Hyper-Electionism - the worst kind of heresy

[Ray Berrian]

pinobaptist,

I'm not going to do your homework for you; go research the matter yourself. You won't accept what I say anyway, so let God show it to you first hand.

Go find out how much of Augustine's theology was adapted from Aristotelian and Socratic philosophy. The uncaring being of their god of Being is not at all like the Christian God. The three philosophers emasculated the bountiful love and Personhood of Jesus Christ; thus Augustine's philosophic ideas were intertwined into Christian theology. John Calvin merely systematized the theology of your beloved Roman Catholic theologian.

I am correct that Dave Hunt also found out this truth and documents it in his book, "What Love Is This?" published by Loyal Publishing Company/www.loyalpublishing.com. Read pages 20, 34-35, 45-48, 51, 189-190, 285, 313-314, and 392-393.

Page 45 the title of the chapter is "Calvinism's Surprising Catholic Connection."

'As for Calvin's theology, there is no question that rather than deriving it from a diligent study of the Bible, he imposed upon the Bible certain preconceived ideas from his Roman Catholic background which locked him into an erroneous interpretation. Many leading Calvinists agree that the writings of Augustine were the actual source of most of what is known as Calvinism today. Calvinists David Steele and Curtis Thomas point out that "The basic doctrines of the Calvinistic position had been vigorously defended by Augustine against Pelagius during the fifth century. {taken from David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, "The Five Points of Calvinism" Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1963, page 19.

You wanted proof so here it is. You and your buddy from the 'Show Me State' can start your study now; and that is why I have the doctorate in theology and you apparently are sitting in the land of "Confusion." Sorry, you are surprized that Calvinism is merely warmed over Roman Catholicism from her early years.

Regards,
Ray

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:


You wanted proof so here it is. You and your buddy from the 'Show Me State' can start your study now; and that is why I have the doctorate in theology and you apparently are sitting in the land of "Confusion." Sorry, you are surprized that Calvinism is merely warmed over Roman Catholicism from her early years.

Regards,
Ray

True, but in her middle years, Roman Catholicism returned to Pelagius.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man's free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that, since Adam's sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema.

Council of Trent, Canons of Justification

 

[npetreley]

Many leading Calvinists agree that the writings of Augustine were the actual source of most of what is known as Calvinism today. Calvinists David Steele and Curtis Thomas point out that "The basic doctrines of the Calvinistic position had been vigorously defended by Augustine against Pelagius during the fifth century.

No Calvinist I know would deny that Luther agreed with Augustine and rejected Pelagius. I assume that Calvin also agreed with Augustine and rejected Pelagius.

The problem with your accusation is that by the time Luther and Calvin were espousing their doctrines, the Catholic Church agreed with Pelagius, not Augustine. If Augustine were alive at the time of Luther, Augustine would have been a doctrinal ENEMY of the Catholic Church.

 

[Ray Berrian]

nepetreley,

I agree with 99 44/100 of what you said in your last post. The only correction being that I said before that the Roman Catholic Church has taken on a more Arminian flavor in the last few hundred years.

Regards . . .

 

[pinoybaptist]

by Ray Berrian:

You wanted proof so here it is. You and your buddy from the 'Show Me State' can start your study now; and that is why I have the doctorate in theology and you apparently are sitting in the land of "Confusion." Sorry, you are surprized that Calvinism is merely warmed over Roman Catholicism from her early years.

Your proof is no proof at all. As pointed out by John Gillmore, complete with the Canon from one of the councils, which is what I was asking for from you, Catholics are Pelagians, and had Augustine lived, he would no doubt have been in the stead of Luther challenging the Roman Church, and I would have known what you were talking about, because I was born into that church.

You're much like a communist born, bred, and raised in a communist country who says he hates Jefferson and democracy and yet knows nothing about living in a democracy.

Yeah, much like my own sister who says she doesn't like Baptists because of the Baptist Distinctive, and yet couldn't give one distinctive when I challenged her to give me one.

You don't know anything about the Doctrines of Grace, Ray Berrian, Th.D.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
I agree with 99 44/100 of what you said in your last post.

Cool! It floats!

 

[Eric B]

I'm using these words as defined in Webster's dictionary.

deserve: to be worthy, fit, or suitable for some reward or requital

If you build something fit for the trash heap, then it deserves to be tossed in the trash heap. If you do anything else with it, you are granting it undeserved mercy (grace). If you give half your objects grace and don't give the other half grace, that is not unfair, because ALL of them deserve the trash heap. If anything is unfair, it would be to give ANY of them anything but the trash heap - hence the need for a redeemer.

Likewise, if -- hypothetically -- God purposefully creates a wicked people, then those wicked people deserve what wicked people deserve. God tells us what they/we deserve - we don't have to make it up or imagine it.

In my Brittanica unabridged, it says "to merit, be worthy of, be qualified for, or have a claim to reward, assistance, punishment, recompence etc. because of actions, qualities, or situations. I think this clarifies it more than what you said (It looks like you didn't even quote the whole thing).
Looking at it legally only, the Calvinists focus on "actions" (our sins), and "qualities", (our sin nature), but ignore "situation" (depravity, inherited from a parent, not consciously chosen by the individual). And this is basically where the whole "fairness" type debates revolve.

Especially given what God did (sacrificed His Son for our sake), everyone OUGHT to repent. Everyone on earth has a moral obligation (debt of gratitude) to repent. But that does not infer that any of us have the ABILITY to repent of our own free will. All it says is that we have a moral obligation of gratitude to repent.

And what we are saying is that God grants all the ability to fulfill that, else, He is trapping people, and this goes against what the Gospel teaches us.

That's exactly right. And once you truly come to terms with this truth and respect it instead of treating it with disdain, you'll start to see that the Bible really does teach election, and that election is liberating and an insurpassable source of comfort and security to us, the elect.

Most of all, it is infinitely humbling, because we have to face the fact that we had absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with becoming the elect. We are what we are due entirely to God's mercy, having nothing whatsoever to do with our environment, character, works, desires or will (free or otherwise). If I could tell the elect from the non-elect, I could truly say of a non-elect person, "there but for the grace of God go I".

And this is basically the Calvinistic counterpart to the "Fairness" and other "human reasona and emotion" Arminians are accused. of. It seem to make more sense, it gives you a bigger sense of security, and makes you more grateful, because. Wow! God leaves others in this moral trap, but rescued me. Sorry, but Paul, after his Romans 9 discussion of "Vessels of wrath" tells the vessels of mercy that the other vessels were NOT cut off for them (11:19-24). No, God "concluded all in sin that He might have mercy on all"( v.31,2). In THIS context, he then praises "Oh, the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgements and His ways past finding out" (including how He does all of this, how He is sovereign while granting others choice, the justice that will be measured to those who don't seem to have as much of a chance, etc.)

 

[Ray Berrian]

Scripture speaks of 'foreknew' not foreordination. [Romans 11:2a & 8:29 & I Peter 1:2]

And buckle yourself in for the future truth that ' . . . all Israel shall be saved,' [11:26] National Israel as a people will all be saved [vs. 32] at the Second Coming of Christ and as we move into the Millennial reign of Christ on the earth. [Zechariah 14:1-21]

The Triune Godhead in His wisdom and Divine justice has opened the Gospel unto salvation to everyone. [I John 2:2] Election is determined by those who yield to Jesus Christ. [John 1:12] Arminianism is right in saying that Election is determined by those who have saving faith in Jesus. Election by foreknowledge . . .

Dr. Berrian

 

[Ray Berrian]

Foreknowledge is God's way of explaining His ways of dealing within the realm of time. [Acts 2:23] Incidentally, this is Arminian theology; foreknowledge and not foreordination.

 

[BrotherJoe]

Brother Ray:

Good day.

RAY BERRIAN: You wanted proof so here it is... Sorry, you are surprized that Calvinism is merely warmed over Roman Catholicism from her early years.

ME (BROTHER JOE): Your attacking Calvinism on the basis that some of it's doctrines have been incorporated from Catholicism is not very strong! Why? Because Roman Catholicism also believed the Biblical doctrines of the trinity and worship of one God prior to Calvin. Are you then going to attack Arminiasm and Calvinism for "borrowning" these doctrines? Certainly not! Why? Because you know these are biblical doctrines. Therefore, the question wether the Roman Catholics maintained such a belief is IRRELEVANT to this discussion. However,what should be debated is wether unconditional election and total depravity are Biblical doctrines!


God bless,

Brother Joe

 

[BrotherJoe]

Brother Ray:


RAY BERRIAN: : Even sinners know that this concept is in no way the truth. The system is filled with flaws of the worse sort...I do not hate Calvinists. They are to be loved a pitied, for having believed doctrines that were birthed in Hell and taught by false teachers...Drs. Sproul, Pink, J.I. Packer and Mr. Harold Camping of Family Radio are all false teachers and will be gravely judged... for their erring teachings to Christians who have been taught monstrous falsehoods... and that is why I have the doctorate in theology and you apparently are sitting in the land of "Confusion

ME (Brother Joe): Utilizing Ad Hominem attacks on Calvinism's teachings (such as those in your above post) also say NOTHING to undermine wether or not their doctrines are Biblical. As a matter of fact, it may even weaken your arguement as the majority of posters here are above kiddish name calling in attempts to make points. The question should be," are these doctrines Biblical?", NOT "do I find them fair?", or "Are they borrowed from Roman Catholicism?" or "can I call their leaders names?"

Saved by grace,

Brother Joe

[ July 02, 2004, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: BrotherJoe ]

 

[BrotherJoe]

Brother Ray,


RAY BERRIAN:...and that is why I have the doctorate in theology and you apparently are sitting in the land of "Confusion."

ME (BROTHER JOE): What poster here would disagree with me when I state that your above comment is rooted in pride? I believe you owe brother pinoybaptist an apology, however that is up to you, but keep in mind, ". Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble." (1 Peter 5:5)

Saved by grace,

Brother Joe

 

[BrotherJoe]

Brother Ray:

Hello and I hope you are enjoying your weekend.

RAY BERRIAN: The Triune Godhead's Divine justice will always prevent Him from favoring on sinner over another, in matters of eternal salvation. He is not an unjust God! …This theory (election) elevates His alleged sovereignty far above that of His Divine love, justice and mercy, thus making the Godhead totally not the God with Divine justice.


ME (BROTHER JOE): Ray the problem is you are misdefining justice. Justice is what IS deserved. God's mercy is NOT required to be shown to everyone because by its very definition mercy is what is NOT obligated to be exercised. If God were obligated to show mercy it would cease to be mercy. Therefore, in election, God does nothing wrong. Scripture tells us we are all guilty before God because of breaking his law (see Romans 3:19), he gives some mercy (i.e. his elect, see Ephesians 1:4-11), and the rest are selfcondemmned sinners for breaking his law-what do they get? Justice because Hell is what they deserved and EARNED for , "the wages of sin is death... (Romans 6:23)"

Here is an analogy. If I have two individuals brutally beat me on two different occasions both are legally guilty of assault. However, if I elect to show mercy to one and not press charges what did that person get from me? Mercy. Am I now obligated to do the same to the other person who beat me? Certainly not! And if that pther person later goes to court and is found guilty for the crime of assault what does he get Ray? Justice! Now Ray, has any infraction been done to either party by one getting justice and the other mercy? I dont believe so. And likewise it will be similar with the doctrine of election on judgement day, God will exhibit both of his attributes-his divine mercy to some and diving justice to the others.

Saved by grace,

Brother Joe

 

[Ian Major]

Ray Berrian said
And buckle yourself in for the future truth that ' . . . all Israel shall be saved,' [11:26] National Israel as a people will all be saved [vs. 32] at the Second Coming of Christ and as we move into the Millennial reign of Christ on the earth. [Zechariah 14:1-21]... Election is determined by those who yield to Jesus Christ. [John 1:12] Arminianism is right in saying that Election is determined by those who have saving faith in Jesus. Election by foreknowledge

I completely agree, all Israel shall be saved. You know what that proves, Ray? If you believe in free-will, it proves that God is a lucky fellow. Imagine, all of those Jews at a certain moment in history, simultaneously coming to faith in Christ! What are the odds?

However, if you believe in the sovereignty of God in salvation, then there was never any doubt about it. When He chose to, all Israel would be saved.

What sort of God is displayed in Scripture - the God of a lucky break, or the One of Whom it is said, 'All that the Father gives Me will come to Me'?

In Him

Ian

 

[BrotherJoe]

Brother RAY:

RAY BERRIAN SAID: Unconditional Election makes God an unthinkable Tyrant Who is going to damn the relative majority and just save the relative few in all of human history.

ME: This is false. Brother Ray, scripture states just the opposite regarding God's elect (and all the calvinists I know believe these verses I will give you.) Christ died for a definite number of elect, however that number is MANY. Please read these verses, "For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing MANY SONS unto glory" (Hebrews 2:10) and "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for MANY for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26:28). "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of MANY" (Hebrews 9:28)

And finally, " And after these things I heard a great voice of MUCH PEOPLE IN HEAVEN" (Revelation 19:1). The doctrine of election means that God has GUARENTEED a great multitude will be in heaven! With your doctrine God accomplishes securing heaven for not one individual, but simply makes eternal life POSSIBLE, correct? However, this is not biblical for we know scripture itself tells us Christ accomplishes EVERYTHING to save us from Hell for is "the AUTHOR AND FINISHER of our faith" (Hebrews 12:2). Further, it is worth noting that in theory it is possible that NOT ONE SOULD would get saved with your "free will" doctrine of salvation!

Ray, do you believe heaven would be more populated if it were dependent on God's will or man's will? I take the answer of the former, but what say you?


I hope you will ponder these thoughts and I pray you have a happy Holiday weekend.

God Bless,

Brother Joe

 

[Ray Berrian]

Brother Joe,

If one judge judged one murder to the electric chair and let the other one go free for no apparent reason, you would be the first to cry, "Injustice!" And yet when it comes to the Lord being the supreme Divine justice you tell us that He can save some and damn the rest of all of His humanity.

Divine justice is found in Romans 3:22-26. Verse 22 says that the benefits of the Cross are 'unto all . . . ' There is nothing said about mercy on the elect and justice toward the unfortunate non-elect. Verse twenty-two makes the axis of the hope of Heaven dependent 'upon all those who believe.' This is the Biblical and Arminian view of Divine Election.

'The righteousness of God which is by faith in Jesus Christ' is proffered to 'all' and toward 'all who have sinned.' [Vs. 23]

The Bible does not say, 'To declare, I say, at this time His righteousness; that He might be just, and the justifier of Him who He elects.' {Notice verse 26}

He is the supreme Justice now--who forgives not His autocratically, chosen elect, but is 'the justifier of anyone who believes in Jesus.'

The mercy and election in Romans nine has nothing to do with eternal salvation or the lack thereof, but shows us how God uses different people to guide us through all of the historicity of human kind, on this stage that we call life.

As to the brother who attacked me because I happened to have earned a doctorate in theology, I owe no apology. When a Calvinist declares what he feel is apparent truth these types of people have no problem stating the Dr. So-in So said whatever. But, if an Arminian theologian tells you something and writes down Dr. Berrian, then he is a proud and arrogant person.

If it is a comfort to you, I have thanked the Lord for giving me the opportunity to study and to be used of God to preach and teach others. I think you will remember that the N.T. speaks about being in subjection to your Elders in the faith. At least give me a fair hearing. I have given my Lord all of the credit and honor in the achievement that He has allowed me to accomplish.

Many Calvinists understand that their beliefs come from the earliest of Romanism, via St. Augustine. At least they are honest with themselves; while to some it totally 'blind-sided' them.

Some on this board should do more listening than merely expressing their learned diatribe that has no basis in Biblical theology. One man admitted that he only read through the Bible once and yet he was trying to tell all of us what all of these deep issues really mean. In short, a jerk.

 

[npetreley]

BrotherJoe: This is false. Brother Ray, scripture states just the opposite regarding God's elect (and all the calvinists I know believe these verses I will give you.) Christ died for a definite number of elect, however that number is MANY. Please read these verses, "For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing MANY SONS unto glory" (Hebrews 2:10) and "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for MANY for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26:28). "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of MANY" (Hebrews 9:28)

You'll find similar passages in the OT:

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.

 

[Ray Berrian]

When you think of the six thousand years that have nearly become the past in our days, since the Garden of Eden, the idea of Jesus ' . . . bringing many sons to glory' (and daughters) is well within our rightful understanding. We do not know how many have become elect to this point in time but surely it is in the mega-millions of His people.

But, when you move to try to guess-timate as to how many more people going to Hell than Heaven then you have to consider Matthew 7:13-14. Of the teaming billions of souls who will have ever lived, then Heaven will abide only the relative, 'few.' The Greek word for 'few' is {oligoi} means {puny, little or small}. Are not the majority of souls on their way to eternal destruction? St. Matthew says, that many will take the way that leads to destruction.

The Greek word for 'destruction' is {apoleian} suggesting eternal damnation or perdition.

 

[Ray Berrian]

nepetreley,

I think you said, ' Christ died for a definite number of elect.'

Ray: This is a total unintentional, fabrication from your mind and that of John Calvin via Augustine.

Christ died for every sinner, [John 1:12, 3:16 & John 5:24 & I Timothy 2:6 & I John 2:2] so all sinners will be without excuse on the final day of judgment as described in Revelation 20:11 to the end of the chapter which is verse fifteen.

Give us your best interpretation of the above passages. Eisogesis and mutilation of the Word of God is a favorite pass-time of those who call themselves brethren.

 

[BrotherJoe]

Brother Ray:

Thanks for your reply.

RAY BERRIAN:If one judge judged one murder to the electric chair and let the other one go free for no apparent reason, you would be the first to cry, "Injustice!" And yet when it comes to the Lord being the supreme Divine justice you tell us that He can save some and damn the rest of all of His humanity.

Divine justice is found in Romans 3:22-26. Verse 22 says that the benefits of the Cross are 'unto all . . .


ME (Brother Joe): Your analogy of the judge is a poor one because as you know in Christian salvation the one set free ISNT freed "for no apparent reason" (as in your scenario.) In fact, his freedom is purchased at a very high cost. The penalty of the law was paid for by Christ's ransom (see Mark 10:45). What is wrong with God choosing to pay the ransom for HIS children (see John 10:14-15), but not paying it for SATAN'S children (John 8:44)?

Now, I have two questions for you Brother Ray. If as you assert, Christ's atonement actually paid for the sins of every human being as a ransom, if anyone goes to Hell for whose sins will they perish for seeing Christ has already paid for their sins? Further, would God be just to "punish sins again in man that have already been punished in Christ?" (Gowens, Why I Believe)

Once again, thanks for the reply and I hope you have a good Sunday service tomorrow.

Brother Joe