is Hyper calvinism even to be considered 'real cal?"

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes, but he denied some cardinal teachings of the 39 Articles --especially the 17th.

Well then, if you are so concerned about Lurkers then you must detail what your referencing

Taken from Wiki:

The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion are the historically defining statements of doctrines of the Church of England with respect to the controversies of the English Reformation. First established in 1563, the articles served to define the doctrine of the Church of England as it related to Calvinist doctrine and Roman Catholic practice.[1] The full name for the articles is commonly abbreviated as the Thirty-Nine Articles or the XXXIX Articles.

ARTICLE XVII. Of Predestination and Election.
Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

 

[Rippon]

When I think of the Reformation, I think of the "Protestant" distinctives, not the more detailed soteriological Calvinistic distinctives.

Okay,why do so many Baptists here --especially the non-Calvinistic ones here,deny even being Protestant then?

I can understand, having once been a Calvinist myself, why one would rather carry the broader more encompassing label of 'Reformed,' but historically (and even theologically) it just isn't the case.

Being Reformed is not a broader label; but a more restrictive one than the term Protestant.

 

[Dr. Bob]

"Particular Baptists" was the old label (Christ died to actually atone for the elect, a particular group, not make possible salvation of anyone and leave it up to unregenerate man to be saved). Contrasted to "General Baptists" who were more Arminian.

BTW, in the world today, IF you hold to eternal security you are classified as "Calvinistic". IF you believe in a sovereign God in salvation you are classified as "Reformed".

Nothing to do with Covenant Theology, A-Millennialism, or denomination.

Our church is reformed Baptist (London Baptist Confession 1644), somewhat dispensational, and missional. Maybe we should revive the "Particular Baptist" label.

 

[Skandelon]

Okay,why do so many Baptists here --especially the non-Calvinistic ones here,deny even being Protestant then?

I have no idea.

I didn't know many did deny this...

Being Reformed is not a broader label; but a more restrictive one than the term Protestant.

My understanding is that the REFORMATION was against the abuses and some doctrinal issues within the Catholic church. Both Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic believers were among those who joined that movement of reforming the church. I understand that certain labels take on more specific meanings, but I'm referencing the original historical label, not what many have made it today.

Most Calvinists today wouldn't affirm Luther's take on many of these finer soteriological perspectives, yet he was seen as the father of the reformation. I'm not sure how the detailed finer point of soteriology among the reformers was relevant. Where was the line drawn? Did you have to affirm all 5 points, or were the 4 pointers included? What about supra or infras? Did one of those groups lose the label too? See my point? I think we draw lines where lines didn't exist in those days.

 

[Rippon]

BTW, in the world today, IF you hold to eternal security you are classified as "Calvinistic".

I don't know what percentage of Christians constitute "in the world today" but I suspect it is marginal. (Did you mean the non-Christian world?)Many non-Cals say they agree with OSAS. But that is a watered-down "perseverance of the saints". Most non-Cals who believe in OSAS deny the bulk of the Canons of Dort. There is no way that they should be termed Calvinistic. That's turning meanings inside out. They are Arminianistic!

 

[Skandelon]

Well then, if you are so concerned about Lurkers then you must detail what your referencing

Taken from Wiki:

The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion are the historically defining statements of doctrines of the Church of England with respect to the controversies of the English Reformation. First established in 1563, the articles served to define the doctrine of the Church of England as it related to Calvinist doctrine and Roman Catholic practice.[1] The full name for the articles is commonly abbreviated as the Thirty-Nine Articles or the XXXIX Articles.

ARTICLE XVII. Of Predestination and Election.
Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

Whats interesting about this statement is that it is kind of written like the Baptist Faith and Message is now. It is vague enough for either group to affirm it depending on how one understands/interprets the words. For example, the phrase, "to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind," can be affirmed by the non-Calvinists because we too believe God chooses 'in Christ.' And since the phrase doesn't specifically define the grace as being effectual, we could likewise affirm that part of the statement. I AM NOT attempting to argue the authors weren't Calvinistic...I'm simply saying they kept the statement vague enough to be more inclusive of those who may not see it the exact same way as they do.

 

[Rippon]

the REFORMATION was against the abuses and some doctrinal issues within the Catholic church. Both Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic believers were among those who joined that movement of reforming the church.

Early Lutherans were Calvinistic soteriologically. Did you ever read Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will? Now he is one guy who out-Calvins John Calvin in that regard. And as the Reformation movement picked up speed over all of Europe it was 90% or more Calvinistically driven.

Most Calvinists today wouldn't affirm Luther's take on many of these finer soteriological perspectives, yet he was seen as the father of the Reformation.

Soteriologically-speaking most Calvinists would agree with Luther quite a lot. Again,I am speaking of the soteriological realm alone.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I have no idea.

I didn't know many did deny this...



My understanding is that the REFORMATION was against the abuses and some doctrinal issues within the Catholic church. Both Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic believers were among those who joined that movement of reforming the church. I understand that certain labels take on more specific meanings, but I'm referencing the original historical label, not what many have made it today.

Most Calvinists today wouldn't affirm Luther's take on many of these finer soteriological perspectives, yet he was seen as the father of the reformation. I'm not sure how the detailed finer point of soteriology among the reformers was relevant. Where was the line drawn? Did you have to affirm all 5 points, or were the 4 pointers included? What about supra or infras? Did one of those groups lose the label too? See my point? I think we draw lines where lines didn't exist in those days.

Here is one for you to consider. I start going to a "Non Denominational" Church. So when I start having one on one conversation with the pastor he tells me I MUST believe in all 5 of the Tulip points. Then when I tell him I'm having trouble with Definate Atonement, he tells me to look for another church. I also in quire about being a confessional church and he tells me no but they are more of a New Covenant Theology church. Figure that out. Now if he attempted to do that with a Roman Catholic, I can see why it would take him 11 weeks to retrain them.

 

[Skandelon]

Early Lutherans were Calvinistic soteriologically. Did you ever read Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will? Now he is one guy who out-Calvins John Calvin in that regard. And as the Reformation movement picked up speed over all of Europe it was 90% or more Calvinistically driven.

10% is some, thus the point is made. Even still, the driving issue was not the this specific soteriological difference. Cals and Arms would have been seen much closer to each other at that time. That was not the point of the divide, though you may be correct that the major players tended to be more Calvinistic soteriologically...yet still very diverse even within their views of these issues.

 

[Skandelon]

One other point...

Go read some of Arminius' works...he sounds Reformed in the most Calvinistic sense of the word. In fact, most Calvinists today would probably love 95% of what he wrote. He wasn't some Joel Osteen sounding namby pamby feel good preacher that most equate to 'arminian' theology today.

 

[Winman]

You are consistently wrong.

Says who? You? Meaningless.

C.H.S.'s sermon on the particular passage has long been considered one of his poorest messages. He didn't unfold the text as John Gill or others of the Calvinistic stamp having more exegetical skill. I've been saying that for years here on the BB.

What a surprise! So you think when Spurgeon believes scripture literally that is a poor message? I would have never guessed that in a million years.

Here is a snip from John Calvin's treatment :"But the present discourse relates to all classes of men,and not to individual persons; for his sole object is to include in this number princes and foreign nations."

So all kinds,classes,stations of life folks were in view by Paul here.

Yeah, everybody knows Calvin was infallible.

You have only mentioned moderate Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists. I admit that here, dealing with this passage Spurgeon was being a mild or moderate Calvinist --leaning to the Arminian side actually, as John Piper does also when it comes to this portion of Scripture. So I would call myself a real Calvinist! Smack dab between a moderate Calvinist and a hyper-Calvinist --more of a higher Calvinist.

One doesn't need to be a hyper-Calvinist to take the route I've taken with respect to 1 Timothy 2:3,4.

I've never seen a Calvinist admit he is hyper, and I've never seen a Calvinist admit he is inconsistent. All Calvinists believe they are just right. (and elect)

Wow, a REAL Calvinist. That's a first. :laugh:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Says who? You? Meaningless.



What a surprise! So you think when Spurgeon believes scripture literally that is a poor message? I would have never guessed that in a million years.

BTW.....how many hours of orientation did they give you....LOL

Yeah, everybody knows Calvin was infallible.



I've never seen a Calvinist admit he is hyper, and I've never seen a Calvinist admit he is inconsistent. All Calvinists believe they are just right. (and elect)

Wow, a REAL Calvinist. That's a first. :laugh:

Maybe we should begin categorizing it by Gold, Silver or Bronze

 

[Herald]

Doesnt Reformed imply that you are also a Covenant Theology believer?

Typically. Yes.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Typically. Yes.

So if I went to a Reformed Baptist Church without that element (Covenant Theology) being studied, then I would be prohibited from joining similar to when I went to this Non Denomination place & told them I wasn't solid with Limited Atonement & they told me to take a hike.

So lets say I was a Presbyterian & I believed in Paedo Baptism, would the same rules apply in a Reformed Baptist Church that I could not join? Of course, I would not know why I would want to, right.

 

[Herald]

So if I went to a Reformed Baptist Church without that element (Covenant Theology) being studied, then I would be prohibited from joining similar to when I went to this Non Denomination place & told them I wasn't solid with Limited Atonement & they told me to take a hike.

So lets say I was a Presbyterian & I believed in Paedo Baptism, would the same rules apply in a Reformed Baptist Church that I could not join? Of course, I would not know why I would want to, right.

It is not required of MEMBERS that they agree with Covenant Theology. Members must agree to submit to the official position of the church and not advocate against it.

Membership is based on a credible profession of faith and being scripturally baptized. That means professor-only baptism. We will not accept for membership those who have been baptized as infants without first submitting to professor-only baptism.

 

[Rippon]

What a surprise! So you think when Spurgeon believes scripture literally that is a poor message?

Let me ask you this -- do you value any other message of Spurgeon's or just this Arminian-slanted one?

If you think CHS interpreted this passage literally --do you think he interpreted any other portion of Scripture literally?

And please define the term literally.

Yeah, everybody knows Calvin was infallible.

You are a silly man. I was just saying that Spurgeon's take on this passage was not a serious exegetical study. Calvin is not the end-all when it comes to biblical interpretation. Gill,Turretin,Owen,Thomas Goodwin,Warfield and many others can be consulted who would be superior to Calvin at certain points. But when commenting on this passage Calvin's take is more biblical than the esteemed Charles Spurgeon --who over all is quite excellent.

I've never seen a Calvinist admit he is hyper,

That's because Calvinists are not to be confused with hyper-Calvinists! If you can't differentiate properly --you need to study with much more discernment.

and I've never seen a Calvinist admit he is inconsistent.

And have you ever admitted that you are?

All Calvinists believe they are just right.

And do you believe you are right? Hmm... you ar certainly not winning here.

Wow, a REAL Calvinist. That's a first.

As I said,I am not a moderate Calvinist and neither am I a hyper-Calvinist. I am betwixt the two points. I am in that sweet spot --hence a real Calvinist.

 

[Winman]

Let me ask you this -- do you value any other message of Spurgeon's or just this Arminian-slanted one?

I like his Arminian messages. :thumbs:

If you think CHS interpreted this passage literally --do you think he interpreted any other portion of Scripture literally?

I would hope so.

And please define the term literally.

When something is said to be literal, it means what it obviously says. When scripture says God is not willing that any should perish, it means God is not willing that any should perish.

You are a silly man. I was just saying that Spurgeon's take on this passage was not a serious exegetical study. Calvin is not the end-all when it comes to biblical interpretation. Gill,Turretin,Owen,Thomas Goodwin,Warfield and many others can be consulted who would be superior to Calvin at certain points. But when commenting on this passage Calvin's take is more biblical than the esteemed Charles Spurgeon --who over all is quite excellent.

Why do you need to consult any of these persons, can't you understand scripture?

That's because Calvinists are not to be confused with hyper-Calvinists! If you can't differentiate properly --you need to study with much more discernment.

Calvinists themselves cannot decide who is "hyper". Many Calvinists consider Arthur Pink to be a hyper-Calvinist, but those at Outside the Camp consider him to almost be Arminian.

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/nopink.htm

And have you ever admitted that you are?

I can honestly say I have never admitted to being a Calvinist of any kind.

And do you believe you are right? Hmm... you certainly not winning here.

If I thought I was always right I would not be a Christian. The first thing you must admit before you can be a Christian is that you have been wrong many times.

As I said,I am not a moderate Calvinist and neither am I a hyper-Calvinist. I am betwixt the two points. I am in that sweet spot --hence a real Calvinist.

Oh, I heard you the first time. You are a REAL Calvinist. (elect too)

When you find a Calvinist who does not believe he is the REAL deal, let me know. And if you find one who does not believe he is elect, point him out as well, I would like to see that.

 

[Rippon]

I like his Arminian messages.

Name another other than his message on the above referenced one. You will come up empty.

When something is said to be literal, it means what it obviously says. When scripture says God is not willing that any should perish, it means God is not willing that any should perish.

Right now I will not rehash a Cal vs. Arminian argument. But since you mention this passage..."not willing that any should perish" literally means not willing that anyone should die. But that is not the intended meaning. The real meaning is that the folks in question will not expreience the Second Death --not just their natural death.

Why do you need to consult any of these persons, can't you understand scripture?

There is no need,but one is silly not to consult the writings of established exegetes of the Word of God. I answered you plainly enough. No need to repeat my point.

Many Calvinists consider Arthur Pink to be a hyper-Calvinist,

Many? I would say a distinct minority.

but those at Outside the Camp consider him to almost be Arminian.

Here is where your lack of discernment is way off the charts. The Outside the Camp folks make hyper-Calvinists look like semi-Pelagians in comparison.

I can honestly say I have never admitted to being a Calvinist of any kind.

Can't you read? You had said :"And I've never seen a Calvinist admit he is inconsistent." I replied :"And have you ever admitted that you are?" Then you come back with the inane remark that "You I can honestly say I have never admitted to being a Calvinist of any kind." You aren't too bright there.

Oh, I heard you the first time. You are a REAL Calvinist.

You asked the question -- I gave the answer.

(elect too)

Yes I am elect. You don't believe you are? The Scripture enjoins us to examine ourselves to determine that our calling and election are genuine.

Any true believer in the Lord is elect. One can't be saved yet non-elect. The Scripture would be against you on that as it is against many of your beliefs.

 

[Winman]

Name another other than his message on the above referenced one. You will come up empty.

It is not my practice to read Spurgeon sermons, but I have read a few over the years. I like Warrant of Faith:

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0531.htm

I especially like this statement in this sermon which is very anti- Calvinist

If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate.

I have in fact quoted this passage several times to show that Spurgeon believed faith precedes regeneration. Actually, Spurgeon believed they happened at the same moment, but Spurgeon did not believe regeneration precedes faith. This is far more in agreement with non-Cal or Arminian theology than Reformed/Calvinism.

I have read a few other statements by Spurgeon I liked as well, but I would have to search to find them.

Right now I will not rehash a Cal vs. Arminian argument. But since you mention this passage..."not willing that any should perish" literally means not willing that anyone should die. But that is not the intended meaning. The real meaning is that the folks in question will not expreience the Second Death --not just their natural death.

Not quite sure what you are trying to say, it is appointed unto men once to die, then the judgment. So, it is certainly not speaking of the first death, everybody understands that.

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Obviously when the scriptures say God is not willing that any should perish, it is speaking of the second death.

There is no need,but one is silly not to consult the writings of established exegetes of the Word of God. I answered you plainly enough. No need to repeat my point.

Only if your "established exegetes" are properly interpreting scripture. If they teach error, then it is worse than silly to study them. The scripture warns of false teachers, they are out there you know. And I would propose that those who teach Calvinism are false teachers. I have shown MANY scriptures that easily refute Calvinism in the last few years. Calvinism is so far out in right field it is not even in the parking lot.

Many? I would say a distinct minority.

Really? Google Pink and hyper Calvinist and literally dozens of articles will pop up, most written by fellow Calvinists.

Arthur Pink's early writings reflected the highest of high-Calvinist opinion. Some have suggested that Pink was flirting with (or even embraced) a kind of hyper-Calvinism. Certain hyper-Calvinist tendencies certainly marred some of his earlier works. For example, Pink's well-known and mostly helpful book on the sovereignty of God originally included material (later edited out of the Banner of Truth edition) denying that God loves all His creatures—particularly the reprobate. According to Pink, God's hatred for non-elect sinners allows for no disposition toward them that can properly be called "love."

Here is where your lack of discernment is way off the charts. The Outside the Camp folks make hyper-Calvinists look like semi-Pelagians in comparison.

My discernment? Outside the Camp are simply consistent Calvinists. In some respects I have a lot of respect for that site. They are gutsy, they stand firm and strong for Calvinism. It is full blown error, but at least they are going down in flames. That is far better than luke-warm Calvinists.

Can't you read? You had said :"And I've never seen a Calvinist admit he is inconsistent." I replied :"And have you ever admitted that you are?" Then you come back with the inane remark that "You I can honestly say I have never admitted to being a Calvinist of any kind." You aren't too bright there.

I understood what you were asking, and it was actually a very clever answer and you KNOW it. :thumbs:

You asked the question -- I gave the answer.

Yes, you are a REAL Calvinist. You are the standard all others should be judged by. Got it.

Yes I am elect. You don't believe you are? The Scripture enjoins us to examine ourselves to determine that our calling and election are genuine.

Oh, I know I am elect, because I believe Jesus died for all men. That means ME.

You don't believe Jesus died for all men, you have no idea who is elect or not. Calvinists say this all the time. If you do not know if others are elect, then you do not know you are elect either.

Just because you have convinced yourself you are elect doesn't make it so. Your faith does not determine reality. You could believe a glass of poison is simply water and safe to drink, and it will kill you if you drink it.

This is common with Calvinists, you believe that if you believe you are elect that it must be so. That is total nonsense, Jesus either died for you personally or he did not, no matter what you personally believe.

I don't have that problem, Jesus died for ALL MEN. That puts my name on the list.

Any true believer in the Lord is elect. One can't be saved yet non-elect. The Scripture would be against you on that as it is against many of your beliefs.

Not if Limited Atonement is true. If Jesus did not die for you personally, it doesn't matter what you believe, your faith is vain.

You are doing the very thing you accuse Arminians of, you are choosing yourself. But if Calvinism is true, you are only elect if God chose you, and you have no idea whom he chose, including yourself.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too, it won't work.

 

[Herald]

I'm glad you asked. Actually I don't. I know its a common label so I used it here just to avoid using the word Calvinism repeatedly in the same sentence. But actually I agree with Roger Olsen's argument about how 'reformed' is a larger more encompassing label that would include non-cals.

Skan,

I think Mr. Olson is taking some poetic license in linking Arminianism to the Reformation, at least in a positive sense. Most Arminians bristle at the thought of being considered as Protestants. One can say that Arminians are a product of the Reformation only in a highly qualified sense. Arminianism was born during the Reformation period. The Reformation and Reformed Theology are linked, with the latter proceeding from the former. Arminianism went its own direction and was officially repudiated by the Reformed churches at the Synod of Dordt.

In order to be intellectually honest I need to state that Reformed Baptist Churches are not Reformed according to the historical use of the word. The Reformed churches born out of the Reformation followed the theological tradition of Heinrich Bullinger, Huldrych Zwingli, and John Calvin. The first Calvinistic Baptists did not refer to themselves as Reformed. Because of their particular stand on definite atonement they became known as Particular Baptists. The term "Reformed Baptist" is uniquely American, having entered usage in the 1960's. It came into use to describe an understanding of the Bible represented by the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. The term was more comprehensive than "Particular Baptist" which centered one point of Calvinism. So, in that sense, Particular and Reformed Baptists are products of the Reformation and can be described as Protestants.