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

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Apologetics / Re: Hyper-Calvinism
« Last post by ZeroCool on Today at 02:10:09 AM »
Hyper-Calvinism fails because it assumes that God is unable to do two things: Regenerate (make spiritually alive) and bring the elect together to hear the evangelist's salvation message. The Hyper-Calvinist is making assumptions as if they knew the mind of God, which they do not. True enough, man does not have the ability to believe due to his spiritual depravity, but still God demands everyone to repent and to believe.

Thank you all for your comments, I really do appreciate them. John, so in your opinion does all that mean that Hyper-Calvinism actually is a form of fatalism, or simply the doctrine that everything that happens is predetermined?

Thank you all for your comments, I just am just learning a lot about different groups. I read on a reformed Christian tweet that Postmillennialism and Amillennialism are like the fraternal twins of eschatology. From what I read on this site, it seems the authors don't agree with that. Am I correct?
Eschatology / Re: Why is there such a Millennial Haze or Maze among Christians
« Last post by Oneil on Yesterday at 06:10:25 PM »
   Though I don't understand how any Christian could possibly disagree with Homosexual Inclusion. You'd have to be blind.

You'd be surprised at what Christians can believe. We actually had a woman here a while back named Judy who got really upset over this exact issue, as well as the Catholic issue, and she left the forum in a huff because of it. So do not underestimate what Christians can rationalize in their minds. I don't understand how Christians can rationalize a lot of things, but they do.
Apologetics / Re: Hyper-Calvinism
« Last post by yaboo on Yesterday at 06:56:53 AM »
Only Melanie actually answered the question, which if you all forgot was, "is Hyper-Calvinism a form of fatalism?"   I would say, Yes, it is.Because it leaves people with the impression that they can't do anything to change anything in their lives.
Apologetics / Re: Hyper-Calvinism
« Last post by john on April 23, 2017, 04:30:22 PM »
There is Biblical Soteriology, which is the true understanding of God's salvation program and then there are perversions of it.

The Arminian perversion exchanges the sovereignty of God and transfers His power to fallen man.

The hyper-Calvinist perversion removes the responsibility of man in salvation and transfers all responsibility to God.

Arminianism makes man god and God a powerless but concerned by-stander.

Hyper-Calvinism makes man a puppet and God the author of sin.

Arminianism holds that everyone is commanded to repent and believe, therefore (using human logic and ignoring Scripture) all men must be able to repent and believe, on their own. Therefore, the decision to believe or not resides within each person, God is helpless and cannot interfere with human sovereignty (called "free will", meaning free of God acting upon men). In the Arminian world, God must love everyone, Christ died for everyone, redeemed everyone, was the propitiation for everyone, removed the sins of everyone, made everyone "qualified" to enter heaven -- if they will accept the work done by God, else that one sin (apparently unpaid by Christ in some manner) puts them into hell. Thus, it is only the sin of rejecting (the Holy Spirit) that sends anyone to hell, or so they believe.

Thus, Arminianism is a schizophrenic soteriology, the Arminian claims Christ took away the sins of everyone, then claims some will be in hell for sins not removed. They have Christ's atonement accomplishing nothing and the work of reprobate men in "accepting" Christ of their own free will, accomplishing everything via the power of man to activate the atonement. Thus, Arminianism is more than just confusion, more than just a lie, more than just not knowing what the true gospel is, it is blasphemy and a damnable heresy.

Hyper-Calvinism holds that all men cannot repent and believe apart from God, therefore (using human logic and ignoring Scripture) all men being unable are not required by God to repent and believe, God saves without evangelism. Using human logic, it would be unreasonable to ask people to accomplish a task (repent and believe) which God says they are patently unable to perform. The hyper-Calvinism fears stepping on God's sovereignty by demanding the unelected do something that God has no intention of doing (saving them). But, if God is truly sovereign (and He is), then there is nothing the preacher or evangelist can say or do that could upset or thwart God's redemptive plan anyway.

Arminianism fails because it rejects the Scripture truth that man is unable to repent and believe, that man is spiritually dead in sins. Man is a spiritual corpse, and cadavers do not repent and believe, they only rot. There is no free-will, man is not sovereign but rather enslaved to sin and in rebellion to the will of God. God is the only sovereign, He chooses and saves those He wills and those He does not save were not chosen to salvation and will not be saved. Because Arminianism rejects God as sovereign over His creation they find God's intention to NOT save everyone abhorrent and unloving. They fail to recognize that God is not required to save anyone, if God saved just one person from the penalty of their sins it would be perfect and just. Yet, He saves untold millions - and the rest remain in their sin to curse and mock Him.

Hyper-Calvinism fails because it assumes that God is unable to do two things: Regenerate (make spiritually alive) and bring the elect together to hear the evangelist's salvation message. The Hyper-Calvinist is making assumptions as if they knew the mind of God, which they do not. True enough, man does not have the ability to believe due to his spiritual depravity, but still God demands everyone to repent and to believe. It is a matter of reality, we are beings created in God's image, and such we are all called to believe what is true. God is not wrong to demand His creation see the right and do it. That they don't is judgement against them.

Apologetics / Re: Hyper-Calvinism
« Last post by Melanie on April 23, 2017, 09:46:03 AM »
But that's what all you calvinists believe. It's called double predestination.

I'm not a Calvinist, nor do I believe in double predestination. I'm reformed, and I believe in God's sovereignty. If you don't know the difference, I can't help you. Maybe this Jamieson, Fausset, Brown commentary will enlighten you.

Romans 9:21
      21. Hath not the potter power over the clay; of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another to dishonour?--"The objection is founded on ignorance or misapprehension of the relation between God and His sinful creatures; supposing that He is under obligation to extend His grace to all, whereas He is under obligation to none. All are sinners, and have forfeited every claim to His mercy; it is therefore perfectly competent to God to spare one and not another, to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor. But it is to be borne in mind that Paul does not here speak of God's right over His creatures as creatures, but as sinful creatures: as he himself clearly intimates in the next verses. It is the cavil of a sinful creature against his Creator that he is answering, and he does so by showing that God is under no obligation to give His grace to any, but is as sovereign as in fashioning the clay" [HODGE]. But, Second: "There is nothing unjust in such sovereignty."
Apologetics / Re: Hyper-Calvinism
« Last post by Joe Johnson on April 23, 2017, 08:18:05 AM »
I do believe that Hyper-Calvinists conclude that not only does God predestinate and move us to salvation, but also predestinate and moves the wicked to be damned so that God can glory in that.

But that's what all you calvinists believe. It's called double predestination. So isn't there a contradiction there in your theology? On the one hand you say god moves no one to sin, and on the other you say god predestinates the wicked to damnation. You can't have it both ways.
Eschatology / Re: Why is there such a Millennial Haze or Maze among Christians
« Last post by Tony Warren on April 23, 2017, 06:39:05 AM »
The Christians I talk with all seem to have differing opinions about eschatology, and particularly the millennial period.

That's the key word, "opinions!" Opinions are seldom the same. Not to sound arrogant, but God's word is not subject to anyone's opinions, including mine. There are entirely too many "opinions" in the church and not enough acceptance of the "witness of Scripture." In other words, acceptance of man's opinion of what Scripture means, and not of what Scripture actually says. I see very little Biblical validation of the different views held, only a lot of vain justifications of them (Formula: God said A and B, but He actually meant C.) In reality, if we accept what God actually said, then there is no reason for added personal opinion. God said that Christ came and established His Kingdom, rules in it as Lord now, and those who are saved live and reign with Him in this established New Testament Israel. There's no need for opinions of Him coming to establish and reign in another Kingdom on earth. God's word explicitly says He is reigning now and His kingdom is now, and His people reign with him in that kingdom. Man's personal opinions about another millennial period is a private interpretation, not something validated by His word.

Romans 3:4
  • "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."

Let God's word always be counted as the unassailable truth, and man's word contradicting it must be seen for what it is. A lie! Or to put it another way, every man's declaration, opinion or interpretation that contradicts God's word is false. This sound judgment between God's word and man's is what Christians are lacking today. Not deeming words that contradict God's word to be a lie, but rather just another possible view, a valid opinion or at best, misguided. Thinking truth uncharitable, it is never a lie, which is what it actually is. People as so qick to accept unbiblical (unvalidated) views so that they can "continue" to espouse their views without condemnation, censure or reprobation. But that doesn't make it an honest difference of opinion among Christians, it is a form of deceit or willful dishonesty. That's not a popular thing to say, but I believe that it is a very accurate dipiction of much of the church today.

I'm a bit confused and just seeking answers.

 :L-candle: Aren't we all!

Why is there such a haze over the millennial period where it's particularly unclear what is the truth?

Here's my take. The haze over the millennial understanding is a man made fog. An obfuscation of tuth by means of selective (dishonest) handling of Scriptures that pertain to it. I know Christians like to say it's just an honest difference of opinion, but there's really nothing honest about it, particularly from those who have studied the issue for years. Actually, it's not really unclear where the truth is (my opinion), it's just that people are carnal by nature and most don't really want the truth, they want justification of what they have been tauught or for what they believe. Therefore, whatever view that best conforms to what they have been taught, they readily accept despite the FACT that there is really no real biblical justification for it. I say unequivocally that there is absolutely no "real" Biblical justification for Premillennialism, Preterism or Postmillennialism because God's word doesn't ever contradict itself or teach two entirely different views of the millennium. God being infallible, at best only one eschatology can be correct, and "by definition" that would be the one that Christ taught--which is today labeled Amillennialism. No other eschatology passes the "what God actually said, and prophesy fulfills" test. All the others fail miserably, and are based on world views, assumptions, subjection, conjecture and speculation. If the Lord didn't say it, and Scripture doesn't confirm it, then it's man's private interpretation.

Ezekiel 22:28
  • "And her prophets have daubed them with untempered morter, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord GOD, when the LORD hath not spoken."

If God's word doesn't say it, then the doctrine is suspect right off the top. We could give example after example of professing Christians ignoring clarity, but for the sake of brevity I'll note only one. In Premillennialism there are millions of Christian evangelicals, led by their Zionist false prophets, who teach that the nation of Israel, who rejects Christ, are God's chosen people, when Scripture "Very Clearly" teaches that with the rejection of Christ national Israel fell as God's congregation and the kingdom was taken from them and given to the church. Despite the fact that this is all very clear in Scripture, these professing Christians feign ignorance or twist God's word so that it really has no meaning concerning God's judgment, the children destroyed, the curse of blindness, His going to the Gentiles and His kingdom taken from National Israel. It's as if God never said any of these things, and that so they may feel justified in holding opposing views. The point is, the fact that they delude themselves doesn't then mean that it's not "very clear" in Scripture that this teaching that Christ will come again to establish an earthly kingdom is in error. It only reveals how national Israel isn't the only people with an obstinate heart, that in their deceit they reject the truth. The church is following in the same footsteps, confirming that there is nothing new under the sun. Even in the parables Christ taught, if we are honest with ourselves, their meaning is abundantly clear, but only if we have the Spirit of truth to recognize truth. The parable of the Vineyard, where the householder has farming stewards who killed His son (Matthew 21:33-43), and the householder returns and destroys the wicked farmers who killed his son, and then let out his vineyard to other farmers. The meaning is clear to everyone except those who will not receive its message "because" they don't really like what it says. That's the haze over the Scriptures, the dark cloud of obscurity brought about by man himself.

Trying to sort this out is like trying to get through a complicated maze with all the different opinions, paths, beliefs and blocked pathways.

But even a maze has a way out, and the only way out is to take the correct path. It's a systematic procedure that alone leads to the way out of the maze. Truth doesn't teach there is no correct path out of the maze, or teach that all paths have a little part of the correct way out, or that we shouldn't worry about getting out because we'll all get out "by and by." You see there is a right and a wrong way, there is truth and there are lies, there is indeed a kingdom of Christ but it is not carnal, not fleshly, not situated upon a pile of dirt in the middle east where it comes observable to everyone (Luke 17:20-21), it is within us. We only have to receive the truth of what Christ said about it. That we were translated into it and are dwellers there. It came when He said it came. Anything else is man's personal opinions.

Colossians 1:12-13
  • "Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
  • Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:"

Meaning Christ's millennial kingdom has come, and we were (and are) being translated or transferred into it. There never was a prophesy that Christ would establish a carnal or fleshly earthly kingdom on this sin cursed earth. This was always what was prophesied. When we were transferred from the power of Satan into the Kingdom of Christ, it's a real substantive Kingdom, not some fantasy kingdom we made up to fulfill prophesy. Prophesy was never of a future, earthly kingdom where flesh dwells, but a spiritual kingdom. Those teaching it is a kingdom that can be observed (an earthly one) are obviously in error (Luke 17:20) according to all pertinent Scriptures.  The fact is, we can't be transferred into a Kingdom that hasn't yet come, or that Christ hasn't yet fulfilled the prophesy about. If we are transferred into the Kingdom of Christ, then obviously Christ has already established His kingdom. Anything which contradicts that is not the truth and is contrary to God's word. So it's not really that complicated at all, it is man's stubborn refusal to receive what the word actually says that creates the fog. His attempts to make it complicated by "adding" his own little addendums, mirror fulfillment, and personal supplements and assumptions to what is written.

Why don't Christians agree on a single point of view if the millennial kingdom is so obvious and prominent in Christianity?

For the same reason Christians like Chocolate, Vanilla and Strawberry Ice Cream. They have different "opinions." Opinions are all well and good for selecting which Ice Cream you want, but not for selecting which eschatology you want. Opinion really should not enter into it, the starting point should be which one is 100 percent consistent with what God's word says, and which are based on subjection, secular evidences or assumptions.

Nevertheless, as I said, all Christians have feet of clay. And different people come to truth at different times, as God permits. That doesn't mean that there is no one truth, but is a confirmation that the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. The way we overcome the flesh is by being humble towards God's word to let the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of truth, overrides our own will, ego and vanity, and guides us into His truth. It's the same question as asking, "Why are there so many Denominations," or "Why are there so many different interpretations about grace?"  It's because human beings find it rather difficult to "unlearn" what they have previously been told, learned or believed. Not because the truth is unclear, but because they are settled in their own ideas. It's like talking to someone who is set in their ways, it's a difficult conversation. But we have to grow in grace, and that means being as the Bereans and receiving truth, even when it is contrary to what we have been taught.

"nosce te ipsum"
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"
Eschatology / Re: Why is there such a Millennial Haze or Maze among Christians
« Last post by aquatic on April 23, 2017, 04:51:28 AM »
There's approximately 40,000 denominations. Take your glasses off.
Apologetics / Re: Hyper-Calvinism
« Last post by Melanie on April 23, 2017, 01:30:03 AM »
I think Hyper Calvinism (in effect) teaches that God is the actual author of sin because he ultimately controls all aspects of one's life where man is just a puppet in God's hand,or chess pieces on a board to be moved around by God. I think that really makes man responsible for nothing because ultimately God is pulling all the strings. It takes predestination to absurd and unbiblical heights by intellectualizing and over thinking the issue.

"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: James 1:13"

I do believe that Hyper-Calvinists conclude that not only does God predestinate and move us to salvation, but also predestinate and moves the wicked to be damned so that God can glory in that. This is a half truth, which means it's a lie. It contradicts God's word I just quoted in James that not only can God Himself not be tempted to sin, he tempts or moves no man to sin. Not for His purposes or anyone else's. From what I read of hypercalvinism, it's wrong. In my opinion Hyper Calvinism is a form of fatalism in that it basically teaches that whether to sin or to righteousness, God is responsible for both in double Predestinating and pre-authoring our actions. But God only says he pre-authors our move to obedience that we would be saved, not to disobedience or sin that we would be damned.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

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