[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Author Topic: Hyper-Calvinism  (Read 1524 times)

Fred

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
Re: Hyper-Calvinism
« Reply #15 on: April 27, 2017, 03:05:43 AM »
Zerocool, you're new here so you get a pass. But by hiss own admission, Tony Warren is not a Calvinist. Ask him! He understands the ridiculous error of Calvinism, which others don't, and that's why he evangelizes and preaches his form of the gospel rather than Calvinism. I'll give him this one thing. He isn't afraid to buck the Calvinist system as so many others caught up in that tradition are.

Melanie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 666
  • Gender: Female
  • Psalms 52:8
Re: Hyper-Calvinism
« Reply #16 on: April 27, 2017, 05:30:30 AM »
Zerocool, you're new here so you get a pass. But by hiss own admission, Tony Warren is not a Calvinist. Ask him! He understands the ridiculous error of Calvinism, which others don't, and that's why he evangelizes and preaches his form of the gospel rather than Calvinism. I'll give him this one thing. He isn't afraid to buck the Calvinist system as so many others caught up in that tradition are.

Zerocool, so you won't get a warped view of what most of us believe here, and Tony Warren not being a Calvinist (which he isn't), I suggest you read this thread:

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/yabbse/index.php?topic=2123.0

Do you call yourself a Calvinist?

Tony understands the ridiculous error of calling oneself a Calvinist, but not of the doctrines of grace or most of the other doctrines Calvinists espouse. He agrees with the doctrines (barring double Predestination), but not being called Calvinist, which means "of Calvin."

Fred,
 You say that's why Tony evangelizes and preaches his form of the gospel rather than Calvinism, that's all well and good, but Tony agrees with the Calvinists on about 98.9 percent of their doctrines, and none of your doctrines.

Quote
I'll give him this one thing. He isn't afraid to buck the Calvinist system as so many others caught up in that tradition are.


True, nor is he afraid to buck the traditions of the the wildly popular Dispensationalists like yourself. I like that.



John

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 536
  • Gender: Male
  • A man with God is always in the majority-John Knox
Re: Hyper-Calvinism
« Reply #17 on: April 28, 2017, 12:31:54 AM »
Quote
Calvinists wouldn't lift a hand to help anyone if they had four hands to spare.

Really? You mean a long list of Calvinist missionaries who worked most of their lives, even giving their lives in foreign lands, both past and present, most unsung, "wouldn't lift a hand to help anyone". You are ignorant of the history of Calvinist ministries to foreign lands, the translation of the Bible into the local tongue, and the work of today's Reformed missions. The Dutch Calvinists were missionaries to Indonesia and Southeast Asia, the Genevan Calvinists went to Brazil. The English Puritans and American Reformed churches went to the American Indians. Others went to India. The Calvinist Anglican, Presbyterian, Congregational, and Reformed Baptist churches were all missionary churches. Even Lutheran Pietists and German Moravians were part of the Protestant world mission effort. It was Robert Morrison missionary to China who translated the Bible into Chinese. Robert Moffat and David Livingstone, Calvinists missionaries to South and Central Africa. Samuel Zwemer led missionaries to Arabia and Egypt out of the Dutch Reformed Church.

These missionaries came from small Calvinist churches in America and Europe. They were not funded by the country's King or Queen as the Catholic expeditions were. There was not a secondary (or primary really) search for gold and treasure as many of the Catholics laid waste to the lands they conquered and the peoples they enslaved and killed (for Christ), while furthering the lie of Roman Catholicism.

Rather these Calvinist missionaries built schools, churches, translated the Bible and developed spiritual-minded Christians in a labor of love. It is written that: the PCA supports three times more foreign missionaries per capita than the SBC supports foreign and domestic missionaries combined. The PCA gives to international missions twice as large a percentage of the funds it receives from members as the SBC does.

The Calvinist churches promote missionary work today (as they have in the past) because they believe, just as God instructed, that God uses the evangelistic efforts of men to bring the gospel to the lost. The Calvinist missionaries trust God to save those that are His - even the most hate-filled reprobate is easily converted to Christ - because God is in charge. The truth of Scripture inspired missionaries for centuries to trust that Christ has promised to save a people for Himself and to obey the call to bring the gospel to the lost. Arminians missionaries went forth too, but they spread the lie of a man-centered works gospel, as did the Catholics, and as the cults do today, which is of little value.

Quote
Who witnesses in private? Did the apostle Paul witness in Private? Did Christ? Calvinists don't witness in private, that's your excuse. 

Ah, the ugly hateful spirit that opposes God's Salvation Program - Of course everyone witnesses at times person-to-person. That is normative. Do you think Christ didn't witness the truth individually? There weren't always crowds around Him - the woman at the well or the Pharisee by night, or those over a meal, or those walking along the way. Time for you to wake up.

There are Calvinist pastors/evangelists who speak to huge gatherings of many tens of thousands or to smaller crowds of hundreds, or via radio broadcasts reaching millions -- but most witnessing is done in small groups or face-to-face between relatives, friends, co-workers, and neighbors.

I don't know about you, but I usually witness to a single person at a time, or a few people. Maybe at most a handful of people who question the truth. It is the chief way the gospel goes out, always has been.


Quote
Calvinists witness to themselves and no one else.

Why would a Calvinist who believes in the truth of Scripture witness to other Calvinists who believe the truth of Scripture? You are a sad person.

When Calvinists witness to large groups of like-minded people it is for further edification in the truth - not to save them necessarily, though it is recognized that the lost exist amongst the congregates, so most all Reformed churches present the gospel whenever they speak. But within those that believe the goal is to build them up in the faith. But you knew that.

Quote
God sees what you try to hide in darkness, which is a lack of evangelism. You can't hide that from God.

Calvinists preach the truth in the open and in secluded places, anywhere people are willing to listen. There is no darkness in the true gospel. Reformed churches want to effectively get the message out any way they can. You can go to Calvinist Church websites and listen to thousands of sermons or videos on nearly every topic - for free. And yes God does know the work both at home and abroad of true Christian missionaries, pastors, and the humble witnessing of Christians everywhere that spread the true gospel. You obviously are in the dark.


Quote
I would give these street corner preachers a better chance of getting into heaven than you Hyper -Calvinists

I get it - you hate God's true Salvation Program. Your ignorance is on display. I have met street corner preachers who were Calvinists but most are Arminian. Why? Because most so-called Christians are Arminian. In one sense it's a numbers game. Just as most all Churches today are Arminian. The number of true Christians that remain today is exceeding low. Most Reformed churches have given over to the Arminian lie and are Calvinist only on paper. This age is given by God to Satan - it is for the expansion of cults and Arminian theology.

As to getting into heaven - it is not based on "chance", which an Arminian would consider logical since they believe each person decides to accept or deny Christ based upon their own personal volition. That would be a sad game of "chance". God doesn't roll dice with people (or the universe). In the Arminian lie, some "accept" and go to heaven and others decide against Christ and go to hell. Arminianism leaves God out of the equation - they are the kingmaker. Their eternal destiny is in their own hands (and those that dare to witness).

Thankfully, that lie is just that - a lie. God saves the lost - and He never loses a soul He intended to save, not one, ever. But imagine you are deceived in the Arminian lie (Dan, it shouldn't be hard) and it is up to YOU to say the right thing, convince the lost to change their mind, persuade them to speak the "sinners prayer" so they can get "saved". You used the "Roman Road", tried everything to force the person to believe - but because you failed now they will go to hell. Good job. Your failure has lost a soul for an eternity. Nice going.

How much pressure would you be under to not lose a soul? Plenty. How you would cajole and persuade with tales of instant happiness, and wealth, and health, any incentive is tried to get them to believe. Based on the lie of Arminianism sadly if you aren't skillful enough the person  ends up in hell. And who is to blame? Well, the person for not believing but also the evangelist for not being convincing enough. And that is the fear that motivates many (if not most) Arminians. How terrible to be deceived into the devil's lie to evangelize.

Worse, when they "win" the person for Christ, what have the gained? Another disciple for Satan! They have taken a reprobate unregenerate unbeliever into a cleaned-up version who is still unregenerate but now a believer in their own work in accepting Christ into their heart, that they are now saved. Foolish people. Then they go forth to live like the world. Confounded, the Arminian classifies them as "Carnal Christians". Arminians take unwashed swine and makes better dressed swine that continue their flop in the mud, only they go to church occasionally.

Calvinist theology, which is Biblical Theology, is anathema to the Arminian. They are repulsed by the truth. That is because the spirit of Christ is not in them, but the spirit of the world is. They hate Calvinists and all they stand for - they mock, ridicule, and attack - but this exposes their deep-seated fear of the truth.

Sure, Billy Graham filled stadiums with the lost. So did Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker, Robert Tilton, Bob Jones, Jamie Buckingham, Paul Crouch, Ted Haggard, Richard Roberts, Paula White, Benny Hinn, Kong Hee and a thousand more Arminian false gospel peddlers. They sold millions of prayer cloths, books, tapes, CDs, and many became rich. But it was all of Satan - all lies, all deception, all the Arminian gospel given by Satan to his minions to sell.

Quote
...Hyper -Calvinists who sit at home counting their coins and telling us Calvin knows best

I think you don't know who is merchandising the gospel. While I don't advocate selling the gospel (which is another topic) it certainly is the Arminians who are get rich off their false gospel ministries. Talk about counting coins. The Pentecostals have done a fantastic job of defrauding their listeners out of many millions of dollars. That is on top of defrauding them of the truth while assuring them they are heaven-bound.

As to Hyper-Calvinists - I've never met one. I've never known anyone who believes that evangelism is unnecessary. There may be some tiny minority somewhere - but it is just a Red Herring for the Arminian to run around with. I've debated countless Arminians and most don't know what a Calvinist believes - evidence Dan. They don't know much about their own beliefs either. They believe whatever their church believes. They only know that they hate with all their soul a God-centered salvation plan (i.e., the truth) and feel solidly comfortable with a man-centered plan (of course, it's natural to them).

I've met many Calvinists, a great many. They aren't rich. They don't count coins. They aren't ashamed of the gospel and witness within their families and communities as God brings people in touch with them (and yes, they seek out opportunities). Some are missionaries, some spread the gospel via websites (like this), some work in para-church organizations, and some work through Christian schools or home school groups. There is no one-way that true Christians are involved with the lost.

Dan represents the larger group of Arminians who oppose the Biblical truths of Salvation. Within their own communities Arminians are content to preach their lies unopposed. In their own circle they are happy. Those in the congregation know nothing else - and are never challenged to think through their false beliefs. It is when they come up against Scripture (which they cannot deny) they fume and curse.

It only takes less than a minute to destroy the Arminian's man-centered soteriology and evoke the wrath of otherwise peaceful Arminians. Just the thought that Christ died for the elect - and only the elect, and they will be calling you a Hyper-Calvinist (they think anyone outside their theological circle are a Hyper-Calvinist. It's like being called a racist by a Leftist - they can't help themselves). But whether an Arminian rejects the truth of God's election, predestination, regeneration, and ultimate glorification of His elect or not, it does not change God's truth.

And if people choose not to call themselves Calvinists that is their prerogative. I use the title not because Calvinists worship John Calvin, they don't, not anymore than Arminians worship Jacob Arminius, they don't. But as to clearly separate two antithetical theological positions. Certainly Arminianists would call themselves Biblical Christians even though they oppose truth with all their strength. So Calvinism opposes Arminianism and delineates the separation clearly.

Naming truth (or heretical teachings) after outspoken proponents is nothing new. Nestorius gave us Nestorianism, Arius gave us Arianism, Noetus of Smyrna gave us Noetians, Sabellius gave us Sabellians, Marcion gave us Marcionites, etc. As it happens, the title Calvinism is universally understood as a theological system based on particular Biblical principles that glorify God.

john
Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!

ZeroCool

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
Re: Hyper-Calvinism
« Reply #18 on: May 01, 2017, 01:12:54 PM »

Zerocool, so you won't get a warped view of what most of us believe here, and Tony Warren not being a Calvinist (which he isn't), I suggest you read this thread:

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/yabbse/index.php?topic=2123.0

Do you call yourself a Calvinist?



Thanks Melanie. I was a bit taken back and confused, but now I get it. Appreciate the link.

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2085
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: Hyper-Calvinism
« Reply #19 on: May 05, 2017, 04:30:16 AM »
Excellent call Dan. Hyper-Calvinism and double predestinaton are two sides of the same coin.
<<<[/size][/color]

...hhhmmmmmmmmmm


Quote
>>>
There is a contradiction in the theology of Calvinism.
<<<

I wouldn't know, since I'm not a Calvinist. But I do know that the house of Christ is not divided into sects named after the doctrines of men, such as Calvinists or Lutherans. The Apostle Paul encountered this same problem in the church, and responded with strong rejection of it. He rhetorically asked, who then is Paul? In other words, I am nobody to name a Christian group's doctrine after. Unfortunately, as in tose days, today men still choose to act carnally, of the flesh. And they often strive fot their favorite teacher's doctrines in order to separate themselves from other Christians. But the Apostle rejects such ideas and labels of His name on Christianity because he understands something that vain egotistical Christians do not. Namely, that it is wrong, it misleads, it divides, it confuses, it muddies the waters and is of no intrinsic value to God's people. If such a great apostle as the divinely inspired Paul will reason this rationally of himself, how much more does it apply to Calvin or any other man who is not divinely inspired? ...are we yet carnal?

1st Corinthians 3:4-
  • "For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
  • Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
  • I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
  • So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase."

Who is calvin for a Christian to say, I am of Calvin (Calvin-ism)? It's a strong argument that is wasted on today's Calvinists.


Quote
>>>
They claim God moves no one to sin, but then they claim God predestinates the wicked to sin and by reason of extension, damnation. You can't have it both ways.
<<<

I'll be the first to say that this is a difficult issue to understand, but on that point I would say we (as in me and you) agree. ...for once. We can't have it both ways. Therefore, there is no such thing as "Double Predestination." And actually that is man-made term that was coined by modern day theologians attempting to dissect and scrutinize the vast implications of God's sovereignty, but over thinking it and doing it very badly. Logically speaking, in order to predestinate someone to Salvation God had to have foreknowledge of them and their desperately sinful condition, elect them, and by His Spirit move them to come to Christ and salvation. Because they wouldn't on their own. That's not what He did for those He didn't elect, so how then is it "Double Predestination?" God likewise had foreknowledge of the desperate sinful condition of all the other people. He didn't Predestinate and elect/choose that they would sin and be damned, but Sovereignly allowed them to continue on in their "own" sins unto their own damnation. Thus their fate was "Sovereignly Preordained" by God not electing them to new life. That's not God Predestinating man to sin unto damnation, that's preordination. There is a difference. Predestination is God pre-seeing man's sinful state and moving man to determine him to do His will unto His glory. Preordined is God pre-seeing man's sinful state and doing othing to make him sin to his damnation, but sovereignly allowing it in order to accomplish His will, unto His glory. Man's sin iw what is resulting in His damnation, not God predetermining it. God is not the predetermine-er of man's sin unto Damnation, man is. That's the big point here. There is no double predetination, all mankind was determined to damnation by their sin, and God stepped in and predestinated that one group would not be damned by His irit removing sin from them. Where then is the double predestination? If we are going to "logically and rationally" argue that God predestinated the wicked to damnation, then we would have to argue God predestinated "all mankind" to damnation. Because we were all wicked unto Damnation at one time. That would mean that we have Predestination of all by God, and then a removal of that Predestination to damnation. However, if we remove Predestination, then how was it before-Predestinated of God if it never came to pass?  Obviously, then it wasn't God's Predestination of them. Like Alice in wonderland,it just gets curious-er and curious-er.

But it is not because that has never been stated by God and this term double predestinaton is not found anywhere in Scripture. God's infallible word is precise, and the term Predestination or Predestinated is "only" found in reference to those Predestinated unto salvation. That's not something to sneeze at, although a myriad of theologians dismiss it as if it was meaningless.  That word Predestination is never used to point to those condemned by their sin and thus preordained of God to damnation. That's a fact. Now the objection to this (by some) is that Predestinated and Preordained has the same meaning and is the same thing, which is obviously not true. They are two different words with two different meanings. Preordained is literally "before written," or written before, meaning something copied down to happen before. God foresaw them down through the corridors of time, and by not changing them by His Spirit, He scribed it down as history immutable. And if it's immutable, then the elect were never predestinated to damnation even in their wicked unsaved state. Q.E.D., there never was a double predestination. By the same token, God foresaw His people in the exact same condition of sin and damnation through the corridors of time, and by moving them unto salvation, He both ordained and Predestinated them unto salvation. If the two words have the same meaning, why is Predestinated never used with respect to the damned or condemned, only with the elect? God is not capricious with His divinely inspired words. The fact is, man predetermined his own fate by sinning, But by contrast God predetermined the fate of the elect by His miraculous power. We sin unto damnation on our own, we aren't moved to it by God, and all Scripture clearly teaches us that the responsibility of Damnation lies not with God, but with man.

But let's get down to brass tacks! Your bigger problem is that you don't believe in Predestination at all, meaning in effect you deny that God is Sovereign to Predestinate unto salvation whoever He wants, rather than whoever confesses they want Him. You believe that we can choose to be saved, rather than we are "chosen" or Elect of God according to His Will. Not ours. That's your real contradiction. No one can just repent, say the sinner's prayer, and be saved, God's word specifically contradicts that belief because the "choice" is HIS.

Hebrews 12:16-17
  • "Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
  • For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears."

Esau sought the Lord's blessings pouring out his heart with tears, and yet God "rejected" His pleas and gave him no spirit  of repentance. Why? It's no mystery if we accept what God's word plainly (unambiguously) says. It was because Esau was not Predestinated, not elect, not chosen of God. God from the beginning, before he was even born, preordained his fate in having no favor upon him.

Roman's 9:11-13
  • "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )
  • It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
  • As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

God had the sovereign right to love Jacob and to hate Esau. Thee is no unrighteousness in that, because God is not obligated to save anyone. God has the sovereign right to elect/choose and predestinate Jacob to salvation and not Predestinate Esau to salvation, according to His will. See that? One was predestinated, the other was not. One God had mercy on, the other not. One God elected and Predestinated, the other God did not. See the pattern here? The choice of Predestination to salvation was God's, not theirs! Their only choice was to sin in this way or sin another way. God chose Jacob and "rejected" Esau, and it was His sovereign right to do so. He did not predestinate Esau to damnation, He predestinated Jacob to Salvation, and by his sovereign right not to bless Esau but to exclude him, He preordained immutably that he would be condemned. The determination to sin and be condemned was because of Esau's sin.

So then, we're not having it both ways, one is "predestinated," thus God Himself spiritually "MOVES" that man to salvation. The other one not predestinated to salvation, but is rejected of God and thus preordained (not moved) of God to damnation. He is moved to his damnation because of His own sins, which are his own responsibility, not God's Predetermining it. The cause of sin is in ourselves, not because God (allegedly) Predestinated us to damnation (and thus its causation) before we were even born.

1st Corinthians 10:13
  • "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."

Whereas James tells us that God tempts no one that he would sin, 1st Corinthians tells us that for the Predestinated God is faithful so that He does intervene for the elect that they may find a way to escape such sin and damnation. Having already Drawn/Dragged him to Christ (John 6:44), He will never abandone us to our sins. But God has not predetermined to Draw/Drag anyone to damnation, and that's the difference between Predestination unto salvation and Preordained unto damnation. Again, He moves in the lives of the elect unto righteousness that they will be saved, but he does not move the wicked to sin that they would be damned.

So there really is no contradiction in "Reformed Theology." First, obviously from Scripture we see "Clearly" that man is held responsible for his own sins, and because of "his sins" will face God's judgment and be condemned. Second, God is holy and true and judges righteously, thus as demonstrated by the James 1:13 passage, God CANNOT predestinate anyone to sin to its subsequent damnation that He be glorified by it. Observe also that if He doesn't predestinate anyone to sin, then by definition there cannot be a predestination to damnation BECAUSE without sin there is no damnation. i.e., in order to predestinate someone to damnation, He would have to predestinate him to sin so that he is damned. If not, then He didn't Predestinate him to damnation. selah! It was ordained because of His own sin. God doesn't temp or Predestinate anyone to sin that God would be glorified in their damnation. God is glorified in their sins and subsequent damnation, but not by His Predestinating him to do it.

This doctrine of "Double Predestinaion" is a gross misunderstanding, and indeed "misrepresentation" of the doctrine of the total sovereignty of God. Sovereignty does not equate to God moving man to sin that he will be damned, but to sovereignly refusing to restrain (and thus allowing or ordaining) man to his sin (Genesis 20:6) unto damnation, and then using that sin to His own glory. The difference is, man's responsible for His own sins that bring damnation, not God. But by God not restraining man's sin (which He has foreknowledge of), God sovereignly ordained (makes it a sovereign certainty) the wicked's damnation. This is the consistent doctrine put forth all throughout Scripture, not Double Predestination. So then, the word of God has established two principles here.

Number one, God is sovereign and thus works all things after the counsel of his own will.

Number two, God does not in any way whatsoever author man's sin unto damnation, that God be glorified by it.

Number three, God has a sovewreign right not to restrain man's sin, thus ordaining or sovereignly allowing it, to His own glory.

He is under no obligation to stop sin and prevent man's damnation, thus with foreknowledge of it, and by not stepping in to stop it, He ordains immutably that it will take place. He does not Predestinate (another word used in Scripture only in relationship to salvation) man to damnation as He does man to salvation. For our salvation God has predetermined that His Spirit would move us to it, pre-acted so that man is moved of God unto salvation in the blood of Christ. While for Damnation God doesn't pre-act so that anyone is moved of God to damnation. It's not semantics, there is a difference, and it's not a small difference. That's why God uses the word "Predestination" only when talking about those saved of God, never for talking about those in Damnation preventing any contradiction. How did God harden Pharaoh's heart? By removing His restraint of Pharaoh's sin, that pharaoh stubbornly and pridefully would not let the people go, to the glory of God.. He was under no obligation to prevent his heart from being desperately wicked as it normally would be. Thus Pharaoh hardened his heart, as the Lord knew he would.

Exodus 8:15
  • "But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said."

No contradiction, God hardened Pharaoh's heart by allowing him to be as desperately wicked as man normally is without God's restraint (Jeremiah 17:9), thus when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his own heart, which was ordained of God. Harmony of God's word.


"nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

Larry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
  • Gender: Male
  • Reformed & Reforming
Re: Hyper-Calvinism
« Reply #20 on: May 05, 2017, 08:04:27 AM »
No contradiction, God hardened Pharaoh's heart by allowing him to be as desperately wicked as man normally is without God's restraint (Jeremiah 17:9), thus when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his own heart, which was ordained of God. Harmony of God's word.

Your reasoning is flawed Tony. God hardened Pharaoh's heart, God is sovereign and can do that. That's predestination.

 Exodus 7:13 "And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said."

No need to explain away God doing this to Pharaoh as the liberals do.

Doug Johnson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 273
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Hyper-Calvinism
« Reply #21 on: May 06, 2017, 09:32:29 AM »
Tony,
  You think too much.  :hammerhead:

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2085
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: Hyper-Calvinism
« Reply #22 on: May 07, 2017, 04:56:39 AM »
>>>
Tony,
  You think too much.  :hammerhead:
<<<

hmmmmmmmmm  :thinker:  Imagine that! An actual reading, thinking Christian. Will wonders never cease :)


"nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2085
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: Hyper-Calvinism
« Reply #23 on: May 07, 2017, 06:55:17 AM »
>>>
No contradiction, God hardened Pharaoh's heart by allowing him to be as desperately wicked as man normally is without God's restraint (Jeremiah 17:9), thus when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his own heart, which was ordained of God. Harmony of God's word.

Your reasoning is flawed Tony.
<<<

How so? Are you saying Pharaoh wasn't responsible for hardening his own heart, but God made him sin? It sounds like it.  We can't have it both ways where the sin of Pharaoh is God's responsibility, and also Pharaoh's own sin and responsibility. Let's think this through. The fact is, God restrains sin all the time (e.g. Genesis 20:6), and without His hand of restraint on mankind's desperately wicked nature, I have no doubt we would have destroyed ourselves long ago. His restraint of sin is "merciful" for the sake of the election, and His removing His hand of restraint of sin is strategic and to His own glory. There's no unrighteousness in God removing His hand of restraint upon sin, because He is under no obligation to restrain any of it. There are examples of this all throughout Scripture. So what's actually flawed reasoning by some theologians is that God actually creates sin in people to be disobedient to His own glory. I thought we had already established that God cannot sin or move anyone to sin. Therefore, God didn't make Pharaoh transgress, period.

James 1:13-16
  • "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
  • But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
  • Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
  • Do not err, my beloved brethren."

That's God's unadulterated word declaring that man is drawn away to sin of his own lusts, not because God drew him away to sin. Unambiguously, God doesn't move, predestinate, cause, make or tempt any man to sin so that He might be glorified. Man is enticed and drawn into sinful behavior of his own lust, and that sin unto damnation should never be laid at the feet of God. God has every right to not have mercy and allow man's heart to be hardened and as desperately wicked as it was from the womb. His allowing it preordained it, but it didn't create it.  Likewise, the "only" reason that we are not in the same position of Pharaoh to rebellion is because God has softened our obstinate hearts, restraining us from sin. He had mercy upon us in "not" leaving it in that very same hardened state as Pharaoh's was. Hardening Pharaoh's heart by taking His hand of restraint of his sin is not God making Pharaoh sin. Yes, He hardened pharaoh's heart by not restraining it anymore, and that for His people's sake and His own glory.


Quote
>>>
God hardened Pharaoh's heart, God is sovereign and can do that. That's predestination.
<<<

No, that's not Predestination, that's Preordination. A lack of mercy on God's part towards whosoever He will so that they might glorify Him in their disobedience. Again, it's not a question of if God hardened Pharaoh, but of how. Was it by not having mercy upon him to continue to restrain his rebellion that he would let the people go, or was it by God Predestinating (Predetermining) that he would sin, be disobedient to God unto damnation?  Pharaoh, like the rest of the world is already predetermined to son by their own bondage to it, God merely allows it by not having mercy on Him.

Romans 9:15-18
  • For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
  • So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
  • For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
  • Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."

Thus the question is not one of if God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but of how. Did He remove His hand of restraint of Pharaoh's sin having no mercy on Pharaoh that His own wicked nature caused him to sin to the glory of God? Or did He make/force Pharaoh to sin that He might be glorified in it, contradicting His own unassailable word that He tempts no man to sin? The answer is quite obvious, and according to the same truth of Romans 9:1-18. He was under no obligation to Pharaoh to have mercy and keep restraining his rebellion against God, and He didn't. He ordained this, allowing Pharaoh's heart to be obstinate, not Predestinated it to be obstinate, thus the responsibility for it is Pharaoh's. Confirmed also by God's word here:

Exodus 8:15
  • "But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said."

He (Pharaoh) hardened his heart after he saw there was no relief from these plagues. The most fundamental law of sound hermeneutics is that one Scriptures cannot contradict another Scripture, thus we cannot claim "either" God or Pharaoh hardened his heart, as such a conclusion pits Scripture against Scripture. Rather, we are obliged to ask how did both Pharaoh and God hardened his heart. The answer is in harmony with itself, as obviously Pharaoh saw there was no respite or relief from the stink and plagues, and that is why He  sinned in hardening his heart. In other words, it was because of that resentment, not because God made him sin. Nevertheless, it was God who decided to have no mercy and take off His restraint of Pharaoh's rebellion and allowed this. Thus Pharaoh has the responsibility for it, and God allowed it (He could have restrained this) having already preordained that it should take place. i.e., He hardened Pharaoh's heart by not continuing to restrain his rebellion. Christians sometimes forget that it is God who restrains sin all over the world, and who allows it according to His purposes. Allow is the operative word, not causes it.


Quote
>>>
Exodus 7:13 "And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said."
<<<

Yes. Now what context is that passage in? Does it prove your point "in context" or the truth that Pharaoh was the one who was really responsible for hardening his own heart? God taking His hand of restraint from Pharaoh and allowing his heart to be hardened doesn't make the sin of the obstinate heart any less Pharaoh's.

Exodus 7:12-14
  • "For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.
  • And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.
  • And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh's heart is hardened, he refuseth to let the people go."

We have two options here. #1. God hardened Pharaoh's heart causing him to not listen to God (sin), which God has specifically stated that He does not do. Or #2. God hardened Pharaoh's heart by taking off his hand of restraint from his sin and Pharaoh naturally (of his own sinful nature) refused to let God's people go. Like the man said, we can't have it both ways.

Where does God place the real blame in that verse in context? Is it not upon Pharaoh for refusing to let the people go? Does He say Pharaoh won't let the people go because I won't allow him to do it, or is the emphasis on Pharaoh's own rebellion and refusal? Therefore, as I posted before, God is under no obligation to keep Pharaoh's heart malleable where he would obey, for as it is written, He will have mercy on whom He will, and whom He will e hardeneth. Pharaoh can't blame an alleged Predestination to Damnation, he can blame only himself. It is his own rebellion, not God forcing him to do something he didn't already want to do. He "WANTED" to do it because of his rebellion and he did. ..the point is, God allowed it, having preordained that He would not have mercy upon him.


Quote
>>>
No need to explain away God doing this to Pharaoh as the liberals do.
<<<

No explaining away necessary. The only thing necessary is to testify how God is not the author of sin in predestinating an enticment to man to it, to his own glory. He is sovereign, but does not talk out of both sides of His mouth. He restrains sin to His glory and He removes His hand of restraint upon sin to His own glory. What He does not do is create evil or predestinate anyone to sin and its consequent damnation. He does not make men transgress His laws that He might be glorified.  There is a difference and it's not semantics.

"nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"


Mila Ostrovsky

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
  • Gender: Female
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
Re: Hyper-Calvinism
« Reply #24 on: May 07, 2017, 11:01:14 AM »
>>>
Tony,
  You think too much.  :hammerhead:
<<<

hmmmmmmmmm  :thinker:  Imagine that! An actual reading, thinking Christian. Will wonders never cease :)

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: L O L! I guess because Doug is a Roman Catholic, he thinks everyone should just blindly accept their church's traditions without thinking for themselves. ;)

bloodstone

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 220
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Hyper-Calvinism
« Reply #25 on: May 08, 2017, 04:07:55 AM »

While Hyper-Calvinism and Double Predestination are two different topics, I have to confess that Double Predestination is a illegitimate inference of logic. It infers that God is responsible for and has predetermined that man should be damned, but somehow he is not responsible for the sin that would be the cause of such damnation. Then how did he predetermine man's damnation without predetermining man's sin that causes it? That makes no sense. If he is responsible for their damnation, he must be responsible for that which causes their damnation. Therefore, he is not responsible for their damnation. He did not predestinate it, he foresaw it and permitted it. Using common sense I would have to agree with you that God to foreordained their earthly or eternal lot or destiny by not intervening to save them. Which he did do for the elect. Make sense?

James Heckman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 88
Re: Hyper-Calvinism
« Reply #26 on: May 08, 2017, 04:33:33 AM »
Tony, sorry but that's unorthodox Reformed theology, a liberal theology that is against the true meaning of Predestination.

Trevor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hyper-Calvinism
« Reply #27 on: May 08, 2017, 05:12:43 AM »
Tony, sorry but that's unorthodox Reformed theology, a liberal theology that is against the true meaning of Predestination.

James, where's your biblical support? You just make unsubstantiated statements and assume no one checks them out. It's been often demonstrated that you don't know what you a talking about concerning "Your Private Interpretation" of what is Reformed Theology, Conservative Christianity, or Orthodoxy is. There are tons, and I mean tons of Reformed and Orthodox Christians who agree with Tony. Just one example is noted and highly influential Swiss Reformed theologian Emil Brunner for instance. And no one ever accused him of being unorthodox, and in fact just the opposite. As conservative as they get and professor of systematic and practical theology at the University of Zürich, where he taught continuously, except when he was on extensive lecture tours in the United States and in Asia. He understood that double predestination is different, a distinction from the biblical doctrine of single predestination, and he taught that it is impossible to deduce the doctrine of double predestination from the Bible. By all means, look it up please. Here's just one of his quotes on the subject.

"The Bible does not contain the doctrine of double predestination, although in a few isolated
passages it seems to come close to it. The Bible teaches that all salvation is based on the
eternal Election of God in Jesus Christ, and that this eternal Election springs wholly and
entirely from God’s sovereign freedom. But wherever this happens, there is no mention of a
decree of rejection. The Bible teaches that alongside of the elect there are those who are
not elect, who are “reprobate,” and indeed that the former are the minority and the latter
the majority; but in these passages the point at issue is not eternal election but
“separation” or “selection” in judgment. Thus the Bible teaches that there will be a double
outcome of world history, salvation and ruin, Heaven and hell. But while salvation is
explicitly taught as derived from the eternal election, the further conclusion is not drawn
that destruction is also based upon a corresponding decree of doom."


  Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1950), p. 326. So James, at least try and know what you are talking about, and some scripture occasionally to prove your points would be nice also.
A Mind For Truth
Dr. C. Trevor Bavinck
New York, NY

Melanie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 666
  • Gender: Female
  • Psalms 52:8
Re: Hyper-Calvinism
« Reply #28 on: May 08, 2017, 06:28:21 AM »
 :ditto: Thank you Trevor!

Reformed Baptist

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 247
  • Reformed Baptists
Re: Hyper-Calvinism
« Reply #29 on: May 08, 2017, 10:17:30 AM »
What is hyper-Calvinism and is it biblical?

https://www.gotquestions.org/hyper-calvinism.html

Zerocool, plain and simply, Hyper-Calvinism is indeed not only a form of fatalism, but of denial of the great commission.  They misrepresent God's sovereignty as a teaching that excludes a human responsibility to witness or promulgate the gospel. To be quite frank with you, I see more of that in the Reformed church today than I see what might be termed regular Calvinism. They go to church, they come home, they go to church, they come home, never a thought for reaching others with the gospel. Just a desire to fulfill an obligation, hear a sermon and sing a hymn. This is something we all have to beware of, because it can sweep through a church like a bad stink on a northern breeze. We have to be careful not to forget not only where we came from and how we got here, but also of what job was given us. With Christianity comes responsibility (see the parable of the good stewards and bad stewards Mt 25:14-30). Far too many Calvinists these days are looking more and more like bad stewards. A warning to us all.



 


[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]