Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well I guess according to the article I am still a Hyper.Here is a decent primer on the topic:
A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism
And, no, hyper-calvinism is not the logical end of the doctrines of grace.
AMR
I deny duty faith but am not a Hyper. See my response above.Hyper-Calvinism is a historical term which describes those Calvinists who deny that the non-elect have any duty to believe the Gospel.
It seems like a small idea but there are enormous consequences.
These folks often have very distinct ideas about how the Gospel ought to be conveyed, usually rejecting the "warm offer". Additionally, there can be resistance to missions.
Unfortunately, anti-calvinists have recently gotten into the habit of describing mere belief in the five points as "hyper-calvinism" which, of course, it is not.
In the broadest sense Calvinism is belief in what are known as the Doctrines of Grace or TULIP. There are many varieties among those who hold these truths. You can almost find as many differences in what Calvinists believe generally concerning all other doctrines as you can Calvinists. But all have at least these truths in common.what is the differance between calvinism and hyper-calvinism?
to me they look the same, except that the hyper-calvinists are a little more bold about it
hyper-calvinism seems to be the logical end of calvinism,
I don't need to own something that is untrue. I have no problem with you or anyone else calling me whatever you wish, I have been called many things, but if it ain't true it ain't true. I am not defending myself or what I believe but trying to actually explain what the difference is and how the name is being misused. You can think me a hyper if you wish. I do not stand and answer to men but to Christ. I am more than willing to let Him be my judge.mlg,
Unfortunately, your rejection of common grace and duty faith defines you as at least quasi-hypercalvinistic, and, frankly, I think you should just own it.
There are several things in Reformed orthodoxy that I do not agree with but that is OK. I didn't take offense at your post as I have a very thick skin developed from speaking my mind on doctrinal truth over a long period of years. I understand the reasoning behind the free offer, or warm offer as you put it, but do not think it is Biblical. I hold no hard feelings toward you and look forward to future conversations.I don't think I put that right. It sounded like I was accusing you of something and I regret that. It wasn't my intention.
Classical Reformed theology, in both the Continental and English traditions, accepts the doctrine of common grace, properly understood, the duty of the reprobate to believe the Gospel, though they will not (note that I did not say that they can not) and the propriety of the warm offer of the Gospel (which does not mean pretending that the non-elect can be saved).
Non-acceptance of these does not necessarily make one a heretic, but it does make one something other than entirely orthodox in ones acceptance of Reformed theology. Additionally, by historical definition, it means that one is, at least on these points, hyper-calvinistic, however orthodox one may be on others.
It just means that you, like all of us, are still reforming and still in need of correction and discipline.
Classical Reformed theology, in both the Continental and English traditions, accepts the doctrine of common grace, properly understood, the duty of the reprobate to believe the Gospel, though they will not (note that I did not say that they can not) and the propriety of the warm offer of the Gospel (which does not mean pretending that the non-elect can be saved).
If you look at it from the viewpoint that all are deserving condemnation, and that God, in His mercy, chooses to save some (out of no obligation to do so), then I don't see where the robot analogy comes in to play. When God gives a person a new heart, ala Ezekiel 36, and causes them to be born again, they believe willingly, not as robots. That wouldn't be love on our part. But with a new heart, to do otherwise would just be insane. Yes, we would have a choice, but there would have to be some basis for that choice to leave, or not to believe.Seems like basically the same thing. Election. Altho I strongly disagree with both positions. Hypothetically if one was true I would have to side with the Hyper-Calvinists. If God is going to elect a sinner, why not elect any sinner, wether they believe or not, have faith or don't. what's the difference when your forcing people to Love you and have "faith" in you. It's like a computer programmer making his favorite robots follow him and his least favorites go in the opposite direction. When in reality neither really knows what they are doing because they where programed that way.
If you think of it both sets of robots are obeying the programmers commands and are equally obedient.
If you look at it from the viewpoint that all are deserving condemnation, and that God, in His mercy, chooses to save some (out of no obligation to do so), then I don't see where the robot analogy comes in to play. When God gives a person a new heart, ala Ezekiel 36, and causes them to be born again, they believe willingly, not as robots. That wouldn't be love on our part. But with a new heart, to do otherwise would just be insane. Yes, we would have a choice, but there would have to be some basis for that choice to leave, or not to believe.
John 6
66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
That is where we, as believers, are. Simon and the others stayed because they had no other place to go because they had been shown the truth. Nothing robotic about that.
Why do all deserve to have access to the free gift? In the verse you quoted, it not only says that the free gift came upon all men (I really don't need the "all" bolded. It doesn't make your case any more compelling), but that it came unto the justification of life. So in using the verse in the manner that you used it (out of context, no less), you are actually arguing for universalism. I am sure you aren't a universalist. But that is what happens when you try to have an all inclusive 'all'. More than likely, Paul is saying that for those whom Adam is the head (all of us), all are condemned. And all whom Jesus is the head (the elect), all receive the free gift of justification of life.I agree all deserve condemnation, and look at it from that viewpoint. But the reason they deserve condemnation is because of the offence of one which came upon all men. Even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification.
Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
If we are to say that all deserve condemnation then we must also say that all, by the Righteousness of Jesus have access to the free gift of Salvation.
Why do all deserve to have access to the free gift? In the verse you quoted, it not only says that the free gift came upon all men (I really don't need the "all" bolded. It doesn't make your case any more compelling), but that it came unto the justification of life. So in using the verse in the manner that you used it (out of context, no less), you are actually arguing for universalism. I am sure you aren't a universalist. But that is what happens when you try to have an all inclusive 'all'. More than likely, Paul is saying that for those whom Adam is the head (all of us), all are condemned. And all whom Jesus is the head (the elect), all receive the free gift of justification of life.
I know you didn't say deserve, but if you are going to use an if/then statement, they should be equal. You can't just say it and make it so. Or, try demonstrating that if man sins and deserves punishment then he should have access to the gift.I did not say all men deserve access to the free gift. I said all have access of the free gift. (See this is why i need to bold the words in the verse) And because you say I used the verse "out of context" does not prove that I did.
I never said you were.I am not a universalists.
No, He didn't. That is your interpretation. You have yet to prove your assertion.And I did not try to use the "all inclusive all", God did.
No, I didn't corrupt it. I was giving an interpretation based on the verse in context. You, like most synergists, find these singular verses and try to make a whole doctrine out them. When you look at the passage as a whole, you cannot maintain that view.I stated the verse exactly as it is in the Bible. But, you had to corrupt the words that I used and also had to add to them to fit your position. ie; (all of us) and (the elect) are not mentioned in the verse.
This is why you have to use the term "more than likely"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?