Hyper-Calvinism

[JD731]

First of all, you didn't mention any of this when you made your first post.
Secondly, Mark 8:31-33 occurs immediately after Peter's confession of the Lord Jesus as the Christ, and before the transfiguration. We are told that 'He spoke this word openly.' That the disciples didn't get the message is true, but not germaine to your post

This is not true and you, Martin, are able to figure things out better than you are letting on. The incident with Peter in Matthew 16 took place before the transfiguration and Matthew was concerned about chronology of events. If he is not concerned about the chronology of the events then you need to prove it.

Read this and then I will give you a little English lesson;


13 ¶ When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (the Father did the signs, the miracles, through the son)
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
21 ¶ From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

I have highlighted some pertinent adverbs. Here is the meaning.
a word or phrase that modifies or qualifies an adjective, verb, or other adverb or a word group, expressing a relation of place, time, circumstance, manner, cause, degree, etc.

Now that we have that established let's move on.

24 ¶ Then said Jesus unto his disciples,

28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Now watch this, Martin;

1 ¶ And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

Okay, some logic and spiritual application now. First, the transfiguration is not six days after he said these things, but, he said these things after six days. The meanings of these two ways of saying this is one day apart. Therefore, for prophetical value Jesus says the transfiguration is after 6 days, which would be on the seventh day. He said he would show these men the kingdom of God. Now, we know from scripture that a thousand years is with God as one day and one day is as a thousand years, so he is telling us when the kingdom will come. It will be on the seventh day. They were in the beginning of the fifth day when he said this.

Are you able to see above that there is a progression the author wants you to see? Can I trust you now to follow the progression by being aware of how we speak our language and what it means?

Yes He did

No he didn't. Read my post again where I proved it.
if one chooses to believe plain and simple words.

 

[JD731]

And why did Peter believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ the Son of the Living God?

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Matt 16:17

God the Father of the flesh and blood Son, Jesus, revealed it to him.

God opened his mind unto belief.

Opening the understanding is a very important function of the Godhead, Percho. God must open the understanding and he only does it for those who are saved. So, Peter and the other disciples, save one, had their understanding opened that he was the two things they must believe at that time, but they did not yet have their understanding opened to his death and resurrection from the dead until after it occurred and we have that stated plainly with the two men on the Emmaus Road on the day of the resurrection.

Lu 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

But, on the same day he had not yet opened Peter's understanding. Look.

Joh 20:6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.
9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.
10 Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.

Here is a truth that all people need to understand. There are several expressions of good news and glad tidings that are important to know, but there is only one good news, glad tidings that has the power to save a sinner who believes it, and I will quote the scriptures saying it;

Ro 1:16 ¶ For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it (the gospel of Christ) is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

My initial encounter with the reformed was about 25 years ago. In my opinion, they were "hyper".

One gentleman made an announcement that his and his wife's son had been born. He said, "Let's welcome one more of God's elect."

If he believes his son was BORN saved - I can only take it to mean he believes his baby is saved because HE is saved. It left a permanent and horrid taste in my mouth.

This is 'presumptive regeneration:' a belief that exists among some Reformed Presbyterians and Anglicans. However, Joel Beeke, who is a Reformed Presby, said at a conference I attended that he would sooner be a Baptist than believe that. Certainly, the Reformed Baptist position, right from the 17th Century, is that no one comes into the kingdom of God by natural birth (John 1:13).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Sorry Sir, but you need to take a position.

My position is scripture does not say, nor suggest that everything is predestined. And two God did not "give" any individual to Christ before He credits their faith as righteousness.

I don't need to do anything at your behest, but in fact I stated very clearly that God fully controls everything in the world and that men and women have free will.
In accordance with Scripture, I summoned three witnesses (Deut. 19:15) to support my position - 1 KIngs 22:34; Proverbs 16:33; John 6:37.
But I could throw in Jonah 2:9 as a bonus: 'Salvation is of the LORD.' And you are a hundred miles and more off in your belief that men and women believe on Christ solely of their own free will (contra John 6:44), and then God rejects some (many? most?) because their faith is not 'righteous' (contra John 6:37b).

 

[JesusFan]

I don't need to do anything at your behest, but in fact I stated very clearly that God fully controls everything in the world and that men and women have free will.
In accordance with Scripture, I summoned three witnesses (Deut. 19:15) to support my position - 1 KIngs 22:34; Proverbs 16:33; John 6:37.
But I could throw in Jonah 2:9 as a bonus: 'Salvation is of the LORD.' And you are a hundred miles and more off in your belief that men and women believe on Christ solely of their own free will (contra John 6:44), and then God rejects some (many? most?) because their faith is not 'righteous' (contra John 6:37b).

Think this becomes much easier when we agree that lost sinners do not have libertine/absolute free will remain due to the Fall. as what we can actually desire to still do is now bound up in the sin nature

 

[JesusFan]

This is 'presumptive regeneration:' a belief that exists among some Reformed Presbyterians and Anglicans. However, Joel Beeke, who is a Reformed Presby, said at a conference I attended that he would sooner be a Baptist than believe that. Certainly, the Reformed Baptist position, right from the 17th Century, is that no one comes into the kingdom of God by natural birth (John 1:13).

Also gets into the area where some of the Reformed see God only saving elect Children and infants of saved parents, whiles others see God election applies to all children if died before age of accountability kicked in

 

[Martin Marprelate]

First of all, you didn't mention any of this when you made your first post.
Secondly, Mark 8:31-33 occurs immediately after Peter's confession of the Lord Jesus as the Christ, and before the transfiguration. We are told that 'He spoke this word openly.' That the disciples didn't get the message is true, but not germaine to your post

This is not true and you, Martin, are able to figure things out better than you are letting on. The incident with Peter in Matthew 16 took place before the transfiguration and Matthew was concerned about chronology of events. If he is not concerned about the chronology of the events then you need to prove it.

It is true, and you, JD, are less able to figure things out than you are letting on. Read my post again and you will see that you are agreeing with me. The endless verbiage about grammar is irrelevant to what I have stated, which is that the Lord Jesus spoke to His disciples about His death and resurrection well before His arrest. That they did not understand is true, but not relevant to the point I was making. Our Lord's two-stage healing of the blind man at Bethsaida in Mark 8:22-26 is illustrative of the partial understanding of the disciples before Pentecost. They got some things, but not others. It strikes me that you are in much the same condition.

 

[DaveXR650]

This is 'presumptive regeneration:' a belief that exists among some Reformed Presbyterians and Anglicans. However, Joel Beeke, who is a Reformed Presby, said at a conference I attended that he would sooner be a Baptist than believe that. Certainly, the Reformed Baptist position, right from the 17th Century, is that no one comes into the kingdom of God by natural birth (John 1:13).

When @Scarlett O. posted about that fellow my first thought was not theological at all but that the poor guy had not yet tried to live with a new baby. Not only will you doubt such a creature could be elect, but by the time they are two years old you will be a firm believer in Total Depravity.

 

[Van]

They are saved due to election/[predestination, regenerate, saving faith all Free Gifts to His own

Yet another proclamation of fiction in an effort to change the subject from Hyper-Calvinism.

 

[Van]

I don't need to do anything at your behest, but in fact I stated very clearly that God fully controls everything in the world and that men and women have free will.
In accordance with Scripture, I summoned three witnesses (Deut. 19:15) to support my position - 1 KIngs 22:34; Proverbs 16:33; John 6:37.
But I could throw in Jonah 2:9 as a bonus: 'Salvation is of the LORD.' And you are a hundred miles and more off in your belief that men and women believe on Christ solely of their own free will (contra John 6:44), and then God rejects some (many? most?) because their faith is not 'righteous' (contra John 6:37b).

First you say you do not "need" to take a position because of my request, then take a clear yet unbiblical position. Thanks I think.

1) God causes (fully controls)or allows whatsoever comes to pass.

2) Human will is not free, it operates within the purview allowed by God. Thus God can choose to harden our hearts and restrict our will.

3) None of your"three witnesses" support exhaustive determinism.

(1) If I understand your unstated position, 1 Kings 22:34 indicates God allows actions to occur at random, thus not predestined.​

​

(2)And, again if I understand your unstated position, John 6:37 indicates God predestines everything. However, since John 6:37 teaches no such thing, I expect no help. Perhaps other verses can be found that support nothing happens by chance?​

​

(3) Proverbs 16:33 simply says whatever is indicated by the casting of lots is allowed by God.​

4) Jonah 2:9 teaches the LORD decides who He will save, thus teaching God causes some things, but does not say or suggest God causes all things.

 

[DaveXR650]

4) Jonah 2:9 teaches the LORD decides who He will save, thus teaching God causes some things, but does not say or suggest God causes all things.

@Van. From what I have read a hyper-Calvinist does indeed believe that God directly causes everything that happens down to the smallest detail. Some Calvinists also believe this with various modifying details of how this works in real life. But not all. It is indeed one thing that makes you a hyper-Calvinist. It is not the only thing and it doesn't matter if that is your only definition.

Are you trying to pin that one point on all Calvinists?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

First you say you do not "need" to take a position because of my request, then take a clear yet unbiblical position. Thanks I think.

1) God causes (fully controls)or allows whatsoever comes to pass.

You got that right. Blind hogs and acorns come to mind.

2) Human will is not free, it operates within the purview allowed by God. Thus God can choose to harden our hearts and restrict our will.

Human will is free. In our unconverted state, we freely reject God (eg. John 3:19); when God opens our heart, we freely accept Him.

3) None of your"three witnesses" support exhaustive determinism.

(1) If I understand your unstated position, 1 Kings 22:34 indicates God allows actions to occur at random, thus not predestined.​

As I said, you don't understand. Read 1 Kings 22. God had decreed that Ahab should be killed at Ramoth Gilead. Despite being warned of this, Ahab still went feely into battle. A soldier fired off an arrow at random (there is no indication that he really wanted to fire it somewhere else, but God overruled him). The arrow this randomly fired just happened to strike Ahab exactly between the joints of his armour. Thus the free wills of both Ahab and the soldier resulted in exactly what God had decreed.

​

(2)And, again if I understand your unstated position, John 6:37 indicates God predestines everything. However, since John 6:37 teaches no such thing, I expect no help. Perhaps other verses can be found that support nothing happens by chance?​

John 6:37 teaches that all those given to Christ by the Father in eternity (Ephesians 1:4-5) will freely come to Christ; not one will be lost. It also teaches that none of those who freely come will by any means be cast out.

​

(3) Proverbs 16:33 simply says whatever is indicated by the casting of lots is allowed by God.​

Proverbs 16:33 teaches that although people may freely and randomly cast lots to decide what they should do, the results of the lot will be what God has decided should be done.

4) Jonah 2:9 teaches the LORD decides whom He will save, thus teaching God causes some things, but does not say or suggest God causes all things.

Jonah 2:9 teaches that no one saves himself. Salvation is by grace alone, by Christ alone, through faith alone, according the the Scripture alone, to the glory of God alone, not of man. 'And as many as had been appointed to eternal life [freely] believed' (Acts 13:48).

 

[JD731]

Hyper Calvinists spends much of their time trying to convince others that they are not hyper. However, the truth is, there is no other kind.

 

[JesusFan]

Hyper Calvinists spends much of their time trying to convince others that they are not hyper. However, the truth is, there is no other kind.

IF one was a real Hyper Calvinist, would not support missionaries nor evangelistic outreaches

 

[JesusFan]

Yet another proclamation of fiction in an effort to change the subject from Hyper-Calvinism.

Everything brought up on that posting was from the bible van

 

[JD731]

IF one was a real Hyper Calvinist, would not support missionaries nor evangelistic outreaches

You are fooling yourself. There are not any common doctrines between Calvinists/Reformed and fundamentalist Christians and evangelism by the Reformed is not seeking out the unsaved who will come to the Father through the Son but rather the previously elected who must come when it is their predetermined time. God does not need their wills not your help because he and grace, as defined by the Reformed, are both sovereign'

It blows my mind JF. Sovereign grace? Really? Think about that a while. Evangelizing the elected? Not on your life. Sovereign grace has already determined their destiny and it can't be changed, else God and grace are not sovereign.

I am actually too practical to fall for Calvinism.

 

[DaveXR650]

You are fooling yourself. There are not any common doctrines between Calvinists/Reformed and fundamentalist Christians and evangelism by the Reformed is not seeking out the unsaved who will come to the Father through the Son but rather the previously elected who must come when it is their predetermined time. God does not need their wills not your help because he and grace, as defined by the Reformed, are both sovereign'

JD, I would disagree. There are a lot of common doctrines. There is a book called "Whosoever Will" by David Allen and Steve Lemke. David Allen is known to be anti Calvinist yet in this book the authors point out a lot of similarity. If you are a strict Calvinist the book won't feed your ego but they do a pretty good job of explaining the history of the development of doctrine, especially in the Southern United States up till the early 2000's. While it's mainly from a Southern Baptist viewpoint it's worth looking at just for the history, especially for some of the guys on here who are not from the United States.

 

[JD731]

JD, I would disagree. There are a lot of common doctrines. There is a book called "Whosoever Will" by David Allen and Steve Lemke. David Allen is known to be anti Calvinist yet in this book the authors point out a lot of similarity. If you are a strict Calvinist the book won't feed your ego but they do a pretty good job of explaining the history of the development of doctrine, especially in the Southern United States up till the early 2000's. While it's mainly from a Southern Baptist viewpoint it's worth looking at just for the history, especially for some of the guys on here who are not from the United States.

Dave, given that all Reformed teach that the vast majority of mankind cannot be saved because salvation depends first of all on the selection of a limited few in the process of God before he created anything, it follows by logic and reason that the single most important doctrine for anyone personally is to have been in that group who were chosen of God to be saved. If salvation was a possibility for everyone to whom the evangelist preached, that would not be true.

You are a member of the Reformed. If, given the choice, you could choose between being in the number of the elected before the foundation of the world or depend solely upon the testimony of God that he would save the soul of anyone who would come to him in simple faith, believing that Jesus Christ has indeed satified the penalty for your personal sins, which is the second death in the lake of fire, which would you choose?

Your answer should tell us what is the most important doctine to you.

 

[JesusFan]

Dave, given that all Reformed teach that the vast majority of mankind cannot be saved because salvation depends first of all on the selection of a limited few in the process of God before he created anything, it follows by logic and reason that the single most important doctrine for anyone personally is to have been in that group who were chosen of God to be saved. If salvation was a possibility for everyone to whom the evangelist preached, that would not be true.

You are a member of the Reformed. If, given the choice, you could choose between being in the number of the elected before the foundation of the world or depend solely upon the testimony of God that he would save the soul of anyone who would come to him in simple faith, believing that Jesus Christ has indeed satified the penalty for your personal sins, which is the second death in the lake of fire, which would you choose?

Your answer should tell us what is the most important doctine to you.

How can a spiritually dead in sin nature be able to by themselves now will themselves to come to Lord Jesus to be their savior, as their sin nature itself will be in rebellion against God and reject Him to save them from their sins?

 

[JesusFan]

You are fooling yourself. There are not any common doctrines between Calvinists/Reformed and fundamentalist Christians and evangelism by the Reformed is not seeking out the unsaved who will come to the Father through the Son but rather the previously elected who must come when it is their predetermined time. God does not need their wills not your help because he and grace, as defined by the Reformed, are both sovereign'

It blows my mind JF. Sovereign grace? Really? Think about that a while. Evangelizing the elected? Not on your life. Sovereign grace has already determined their destiny and it can't be changed, else God and grace are not sovereign.

I am actually too practical to fall for Calvinism.

God has still ordained that the elect shall come to saving faith in the Lord Jesus per the preaching of the gospel, as we arte not falatist, as still must hear the good news, and still receive Jesus as Lord thru faith

How can a spiritually dead in sin nature be able to by themselves now will themselves to come to Lord Jesus to be their savior, as their sin nature itself will be in rebellion against God and reject Him to save them from their sins?