Hyper-Calvinism

[JD731]

i
<snip>

No doubt this was partly due to my own ineptitude, but I see it now as God's working out of His plan for my life. If I had become rich, I would never have sought God, but now I can say, 'It is good for me that I was afflicted, that I may learn Your statutes' (Psalm 119:17).

Your doctrines fluctuates with the thread topics. Here, God is working things out for you, but in another thread God will be totally sovereign and everything predetermined and settled from before the world was. I can not keep up with you.

 

[JD731]

It shows to us that the archer had "free will" enough to choose to fire off his arrow, but God already predestined that arrow to be the one to kill off the King and fulfill prophecy

This is a record of a definite miracle and intervention of God in the affairs of his covenant people. A miracle is God suspending natural laws and ways to accomplish his end. When it is visible to all, it is a lesson in the ways of God and we can all learn from it. I am guessing a careful student of the word of God could mine the spiritual lesson from this incident and develop an entire sermon that would instruct us about God and his ways that would be beneficial to us today and he might barely mention the archer.

The fact this happens only once should instruct us that it was unusual and should be studied to find what God wants us to learn from this. You seemed to have learned about free will and it is not even about that.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Your doctrines fluctuates with the thread topics. Here, God is working things out for you, but in another thread God will be totally sovereign and everything predetermined and settled from before the world was.

Both these things are true. On the one hand, 'Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man, the things God has prepared for those who love Him;' on the other hand, 'Your eyes saw my substance , being then unformed. And in Your book they were all written , the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them.'

I can not keep up with you.

It seems not. You need to try harder and keep up.

 

[Van]

So according to your view if I flip a coin not even God knows whether it will be heads or tails. , was that God may choose not to actually do anything in such a case but leave the coin toss to natural consequences. SNIP

More side-stepping, more misinformation, more changing the subject to your manufactured claims. Did I say God has chosen not to know in advance what side of a coin will.

Apparently it is too much to ask for candor. God has chosen not to know beforehand that which He allows rather than predestines.

 

[Van]

In other words, the things that @Van thinks are predestined are predestined, and those he thinks are by chance are indeed by chance.
Either God is sovereign or we are at the mercy of blind chance. My vote goes with God.

Note, this poster makes up absurd views and attributes them to me. Not very encouraging.
God is sovereign in that He causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass.
What is so difficult about accepting that the mix is not specifically defined in scripture. The key explicitly issue is whether or not God causes people to put their faith in Christ, via irresistible grace, or God allows people to choose to put their faith in Christ or not.

And all these diversionary tactics are simply an effort to deny the opportunity for salvation until a person dies or their heart it hardened against Christ, such as Judas.

 

[DaveXR650]

. God has chosen not to know beforehand that which He allows rather than predestines.

God is sovereign in that He causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass.

This is what I mean. First you make an obvious contradictory statement. How can God know if he should allow something if he has already chosen to not know what it is that he is thinking about allowing?
Then, you quote R.C. Sproul almost word for word, as he says just the opposite and is by the way describing theism in general:

"That God in some sense foreordains whatever comes to pass is a necessary result of his sovereignty. In itself it does not plead for Calvinism. It only declares that God is absolutely sovereign over his creation. God can foreordain things in different ways. But everything that happens must at least happen by his permission. If he permits something then he must decide to allow it. If He decides to allow something, then in a sense he is foreordaining it. Who, among Christians, would argue that God could not stop something in this world from happening." Chosen By God by R.C. Sproul, page 26.

It looks to me Van, that you have really not thought through these basic concepts. But you do have a deep seated animosity toward anything Calvinistic even though it doesn't look like you understand what it is or tries to say.

And all these diversionary tactics are simply an effort to deny the opportunity for salvation until a person dies or their heart it hardened against Christ, such as Judas.

I mean, what is this supposed to mean? That's just bizarre. Judas basically lived with the Master himself for 3 years and you try to make some claim that a Calvinist denied him the opportunity for salvation? Do you realize in bringing in Judas you brought in the poster boy for Calvinistic theology in it's strongest format?

 

[Hutch]

Thus when God chose His Redeemer individually, He chose corporately all those His Redeemer would redeem, thus we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world.

Thus when God chose His Redeemer individually, He chose the plan for all those who would accept the Redeemer, thus as a result of accepting Him we were chosen to be in Him, which God planned before the foundation of the world.

However, since we once were not a people chosen for God's own possession, we were not individually chosen until after we existed as individuals as "not a people" who had not obtained mercy. 1 Peter 2:9-10

We become people of God when we trust Christ for salvation, and because of that, receive mercy. Those who do not trust God, do not receive mercy.

 

[JesusFan]

In other words, the things that @Van thinks are predestined are predestined, and those he thinks are by chance are indeed by chance.
Either God is sovereign or we are at the mercy of blind chance. My vote goes with God.

IF one really holds to real luck and chance in our lives, then one must be by definition hold to a form of Open Theism

 

[Van]

This is what I mean. First you make an obvious contradictory statement. How can God know if he should allow something if he has already chosen to not know what it is that he is thinking about allowing?
Then, you quote R.C. Sproul almost word for word, as he says just the opposite and is by the way describing theism in general:

"That God in some sense foreordains whatever comes to pass is a necessary result of his sovereignty. In itself it does not plead for Calvinism. It only declares that God is absolutely sovereign over his creation. God can foreordain things in different ways. But everything that happens must at least happen by his permission. If he permits something then he must decide to allow it. If He decides to allow something, then in a sense he is foreordaining it. Who, among Christians, would argue that God could not stop something in this world from happening." Chosen By God by R.C. Sproul, page 26.

It looks to me Van, that you have really not thought through these basic concepts. But you do have a deep seated animosity toward anything Calvinistic even though it doesn't look like you understand what it is or tries to say.

I mean, what is this supposed to mean? That's just bizarre. Judas basically lived with the Master himself for 3 years and you try to make some claim that a Calvinist denied him the opportunity for salvation? Do you realize in bringing in Judas you brought in the poster boy for Calvinistic theology in it's strongest format?

LOL, if God chooses not to know who will put their faith in Christ, then He has committed to allowing the activity without predestining it. Please stop denial by obfuscation.

Next you make the observation that some Calvinists recognize the logical impossibility of the Historic Calvinist view. Good Grief, to allow grants permission.

Next to address my supposed faults, more change the subject diversion.

Lastly you address yet another manufactured viewpoint, and do not admit that Calvinism denies the lost have an opportunity to change the outcome of their lives from the outcome predestined by God before creation. In other words, the usual runaround.

 

[Van]

Thus when God chose His Redeemer individually, He chose the plan for all those who would accept the Redeemer, thus as a result of accepting Him we were chosen to be in Him, which God planned before the foundation of the world.

We become people of God when we trust Christ for salvation, and because of that, receive mercy. Those who do not trust God, do not receive mercy.

Hi Hutch, pretty good summation.

When God chose His Redeemer, He chose corporately, not individually all those His Redeemer would redeem. Thus we were chosen in Him, i.e. when God chose His redeemer.

We become people of God when God credits our faith as righteousness and transfers us spiritually into Christ. Since we merit nothing, that action bestows mercy upon us. Before God credits our faith, we have not been chosen for salvation individually, thus once we had not obtained mercy. 1 Peter 2:9-10

 

[DaveXR650]

LOL, if God chooses not to know who will put their faith in Christ, then He has committed to allowing the activity without predestining it. Please stop denial by obfuscation.

Van. The point is that God can indeed allow people to put faith in Christ without in any way coercing them by violating their free will and yet because it was known by God already, and allowed to occur, it is predestined. You are stuck on having to have God not know what will happen (which is opposed by almost all believers of all types, even most theists) when in fact he can know, have it thus predestined, and still allow that freedom.

Next you make the observation that some Calvinists recognize the logical impossibility of the Historic Calvinist view. Good Grief, to allow grants permission.

Next to address my supposed faults, more change the subject diversion.

Sorry. If you are making a point here I can't follow it.

Lastly you address yet another manufactured viewpoint, and do not admit that Calvinism denies the lost have an opportunity to change the outcome of their lives from the outcome predestined by God before creation. In other words, the usual runaround.

Calvinism indeed teaches that the lost are completely dependent upon the mercy of God's providence in that they must be enlightened or convicted sufficiently by the Holy Spirit in order to respond to the gospel. They also teach that the lost must hear the gospel in order to be saved and in our world that too is under God's providence. Now listen very carefully because this is the most important thing here: They also teach and warn of the danger of not immediately responding to this quickening and hearing of the gospel lest the call be withdrawn and you either never hear the message again or even upon hearing it over and over you become judicially hardened and unable to "hear" in a true sense. And should this happen to you, the fault of your lost opportunity to be saved is totally upon you. It will turn out that such as do this are not elect and in the end were predestined to damnation. But the opportunity was real and the invitation was real. Reconciling these two truths is not within my ability but I can know that scripture says both and I can believe both as true without having to reject a clearly revealed truth. That is what Calvinism teaches and I can provide references to the teaching from even high-Calvinist John Owen if it would help you understand. This is truly a different approach than a "hyper-Calvinist" and maybe some Primitive Baptists so I responded to this thread. You can have the last word because I realize I won't be able to make you understand because of your animosity to anything Calvinist which is clouding your ability to converse in a reasonable manner.

 

[Van]

Van. The point is that God can indeed allow people to put faith in Christ without in any way coercing them by violating their free will and yet because it was known by God already, and allowed to occur, it is predestined. You are stuck on having to have God not know what will happen (which is opposed by almost all believers of all types, even most theists) when in fact he can know, have it thus predestined, and still allow that freedom.

Sorry. If you are making a point here I can't follow it.

Calvinism indeed teaches that the lost are completely dependent upon the mercy of God's providence in that they must be enlightened or convicted sufficiently by the Holy Spirit in order to respond to the gospel. They also teach that the lost must hear the gospel in order to be saved and in our world that too is under God's providence. Now listen very carefully because this is the most important thing here: They also teach and warn of the danger of not immediately responding to this quickening and hearing of the gospel lest the call be withdrawn and you either never hear the message again or even upon hearing it over and over you become judicially hardened and unable to "hear" in a true sense. And should this happen to you, the fault of your lost opportunity to be saved is totally upon you. It will turn out that such as do this are not elect and in the end were predestined to damnation. But the opportunity was real and the invitation was real. Reconciling these two truths is not within my ability but I can know that scripture says both and I can believe both as true without having to reject a clearly revealed truth. That is what Calvinism teaches and I can provide references to the teaching from even high-Calvinist John Owen if it would help you understand. This is truly a different approach than a "hyper-Calvinist" and maybe some Primitive Baptists so I responded to this thread. You can have the last word because I realize I won't be able to make you understand because of your animosity to anything Calvinist which is clouding your ability to converse in a reasonable manner.

Please stop. If God knows we will not put our trust in Christ, we cannot put our trust in Christ. Duh
My view is biblical, your view nullifies verse after verse.

"Sorry. If you are making a point here I can't follow it." Here is you addressing my supposed faults, rather than the topic.

"It looks to me Van, that you have really not thought through these basic concepts. But you do have a deep seated animosity toward anything Calvinistic even though it doesn't look like you understand what it is or tries to say."

Calvinism falsely claims the lost are UNABLE to put their trust in Christ unless supernaturally altered by "irresistible grace." Scripture says the lost seek God and put "their" faith in God.

The only "quickening" that occurs is when we are made alive together with Christ when God puts us spiritually into Christ. Your claim simply redefines a biblical word to pour man-made doctrine into the text. It is nonsense.

Next you describe a logical impossibility as what "scripture says." Again, absolutely false.​

 

[DaveXR650]

"Sorry. If you are making a point here I can't follow it." Here is you addressing my supposed faults, rather than the topic.
"It looks to me Van, that you have really not thought through these basic concepts. But you do have a deep seated animosity toward anything Calvinistic even though it doesn't look like you understand what it is or tries to say."

What I mean is illustrated in your statement above where you said:

If God knows we will not put our trust in Christ, we cannot put our trust in Christ. Duh
My view is biblical, your view nullifies verse after verse.

The debate over the Calvinist understanding of predestination is one thing, but if you were to go around and just ask random clergymen from all Protestant denominations and even Catholic priests they would almost to a man say our concept of God is that he definitely knows the future choices of men.

But I do respect you because I think you say that because you have painted yourself into a corner where there are implications of admitting that God infallibly knows the future that trouble you and the implications tend to lead to some form of Calvinism. Most Christians who have not thought about this or have been taught something different know that if God knows ahead of time what a person is going to do then why doesn't he do more to help them. From there you get into fairness issues which cannot be dealt with and you end up admitting God is acting sovereignly.

I can tell from this part:

If God knows we will not put our trust in Christ, we cannot put our trust in Christ. Duh

that you understand that the idea of a perfect infallible knowledge of a future decision implies some level of predestination which is why you keep stumbling over this.

The only "quickening" that occurs is when we are made alive together with Christ when God puts us spiritually into Christ. Your claim simply redefines a biblical word to pour man-made doctrine into the text. It is nonsense.

That is a correct statement because quickening can be used interchangeably with "made alive".

Calvinism falsely claims the lost are UNABLE to put their trust in Christ unless supernaturally altered by "irresistible grace." Scripture says the lost seek God and put "their" faith in God.

Remember that when Calvinism teaches "inability" it means moral inability. The problem is our will. We can't because we won't. Scripture explicitly states that the lost tend to not seek God but tend to believe they are at least as good as others, and that the gospel scheme is "foolish".

 

[JesusFan]

LOL, if God chooses not to know who will put their faith in Christ, then He has committed to allowing the activity without predestining it. Please stop denial by obfuscation.

Next you make the observation that some Calvinists recognize the logical impossibility of the Historic Calvinist view. Good Grief, to allow grants permission.

Next to address my supposed faults, more change the subject diversion.

Lastly you address yet another manufactured viewpoint, and do not admit that Calvinism denies the lost have an opportunity to change the outcome of their lives from the outcome predestined by God before creation. In other words, the usual runaround.

its impossible for God to ever choose to not know all things exhaustive fashion, as its one of His divine attributes"all knowing"

 

[JesusFan]

This is what I mean. First you make an obvious contradictory statement. How can God know if he should allow something if he has already chosen to not know what it is that he is thinking about allowing?
Then, you quote R.C. Sproul almost word for word, as he says just the opposite and is by the way describing theism in general:

"That God in some sense foreordains whatever comes to pass is a necessary result of his sovereignty. In itself it does not plead for Calvinism. It only declares that God is absolutely sovereign over his creation. God can foreordain things in different ways. But everything that happens must at least happen by his permission. If he permits something then he must decide to allow it. If He decides to allow something, then in a sense he is foreordaining it. Who, among Christians, would argue that God could not stop something in this world from happening." Chosen By God by R.C. Sproul, page 26.

It looks to me Van, that you have really not thought through these basic concepts. But you do have a deep seated animosity toward anything Calvinistic even though it doesn't look like you understand what it is or tries to say.

I mean, what is this supposed to mean? That's just bizarre. Judas basically lived with the Master himself for 3 years and you try to make some claim that a Calvinist denied him the opportunity for salvation? Do you realize in bringing in Judas you brought in the poster boy for Calvinistic theology in it's strongest format?

Judas perfect example of one who HAD to fulfill prophecy of betraying the Messiah, who was never saved, and yet Judas "freely chose" to fulfill that prophecy!

 

[JesusFan]

Thus when God chose His Redeemer individually, He chose the plan for all those who would accept the Redeemer, thus as a result of accepting Him we were chosen to be in Him, which God planned before the foundation of the world.

We become people of God when we trust Christ for salvation, and because of that, receive mercy. Those who do not trust God, do not receive mercy.

Back up before that, as who are the ones who will choose to receive Jesus as Lord by faith? Where did their faith come from?

 

[JesusFan]

Hi Hutch, pretty good summation.

When God chose His Redeemer, He chose corporately, not individually all those His Redeemer would redeem. Thus we were chosen in Him, i.e. when God chose His redeemer.

We become people of God when God credits our faith as righteousness and transfers us spiritually into Christ. Since we merit nothing, that action bestows mercy upon us. Before God credits our faith, we have not been chosen for salvation individually, thus once we had not obtained mercy. 1 Peter 2:9-10

Jesus died as a penal substitutionary atonement for each one , as he tool our individual sins and wraith and judgement due to us in our stead, not as part of a "group plan"

 

[JesusFan]

Please stop. If God knows we will not put our trust in Christ, we cannot put our trust in Christ. Duh
My view is biblical, your view nullifies verse after verse.

"Sorry. If you are making a point here I can't follow it." Here is you addressing my supposed faults, rather than the topic.

"It looks to me Van, that you have really not thought through these basic concepts. But you do have a deep seated animosity toward anything Calvinistic even though it doesn't look like you understand what it is or tries to say."​

​

Calvinism falsely claims the lost are UNABLE to put their trust in Christ unless supernaturally altered by "irresistible grace." Scripture says the lost seek God and put "their" faith in God.​

​

The only "quickening" that occurs is when we are made alive together with Christ when God puts us spiritually into Christ. Your claim simply redefines a biblical word to pour man-made doctrine into the text. It is nonsense.​

​

Next you describe a logical impossibility as what "scripture says." Again, absolutely false.​

Actually Isaiah and peter very adamant that none seeks after God, no not one sinner

 

[JesusFan]

What I mean is illustrated in your statement above where you said:

The debate over the Calvinist understanding of predestination is one thing, but if you were to go around and just ask random clergymen from all Protestant denominations and even Catholic priests they would almost to a man say our concept of God is that he definitely knows the future choices of men.

But I do respect you because I think you say that because you have painted yourself into a corner where there are implications of admitting that God infallibly knows the future that trouble you and the implications tend to lead to some form of Calvinism. Most Christians who have not thought about this or have been taught something different know that if God knows ahead of time what a person is going to do then why doesn't he do more to help them. From there you get into fairness issues which cannot be dealt with and you end up admitting God is acting sovereignly.

I can tell from this part:

that you understand that the idea of a perfect infallible knowledge of a future decision implies some level of predestination which is why you keep stumbling over this.

That is a correct statement because quickening can be used interchangeably with "made alive".

Remember that when Calvinism teaches "inability" it means moral inability. The problem is our will. We can't because we won't. Scripture explicitly states that the lost tend to not seek God but tend to believe they are at least as good as others, and that the gospel scheme is "foolish".

Lost sinners refuse to receive Jesus as their Lord and savior due to sin pf pride, in our fallen natures must "save ourselves" to do something to get us now saved

 

[Nolan Stengel]

Calvinism denies the lost have an opportunity to change the outcome of their lives from the outcome predestined by God before creation.

I have noticed that many here have unfortunately resorted to insults by dismissing your efforts to explain this clear Biblical teaching as “Vanology”.

1 Peter 1:2
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

As you have said time and time again, when a person places their trust in Christ they are immediately spiritually transferred in Christ and become one of the elect. God has foreknowledge of who is and who isn’t going to be a part of the elect. Scripture says nothing about God’s foreknowledge being based on some kind of script that everyone is pre-programmed to follow.

Jonah 3:10
When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.

It could not be more clear that God responds to free will actions, yet Calvinists will dismiss verses like this, sometimes even the whole book of Jonah, as a figure of speech.

It isn’t hard to understand that God predestines things to happen and at the same time human free will is involved in that predestined plan.

Further, if a Calvinist wants to arbitrarily say that verses showing “God changing His mind” is merely a figure of speech, I guess that means that I can arbitrarily say that “predestination” is a figure of speech as well.

It is an inconsistent system whether they like it or not and in the end their logic falls apart.