Hyper-Calvinism

[percho]

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Gen 1:27
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Gen 2:7
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Gen 2:8,9
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Gen 2:17

Who else was in the garden?

Was God testing the man He had created in his image and the man fail the test or was God through the failure of the man made in his image going to destroy the other, "one," in the garden. Was the other, "one," in the Garden already the Adversary of God?

According to the Word of God what was necessary in order to destroy the devil the one who had the power of death?
Heb 2:14 YLT Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Where was death going to come from? What brings the death?

Was it foreordained before Adam sinned for Christ to shed his blood. If Adam had not sinned, salvation would have been by works of law?

 

[Van]

I see the usual suspects are posting off topic diversions. If God allows something, then that something is "through" Him. Otherwise it would not occur.

Did Johnathan Edwards say people were predestined to heaven or hell? Yes

Ordain does not mean "allow." Once again word meanings are redefined to deny historical Calvinism.

Next, the claim was made, we do not have any way to know if God actively causes every action. Scripture says things happen by chance.

Lastly the claim is made that Calvinism does not teach people were saved or damned from all eternity and nothing we can do will alter that predestined outcome. The claim is false.

​

According to Calvinist doctrine, a person is considered either "saved" or "damned" from all eternity, meaning God has predetermined who will be saved and who will be damned before the creation of the world, with no human action able to change this predetermined fate; this is often referred to as "double predestination.".
​

 

[JesusFan]

I see the usual suspects are posting off topic diversions. If God allows something, then that something is "through" Him. Otherwise it would not occur.

Did Johnathan Edwards say people were predestined to heaven or hell? Yes

Ordain does not mean "allow." Once again word meanings are redefined to deny historical Calvinism.

Next, the claim was made, we do not have any way to know if God actively causes every action. Scripture says things happen by chance.

Lastly the claim is made that Calvinism does not teach people were saved or damned from all eternity and nothing we can do will alter that predestined outcome. The claim is false.

​

​

According to Calvinist doctrine, a person is considered either "saved" or "damned" from all eternity, meaning God has predetermined who will be saved and who will be damned before the creation of the world, with no human action able to change this predetermined fate; this is often referred to as "double predestination.". ​

​

Predestination and election in the bible affirms that it relates to the destiny of the saved, not the lost, and where would there be any thing such as chance and luck in a universe overruled by God?

 

[DaveXR650]

Did Johnathan Edwards say people were predestined to heaven or hell? Yes

Edwards also preached that everything is ready for you. Christ has died. All that is waiting now is your consent. Nothing is keeping you from coming to Christ but your own refusal to do so. His theological musings about how one can put together the revealed knowledge we have about the attributes of God - his all knowing, all powerful, complete holiness, into a comprehensive system of theology you can accept or reject as you wish.

Ordain does not mean "allow." Once again word meanings are redefined to deny historical Calvinism.

It means to set events in order. In the case of events involving living creatures with wills of their own, it can mean determining what will happen, setting up things to modify or thwart undesired actions, or allowing obedient actions or actions disobedient that fit into the ordained plan to occur as wished by the creatures involved. Come on, this isn't that hard.

Next, the claim was made, we do not have any way to know if God actively causes every action. Scripture says things happen by chance.

True, but the things that happen by chance were known in advance by God and allowed to happen as they happen then they also could be said to be ordained. All I was saying was that there may be events that we are given no knowledge of as being of concern to God. In that case does he really ordain the action as I previously described or does he allow natural course of action to occur. After all, the natural actions are ultimately his creation too. I don't know why you are stuck on this as is doesn't matter at all.

Lastly the claim is made that Calvinism does not teach people were saved or damned from all eternity and nothing we can do will alter that predestined outcome. The claim is false.

That statement is false. That would be a characteristic of hyper-Calvinism.

According to Calvinist doctrine, a person is considered either "saved" or "damned" from all eternity, meaning God has predetermined who will be saved and who will be damned before the creation of the world, with no human action able to change this predetermined fate; this is often referred to as "double predestination.".

I don't know if you are being deliberately ignorant or if you are incapable of abstract thought. The idea that God knows who is going to be saved or damned ahead of time is part of our standard view of the Christian God. Non-Calvinist Christians also believe this. If you are willing to look at God's ability to see the future, and at the same time say that he is not sovereign over the future, then you should reject Calvinism. To me, all that Calvinism does is it understands that to know a future event infallibly means by definition that the event is set as being true. If you are God, then you have at least allowed and given permission for that event to happen which means if must be at least acceptable to you, or you would have stopped it. Therefore it is said that you "ordained it. But Calvinism also says that creatures are truly acting withing this system according to their own free will. So the confessions reflect both the ordaining of all things by God and the free will of creatures.

 

[DaveXR650]

If you notice there is always a lot of talk about the horrible implications of Calvinistic theology. Do you ever consider the implications of non-Calvinistic theology?
One is that when something happens, if God is not sovereign over it, even if it's horrible then there are conclusions that can be drawn.
Maybe God can't do anything about it. He can't help you and you are on your own. Maybe he didn't see it coming, and thus knows no more about the future choices of a free will individual than you or I, beyond what he might deduce due to higher intelligence.
Maybe God doesn't care. If it's something he didn't do himself then maybe it's your problem just living in a free will world. Deal with it.
Maybe God just doesn't like you. Really. Why should he and why does he have any obligation to like you.
You could go on and on and basically come up with a concept of God like the Greek or Roman gods, who were like I describe above. But we have scripture that gives us insight into God's nature and abilities. Some of the guys that studied that came up with what we call "Calvinism". In my opinion it makes sense as a theology but it does require you to hold two thoughts at once. That is God is completely sovereign and according to the Calvinist definition of the terms involved (and they have a right to determine the meaning of the terms used in their own philosophy), and he predetermines all that happens while at the same time not violating the free wills of men.

If you object to that you are within your rights. If I understand it all correctly all God demands from us is that we respond to his imperative commands. In other words we need to repent toward God and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ. If you are not a Calvinist and you do this and someday you find out that you were indeed of the elect before the foundation of the world, and that you were subject to irresistible grace are you going to be offended? On the other hand if someday you, as a Calvinist, are told by God that he is happy you accepted his invitation and that he wondered if you would ever come around are you going to insult God by saying you thought he knew more or just bite your lip and be thankful. (Thankful to yourself I guess for being smart enough to make the right choice.)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I pointed out 1 Kings 22 to @Van some time ago. The true prophet, MIcaiah foretells disaster for Ahab (eg. v.23). A Syrian archer fires off an arrow 'at random' (v.34), and amazingly, it 'struck the king of Israel between the joints of his armour.' How remarkable is that? That among thousands of troops milling around on the battlefield, the arrow just happened to strike KIng Ahab, and not just strike him and bounce off his armour, but find its way in between the joints of his armour and kill him. Now what are the odds of that?
So my question for @Van (and I notice that he hasn't yet found time to answer the question I asked him in post# 160) is this: do you think that God was sitting in heaven thinking, "I really hope Ahab gets killed in this battle, but I can't do anything about it because I have to allow for free will"? And then when the arrow killed Ahab, He thought, "Yippee! What an amazing result. I never thought that would happen. I was afraid I'd given Micaiah a duff prophecy"? Of course not! 'The LORD has made all things for Himself; yes, even the wicked for the day of doom' (Prov. 16:4).

 

[JD731]

I pointed out 1 Kings 22 to @Van some time ago. The true prophet, MIcaiah foretells disaster for Ahab (eg. v.23). A Syrian archer fires off an arrow 'at random' (v.34), and amazingly, it 'struck the king of Israel between the joints of his armour.' How remarkable is that? That among thousands of troops milling around on the battlefield, the arrow just happened to strike KIng Ahab, and not just strike him and bounce off his armour, but find its way in between the joints of his armour and kill him. Now what are the odds of that?
So my question for @Van (and I notice that he hasn't yet found time to answer the question I asked him in post# 160) is this: do you think that God was sitting in heaven thinking, "I really hope Ahab gets killed in this battle, but I can't do anything about it because I have to allow for free will"? And then when the arrow killed Ahab, He thought, "Yippee! What an amazing result. I never thought that would happen. I was afraid I'd given Micaiah a duff prophecy"? Of course not! 'The LORD has made all things for Himself; yes, even the wicked for the day of doom' (Prov. 16:4).

This is so silly. This story has nothing to do with free will, it is about the providence of God. He can effect history when he wants but he is not compelled to because he can, as you teach.
……and, the day of destruction mentioned in the Proverb is a very specific day called “the day of the Lord” a time in the future when all sinners will be destroyed during the purging, a reserved time of God for this purpose.

 

[Van]

I see the false claim that things that happen by "chance" were known by God before they happened, thus redefining chance as not chance. I kid you not.

And note how these folks are still finding fault we me, rather than addressing the topic. For example suggesting I might believe God cannot overrule the will of humans. Pure obfuscation as everyone knows God is almighty, able to do as He pleases.

Finally, not how these posters keep using the term "free will." Is that my position? Nope. So more miss direction, obfuscation, anything to avoid the truth, God has not chosen to predestine everything and allows some things to happen by chance.;

 

[JD731]

The Preacher settles the matter of determined sovereignty of God once for all. (but who will believe him).

Eccl 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Some unwise and wicked men who have been on food stamps wins the lottery while a college educated and hard working man loses everything because someone sues him because of an accident he could not control and was not his fault.

Go figure. It is time and chance. Read the whole chapter.

 

[JesusFan]

The Preacher settles the matter of determined sovereignty of God once for all. (but who will believe him).

Eccl 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Some unwise and wicked men who have been on food stamps wins the lottery while a college educated and hard working man loses everything because someone sues him because of an accident he could not control and was not his fault.

Go figure. It is time and chance. Read the whole chapter.

No such thing as chance or luck in a Creation controlled and ruled over by the Godhead Themselves

 

[DaveXR650]

I see the false claim that things that happen by "chance" were known by God before they happened, thus redefining chance as not chance. I kid you not.

And note how these folks are still finding fault we me, rather than addressing the topic. For example suggesting I might believe God cannot overrule the will of humans. Pure obfuscation as everyone knows God is almighty, able to do as He pleases.

Finally, not how these posters keep using the term "free will." Is that my position? Nope. So more miss direction, obfuscation, anything to avoid the truth, God has not chosen to predestine everything and allows some things to happen by chance.;

So according to your view if I flip a coin not even God knows whether it will be heads or tails. That view goes against what is generally believed about the ability of Jehovah God and sounds more like the gods in Jason and the Argonauts. Even in the case of Molinism, where they believe that even God cannot know what the choice will be of a truly free will individual they also insist on the following. They say that God knows all possible choices, and all possible consequences ensuing from those choices, and already has a plan to work out based on whatever the person freely chooses. That has become popular recently and is popularized by guys like William Lane Craig on Youtube.

You need to know that even in the determinism of Calvinism there is a whole deeper level of discussion about how it is that men can have a true level of freedom and still have God in charge of all events. Personally, I find it difficult to understand and am content with accepting both God's sovereignty and man's responsibility without having to totally resolve the tension. If you are interested I can give you references of where to start. What is not acceptable is for you to pretend like Calvinism is some idiotic contrivance that for some reason you have figured out. You go beyond many non-Calvinists who simply say God "sees" the future without having to be sovereign over it when you make statements like you made above, where you say that chance is not really chance if God can know ahead of time the result.

A Calvinist, if he grants the truth of chance, would say in the case of the coin toss that God was sovereign over the balance of the coin, the hand that flipped it, the air pressure, the gravity, the resulting spin due to the thumb pressure the evenness of shape of the ground where it hit and so on. With all that being known down to the last molecule what is legitimately "chance" to us becomes absolutely known to God, before it happens. Plus, we believe God has the right and ability to influence any of those things in any way he wants because he has legitimate sovereignty over all those things. All I was saying before was that in cases, for instance, where children are deciding who has to take the youngest kid in a pickup game, was that God may choose not to actually do anything in such a case but leave the coin toss to natural consequences.

 

[JesusFan]

So according to your view if I flip a coin not even God knows whether it will be heads or tails. That view goes against what is generally believed about the ability of Jehovah God and sounds more like the gods in Jason and the Argonauts. Even in the case of Molinism, where they believe that even God cannot know what the choice will be of a truly free will individual they also insist on the following. They say that God knows all possible choices, and all possible consequences ensuing from those choices, and already has a plan to work out based on whatever the person freely chooses. That has become popular recently and is popularized by guys like William Lane Craig on Youtube.

You need to know that even in the determinism of Calvinism there is a whole deeper level of discussion about how it is that men can have a true level of freedom and still have God in charge of all events. Personally, I find it difficult to understand and am content with accepting both God's sovereignty and man's responsibility without having to totally resolve the tension. If you are interested I can give you references of where to start. What is not acceptable is for you to pretend like Calvinism is some idiotic contrivance that for some reason you have figured out. You go beyond many non-Calvinists who simply say God "sees" the future without having to be sovereign over it when you make statements like you made above, where you say that chance is not really chance if God can know ahead of time the result.

A Calvinist, if he grants the truth of chance, would say in the case of the coin toss that God was sovereign over the balance of the coin, the hand that flipped it, the air pressure, the gravity, the resulting spin due to the thumb pressure the evenness of shape of the ground where it hit and so on. With all that being known down to the last molecule what is legitimately "chance" to us becomes absolutely known to God, before it happens. Plus, we believe God has the right and ability to influence any of those things in any way he wants because he has legitimate sovereignty over all those things. All I was saying before was that in cases, for instance, where children are deciding who has to take the youngest kid in a pickup game, was that God may choose not to actually do anything in such a case but leave the coin toss to natural consequences.

Sounds like he is going headfirst here into knocking on the heresy doorway of Open Theism

 

[DaveXR650]

The Preacher settles the matter of determined sovereignty of God once for all. (but who will believe him).

Eccl 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Some unwise and wicked men win who have been on food stamps wins the lottery while a college educated and hard working man loses everything because someone sues him because of an accident he could not control and was not his fault.

Go figure. It is time and chance. Read the whole chapter.

The key there is "man under the sun". That is the view from our point of view and from our point of view it is correct and full of wisdom. It does not mean that God is bound by time and chance like us. "Chance" is very real from our point of view. Almost everything we do is based on evaluating possibilities and odds but I assumed we pray for God to assist us. "Give us this day our daily bread" would be a useless prayer if we really believed we were at the mercy of chance.

 

[DaveXR650]

Sounds like he is going headfirst here into knocking on the heresy doorway of Open Theism

I think he publicly debates prominent atheists and I imagine he finds that useful in avoiding the main accusation atheists have against God - that if he is in control then he must want the evil that occurs. So give him grace. But he's a little "out there" on other issues too. I don't know what his personal beliefs are. He's seems like a nice guy but I would not want to debate him. I would rather box Mike Tyson.

 

[JD731]

The key there is "man under the sun". That is the view from our point of view and from our point of view it is correct and full of wisdom. It does not mean that God is bound by time and chance like us. "Chance" is very real from our point of view. Almost everything we do is based on evaluating possibilities and odds but I assumed we pray for God to assist us. "Give us this day our daily bread" would be a useless prayer if we really believed we were at the mercy of chance.

You have way too many definitions for chance and other terms. This other fellow that is posting from your point of view seems to be a strict determinist thinker. God began his revelation of his whole plan of redemption with the word "if." He means it!

Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?

Ro 4:24 But for us (in this age) also (in addition to), to whom it (righteousness) shall be (future tense) imputed (added to our account), if we believe on him (God the Father) that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

There is no salvation without an "IF" that is satisfied with an action, whether you fellows likes it or not.

 

[DaveXR650]

Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?

Ro 4:24 But for us (in this age) also (in addition to), to whom it (righteousness) shall be (future tense) imputed (added to our account), if we believe on him (God the Father) that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

If I understand correctly that is exactly how we need to respond and that is what we need to hear. I can't speak for others but I don't think a Calvinistic Baptist would object to that. But Calvinistic brothers are also looking at verses which seem to suggest a low view of our natural ability to do the right thing, and they see a lot more direct and decisive influence by the Holy Spirit in accomplishing this in one who gets saved.

There is no salvation without an "IF" that is satisfied with an action, whether you fellows likes it or not.

I agree. Even high-Calvinists like John Owen said faith is a condition for salvation in that no faith, no salvation. He also said that whenever Christ is preached it is usually accompanied by an invitation. Not that he played 14 verses of Just As I Am, but that everyone who heard and wanted to could come to Christ right then. I don't know what else you want them to do. Hyper-Calvinism, is different, all jokes aside about it meaning anyone who is more Calvinistic than me.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

i

The Preacher settles the matter of determined sovereignty of God once for all. (but who will believe him).

Eccl 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Some unwise and wicked men who have been on food stamps wins the lottery while a college educated and hard working man loses everything because someone sues him because of an accident he could not control and was not his fault.

Go figure. It is time and chance. Read the whole chapter.

This is the most secular post I have read on this forum for a long time (and that's saying something!). Someone else has beaten me to it, but 'under the sun' appears multiple times in Ecclesiastes, and it means basically 'Life without God.' If you were to take the back of one of those old-fashioned clockwork watches, you would see one cog going one way, and another in another, while the mainspring goes to and fro in a manic fashion. But turn the watch around, and you will see the hands of the watch moving forward purposefully.
Imagine Ahab's officers talking about his death after the event. "Poor old Ahab! What a piece of bad luck! Who would have thought that an arrow fired off at random would have struck him right in between the joints of his armour? One in a million chance! Still, I suppose time and chance happens to us all." Yet those of us who believe in the God who governs even the passing of a sparrow (Matt. 10:9-31) know how much more He controls the affairs of men.
If I may give a piece of personal testimony, as a young man in business, I was confidently expecting to have made my first £ million by the time I was 35. But instead, I was struggling just to stay afloat. 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).

 

[JesusFan]

The key there is "man under the sun". That is the view from our point of view and from our point of view it is correct and full of wisdom. It does not mean that God is bound by time and chance like us. "Chance" is very real from our point of view. Almost everything we do is based on evaluating possibilities and odds but I assumed we pray for God to assist us. "Give us this day our daily bread" would be a useless prayer if we really believed we were at the mercy of chance.

Much of that book was written giving the perspective of how natural lost people perceive how things are, but not how God does

 

[JesusFan]

This is so silly. This story has nothing to do with free will, it is about the providence of God. He can effect history when he wants but he is not compelled to because he can, as you teach.
……and, the day of destruction mentioned in the Proverb is a very specific day called “the day of the Lord” a time in the future when all sinners will be destroyed during the purging, a reserved time of God for this purpose.

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

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I see the false claim that things that happen by "chance" were known by God before they happened, thus redefining chance as not chance. I kid you not.

And note how these folks are still finding fault we me, rather than addressing the topic. For example suggesting I might believe God cannot overrule the will of humans. Pure obfuscation as everyone knows God is almighty, able to do as He pleases.

Finally, not how these posters keep using the term "free will." Is that my position? Nope. So more miss direction, obfuscation, anything to avoid the truth, God has not chosen to predestine everything and allows some things to happen by chance.;

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.