Featured Equivocating Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism

Thank you, Tom.

I find it fascinating that the non-cals spent post after posts not offering even one Scripture of hope to Earth, Wind & Fire.

 

I am bound to believe what the Bible says. That said, I have faith that we serve a merciful God. The Reformers called the gospel the "ordinary means of salvation". That means that God's ordinary (or regular) plan is for sinners to be converted by believing the preaching of the gospel. But even the Particular Baptists of the 17th Century understood the difficulty in addressing infants dying in infancy and individuals who were unable to understand the gospel (like those with cognitive or mental disorders). Addressing that problem they wrote:

As far as the tribal person on some island somewhere who never has an opportunity to hear the gospel, I can only tell you what the Bible says, "That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved" (Romans 10:9). God is under no obligation to save anyone. He is under no obligation to make sure every person hears the gospel.

 

No. Not really. The Arminian does not believe that all whom the Father calls will believe. They believe that sinners can resist God's call.

 

What? I have been showing from scripture for several years now that babies and little children are not sinners and thus all go to heaven if they die.

EWF knows this to be true of me.

You can be absolutely sure that your child is in heaven, all babies and little children go to heaven if they die. It is when a person is able to understand right from wrong before God that they become accountable. At this point of maturity, which only God knows, when a person knowingly and willingly commits sin they are guilty and spiritually die.

I have been saying this for YEARS to anybody who will listen.

 

Not true. I've offered James 1:15 as one of the greatest assurances of hope for infants. Of coure Augustinians deny it based on their presuppositions. At any rate, Tom's texts don't explain the detail outlining how.

 

I have also been saying for years that Hyper-Calvinists are simply consistent Calvinists who are honest and follow their doctrine to it's logical conclusions.

Calvinists are inconsistent and do not really believe their doctrine. They are embarrassed and ashamed of it (and rightfully so).

Been saying this for years. And all Calvinists say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what scripture really teaches.

 

Well Im not getting it then

James 1:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

 

I prefer to call those who cant provide assurances to people born unfortunate & unable to hear the Gospel....those are the ones that are the Hypers....not me. I totally believe my God is merciful & will accommodate those poor people. Genesis 18:25. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

Im done with this subject.....you guys can have the final word.

 

How can you not? How does this apply to an infant? What causes spiritual death in the first place (hint...its in the progression).

 

The point I was making that in this thread EWF made a heart felt cry, and what was the non-cal response?

I also pointed out earlier that the problem of crude unChristlike remarks as to the state of a child is not limited to Calvinistic thinkers.

 

Oh no, no, no; no strawman here, I grew up in a hyper hardliner fundamentalist 'not Calvinist' SB Church (really, 'you people' should come up with a better designation than that, not-Calvinist, sheesh), I KNOW what they teach and the burden of others eternal destiny that they unabashedly place on the backs of the flock.

C'mon Dawg, you're all into being consistent and honest, this is exactly the logical conclusion of your 'not-Calvinist/free willer/Arminian/Synergist' theology.

 

I'm quite consistent, and will say it again, you have merely erected a straw man. Man given the command to repent in no way leads to us being responsible for the eternal destiny of another. If anything, your 'we are all guilty in Adam' does that. I believe in personal accountability in the truths presented to man.

 

Hi EWF, rather than looking for hope in the kind but misguided words of men, why not break open your bible and see where the Holy Spirit may lead you?

Does God punish children for the sins of the Father?

Does God punish people for wrongful deeds?

Do children know right from wrong?

Therefore the Bible clearly teaches God does not punish little children.

Someone will have to copy and paste this for EWF to see, cause she has me on ignore.

 

This is good, Van.

Well worth all remembering when questioned as to the eternity of the unaware.

I admit that I started at the "deeds" part, but then recalled that those committed to eternal death are those whom Christ states, "I never knew you."

 

You completely misunderstood the point of my post which was only to show there is a distinction even in what people consider the Soveriegn Grace Doctrines or Reformed Theology (5 points, 4 points, etc..), thus my point was it is important to qualify what aspects YOU are contending FOR since 'hyper' infers going beyond the original intent or view.

If you hold to the Traditional Reformed or Lutherian type view, you would consider the "L" in TULIP to be HYPER.. if you are a 5 point Calvinists, it would not be considered such.

However if you holds to the 5 points of Calvinism, one MUST keep with the mainstream, historical view of it, that many newer Cals are drifting away from.
I did a post a while back on this using 2 well known and reputable Calvinist writers (Phil Johnson at Spurgeon.org as well as Monergism.com) citing what is considered Hyper regarding todays Calvinistic views. It was called "Hyper-Calvinism and it's Views". Monergism agrees whole heartedly with Phil (as I show in their email to me) in his more concise or shortened points:

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

(in hyper link listed above, Phil explains in greater detail the finer pionts of the above, in the OP)

I'll go with those who not only fully hold to Calvinistic view (5 points) but who also have a strong knowledge what the view historically held and has deviated from.

 

And I demonstrated that the two presentations are not at all alike despite any alleged agreement. Words matter. The two outlines can not be stitched together even with an heroic effort.

 

And unfortunately, your view is meaningless in light of their own testimony that both are, in fact, the saying the same things. The two gentlemen who wrote the articles state they both agree with each other, as noted in the thread (over and over). And since both are extremely educated, Calvinistic, and understand that words have meaning... it is apparent, you are wrong in your assumptions.

 

The two productions are entirely unrelated despite any foisted agreement. It's like oil and water. No reasonable person can make any possible connection between the two. Words have meaning and the two are quite distinct from one another. Divining hyper-Calvinism from one is completely different from trying to arrive at hyper-Calvinism from the other. You have to back to the old drwaing-board Allan. Words matter,and the words from the two presentations have no discernable affinity.

 

Hmmm. By Rippons own words in the above quote, it appears that those at Monergism and Spurgeon.org are both unreasonable and apparently ignorant of what is 'real' Calvinistic theology historically entails. :laugh:
:BangHead:

What I love most about this Rippon is that you are telling me to go back the "old drawing-board", when in fact it is Mongerism and Spurgeon.org with whom you have disagreement. I merely told the facts they both stated and that they both state (via emails I show) that both "productions" are in agreement with the others document. As I told you before (and it still applies).. in order to keep this error from spreading, you need to go to Monergism and Spurgeon.org and tell them where they messed up theologically on what Historical Calvinism held to and advise them on their error. Correct them in godly love with proof and facts. I doubt you have done this yet, and still will not do so. Personally, I wonder why not?

 

I still dont understand your commentary about 4 Point Calvinists in a Reformed Church. What reformed church....Dutch Reformed. I just visited with them & spoke to a pastor at a DRC & they stressed that inorder to be a Calvinist you MUST be a 5 pointer (or else the Doctrines of Grace cant work) Same as OPC Churches so Im wondering where you got that notion from. They wont even accept you into the church as a member unless your firing on all 5 Points. So, could you please advise?