Featured Do you recognise the differences between reformed/calvinist/Hyper?

.

If I understand you correctly, you draw a distinction between salvation and regeneration. So do I. I hold the regeneration (or being born again) precedes salvation.

As I've said before, God enables both repentance and faith in the elect. That includes conviction and illumination. They are all sovereign acts of God, not dependent on anything we have. And he has sent them the gospel.

God has provided both the ends and the means, which makes it truly salvation by grace.

I hope what I have written will clear that up. Again, I believe that regeneration produces faith, not the other way around..

And I'm having second thoughts about the way I used those terms. I used them to identify beliefs, but they came across as pejoratives. I meant no offense and I apologize.

Is there some designation which you prefer that would be a quick shorthand to identify your beliefs?

 

Your analogy stinks. A CoC or PB couldn't deliver 'last rites' and obtain a 'death bed conversion' and would result in the poor man burning in hell for all eternity? His eternal destiny is then on our hands because when don't have the correct 'repeat after me' formula that would trigger the Holy Spirit to regenerate him and grant him immortality? What a cheap shallow denigration of the gospel of Christ.

I'm done here also.

 

It did not matter what room you booked on the Titanic, the ship sank.
Hyper-Calvinists say God predestined everything, including sin, thus God is the Author of Sin. Wrong but rational. Main-line Calvinists say God predestines everything, including sin, but that does not make God the Author of Sin. Wrong but irrational. Two peas in a pod, rearranging the deck chairs.

 

The only difference between them is that hyper Calvinist don't make an attempt to win the lost and Calvinists believe that evangelism is by preaching and that through preaching that God pulls the sinner away from his TV set and draws them to the nearest church where the Calvinist is preaching. A few hundred years ago, preaching meant going into the streets and the "highways and hedges to compel them to come in". Today it means preaching from the pulpit and relying on God to draw people into the church with no emphasis on the members to GO out and get them and preach to them where they are.

Older Calvinist like Whitefield did go into public places and preach in the streets, but that practice died out long ago among Calvinists. When confronted with the conflict between evangelism and Calvinism, Calvinists always point to the accomplishments of preachers that were only partial Calvinists that practiced aggressive evangelism hundreds of years ago.

Thus even though most today claim that they are not Hyper Calvinists, in theory perhaps not, but in practice absolutely.

 

Then what about Francis Chan & Paul Washer?

 

Everything's cool brother, I really took no offense, but I was trying to point to the 'extremeness' of your own hardline restrictivist view, which is nothing new to me, I was raised in a SB Church and heard it preached all my young life. But it doesn't change anything, I believe it to be an awful false doctrine that basically implies that the arm of the Lord is shortened so that He cannot save, and which ultimately/logically concludes that slacking soul winners will be responsible for many that end up in hell. An awful horrendous lie and burden that Christ in no way put upon us.

I'm done here.

 

Sometimes i ask myself, what is truth.

 

Tarring every Calvinist with the same brush weakens your point, because there's always going to be a Calvinist who says "you're not talking about me."

You're not talking about me. Nor does your description fit any Calvinist with which I'm acquainted. There indeed may be some Calvinists who don't practice evangelism, but I don't know any. The ones i do know are intensely evangelistic and mission-minded.

 

I hope you'll at least drop in to answer a question or two.

What do you believe is the destiny of those who have never heard the gospel. Will God cut them some slack? Are they immune from condemnation because they cannot be blamed for rejecting the gospel they have never had an opportunity to hear?

I hope others will share their view on this, as well.

So, here are the nitty-gritty questions: Will all who have never heard the gospel go to heaven? If not all, will some?

If some will not, what is the basis of their condemnation?

If the answer is yes, they'll go to heaven, then we should immediately cease all personal witnessing, evangelism and missions, lest some hear the gospel, reject it and go to hell, when they could have gone to heaven if we'd just left them alone.

 

It is only an assumption that there are some who die without not hearing the gospel. I have my doubts. If God says that Jesus is the only way then that is the end of the matter. So I have to trust that God will make His Son known. He is just powerful enough to do that.

 

There are many who have lived and died without hearing the gospel.Before the cross and after the cross.

 

True words: It could be true that there are those who die without hearing, and may well be the case. But that conclusion is too easily arrived upon I believe. It is nevertheless an assumption indeed.
Alternatively, my view is that there are no persons who would under given circumstances accept the gospel who are without a gospel witness or the opportunity to hear and believe. Either way, anyone who would seek the Truth, I believe, will find it. And Jesus Christ IS the truth. God is powerful and Sovereign enough to reveal himself with or without our help.

 

Careful, Pilate asked the same question.

 

What,in your view is a "partial Calvinist"? That makes no sense. Is there such a thing as a "partial Arminian"?

Please elaborate on your novel theory.

 

And David Platt...and Mark Driscoll...and Matt Chandler...

The claim that 5-point Calvinists don't evangelize is too ridiculous for genuine response.

 

And what about personal evangelism? Calvinists don't only believe that evangelism takes place in a church sanctuary.

I like what Dr.M-L-J said when asked about having visiting evangelists come at certain times. He said something to the effect that he does evangelism every Friday night.

But really,the proclamation of the Law and Gospel is necessary;not what many think is "evangelical preaching".

 

Pilate should have been careful because he was standing right in front of Truth. Since we have never experienced that in a physical manner, it is a legitimate question.

 

No,not legitimate for believers. It's not a matter of what is truth;but who is Truth. As believers in the Lord we know the Truth as personified by the Christ. And we know the propositional truths of His Holy Word.

 

Every Christian knows Jesus is Truth. Where the legitimate question comes in is, and it seems to be way over your head, is your opinion on this or that doctrine truth? Rippon's opinion is not a synomym for truth.

 

what a sweeping statement you make.
I am a Primitive Baptist and some here would call me a hyper-Calvinist (whether I am or not is another subject altogether).
Yet I abhor the doctrine of absolute predestination, as do many doctrinally sound and sane Primitive Baptists.
I have argued with many here that God is NOT the author of sin, he is NEVER the cause of sin.
I do not believe God predestined when you are going to fart, when, how loud, and how foul the smell will be.