Does God call and then give us a choice to respond to his call?

[student ad x]

10-20 years ago, considering Gill to be a brilliant theologian, expositor and a hyper-Calvinist would be an accepted axiom. I believe we are muddying the waters in this particular thread

 

[RobertZ]

Gill tends towards hyper-Calvinism. Seems that you are, too.

Silly Forum Runner. It's magically delicious.

I dont really understand the big difference between Calvinism vs hyper-Calvinism when they both teach that man has no choice in the matter when it comes to his/her salvation.

Both teach that God saves whoever he wants to save so whats the difference?

 

[faceofbear]

I'm not a hyper Calvinist (perhaps nearing -- then again, what is considered hyper Calvinism now was considered Calvinism 200 years ago, in the same sense, Arminianism now, would probably be nearer to todays Calvinism pre-300 years ago), but nor am I saved by faith. I am saved through faith by grace. Big difference. Perhaps the semantics in my statements are misunderstood.

 

[faceofbear]

I dont really understand the big difference between Calvinism vs hyper-Calvinism when they both teach that man has no choice in the matter when it comes to his/her salvation.

Both teach that God saves whoever he wants to save so whats the difference?

I'll post this which was once up, which for clarification, I'd be about the same place as Gill on this chart, if it is indeed accurate:
[edit]
http://www.christianforums.com/t7552478/

 

[RobertZ]

I'll post this which was once up, which for clarification, I'd be about the same place as Gill on this chart, if it is indeed accurate:
[edit]
http://www.christianforums.com/t7552478/

Good grief, could it possibly be any more confusing? I mean honestly!

 

[faceofbear]

Good grief, could it possibly be any more confusing? I mean honestly!

I wouldn't doubt it. It seems like Christianity is one of the things where people try to make things more difficult than they are.

 

[student ad x]

Hyper Calvinism hasn't changed.

 

[faceofbear]

Hyper Calvinism hasn't changed.

But in the mind's of others, it has -- assuming this was in reference to me. What I mean is, though the beliefs of hyper Calvinism have not necessarily changed, a High Calvinist (as myself) would be considered a Hyper Calvinist (which is clearly the case in this thread) today by most, and considered an antinomian heretic (which hasn't been mentioned yet).

When I'm speaking of things changing, I do not mean the beliefs themselves, but people's perception and understanding of them. I.E. Today's Arminian is more of libertarian freewill believer (as that other thread states), but Arminius beliefs were not in libertarian freewill, but a freed will from God through Christ. Arminius wouldn't call todays Arminians, Arminians

And I read some of that book you posted, interesting. About 1/3 done :]

 

[faceofbear]

Oh, and I have a cat that looks similar to buddy sox. Maybe they're related?

 

[student ad x]

Hyper Calvinism hasn't changed brother...........see Michael Haykin, Curt Daniel & Peter Toon


As I tell my niece and nephew, Buddysocks is different........ but he is loyal, and like his 3 footed companion...... they love their dad.

 

[the particular baptist]

John Gill's congregation grew more than sevenfold due to his "hypercalvinism", while arminiancalvinists like Fuller's brand of particular baptist church stagnated from legalism. A moderate calvinist would have been considered a flaming freewiller 300 years ago.

 

[the particular baptist]

Hyper Calvinism hasn't changed brother...........see Michael Haykin, Curt Daniel & Peter Toon

Curt Daniel deliberately misrepresented Gill. I read Gill myself and found out otherwise. I dont trust Daniels as far as i could throw him.

 

[student ad x]

Daniel may have, Toon did not misrepresent hyper calvinism, nor Haykin, IMHO.

 

[RobertZ]

http://knowimsaved.com/index.php

http://knowimsaved.com/Pages/how.php

What do yall think about this guy?

 

[the particular baptist]

Daniel may have, Toon did not misrepresent hyper calvinism, nor Haykin, IMHO.

Brother i said Daniels deliberately misrepresented Gill and if Toon's is like Daniels, well what can i say.

I read Gill myself. I own everything he wrote including his sermons. If contending for a theology of a work of the Holy Spirit which results in a personal, experiential knowledge of the truth, and its sanctifying effects in the heart and life is hypercalvinism i'm guilty. If contending for God's love for His elect before the world's were made is hypercalvinism im guilty. If contending that not the law of sinai the killing letter, but the law of the gospel, the law of faith, the law of Christ, the law of liberty is the believers rule of life im guilty.

 

[the particular baptist]

Daniel may have, Toon did not misrepresent hyper calvinism, nor Haykin, IMHO.

A decent review of Gill is by Tom Nettles in By His Grace For His Glory. The others are shameful.

 

[student ad x]

I'm not going to derail this thread any more than has been. I've read Nettles....... I'll leave it at that.

Everyone lurking or wondering what the heck is going on can read about the history of the Seperatists/Baptists/non-Conforminsts and why doctrine originated to refute this and that for themselves.

humbly
SAX

 

[Hammster]

Getting back to the subject at hand, we are saved by grace through faith. We are justified by faith. That's what Scripture affirms. We are justified by faith. That is is means God uses to justify us. But justification, while the heart if the Gospel, isn't the whole enchilada. So to say that justification IS salvation is to muddy things up.

Forum Runner. It's magically delicious.

 

[DeaconDean]

Getting back to the subject at hand, we are saved by grace through faith. We are justified by faith. That's what Scripture affirms. We are justified by faith. That is is means God uses to justify us. But justification, while the heart if the Gospel, isn't the whole enchilada. So to say that justification IS salvation is to muddy things up.

Forum Runner. It's magically delicious.

I beg to differ.

I can name one member of the Baptist area who says differently.

For example:

“faith without works is useless.” It is useless both for one’s justification and one’s salvation!

http://www.christianforums.com/t7273943-6/

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Hammster]

Gal 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

I'm cookoo for Forum Runner.