How Many of this Positions(if any) Do You Hold?

I believe in none of them , but I know a man who is in Soteriology who believes in the first few! I haven't seen him ever in SRR .

None at all....

None. Although, I will tell you that this is a common misconception of what Reformed Christians believe.

A few of them are extreme or exaggerated versions of what I believe. For instance,

"that the true church is only invisible, and salvation is not connected with the visible church"

I believe that salvation does not absolutely need to be connected to the visible church, but I don't believe that they are completely irrelevant to each other.

I can't believe that anyone believes all (or even most) of those statements - not even hypercalvinists. I would think that the writer of that list understands neither calvinism nor hypercalvinism.

But of course, does anyone actually describe themselves as "hypercalvinist"?

StAnselm said:

.... I would think that the writer of that list understands neither calvinism nor hypercalvinism.

Click to expand...

and it's interesting to see what philosophical background they have at wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_Wales and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_philosophy

2 that I lean towards, but they are the extremist version of what I believe, so I guess I can't say I truly "believe" them.

The rest is bunk!

All views expressed are distortions of true calvinism, a couple with elements of truth but by and large distortions. Answer none.

As they say......

"Every good lie contains a kernel of truth."

Plenty of kernels in this list but no truth.

cygnusx1 said:

I believe in none of them , but I know a man who is in Soteriology who believes in the first few! I haven't seen him ever in SRR .

Click to expand...

That is where we distinguish between infralapsarian and supralapsarian. All hypercalvinist are supralapsarian ,but not all supralapsarian calvinist are hyper-calvinists.

A supralapsarian believes that God chose both individuals to be saved and to be damned, they beleive in a double-predestination, whereas infralapsarians like myself believe that all were damned at their own fault, and God looking in eternity past decided to pardon some.

Bono said:

that God is the source of sin and of evil

Click to expand...

How you mean "source" would have to be better defined before I could address this one.

that God from all eternity has acted to irresistibly compel men toward sin and unbelief, just as he pursues those upon whom he desires to have mercy

Click to expand...

Definitely not. Equal ultimacy is a heinous view of the Gospel.

that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect

Click to expand...

Nope.

that the number of the elect at any time may be known by men

Click to expand...

Nope.

that it is wrong to evangelize

Click to expand...

Nope.

that assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith

Click to expand...

Nope.

that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they later do

Click to expand...

If by this you mean that a profession of belief is accounted as true belief I would say this one rules itself out. However, if that profession is a genuine profession their salvation is never in jeapordy because it is not based on their works. It nees to be noted, however, that an attitude that dismisses the sanctity of God's grace and the offense we commit against that grace by sinning is one whose profession of faith is, in my opinion, spurious.

that God has chosen some races of men and has rejected others

Click to expand...

Nope.

that the children of unbelievers dying in infancy are certainly damned

Click to expand...

Nope.

that God does not command everyone to repent

Click to expand...

Definitely nope.

that the sacraments are not means of grace, but obstacles to salvation by faith alone.

Click to expand...

Nope.

that the true church is only invisible, and salvation is not connected with the visible church

Click to expand...

This one is too vague. The true church of God is certainly not defined by the visible manifestation of professed Christians. However, it is the duty of God's people to make the invisible church visible. That said, salvation is solely the work of God.

that the Scriptures are intended to be interpreted by individuals only and not by the church.

Click to expand...

Um...no.

that no government is to be obeyed which does not acknowledge that Jesus is the Lord, or that Biblical Law is its source of authority

Click to expand...

All government, including godless government, is providentially placed in power by God. I will say that no government who advocates disobedience to God should be obeyed with regard to that capacity.

that the grace of God does not work for the betterment of all men

Click to expand...

False.

that saving faith is equivalent to belief in the doctrine of predestination

Click to expand...

No clue what is meant by this one.

that only Calvinists are Christians"

Click to expand...

Untrue. Good thing for hyper-Calvinists, too, because they'd otherwise be out of luck.

A better term for hyper-Calvinists is anti-Calvinists.

God bless

theseed said:

A supralapsarian believes that God chose both individuals to be saved and to be damned, they beleive in a double-predestination, whereas infralapsarians like myself believe that all were damned at their own fault, and God looking in eternity past decided to pardon some.

Click to expand...

No! Another popular misconception. Supralapsarianism is NOT the same as believing in double presdestination.

I, for example, am an infralapsarian, but fervently believe in double predestination.

theseed said:

That is where we distinguish between infralapsarian and supralapsarian. All hypercalvinist are supralapsarian ,but not all supralapsarian calvinist are hyper-calvinists.

A supralapsarian believes that God chose both individuals to be saved and to be damned, they beleive in a double-predestination, whereas infralapsarians like myself believe that all were damned at their own fault, and God looking in eternity past decided to pardon some.

Click to expand...

This is the argument of the Lutherans who purport an illogical view of single predestination. Let us, for a moment, look at this from a God centered, God providential perspective to determine if the issue is as cut and dry as two opposing sides, i.e., those who support the view of double predestination vs. those who support the view of single predestination.

You say that as an infralapsarian, like yourself, believes that God does not choose both those who will be saved and those who will be damned but, instead, supports the view that we are all damned by our own fault and God decides to pardon some.

Tell me, when God appointed Adam as federal head of the human race and decreed that whatsoever Adam did would either benefit or condemn those he represented, didn't God choose that all whom Adam represented would be held accountable for his choice? If so, and I'm not debating the righteousness of God's appointment of Adam as our representative, didn't God choose to hold all accountable based on the choice of Adam?

If that supposition is biblically accurate, isn't it just as accurate to say that God, in pardoning some, also chose to pass over pardoning others, which is, in effect, His choice to hold them accountable for their own sins?

The issue at hand here is whether there is another way other than by God's sovereign choice to impute the righteousness of Christ to a person that they may be justified. The Bible is quite clear that there is not. The Bible is also clear that God's withholding of that imputation is His sovereign choice to leave them to account for their own unrighteousness. You see, we cannot, as responsible Christians, claim that the grace of God is required for justification while also acknowledging that He does not dispense this grace to all people and then deny the obvious that His withholding of that salvitic grace is determinitive in their reprobation. To do so makes God the Savior of all He sovereignly chooses to save while removing His presence from the righteous judgment against those who are accountable for their own sins by His sovereign choice to pass over them. There is no such thing as a portion of creation in which God is not intimately involved. God is omniscient and omnipotent. If both of those traits are part of God's nature it is theologically impossible to claim that His choice to not extend salvitic grace to some is irrelevent to their reprobation.

The bottom line is that all are held accountable for the choice of Adam and some are saved from the repercussions of that choice by God's sovereign act of imputing the merits of Christ's sacrifice to their account before Him. Those who are not saved by the merits of Christ's sacrifice are held accountable for their own sinfulness but these, too, were within the providential government of God. Could God, had He so willed it, not also have imputed to them the righteousness of Christ? Isn't His sovereign and righteous choice to not impute Christ's righteousness to them just as much of a choice as is His choice to impute it to His elect?

God bless

Good points Don, I had not quite thought of it that way. I beleive that God imputes Adam's sin, we sin by nature and are held accountible for both. Only imputed rightousness because of our faith, a fruit of the Spirit, saves us.

StAnselm said:

No! Another popular misconception. Supralapsarianism is NOT the same as believing in double presdestination.

I, for example, am an infralapsarian, but fervently believe in double predestination.

Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up

I believe that NOTHING happens out side the will of God

Please read that again NOTHING at all

So although God is not the direct source of evil , evil like all things is subject to His will.

Satan is a tool in the hand of God .

I am also a double predestaniarian

So two of those statement are vague in application as far as I am concerned .I would likewise reject the rest