitter tears and agony knowing what is coming. He is standing or laying prostrate in front of the Creator and Judge of the Universe in all his holiness and righteousness. The man begins to give an account as demanded by God. The man begs for mercy even though he knows it is too late. Then the man asks in bitter tears if he can ask of God several honest questions. And God already knowing his thoughts says “who are THOU that repliest against God?”. But God gives him opportunity. The man trying to control his weeping and fear, begins to ask the questions as his voice quivers and shakes. The man asks of God the following:

Dear Almighty God, is true that you, from the foundations of the world, ordained and predestined that Adam and Eve would be created, the first two human beings, in this vast creation? God replies “Yes”.

Dear Almighty God, is it true that you preordained and predetermined that Adam and Eve would fall into sin by their disobedience to you, and die spiritually and eventually physically, and lose fellowship with you? God replies "Yes”.

Dear Almighty God, is it true that you preordained and predetermined in eternity past, that all of Adam’s seed, billions upon billions, would be born sinners, by nature and by choice, because of their parents Adam and Eve, and would be denied fellowship with you because of their sin? God replies “Yes”.

Dear Almighty God, is it true that Jesus Christ died on the cross for just the “elect” that you chose, from all of eternity, and that he did not die for the non-elect that were also predestined as such? God replies “Yes”.

Dear God, is it true therefore then, that from eternity I was predetermined and PREDESTINED to be born into this world through my parents, live on this earth for a mere 70 years, die, and it was predetermined that I would then go to the “Lake of Fire” and burn for ever.. and ever.. and ever.., never to be consumed, to be tormented for the rest of eternity? God would have to reply “Yes”.

God, as I now accept by predetermined destiny, could I please know first before I perish for all of eternity, “WHAT WAS THE POINT”?

God could NOT say “man, it was YOUR choice”. He could only say “yes it was MY choice, I predestined you to a lake of fire, to burn for all of eternity, BUT WHO ART THOU THAT REPLIES AGAINST GOD”!

THIS is RAW Calvinism!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chet

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Hyper-Calvinism" is (generally speaking) something historically definable
and is set off in contradistinction to historic Calvinism. I responded with intimations to this regard, and evidently they were too subtle to discern.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Hyper-Calvinism" is (generally speaking) something historically definable and is set off in contradistinction to historic Calvinism. I responded with intimations to this regard, and evidently they were too subtle to discern.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think they are really one in the same.

How about those scripture I posted above?

Chris, Its easy to post web-sites to check out. In fact I think I will post one. This is an excellent article. Calvin's error of limited atonement

[ July 08, 2001: Message edited by: Chet ]