Questions on Hyper-Calvinism

[Trust]

I am a Calvinist who is leaning toward what I perceive as "Hyper-Calvinism." I am about half way through Darth's response to Phil Johnson's article and so far I am taking a liking to what I am reading. I was raised an Arminian and have just recently believed that Calvinism is true. I don't particularly like the term "Calvinism" since it seems to imply that the doctrines defended and clarified by John Calvin were invented by him and that they are not simply the result of a plain reading of scripture and a proper interpretation of the clear and simple doctrines that are being taught in the scriptures. That being said, I will now agree with what many of you are probably thinking: that my dislike of us Calvinists having to invoke the terminology we do amounts to little more than a pet peeve that I will soon get over. I will however expand on something that is a major stumbling block to my becoming a Hyper-Calvinist.

We all know about Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that any web surfer can edit. Despite the fact of anybody being able to edit it's content, Wikipedia has been known to accurately record detailed factual information about the subjects it touches on; probably because honest intellectuals devote their time to correcting errors/vandalism and contributing true information they have aquired elsewhere. I use Wikipedia online because I do not want to learn the basics about any given system of thought from those who feverishly adhere to that system because I will always be taught through their strong bias. Whether or not their bias is justified doesn't matter because I want to be able to learn things as objectively appearing (to my ignorance) as possible, and that means getting the basics from a neutral source. Wikipedia has watchdogs that bite if someone is looking as if they are being anything other than flatly neutral. Today I was reading about Calvinism there and they have a section on Hyper-Calvinism that lays out many teachings that can cause someone to be coined a "Hyper-Calvinist" if they agree with any number of them. That means that it has been known that someone has been coined a Hyper-Calvinist for believing in at least one of any of the teachings they list. I will post the list from Wikipedia, point to the ones I am sketchy about, and trust that my brothers and sisters in Christ will be able to clear this up by showing the list, me, or both to be in error. If someone can soundly show that the list is mistaken, I will be on the hunt for another neutral source, one where the average Joe cannot add and omit things. I will continue to discuss these matters with the Hyper-Calvinists here on this board as I further my research and eventually I'll come to a conclusion.

Here's the citation:

Hyper-Calvinism

Main article: Hyper-Calvinism

Calvinism has frequently appeared in various forms, which are called "hyper-Calvinism" by critics of that version of doctrine, on the supposition that it is a corrupted form of Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism is not necessarily believed by anyone (indeed, it can't be believed in all of its varieties); it is a label applied to any extrapolation of a point of Calvinism which undermines the theological system, sometimes mistakenly attributed to Calvinism by critics. The name "hyper-Calvinism" is also applied to beyond-orthodox reform movements, which attempt to improve Calvinism by removing perceived inconsistencies. Many Calvinists may reject hyper-Calvinistic beliefs as destructive to the Christian faith, such as:

• that God is the source of sin and of evil
• that God from all eternity has acted to irresistibly compel men toward sin and unbelief, just as he pursues those upon whom he desires to have mercy
• that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect
• that the number of the elect at any time may be known by men
• that it is wrong to evangelize
• that assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith
• that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they later do
• that God has chosen some races of men and has rejected others
• that the children of unbelievers dying in infancy are certainly damned
• that God does not command everyone to repent
• that the sacraments are not means of grace, but obstacles to salvation by faith alone.
• that the true church is only invisible, and salvation is not connected with the visible church
• that the Scriptures are intended to be interpreted by individuals only and not by the church.
• that no government is to be obeyed which does not acknowledge that Jesus is the Lord, or that Biblical Law is its source of authority
• that the grace of God does not work for the betterment of all men
• that saving faith is equivalent to belief in the doctrine of predestination
• that only Calvinists are Christians

Of course, there are Calvinists who believe that these are not caricatures of Calvinism and conscientiously hold to some of them in the belief that these are a logical outworking of their faith. Such Calvinists vigorously object to being called "hyper-Calvinist".

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism

I was going to list the ones I have a problem believing, but upon second read I recall that I have a problem with ALL of the bullets above.

Thank you for your time,


Michael

[Brandan Kraft]

"that God is the source of sin and of evil"

Hyper-calvinists like myself believe God created evil in His purposes... "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all These things." (Isaiah 45:7) But they do not believe evil flows from God's being, nor that He is the approver of sin. I know of no person ever who has declared God is the source of sin and evil. It's a complete mischaracterization by the author.

that God from all eternity has acted to irresistibly compel men toward sin and unbelief, just as he pursues those upon whom he desires to have mercy

Men were created for the purpose of sinning. Some so that they would be redeemed by the Lord Jesus Christ, and others so that they would be damned to hell. Everything that comes to pass in the course of history is because the Lord decreed it. Hyper-Calvinists like myself believe in God's absolute predestination of all things.

that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect

I've never heard a hyper-calvinist defend such a position. Hypers don't believe men have a "free will", or that men "choose Christ" as He's something that can be accepted to the salvation of one's soul.

that the number of the elect at any time may be known by men

Again, that's strange. I've never heard that before.

that it is wrong to evangelize

Hypers don't believe in trying to make converts by pressing men to make a decision. We don't believe in button holing complete strangers. We believe in proclaiming the Gospel to all men as the Spirit leads in providence. We don't believe in "offering" salvation to men.

that assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith

Assurance of election is something that is not sought. It's given to men in God's gracious purposes. Repentance and faith are evidences of election. Faith is assurance.

that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they later do

Nope. Profession of salvation does not make one saved.

that God has chosen some races of men and has rejected others

God has elected individuals from all races. Again I deny this.

that the children of unbelievers dying in infancy are certainly damned

Again, I deny this.

that God does not command everyone to repent

God commands all men to repent from their sins. He just doesn't command them to have repentance unto life (Gospel repentance / Saving Faith). There is a big difference. The author is condemning our rejection of the doctrine of duty-faith/duty-repentance as discussed in my article.

that the sacraments are not means of grace, but obstacles to salvation by faith alone.

I believe sacramentalism is a very bad error.

that the true church is only invisible, and salvation is not connected with the visible church

I believe in a universal church, and salvation is not connected to an organization, but to Christ. Salvation was accomplished for God's people over two thousand years ago on the cross. The ekklesia, or the local visible church is very important, as that's where the saints go to fellowship and meet with others who love the Lord. It's meant for the building up of the Body of Christ.

that the Scriptures are intended to be interpreted by individuals only and not by the church.

The church is made up of individuals. All men should engage in independent personal bible study. If a position of a church is unbiblical, the individual has a responsibility to stand up for the truth.

that no government is to be obeyed which does not acknowledge that Jesus is the Lord, or that Biblical Law is its source of authority

Wow, that's a new one! I believe all laws should be obeyed except those which would would cause a Christian to sin against the Lord.

that the grace of God does not work for the betterment of all men

Hypers like myself do deny common grace. We believe God is good to all men, but for His glory and for His elect. But we believe that it is unwise to call this grace.

that saving faith is equivalent to belief in the doctrine of predestination

Saving faith is belief in the Gospel with an amen! Predestination certainly plays a part in the Gospel, but men are not required to give a solid defense of it in order to be a Christian.

that only Calvinists are Christians

Obviously this is not true. I believe God has Christians who have never heard of John Calvin. However, I do not believe there is such a thing as a Christian who truly believes and depends on arminian doctrine (ie. those that are resting on their free will decision for salvation).
Most of these things are complete lies and mischaracterizations of Hypers like myself.

[Trust]

Hyper-calvinists like myself believe God created evil in His purposes...

I know of no person ever who has declared God is the source of sin and evil.

How can God create something and not be its source?

[Brandan Kraft]

Evil has its source in God's purposes. It does not have its source in God's character. That is what I meant.

[Mickey]

Trust, welcome to the forum. I understand exactly where you are right now. It wasn't too long ago that I was there myself in searching out the truth. I am learning more and more day by day and Lord willing I will continue to do so. Right now is a critical point in your life. Being the type of pursuer of truth that I perseive you to be, it shouldn't be hard for you to recognize the fatal errors in the doctrine held and taught by most assemblies today (i.e. free will, common grace, well meant offer, duty faith, etc...). One thing that has arisen out of the midst of these errors is the labling of those that 'go further' as 'Hyper-Calvinists.' One thing that I believe you will notice is that this lable will differ from person to person. It is my opinion that this label is used as some sort of scare tactic to form as it were a 'no tresspassing' sign for those who don't know any better. It's almost as to say as long as you don't go this far you are ok. As I'm sure you have noticed many here would fall into the hyper-calvinist catagory however not all of the points on your list would describe what we believe. I do however think that list is a good representation of what the 'general understanding' about what a hyper-calvinist is, while it misrepresents some here. The best way to get a grasp on the issues is to look around on the forum, read past discussions, and jump into discussions when they peak your interest. It's going to take time but it is worth it. Take advantage of the Private Messaging if you want to direct your questions to someone in a private setting.

I was going to list the ones I have a problem believing, but upon second read I recall that I have a problem with ALL of the bullets above.

Not all of the bullets are orthodox such as #'s: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 17 some may need explaining but most here would hold to the numbers I didn't mention. Be specific in you questions and maybe we can hash some of this stuff out.

Mike

[Trust]

Evil has its source in God's purposes. It does not have its source in God's character. That is what I meant.

Some interpertations read "calamity" instead of evil. What do you say to this? Also, you are right, God does use evil for his purpose and he did know that Lucifer was going to rebel against him when he created him. Evil is not something independent of everything God has created, it's just a distortion of that which God's nature deems "good." God created beings capable of distorting good, he ultimately did this for his purposes.


Mike

[Brandan Kraft]

See this thread for more discussion on the Hebrew word "Ra" in Isaiah 45:7... Brother Bob Higby posted the following regarding this passage...

The Hebrew RA (evil) does not distinguish between moral darkness (wickedness--Gen. 6:5) and physical darkness (calamity) at all. It is a compound word referring to all things on 'the dark side' whether physical or moral. In some verses/contexts one aspect or the other is more emphasized, however, both concepts are always present wherever the word is used. Gordon Clark in Predestination gives an abundance of OT references where wickedness is the primary and undisputed meaning.

The light and darkness in the parallelism of Isa. 45:7 make no sense if referring mainly to physical day and night or prosperity and calamity. The context is more universal and all-encompasing; it is referring to the fact that God creates both the kingdoms of light and of darkness. At least the KJV and the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible translate it correctly, even if other translations betray their inherent religious and presuppositional bias.

The fact that God creates wickedness, or spirits with a wicked inclination, in no way implies that God himself IS evil. Neither does it imply that the evil in the created soul has its origin in God's own nature. It simply means that God sovereignly purposes to create evil as well as good for the purpose of manifesting his glory. God owes his actions to no law above himself--so he cannot be placed on trial no matter what he does to advance his magnificence and power. Unlike the creature, he cannot be called proud in the matter of being jealous for his own glory.

[Trust]

Trust, welcome to the forum.

Doc, thank you for the warm welcome.

[Trust]

See this thread for more discussion on the Hebrew word "Ra" in Isaiah 45:7... Brother Bob Higby posted the following regarding this passage...

Thank you for your informed answer.

[ray kikkert]

How can God create something and not be its source?

Hello Trust, welcome to the forum. The above question is dealt with in detail in other threads here. Use the search engine and it should guide you to the pertainent discussions.

I think it was Darth who made me aware of this little story. It was created by Rev. John Pederson from the United Kingdom.

Billy Talks to his Pastor about God

Billy: "Pastor, does God love everybody?"

Pastor: "Yes, Billy (smile, pats him on the head).

Billy: "How come it says in Romans 9 that he hated Esau?"

Pastor: "Been reading your Bible, huh, Billy? (still smiles). Well, the Bible also says that God hates, but that only is talking about God's secret decree, and as far as we are concerned, he loves everybody."

Billy: "Pastor?".

Pastor: "Yes, Billy."

Billy: "If God tells us about his secret decree, is it still a secret?"

Pastor: "Er, well, I guess…not, Billy, but I meant that we should realize that there is a way the Bible talks about God's love for everybody, and that's what we should think about, not the one or two places where it says God hates."

Billy: "Oh. How is it that God loves everybody?"

Pastor: "Well, he gives everybody rain and sunshine, and he blesses the people of the earth with a conscience so they know right from wrong, and he has given them many gifts which they use to make the world a better and safer place to live."

Billy: "Then he sends most of them to hell?"

Pastor: "Yes, Billy."

Billy: "Pastor?"

Pastor: "Yes, Billy."

Billy: "Is it love for God to give people good things for a few years to make them feel comfortable and worthwhile, and then send them to hell?"

Pastor: "Well, I… yes, it…is, I think, because it would have been worse if, I mean it would be, um, well, it is, I guess, because he did not send them directly to hell, but he allowed them to experience his goodness and his provision for his creatures…"

Billy: "Is it love to let someone experience something good they will remember forever and always hate God for, because that good thing they loved more than forgiveness?"

Pastor: "Could we change the subject, Billy? I am not sure my answers are satisfying you."

Billy: "O.K., Pastor. Did Jesus die for everybody?"

Pastor: "Why, sure, Billy."

Billy: "Pastor"

Pastor: "Yes, Billy."

Billy: "If Jesus died for everybody, why isn't everybody going to heaven?"

Pastor: "Well Billy, its because not everybody will accept him."

Billy: "But Pastor, I thought Jesus saved us. You are telling me that we save Jesus."

Pastor: (Laughing nervously) Of course not, Billy! I believe that Jesus saves us completely! However would you get the idea that I believed we save Jesus?

Billy: "Well, Pastor, you told me that Jesus died for everybody, and that only those who accept him will be saved. So, this means Jesus' death and resurrection, what Jesus does, cannot save us of itself, but something more is needed, and that something more is what we do by accepting him. For those who do not accept Jesus, they will perish. That means that Jesus' dying for them cannot help them. In fact, it means that Jesus' work for them was a miserable failure. On the other hand, those who accept him make his work real by their acceptance—and they save his work from being a failure. Without us, Jesus, and his work of salvation—would be doomed! If Jesus cannot save us without the permission we give of our own free will, then we are the real saviors, and Jesus is the one we save! Wow! What would he ever do without us?!

Pastor: "Er… uh…that's not what I mean. I mean if, it is, I said…no, I believe Jesus is the one who does the saving, Billy, its just that… God has made it so that we… are free to acc… meaning, we are, are…Billy, the Bible is mysterious. It seems to mean certain things, but it doesn't really, like it says…you are using logic, Billy. The Bible is not logical, and the truths are not something we can fit into our own minds."

Billy: "Pastor."

Pastor: "Yes, Billy (now showing a slight frown).

Billy: "When you say the Bible is not logical, does that mean the Bible does not make sense? 'Cause you made sense when you said the Bible wasn't logical. I think it was because you used logic that you made sense."

Pastor: (Now glowering at Billy) No, Billy, I didn't mean the Bible does not make sense. It does make sense, but just not our kind of sense".

Billy: "Pastor."

Pastor: "Yes, Billy."

Billy: "Why would God give a Bible to us that did not make our kind of sense?"

Pastor: "Well, Billy, its not that… I think its…it makes sense, just does not give us the answers we like to hear, and says things that seem contradictory but really are not, to keep us from asking smart- aleck questions."

Billy: "So, God doesn't make our kind of sense to keep us humble?"

Pastor: "That's right, Billy. God wants to keep us humble, so he does not let us think we can be absolutely certain about the things some proud people are certain about."

Billy: "Pastor."

Pastor: "Yes, Billy."

Billy: "Are you certain about what you just said to me?"

Pastor: "(Showing obvious irritation) What do you think, Billy?"

Billy: "I think you just called yourself a proud person, but I don't know why, 'cause you are so smart and know so much about God, and how much he needs us."

Pastor: "Billy, why don't you go out and play, like the other children?"

Billy: "Why should I go out and play, when I can stay in here with you and learn how to save God?"

Pastor: "You need to be careful, Billy. I never said we save God. You are the one who said that, young man. I simply believe our choices are significant, and God does not treat us like robots or lifeless stones. He created us to have true human responsibility."

Billy: "Pastor"

Pastor: (Now looking quite angry at young Billy) "This will have to be the last question, young man! I have important things to do and you should be outside playing."

Billy: "When God put Abraham to sleep, was he telling him what he thought of his human responsibility?"

Pastor: (Seething with rage) I have a bad headache, Billy, and I can't answer any more of your questions, but I can tell you this. Whoever has been teaching you has been telling you things a boy your age should not even be thinking about. It sounds like you have been learning some kind of hyper-Calvinism. You better be careful, young man!

Billy: "I don't know about hyper- Calintisim, but I have been reading these things in the Bible. Thanks for straightening me out. I will try to cut these bad parts out. Can I borrow some scissors?

Pastor: (Rising from his chair) Get out of here, you, you, you…!

Billy: "That's O.K., pastor. I'll ask Joey. He was using some good scissors when we were cutting out our 'friends with Jesus' pictures for Sunday School. Good- by."

© 1997 Copyright, by John Pedersen

See, even little Billy is labelled as a hyper calvinist

They have a good website as well. It is www.arminiancaptivity.com

Darth has done a good job laying out the appeals against these definitions.

[ashamoun]

THAT STORY IS ABSOLUTELY PRICELESS!!!!


rofl--thanks for sharing

[ashamoun]

Trust,

As with Doc, in the beginning, I also struggled a great deal with a lot of the doctrinal positions that I now hold as absolute truth. This board and the people on it were a source of incredible help and I have thank them many times before and will continue to thank them. It may be helpful for you, as you are going through some of these "basic" issues, to search all of the thread that I started on this board. Many of them are probably issues that you are trying to deal with right now.

I am certainly thankful that you found this board, as I am thankful that I did.

May God continue to open your eyes to the truths contained within His Word which he provided us.

[foundinHim]

This is with regard to Ray's print-out of : " Billy talks With His Pastor " . I know the author -- John Pedersen . He is Pastor of Sovereign Grace Church in Gettsburg , Pa. He was with the OPC originally and then he went up on certain charges before the synod . I don't remember how that was finally adjudicated .

Even though Outside the Camp has him on their unwanted list , Pedersen's group is cultic in my estimation . A good friend of mine from college days is wrapped-up in that fellowship for the worse I believe . Pedersen rebuked me in public for daring to say that there are indeed Arminians who are really Christians . Obviously many Arminians are unsaved . And all who profess to believe must submit themselves to the claims of Scripture including the doctrine of grace . But John would not allow this . He said they are all under the verdict of Gal. 1:8,9 .

Nontheless , " Billy talks With His Pastor " is a good article . Although Billy sounds like a Columbo plant to me . I agree with many things Pedersen has written , but there still is that strange cultic qualtic quality which is present . It is hard to explain in a post . Maybe my college friend or John himself will see this and take issue ( of course ) .

Perhaps this post may need to be put on a new thread by a moderator . I am sorry for taking-off on this tangent .

[Brandan Kraft]

I have a friend who used to be in Pederson's church, and is now in Grace Gospel Church under Greg Elmquist near Orlando Florida. I don't remember him telling me that the group was cultic, and indeed had some good things to say about it - although he admitted that he was much happier where he is now.

Brandan

[Tobias Crisp]

This is with regard to Ray's print-out of : " Billy talks With His Pastor " . I know the author -- John Pedersen . He is Pastor of Sovereign Grace Church in Gettsburg , Pa. He was with the OPC originally and then he went up on certain charges before the synod . I don't remember how that was finally adjudicated .

Even though Outside the Camp has him on their unwanted list , Pedersen's group is cultic in my estimation . A good friend of mine from college days is wrapped-up in that fellowship for the worse I believe . Pedersen rebuked me in public for daring to say that there are indeed Arminians who are really Christians . Obviously many Arminians are unsaved . And all who profess to believe must submit themselves to the claims of Scripture including the doctrine of grace . But John would not allow this . He said they are all under the verdict of Gal. 1:8,9 .

Nontheless , " Billy talks With His Pastor " is a good article . Although Billy sounds like a Columbo plant to me . I agree with many things Pedersen has written , but there still is that strange cultic qualtic quality which is present . It is hard to explain in a post . Maybe my college friend or John himself will see this and take issue ( of course ) .

Perhaps this post may need to be put on a new thread by a moderator . I am sorry for taking-off on this tangent .

We had Pedersen come and preach at our conference recently, about 15 members came with him. I found the group to be extremely friendly and close knit (I was a bit jealous actually that our church isn't as close). I was impressed with John personally and enjoyed discussing a number of issues with him. A friend of mine, Mark McCulley, used to be with the Gettysburg church but left over the issue of infant baptism. I respect both McCulley and Pedersen and continue to persue fellowship with both of them, even if they have had a fallen out.

Would you state why you believe the group to be cultic? I completely agree with John in the conviction that all Arminians are lost, this is also the conviction of a number of other preachers and churches. This is simply a Gospel issue.

[wildboar]

Pederson also wrote a small book that is now out of print called Sincerity Meets the Truth in sort of a John Bunyan style allegory.

[Robert R. Higby]

I completely agree with John in the conviction that all Arminians are lost.

Well and good, if that is your conviction. But this proposition leads to a need for answers to a lot of questions that I have been asking for a long time:

1. What is the 'orthodox' and true definition of an 'Arminian' that is unquestionably damned?

2. Since the bastard union of gospel language and free-will Platonism happened soon after the death of the apostles, the seeds of which were planted even when they were still alive, why do we call this pseudo-Christian system of dogma 'Arminianism' anyway?

[Brandan Kraft]

Another thing is this... What does it mean to be lost? Do you mean that all Arminians were not purchased and saved by Christ on the cross? Or do you mean that they are in an unregenerate/unconverted state?

It's my belief that only sheep can be truly lost. All the goats are not LOST, but are at home in their slop and will most surely perish.

[Tobias Crisp]

Bob and Brandan,

I'm not sure if you guys are just messing with me or giving me flack. My purpose in making the statement was to see if foundinHim was saying that Pedersen and those in Gettysburg were cultic because they believed all Arminians were lost. Since I and a number of churches and pastors were in essential agreement with Pedersen on this issue I wondered if he considered us cultic as well.

1. What is the 'orthodox' and true definition of an 'Arminian' that is unquestionably damned?

Two things here, first, I'm not attempting to use the term "Arminian" in any "official" or "historical" way but as a way to categorizing those who hold to any anti-Gospel propositions such as general atonement and/or free will. Second, I do not claim that all Arminians are damned, I said they are lost. See my comments to Brandan below.

2. Since the bastard union of gospel language and free-will Platonism happened soon after the death of the apostles, the seeds of which were planted even when they were still alive, why do we call this pseudo-Christian system of dogma 'Arminianism' anyway?

I believe most of us use the terms "Arminian" and "Arminianism" as a catch all for any anti-Gospel propositions. We understand that Arminianism as a theological system is not exactly the same as pelagianism or even semi-pelagianism. Interestingly Arminius and those of the Remonstrance claimed to be Reformed. If there is a better word or phrase to use to express those who hold to anti-Gospel propositions I'm open to change/correction.

Another thing is this... What does it mean to be lost? Do you mean that all Arminians were not purchased and saved by Christ on the cross? Or do you mean that they are in an unregenerate/unconverted state?

It's my belief that only sheep can be truly lost. All the goats are not LOST, but are at home in their slop and will most surely perish.

Seeing that most, if not all, of the elect held to some form of Arminianism prior to regeneration and conversion no one can state that Christ didn't purchase the salvation of any Arminians. I am using the term "lost" to designate those who are presently in an unregenerate/unconverted state. I have no present objections to your use of the term "lost" to designate the elect in their unconverted state, I just don't want to get bogged down on semantics.

It was not my intention to open a can of worms

[foundinHim]

Hi Anthony . No , because J.P. and others such as yourself believe that all Arminians are lost ( shall we say unsaved for Darth's benefit ? ) I do not believe you are cultic , but you do have the Outside the Camp mentality . Even if you disagree with Marc Carpenter on some things that is one big commonality you share with him and his extremist views . There are some intangibles regarding J.P. and Co. that I really do not want to go into here concerning their cultishness . So why did I bring that up in the first place ? It just came out .

Most of the elect have held to some form of Arminianism for years after their regeneration and conversion . ( Sorry Anthony ) . Let's see ... George Ella , Augustus Toplady ... and ME ! , and countless others .

Benjamin Warfield , Herman Hoeksema and other stalward , godly Christian men have held my view on the issue .

There are degrees of departure from God's Word . Do I think that there is error in much of the teaching and preaching of many Arminians ? Yes . But I think out-and-out Pelagians deserve our condemnation and more attention . Do I think any ole' deviation from Scripture is acceptable ? No . But let's not get into the God-only given task of ascertaining the hearts of others . We are only spiritual pygmies ; most of us . We have more important things to do in occupying our time . We need to root out our own wrong-headed thinking and behaving which is not in conformity with the Christ-likeness we should be manifesting . If we aimed our cannons at ourselves more , we would be in better spiritual shape . ( I am included in that number ) .

And another thing . We need to show a burden for souls . We need to care about the eternal destinies of the unregenerate all around us . If time taken to punch-out posts on this board is being wasted when there are opportunities to proclaim God's Word to others --- then shame on us . We should not delight to know some are on the broad path leading to destuction . We need to attend to them . It is a matter of eternal life and death . And my reliance on the doctrine of God's grace and His determination of all things gives me the go-ahead to use the means of grace to declare Bible truths to the unsaved . The Holy Spirit will spiritually arrest those of His choosing . But I will not relieve myself of my obligation to carry-out the Great Commission . God indeed has decreed -- and I will declare . There , is here is no conflict there . We need more compassion for eternal souls .