• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Every Christian knows Jesus is Truth. Where the legitimate question comes in is, and it seems to be way over your head, is your opinion on this or that doctrine truth?

Huh? That is way over my head. Do you mind rephrasing that?

I had said earlier that Christians should not be asking,as Pilate did,"What is truth." Then you come in,as is usually the case,and muddy the waters.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I think we are getting far-afield from the OP.

Are there differences between being Reformed and being Calvinists? I don't think anyone here can confuse the former two with being hyper-Calvinistic.
 

saturneptune

New Member
Huh? That is way over my head. Do you mind rephrasing that?

I had said earlier that Christians should not be asking,as Pilate did,"What is truth." Then you come in,as is usually the case,and muddy the waters.
Your opinion about Scripture may or may not be truth. Jesus is Truth all the time. I get the feeling that you would have argued with a pet rock back in the 70s.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Irrational Response

what a sweeping statement you make.
I am a Primitive Baptist and some here would call me a hyper-Calvinist (whether I am or not is another subject altogether).
Yet I abhor the doctrine of absolute predestination, as do many doctrinally sound and sane Primitive Baptists.
I have argued with many here that God is NOT the author of sin, he is NEVER the cause of sin.
I do not believe God predestined when you are going to fart, when, how loud, and how foul the smell will be.

Calvinism claims God predestines whatsoever comes to pass. If you do not believe in exhaustive determinism, good for you, you are not a Calvinist.

Does God predestine our choice of life or death? If you say yes, then you are a Calvinist, because He predestined some to salvation and the rest to death.

If God causes the inability to believe in Christ, via total spiritual inability as the result of the fall, then He is the author of sin, the sin of rejecting Christ.

You either have to take Calvinism in one big bite, or accept irrational doctrine.
 

jonathanD

New Member
Many Calvinists do not affirm double predestination. That may be irrational to Van, but that's really of no consequence. His critiques of Calvinism are irrational IMO, but that doesn't matter one bit to him.
 

DrJamesAch

New Member
What,in your view is a "partial Calvinist"? That makes no sense. Is there such a thing as a "partial Arminian"?



Please elaborate on your novel theory.

Partial Calvinist are those who claim they do not adhere to all 5 points. Norman Geisler considers himself a "moderate Calvinist" because he believes in eternal security, but not in the manner in which Calvinism portrays preseverence of the saints.

Some believe in TUIP (minus Limited Atonement).

I don't think there is a difference in the label, if one is a 4/5 point Calvinist, they are still a Calvinist. If one is a Hyper or Moderate Calvinist, they are still a Calvinist.

And yes, there are those who do not agree with all 7 points of Arminianism. But, so-called scholars have made it impossible to refuse the labels of either. I am not a Calvinist or an Arminian. I am a Bible believing independent fundamental Baptist that opposes both views. I don't care that Spurgeon embraced some of the errors of Calvinism, that was his choice.

And as far as evangelism. Even Mark Driscoll admits that the church "stinks at evangelism". Why? because they simply don't do it. Preachers speak positively about evangelism FROM THE PULPIT but that's as far as it goes. Calvinist ministers attempt to reconcile the problems with evangelism and the Calvinist fatalism and determinism problem and even though they attempt to explain it away in the pulpit, the natural effects of Calvinism discourage soul winning in practice. It may sound good from the pulpit, but it is not practiced door to door, in the streets, at the bus stops.

A Calvinist does not go out of his way to seek sinners WHERE THEY ARE AT. If he ever does, then he is not a true Calvinist. The Calvinist does not have a message to offer the sinner which is why they don't go soul winning. "Now Mr Sinner, I don't know if you are elect or not, but God has to wake you up out of your dead state and grant you repentance, but if you are not elect, then what I am telling you is a waste of time because you are going to hell anyway"

No true Calvinist believes that a sinner is capable of making a decision for Christ on the spot, right where the sinner stands. Why not? Because the Calvinist understands that making such a decision involves free will and the ability to choose and since Calvinism has a fundamentally different view of the gospel, it is not possible for a Calvinist to be evangelistic because by definition, there is never a call for the sinner to repent of his own volition.

The Calvinist can say Christ died for sins, but the Calvinist can not tell the sinner he is talking to that "Christ died for YOUR sins". The Calvinist can tell the sinner that God demands repentance, but the Calvinist can not ask the person to make a decision right then and there for Christ because the Calvinist does not know if God has granted him repentance or not.

The Calvinist can say that salvation is by grace, but the only assurance he can offer to the sinner that he is saved is by telling him that IF he has been granted repentance he needs to demonstrate it by good works, and thus the assurance of salvation is based on performance after an Arminian model.

I don't care how many Calvinist preachers talk a good game about evangelism from the pulpit, if that preacher doesn't practice what he preaches by getting his shoes dirty knocking on doors, he isn't an evangelist, he's attempting to increase his church membership and HOPE that those attending the church service are elect. You will never see a Calvinist confront a sinner to make a deliberate decision for Christ on the spot like Phillip did:

"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Acts 8:37

(And no wonder they live the Vaticanus and Siniaticus text that REMOVE that verse out of all the other 'Bibles').

The Calvinists are content with defending the definitions of their beliefs, but they are not content with examining the logical conclusions of those beliefs when they are boiled down to their lowest common denominators.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Many Calvinists do not affirm double predestination. That may be irrational to Van, but that's really of no consequence. His critiques of Calvinism are irrational IMO, but that doesn't matter one bit to him.

Sorry to see you have become a mind reader, claiming to know what only an irrational mind would claim to know.

Let me take you through it one more time. If the doctrine of Total Spiritual Inability is true, then God is the Author of sin, i.e. the rejection of Christ. There is no escape for this conclusion if your mind is rational.

And this conclusion is obvious, yet each and every Calvinist, except hyper Calvinists deny it. What word describes denial of the obvious?
 

jonathanD

New Member
Let me take you through it one more time. If the doctrine of Total Spiritual Inability is true, then God is the Author of sin, i.e. the rejection of Christ. There is no escape for this conclusion if your mind is rational.

You're equivocating. I've already conceded that in your mind the one entails the other. I think you're wrong. It would take more time than I care to expend to explain it. I just figured I'd let you know that your claims were historically false.

Carry on.
 

saturneptune

New Member
Please elaborate on your novel theory.

Open mouth, insert foot, again.

foot-in-mouth.gif.pagespeed.ce.grtAqsSEgC.gif
 

DrJamesAch

New Member
You're equivocating. I've already conceded that in your mind the one entails the other. I think you're wrong. It would take more time than I care to expend to explain it. I just figured I'd let you know that your claims were historically false.

Carry on.

As I said in post #107:

"The Calvinists are content with defending the definitions of their beliefs, but they are not content with examining the logical conclusions of those beliefs when they are boiled down to their lowest common denominators."

Neither Van, myself, nor others who oppose Calvinism are attempting to make a historical debate that our oppositions are what Calvin defined when we are making arguments against the conclusions of Calvinism. What we are arguing against is the RESULTS of what they produce.

I believe in predestination. I also believe in election. But the results and conclusions based on how Calvinism explicates those doctrines are the issue.

If you own a McDonald's store, and I get a hamburger, and it tastes like dog food, and I write a review of your restaurant, and you reply that I am accusing you of selling dog food, you would be wrong.

We are not accusing Calvinism of calling the item on their menu a hamburger, we are saying that the product tastes like dog food, and is not healthy for consumption because it is inherently poisonous.
 

Thomas Helwys

New Member
As I said in post #107:

"The Calvinists are content with defending the definitions of their beliefs, but they are not content with examining the logical conclusions of those beliefs when they are boiled down to their lowest common denominators."

Neither Van, myself, nor others who oppose Calvinism are attempting to make a historical debate that our oppositions are what Calvin defined when we are making arguments against the conclusions of Calvinism. What we are arguing against is the RESULTS of what they produce.

I believe in predestination. I also believe in election. But the results and conclusions based on how Calvinism explicates those doctrines are the issue.

If you own a McDonald's store, and I get a hamburger, and it tastes like dog food, and I write a review of your restaurant, and you reply that I am accusing you of selling dog food, you would be wrong.

We are not accusing Calvinism of calling the item on their menu a hamburger, we are saying that the product tastes like dog food, and is not healthy for consumption because it is inherently poisonous.

You keep going as you are, and I might not post anymore because I won't need to. :)
 

saturneptune

New Member
As I said in post #107:

"The Calvinists are content with defending the definitions of their beliefs, but they are not content with examining the logical conclusions of those beliefs when they are boiled down to their lowest common denominators."

Neither Van, myself, nor others who oppose Calvinism are attempting to make a historical debate that our oppositions are what Calvin defined when we are making arguments against the conclusions of Calvinism. What we are arguing against is the RESULTS of what they produce.

I believe in predestination. I also believe in election. But the results and conclusions based on how Calvinism explicates those doctrines are the issue.

If you own a McDonald's store, and I get a hamburger, and it tastes like dog food, and I write a review of your restaurant, and you reply that I am accusing you of selling dog food, you would be wrong.

We are not accusing Calvinism of calling the item on their menu a hamburger, we are saying that the product tastes like dog food, and is not healthy for consumption because it is inherently poisonous.
It is hard to figure out why Calvinism and KJVO cause such heated discussions compared to other doctrines. Why would it be impossible to discuss God's sovereignty at the temperment we do Creation, say?

I disagree with some points you have made about God's sovereignty and man's free will, yet, your posts have not been vicious. One of the things that poisons the atmosphere on this issue is the life and character of Calvin.

Some on this board are unable to seperate the character of Calvin with the doctrine that was named after him. They feel obligated to raise a monster to sainthood to protect the doctrine. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I am living proof. It is as though they believe God is unable to be sovereign if Calvin did not live a stellar life. That goes against the very concept of God's sovereignty. That is why I refuse to use the term Calvinism.

In summary, this is what his life produced
Murder of dozens
Torture of hundreds
Implementing Catholic traditions such as infant baptism
False witness, by proclaiming seperation of church and state and creating a theocracy
Persecuting the local autonomous churches of the time, the very churches that were preserving the NT church that Christ promised

Also, what both sides fail to recognize is the mix of free will and sovereignty in the providence of God is not now, nor will ever, be fully understood by the human mind.

If we could start off with these foundations, I believe we would agree on more than you think, and that the disagreements would be civil.

John Calvin continues to leave a trail of destruction nearly 500 years after his death.
 

Thomas Helwys

New Member
It is hard to figure out why Calvinism and KJVO cause such heated discussions compared to other doctrines. Why would it be impossible to discuss God's sovereignty at the temperment we do Creation, say?

I disagree with some points you have made about God's sovereignty and man's free will, yet, your posts have not been vicious. One of the things that poisons the atmosphere on this issue is the life and character of Calvin.

Some on this board are unable to seperate the character of Calvin with the doctrine that was named after him. They feel obligated to raise a monster to sainthood to protect the doctrine. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I am living proof. It is as though they believe God is unable to be sovereign if Calvin did not live a stellar life. That goes against the very concept of God's sovereignty. That is why I refuse to use the term Calvinism.

In summary, this is what his life produced
Murder of dozens
Torture of hundreds
Implementing Catholic traditions such as infant baptism
False witness, by proclaiming seperation of church and state and creating a theocracy
Persecuting the local autonomous churches of the time, the very churches that were preserving the NT church that Christ promised

Also, what both sides fail to recognize is the mix of free will and sovereignty in the providence of God is not now, nor will ever, be fully understood by the human mind.

If we could start off with these foundations, I believe we would agree on more than you think, and that the disagreements would be civil.

John Calvin continues to leave a trail of destruction nearly 500 years after his death.

That, too, is an excellent post. And I like and agree with what you said in the part I bolded.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You're equivocating. I've already conceded that in your mind the one entails the other. I think you're wrong. It would take more time than I care to expend to explain it. I just figured I'd let you know that your claims were historically false.

Carry on.


1) No, I am making a clear case for the irrationality of Calvinism, God causing people to sin, i.e. reject Christ, but claimed not to be the cause of people rejecting Christ.

2) The "I do not have the time" is simply to assert something without providing any evidence for it. An old trick used by those selling rather than teaching.

3) None of my claims are historically false, because they are based on the WCF.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
As I said in post #107:

"The Calvinists are content with defending the definitions of their beliefs, but they are not content with examining the logical conclusions of those beliefs when they are boiled down to their lowest common denominators."

or when you boil down your misunderstandings to the lowest common denominators

Neither Van, myself, nor others who oppose Calvinism are attempting to make a historical debate that our oppositions are what Calvin defined when we are making arguments against the conclusions of Calvinism. What we are arguing against is the RESULTS of what they produce.

Unless you take a historic confession of faith which gives the correct definition of the teaching and interact with it, you are making false caricatures instead, and so avoiding the truth which you cannot overturn at all.


I believe in predestination. I also believe in election.

Anyone who says they read a bible has to believe that those words are in there .You who oppose the teaching do not believe in the teaching as given in scripture....so no, you do not believe in it.

This is easily shown for example when either of you ,or others attempts to speak about the key texts and cannot.

to them who are the called according to his purpose.

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Every and any comment you will offer here, will contain a wrong and unbiblical view of foreknowledge,and wrong implications about sanctification.
Unless you speak truthfully about what is written by Paul.

But the results and conclusions based on how Calvinism explicates those doctrines are the issue.

Yes...and we see that you do not yet grasp the teaching so for sure your conclusions are opposing yourself and those who might be inclined to listen to you.......Cal's spot your error from a mile away.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I hope you'll at least drop in to answer a question or two.

OK.

So, here are the nitty-gritty questions: Will all who have never heard the gospel go to heaven?

No.

If not all, will some?

Those whom God has wrought within will.

If some will not, what is the basis of their condemnation?

They will be judged by their works and their deeds, exactly the same as ALL of us will be judged:

for all of us it behoveth to be manifested before the tribunal of the Christ, that each one may receive the things done through the body, in reference to the things that he did, whether good or evil; 2 Cor 5:10 YLT

6 who will render to every man according to his works:
7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life:
8 but unto them that are factious, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation,
9 tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek
13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); Ro 2

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice,
29 and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment. Jn 5

33 and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 for I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in;
36 naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 for I was hungry, and ye did not give me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink;
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not unto me.
46 And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life. Mt 25

18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor thy father and mother. Lu 18

25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and made trial of him, saying, Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 And he said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. Lu 10

One big difference between 'lost' sheep (NOT goats) and 'saved' sheep is that 'saved sheep' have hope while here in this temporal realm below:

14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the Way which they call a sect, so serve I the God of our fathers, believing all things which are according to the law, and which are written in the prophets;
15 having hope toward God, which these also themselves look for, that there shall be a resurrection both of the just and unjust. Acts 24

Seeing that the judgment is going to be all about 'deeds and doing', how much more weighty should the words of James become to all of us:

13 For judgment is without mercy to him that hath showed no mercy: mercy glorieth against judgment.
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked and in lack of daily food,
16 and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; and yet ye give them not the things needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself.
18 Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith.
19 Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well: the demons also believe, and shudder.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith apart from works is barren?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect;
23 and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God.
24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.
25 And in like manner was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works, in that she received the messengers, and sent them out another way?
26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead. Jas 2

You 'gospel means', 'faith alone' folks seem to have lost sight of the very simple essence of the religion of Jesus Christ, which is AGAPE, 'thinking of others', which also happens to be the same simple essence of the law:

9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: love therefore is the fulfilment of the law. Ro 13

It doesn't matter whether one had heard the law or has heard the gospel, what matters is if God has written the law upon their hearts which enables all of us to do BY NATURE the things of the law. It's always been that way:

34 And Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him. Acts 10

Just as true today as it was then.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DrJamesAch

New Member
As I said in post #107:



or when you boil down your misunderstandings to the lowest common denominators



Unless you take a historic confession of faith which gives the correct definition of the teaching and interact with it, you are making false caricatures instead, and so avoiding the truth which you cannot overturn at all.




Anyone who says they read a bible has to believe that those words are in there .You who oppose the teaching do not believe in the teaching as given in scripture....so no, you do not believe in it.

This is easily shown for example when either of you ,or others attempts to speak about the key texts and cannot.

to them who are the called according to his purpose.

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Every and any comment you will offer here, will contain a wrong and unbiblical view of foreknowledge,and wrong implications about sanctification.
Unless you speak truthfully about what is written by Paul.



Yes...and we see that you do not yet grasp the teaching so for sure your conclusions are opposing yourself and those who might be inclined to listen to you.......Cal's spot your error from a mile away.

You could have saved a lot of space on here and avoided carpel tunnel syndrome by simply saying, "Since you don't agree with me, you are wrong about everything you say". That pretty much sums up your entire post.

So now, I'm going to pull rank. This is only for the hermeneutically challenged and is not meant as a carte blanche on everyone. Just for you: I have an earned doctorate in theology so I have studied these issues formally for 9 years, and informally for 40. Therefore my knowledge trumps your knowledge, you are wrong and I'm right.

We can play that game all day long. But it's getting rather boring which is why I ignore half of your posts. I rejoice with them that rejoice. Those who can carry on a debate without all the vitriol and ad homimen remarks have my attention, and I rejoice with them even when we don't agree.

And those who always feel the need to be right at the cost of slandering other Christians on a personal level. I weep with them that weep.

When you can answer the things I have written vis a vis, then I might engage again instead of wasting my time on someone who ignores the arguments and responds with nothing more than "you don't understand". Until that time comes, I am the Doctor, and you are wrong. :) Perhaps I was predestinated and foreordained not to understand (thank God) so you look silly for arguing with me. In fact, it is silly to see any Calvinist arguing for their position because if it is true to form, eventually we will all be forced against our will to believe you.

Everyone else can call me James, Doc, Dr, Ach, but Iconoclast lost his privileges and is in time-out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tom Butler

New Member
Brother kyredneck,
Re your post #138.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. You've been very helpful in helping me understand why you believe as you do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top