Is Hyper Calvinism Regarded As being Non Biblical, As A False Gospel?

....and while you're at it, show from scripture that 'lost' is synonymous with burning in hell for all eternity.

 

Show me sozo in that passage you're referring to.

 

Are you saying a person can be saved and NOT go to heaven?

 

From #34:

"Are you using the word 'saved' as synonymous with 'going to heaven'? If so, please show that premise to be true from scripture. Where do you see sōzō used in the eternal sense in context with belief of the gospel?"

I'm not questioning whether or not one is saved (sozo) by hearing and believing the gospel. Most routinely, without any thought if it's correct or not, throw 'saved and lost' around to mean 'heaven bound or hell bound'. Show it to be so from scripture.

 

Crabtownboy,

Though we don't always agree theologically, I have always enjoyed reading your posts. I think they ask good questions and bring much maturity to bear in these conversations.

So, I hope you don't mind if I address you and some of the questions you've asked (which, again, are great questions) and then ask, perhaps, a question or two myself.

Our "feeling" that we are saved is, I would argue, the same as the non-Calvinist--we look at ourselves and see how we conform to Scripture. But, I don't mean that in an "are we Calvinists" way. No, what I mean is this: After our conversion, can we honestly look at ourselves, at our lives, and see the work of the Holy Spirit as our thoughts, attitudes, and actions change to become more Christlike? Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike should be looking for and striving for that transformation.

So, we look to see if the twin "fruits" of repentance and faith are present in our lives.

Calvin was, by no means, a perfect man. He was as flawed as I am or as you are--only a sinner saved by grace. This is why I do not like the label "Calvinist." I do not follow Calvin (nor do any other Calvinists I know). What we follow is his exegesis of the text of Scripture. Of course some things may be wrong in that exegesis--like paedobaptism. But, we (Calvinists) as a general rule, look to his writings as a window into Scripture, all the time comparing his words and the words and the meaning of the text. (By the way, I'm not sure if I own any of his works, so I certainly do not have a shrine to him!).

Also, remember: The world in which Calvin lived was vastly different (for the worse) than the world we live in. In his time, there was almost no distinction made between the church and the state. Like most of us are today, Calvin was a product of his time. Does that make him always right? Of course not. But, it doesn't make him as wrong either. We tend always to view history anachronistically--through today's eyes. This is neither fair nor proper.

Very true words, friend. They do apply to both sides of the debate.

Here's my question: If all these evil things were not, in some way, ordained by God, what, then, if anything, was or is the purpose of these things?

Now, I DO NOT believe that God is the author of evil. However, I do believe what the Bible says and I summarize that as such: God foreordains the free actions of human beings--including the free and sinful actions--to serve His purposes and display His glory.

If we deny purpose in these evil things, are we not saying that "God is just as surprised as we are?" Are we not going down the road to Open Theism at that point?

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

If you're not going to provide scripture, I will:

For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God`s good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe. 1 Cor 1:21

Show me saved to be used here to mean regenerated, born of the Spirit, bound for heaven, the aquisition of eternal life. Show me how sozo here is used in the eternal sense.

 

So what's up here? Some are judged by others as being hyper Calvinists on THE basis of the utilization of the gospel; yet no one on board can show me from scripture that the gospel does what most say it does (impart eternal life)?

 

I'm saying that only those born from above can be 'saved'. The two are not the same. You, and probably most others, believe the two are the same (but you can't show it to be so from scripture). It is because the Old Baptists make a distinction between eternal and gospel salvation that they are generally considered to be 'hyper'.

[edit] Most Old Baptists consider those that believe in 'hard determinism' to be the 'hyper' ones.

 

So again can a person be saved and not go to heaven?

 

All saved people go to heaven, [edit] and so do all those that are born of the Spirit.

 

Agreed as they are one and the same.

 

Not.

Here 's the way it works:

But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God. Jn 3:21

Those that have first been born of the Spirit come to Christ. Regeneration first, conversion next.

 

That kind of thinking sort of remind me of quantum theory. Well certainly you must believe that, but I think I will pass on that kind of theology.

 

Absolutely! :thumbs: Just ask a 5th grader.

 

Total bunk! We come to Christ, of our own free will, then we are regenerated by the Spirit of God.