Do you recognise the differences between reformed/calvinist/Hyper?

[jonathanD]

What my argument is is that for example: Calvinists hold that God works ALL THINGS after the counsel of his own will, and interprets this verse to conclude God controls all events (such as tornadoes, for example). The conclusion and result of that statement is that God would be the author of sin and heresy. What the Calvinists on here have done is argue that we said you said God was the author of sin, but that's not the issue. The argument was that God being the author of sin is the RESULT of this stated belief, not that you or anyone else claimed or defined that as your axiom or premise.

I think this quote gets to the heart of the issue. Yes, at some level, God has a level of responsibility in all that happens...including sin. Of course, anyone who affirms that God created and sustains the world would have the same "issue" when discussing the evil that occurs. The problem of evil is a problem for Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike. My defense is the "greater good" defense where God permits evil because ultimately it will serve to enhance his Glory.

The "free-will" defense also admits that God could've created the world in a way that there was no sin or evil, but he would've done it at the expense of free (contra-causal) will. You still have a God that created and sustains beings that he knows without a shadow of a doubt will act in an evil and sinful manner and he still maintains their existence.

Ultimately, no one does anything that God doesn't allow or permit at some level through his maintenance of human life and the universe. I'll call that one a draw.

See response to #1. This is not just semantics if you wish to interpret the Bible correctly. Not only does the premise need to be correct but so does the outcome and results of the belief posited. What was argued is that there are many Calvinist doctrines where the initial premise may sound legitimate on its face, but then the result yields a contradiction with Scripture or is completely illogical in a Biblical sense.

It is semantic if those "results" are not typical. Today's calvinists DO evangelize. Today's calvinists do affirm that God is not to be blamed for evil. Those things may not make logical sense to you, but they do make logical sense to a majority (I'd say vast majority) of those who affirm calvinism (as it's popularly used).

In my context, these antinomian hyper-cals who don't evangelize and are totally comfortable with the Father and the serpent being interchangeable in the Genesis 3 don't actually exist. And, if they do exist, they are such a small minority that they are not a huge concern to the church at large.

The "results" argument could be used to to say that those who hold to an arminian soteriology should logically become open theists. In my mind, that is logical. However, it is not the reality. Sure, exhaustive foreknowledge and contra-causal freedom are incongruent as I understand them, but most non-cal baptists don't see it that way. So it's not accurate for me to paint non-cals with an open theist's brush just because their stated doctrine should result in open theism as I understand it. So then, calvinists should be critiqued for what they say and what they do, not for what they should logically do in keeping with your understanding of their doctrine.

Don't know what a "Nathan's Famous" is.

Hotdog stand...it's famous.

But you do realize that when you preach repentance, you are asking someone to make a free will decision to change their mind and turn to Christ! Freely coming to Christ is the means in which God chooses to have mercy on sinners.

Arminius and Calvin agreed that no one changed their mind on their own. The Spirit had to "free" the will in Arminius's system...he just didn't finish the job.

I agree though, that those who put their faith in Christ make a free will decision, but you won't like my definition of freedom.

 

[Yeshua1]

I think this quote gets to the heart of the issue. Yes, at some level, God has a level of responsibility in all that happens...including sin. Of course, anyone who affirms that God created and sustains the world would have the same "issue" when discussing the evil that occurs. The problem of evil is a problem for Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike. My defense is the "greater good" defense where God permits evil because ultimately it will serve to enhance his Glory.

The "free-will" defense also admits that God could've created the world in a way that there was no sin or evil, but he would've done it at the expense of free (contra-causal) will. You still have a God that created and sustains beings that he knows without a shadow of a doubt will act in an evil and sinful manner and he still maintains their existence.

Ultimately, no one does anything that God doesn't allow or permit at some level through his maintenance of human life and the universe. I'll call that one a draw.



It is semantic if those "results" are not typical. Today's calvinists DO evangelize. Today's calvinists do affirm that God is not to be blamed for evil. Those things may not make logical sense to you, but they do make logical sense to a majority (I'd say vast majority) of those who affirm calvinism (as it's popularly used).

In my context, these antinomian hyper-cals who don't evangelize and are totally comfortable with the Father and the serpent being interchangeable in the Genesis 3 don't actually exist. And, if they do exist, they are such a small minority that they are not a huge concern to the church at large.

The "results" argument could be used to to say that those who hold to an arminian soteriology should logically become open theists. In my mind, that is logical. However, it is not the reality. Sure, exhaustive foreknowledge and contra-causal freedom are incongruent as I understand them, but most non-cal baptists don't see it that way. So it's not accurate for me to paint non-cals with an open theist's brush just because their stated doctrine should result in open theism as I understand it. So then, calvinists should be critiqued for what they say and what they do, not for what they should logically do in keeping with your understanding of their doctrine.



Hotdog stand...it's famous.



Arminius and Calvin agreed that no one changed their mind on their own. The Spirit had to "free" the will in Arminius's system...he just didn't finish the job.

I agree though, that those who put their faith in Christ make a free will decision, but you won't like my definition of freedom.

We have to realise that God ordained/decreed that all things happened as they do, in order for Him to receive the glory and praise in the end, and that the method he used to save sinnrs accomplishes BOTH heis glory and the most to get saved!

And NONE come to jesus apart from their own choice, but the lord MUSt work and do His act before that sinner even wants to come to Christ!

 

[DrJamesAch]

We have to realise that God ordained/decreed that all things happened as they do, in order for Him to receive the glory and praise in the end, and that the method he used to save sinnrs accomplishes BOTH heis glory and the most to get saved!

And NONE come to jesus apart from their own choice, but the lord MUSt work and do His act before that sinner even wants to come to Christ!

Explain Cornelius in Acts chapter 10. Cornelius was a Gentile that was seeking God and he wasn't saved yet until God sent Peter to him.

When Adam sinned, he became spiritually dead the moment he ate the fruit. At that point, according to Calvinism, Adam should not have been able to comprehend God's judgment, nor be able to respond to God, yet Adam hid himself which means He knew God's judgment, and he heard God's voice and responded to him while he is dead in his sin. Gen 3.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Explain Cornelius in Acts chapter 10. Cornelius was a Gentile that was seeking God and he wasn't saved yet until God sent Peter to him.

When Adam sinned, he became spiritually dead the moment he ate the fruit. At that point, according to Calvinism, Adam should not have been able to comprehend God's judgment, nor be able to respond to God, yet Adam hid himself which means He knew God's judgment, and he heard God's voice and responded to him while he is dead in his sin. Gen 3.

you're right.
his sin separated him from the source of life when he chose to (1) worship the creature (the serpent), rather than the Creator, (2) obey the voice of his wife, rather than the command of his Creator. His spirit died in his trespass and sin, and at that point, a wrathful, vengeful, self-centered God shoulda just shrugged his spirit shoulders and just start all over again, and who the heck would know better. certainly some doctor of theology commenting in the Baptist board thousands of years after the garden, wouldn't, if others would.
so how long do you think, Doc, will it take God to regenerate his first creation who will be an ancestor of His only begotten Son in the flesh ? Do you think He will be out of bounds sovereignty wise if He saw the fall well in advance and took steps to make sure that as soon as it happened He takes control and begin to frustrate Satan ?
If He elected angels and empowered them to remain in their first estate and chose not to do the same to those whom Satan swept down with him, why do you think He wouldn't do this to men whose redemption He had in mind from the foundation of the world ?

 

[DrJamesAch]

you're right.
his sin separated him from the source of life when he chose to (1) worship the creature (the serpent), rather than the Creator, (2) obey the voice of his wife, rather than the command of his Creator. His spirit died in his trespass and sin, and at that point, a wrathful, vengeful, self-centered God shoulda just shrugged his spirit shoulders and just start all over again, and who the heck would know better. certainly some doctor of theology commenting in the Baptist board thousands of years after the garden, wouldn't, if others would.
so how long do you think, Doc, will it take God to regenerate his first creation who will be an ancestor of His only begotten Son in the flesh ? Do you think He will be out of bounds sovereignty wise if He saw the fall well in advance and took steps to make sure that as soon as it happened He takes control and begin to frustrate Satan ?
If He elected angels and empowered them to remain in their first estate and chose not to do the same to those whom Satan swept down with him, why do you think He wouldn't do this to men whose redemption He had in mind from the foundation of the world ?

So are you saying that angels are created in the image of God, and are you saying that angels and humans are the same and therefore whatever "decree" God has for angels is and or should be the same as that of man?

Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 make it clear that Satan chose to rebel against God and then others of his angels followed with him (Rev 12:3-4). Just because God dealt in one way with angels, does not mean that you can melt the plans together on how He deals with those He created in His image.

But all of your statement did not answer the question that I posed. If in Calvinism, man can not respond to nor hear the voice of God because of his "Total Depravity" then how was Adam able to not only respond to God but hear his voice AFTER he was spiritually dead? All of the rationalizations you can offer in the world don't explain what the Bible says about the matter.

 

[pinoybaptist]

So are you saying that angels are created in the image of God, and are you saying that angels and humans are the same and therefore whatever "decree" God has for angels is and or should be the same as that of man?

Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 make it clear that Satan chose to rebel against God and then others of his angels followed with him (Rev 12:3-4). Just because God dealt in one way with angels, does not mean that you can melt the plans together on how He deals with those He created in His image.

then explain to me why the phrase "elect angels" is in scripture, why did Paul use that phrase, and what does it mean ? and just as we can ask where in Scripture does it say angels were created in God's image, we can also ask where does it say they weren't ?

But all of your statement did not answer the question that I posed. If in Calvinism, man can not respond to nor hear the voice of God because of his "Total Depravity" then how was Adam able to not only respond to God but hear his voice AFTER he was spiritually dead? All of the rationalizations you can offer in the world don't explain what the Bible says about the matter.

I answered it. you just didn't see it because what you want to see is agreement to your reasoning.

 

[DrJamesAch]

then explain to me why the phrase "elect angels" is in scripture, why did Paul use that phrase, and what does it mean ? and just as we can ask where in Scripture does it say angels were created in God's image, we can also ask where does it say they weren't ?


I answered it. you just didn't see it because what you want to see is agreement to your reasoning.

They are not called elect angels because they were preordained to fall or stay. They are elect because they have a specific purpose in current events and the end times and specifically for ministering to those who are saved. Heb 1:14. The fact that there were angels who "left their first estate" shows they had free will. Jude 1:6

Angels do not fall under the same status of redemption that man does. I Peter 1:12. When God saves a human, He keeps them saved and they can never be lost. But a sacrifice for the sin of man was necessary in order for God to do so, and God has chosen faith in Christ as the means in which man is to be saved. God did not use that scheme with angels, nor did He have to. God can keep that angels who did not leave from leaving in the same manner that he prevents all those who are saved from ever being lost, only the angels do not need to go through the same redemptive process.

You can not compare angels to humans.

Arguing from silence in the Bible is a form of allegorical and eisegetic interpretation. That's like asking "where does it say the thief on the cross was not baptized". God chose in several places to show that man was created in the image of God. Gen 1:27, Gen 9:6. Angels do not have a soul as man does. If God wanted us to believe angels were created in His image, it would have been placed in Scripture.

Your answer in post 184 does not answer how Adam was able to respond and hear the voice of God after he became dead in sin. This was your response:

his sin separated him from the source of life when he chose to (1) worship the creature (the serpent), rather than the Creator, (2) obey the voice of his wife, rather than the command of his Creator. His spirit died in his trespass and sin, and at that point, a wrathful, vengeful, self-centered God shoulda just shrugged his spirit shoulders and just start all over again, and who the heck would know better. certainly some doctor of theology commenting in the Baptist board thousands of years after the garden, wouldn't, if others would.
so how long do you think, Doc, will it take God to regenerate his first creation who will be an ancestor of His only begotten Son in the flesh ? Do you think He will be out of bounds sovereignty wise if He saw the fall well in advance and took steps to make sure that as soon as it happened He takes control and begin to frustrate Satan ?
If He elected angels and empowered them to remain in their first estate and chose not to do the same to those whom Satan swept down with him, why do you think He wouldn't do this to men whose redemption He had in mind from the foundation of the world ?

There's not one single explanation in that response as to how Adam was able to hear the voice of God and respond to God after Adam became dead in his sin.

 

[Yeshua1]

Explain Cornelius in Acts chapter 10. Cornelius was a Gentile that was seeking God and he wasn't saved yet until God sent Peter to him.

When Adam sinned, he became spiritually dead the moment he ate the fruit. At that point, according to Calvinism, Adam should not have been able to comprehend God's judgment, nor be able to respond to God, yet Adam hid himself which means He knew God's judgment, and he heard God's voice and responded to him while he is dead in his sin. Gen 3.

you misunderstand calvinist views of what it means to be spiritually dead!

Being dead and depraived does NOT mean a sinner is not religious, as MANY look around, see nature, assume there is a God or something, give prayers and devotions to that god etc..

its just that unless there is the special revealtion of Jesus given to the sinner, by the work of the HS to enable them to see Him, turn to him, and get saved...

they stay religious only, not received the true God and His messiah!

Cornelious a devout/religious sinner, who the lord sent the required revaltion to in order to save him!

 

[pinoybaptist]

They are not called elect angels because they were preordained to fall or stay. They are elect because they have a specific purpose in current events and the end times and specifically for ministering to those who are saved. Heb 1:14. The fact that there were angels who "left their first estate" shows they had free will. Jude 1:6

the fact that there were angels who left their first estate shows that ALL CREATED BEINGS, SPIRIT OR FLESH, ANGELS OR MEN, ARE PRONE TO SIN, and had not God exercised His Sovereignty there wouldn't be angels at all, fallen or not.
these angels were chosen by God to stand in integrity and empowered by Him to do so while He bypassed the others, which simply confirms and reaffirms in no uncertain words His sovereign grace on fallen men, electing many to live with Him in His kingdom, and leaving the others to their depravity.

Angels do not fall under the same status of redemption that man does. I Peter 1:12.

I never said these angels needed redemption. they, like man, needed God's intervention and preservation. God was NEVER surprised by Satan's rebellion, He knew it would happen, and He was prepared for it.
In the same manner, He was not surprised Adam disobeyed Him, He knew exactly what He was going to do when it happened, and He purposed (not planned) to redeem unto Himself the vast number of fallen humanity, as opposed to the contention of many of yours that election limits God's mercy to a chosen few.

When God saves a human, He keeps them saved and they can never be lost. But a sacrifice for the sin of man was necessary in order for God to do so,

alright, the above are your words, mark them. you said and wrote, and I paraphrase: the power to keep a sinner saved is God's alone, but He needed a sacrifice for man's sin in order for Him to do so. (do what ? keep a man saved, or GET a man saved).

....and God has chosen faith in Christ as the means in which man is to be saved.

like I said, watch your words, because they're crossing each other out. If a sacrifice was necessary for God to keep a man saved, then the sacrifice is ENOUGH, SUFFICIENT (just emphasis, not yelling).
when you say, God has chosen faith in Christ as the means in which man is to be saved NOW you are adding something else to the mix.

God can keep that angels who did not leave from leaving in the same manner that he prevents all those who are saved from ever being lost, only the angels do not need to go through the same redemptive process.

answered above.

You can not compare angels to humans.

never did. you presumed I was doing that.

Arguing from silence in the Bible is a form of allegorical and eisegetic interpretation. That's like asking "where does it say the thief on the cross was not baptized". God chose in several places to show that man was created in the image of God. Gen 1:27, Gen 9:6. Angels do not have a soul as man does. If God wanted us to believe angels were created in His image, it would have been placed in Scripture.

Your answer in post 184 does not answer how Adam was able to respond and hear the voice of God after he became dead in sin. This was your response:



There's not one single explanation in that response as to how Adam was able to hear the voice of God and respond to God after Adam became dead in his sin.

from my answer:
so how long do you think, Doc, will it take God to regenerate his first creation who will be an ancestor of His only begotten Son in the flesh ? (there's your answer).

 

[Yeshua1]

the fact that there were angels who left their first estate shows that ALL CREATED BEINGS, SPIRIT OR FLESH, ANGELS OR MEN, ARE PRONE TO SIN, and had not God exercised His Sovereignty there wouldn't be angels at all, fallen or not.
these angels were chosen by God to stand in integrity and empowered by Him to do so while He bypassed the others, which simply confirms and reaffirms in no uncertain words His sovereign grace on fallen men, electing many to live with Him in His kingdom, and leaving the others to their depravity.



I never said these angels needed redemption. they, like man, needed God's intervention and preservation. God was NEVER surprised by Satan's rebellion, He knew it would happen, and He was prepared for it.
In the same manner, He was not surprised Adam disobeyed Him, He knew exactly what He was going to do when it happened, and He purposed (not planned) to redeem unto Himself the vast number of fallen humanity, as opposed to the contention of many of yours that election limits God's mercy to a chosen few.



alright, the above are your words, mark them. you said and wrote, and I paraphrase: the power to keep a sinner saved is God's alone, but He needed a sacrifice for man's sin in order for Him to do so. (do what ? keep a man saved, or GET a man saved).


like I said, watch your words, because they're crossing each other out. If a sacrifice was necessary for God to keep a man saved, then the sacrifice is ENOUGH, SUFFICIENT (just emphasis, not yelling).
when you say, God has chosen faith in Christ as the means in which man is to be saved NOW you are adding something else to the mix.


answered above.


never did. you presumed I was doing that.



from my answer:
so how long do you think, Doc, will it take God to regenerate his first creation who will be an ancestor of His only begotten Son in the flesh ? (there's your answer).

Thought the Cross was the basis/means of salvation, while faith is what accesses that Grace!

 

[Van]

Hyper-Calvinists embrace the logical consequences of the DoG, that God is the author of sin and that God punishes sinners for the sins he causes.

Main-line Calvinists deny the logical consequences of the DoG, that God caused Total Spiritual Inability, and total spiritual inability causes the sin of rejecting Christ, and so deny God is the author of sin. Irrational and wrong.

Reformed, if they believe in the 5 points of the TULIP, are Calvinists in disguise.

Thus main-line Calvinists present an irrational doctrine of man as a substitute for the gospel.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Thus main-line Calvinists present an irrational doctrine of man as a substitute for the gospel.

And don't forget about John Piper's "Christian Hedonism". Piper "Christianized" Hedonism like John Calvinized Augustianism. Apple never falls far from the tree. It's not a big surprise that a murdering, baby sprinkling reprobate produced a false gospel, and a view on prophecy all the popes are proud of.

 

[Yeshua1]

And don't forget about John Piper's "Christian Hedonism". Piper "Christianized" Hedonism like John Calvinized Augustianism. Apple never falls far from the tree. It's not a big surprise that a murdering, baby sprinkling reprobate produced a false gospel, and a view on prophecy all the popes are proud of.

If john calvin is in hell, why should he be?

 

[Yeshua1]

Thus main-line Calvinists present an irrational doctrine of man as a substitute for the gospel.

ALL reformed are calvinists, but not all cals reformed!..

And based upon Biblical theology in reagrds to sotierology...

Calvinism FAR superior to other non cal views!

 

[Rippon]

It's not a big surprise that a murdering,

Please don't lie.

baby sprinkling

Will you likewise condemn the KJV revisers along the same lines?

reprobate

Listen Pope J.A. You have no authority to condemn someone to the fiires of everlasting perdition;especially since John Calvin is in heaven with our Lord.

produced a false gospel,

You see,with the kind of remarks that you have descended to it reaslly makes me think you have not touched any of the works of Calvin. Even Arminius recognized the biblical genius oof John Calvin.

If,as you say,that John Calvin "produced a false gospel". Do you think a reversal of John Calvin's doctrines are what constitutes the real gospel? maybe you are in the camp that is the inverse of John Calvin's understanding of biblical doctrine...not a safe place to be.

 

[DrJamesAch]

.

Please don't lie

You have not proven otherwise and you have certainly not proven that John Calvin didn't BELIEVE that the death penalty for heresy was OK. Show me any of your revisionist history quotes where John Calvin didn't BELIEVE that it was OK to murder heretics!

Will you likewise condemn the KJV revisers along the same lines?

Translating a script from one language to another is entirely different than creating man made doctrines. Even the scribes that were responsible for translating and maintaining copies of the Old Testament KILLED JESUS, and yet He still referred to the copies as scripture. So you can beat that lame James White argument to death because it's irrelevant. Preserving the Bible has always been God's responsibility, not mans.

Listen Pope J.A. You have no authority to condemn someone to the fiires of everlasting perdition;especially since John Calvin is in heaven with our Lord.

That's funny someone who worships a man who's theology was based on ROMAN CATHOLICISM (Augustine) calling someone a "Pope". Pot meet kettle.

What part of 1 John 3:15 is so hard to understand?

"Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.""

John Calvin was an unrepentant murderer at heart, no dispute about that, and 1 John 3:15 spells out his destiny.

You see,with the kind of remarks that you have descended to it reaslly makes me think you have not touched any of the works of Calvin. Even Arminius recognized the biblical genius oof John Calvin.

I frankly don't care what you believe I have or have not read. My main authority and the text is the BIBLE. When I wake up, I will not read another man's work or even a newspaper until I have read the word of God first. Knowing the word of God should be more important to any professing believer than knowing the definition of TULIP or FRUITLOOPS.

And who cares about Arminius? He was a heretic too. He denied that God keeps a person saved, and that works is necessary to preserve ones salvation.

If,as you say,that John Calvin "produced a false gospel". Do you think a reversal of John Calvin's doctrines are what constitutes the real gospel? maybe you are in the camp that is the inverse of John Calvin's understanding of biblical doctrine...not a safe place to be.

Much like you anti KJVers argue, what was the gospel of Christ before John Calvin came along?

Furthermore, ever study the characteristics of a CULT:

Jehovah's Witnesses worship Charles Taze Russell
Mormon's worship Joseph Smith
Catholics worship the Pope
Islam worships Mohammed
Calvinists worship John Calvin

Notice a pattern there?