Questions on Hyper-Calvinism

[CarolK]

FoundinHim:

My bible reads a little differently than yours, but to me, the difference completely changes the meaning. Here are the scriptures you posted. Your version is in black. The KJV scriptures are in blue:

Acts 17:2-4 As his custom was , Paul went into the synagogue , and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures , explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead . " This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah , " he said . Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas , as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women.

Acts 17:2-4 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.


18:4 Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue , trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.

Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.


18:28 For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate , proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the messiah.

Acts 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, [and that] publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.


28:23 When the appointed day came for him, they went to his lodging in greater numbers . From morning till evening he expounded to them , testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the prophets .

Acts 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into [his] lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and [out of] the prophets, from morning till evening.

Blessings,
Carol

[wildboar]

I do no deny the universal proclamation of the Gospel or the responsibility for every man to repent and believe. However, 1 Corinthians 5:20 is not addressed to every person who ever lived, but to a church.

2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.

The entire context is telling them that they are Christ's bride and that they better start living like it.

2 Corinthians 6:12-18 You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted by your own affections. 13 Now in return for the same (I speak as to children), you also be open. 14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? 15 And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people." 17 Therefore "Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you." 18 "I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters, Says the LORD Almighty."

If Paul were addressing unbelievers he wouldn't be telling them not to be unequally yoked.

[Spurgeonesque]

I do no deny the universal proclamation of the Gospel or the responsibility for every man to repent and believe. However, 1 Corinthians 5:20 is not addressed to every person who ever lived, but to a church.

2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.

The entire context is telling them that they are Christ's bride and that they better start living like it.

2 Corinthians 6:12-18 You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted by your own affections. 13 Now in return for the same (I speak as to children), you also be open. 14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? 15 And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people." 17 Therefore "Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you." 18 "I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters, Says the LORD Almighty."

If Paul were addressing unbelievers he wouldn't be telling them not to be unequally yoked.

Wildboar-
Are you saying that everyone in the church at Corinth was regenerate?

[romans9]

Anthony Lawson wrote:

==Correct. This is where Carpenter goes off the deep end, if you don't know all of the vocabulary and all of it's implications then you are unregenerate.==

This is slander. I couldn't care less if a person does or doesn't know all of the vocabulary. I couldn't care less if a person has or hasn't heard of the "five points of Calvinism" or "Arminianism." Contrary to your slander, I believe that a believer may not be able to systematize or articulate what he believes. He may not use all the same terminology I do. Are you surprised, Anthony? Are you surprised, anyone else on this list? This is what I have ALWAYS believed and taught ever since God saved me. You will NEVER find anything different in what I have said or written.

What DOES matter, then? What matters is if the person believes the GOSPEL. WHO CARES if the person has ever heard of "Arminianism" or "Calvinism"! What matters is - DOES HE BELIEVE THE GOSPEL? That's all that matters! Christ and Him Crucified!

I can't keep you from slandering me, but I can surely show people what I really believe in contrast to what you falsely accuse me of believing.

To God alone be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter
www.outsidethecamp.org

[Centinel]

I couldn't care less if a person does or doesn't know all of the vocabulary. I couldn't care less if a person has or hasn't heard of the "five points of Calvinism" or "Arminianism." Contrary to your slander, I believe that a believer may not be able to systematize or articulate what he believes. He may not use all the same terminology I do. What DOES matter, then? What matters is if the person believes the GOSPEL.

Mr. Carpenter,

I agree wholeheartedly with this, but I cannot see how this can be reconciled with the idea that all so-called “tolerant Calvinists” are unregenerate.

Suppose a man says that he believes in the Gospel. And suppose that he confesses belief in the one and only true Gospel, namely, “God’s promise to save his people based on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone.” If this is the Gospel, and if this man believes it, then you and I will both agree that this man believes in the Gospel – and that that is what matters.

But now suppose that, in response to further theological interrogation, the man says that he does not consider all Arminians to be unregenerate.

On the one hand, he believes in the one and only true Gospel, he admits that Arminianism is a false Gospel, and he agrees that those who believe in a false gospel are unregenerate. But at the same time, he claims that those who believe a false gospel – the false gospel of Arminianism – can be regenerate. Why does he take this logically impossible position? A few of the many possible reasons include:

1) He believes that man can in fact be regenerate while believing in a false gospel.
2) He does not actually believe that Arminianism is a false gospel, and thus believes that it is the true Gospel.
3) He does not believe that all Arminians believe in Arminianism.
4) He does not recognize the logical contradictions implicit in his statements.
5) He recognizes the logical contradictions implicit in his statements, but he insists on believing them anyway.

Positions 1) and 2), when followed to their logical conclusions, both lead to a denial of the true Gospel. To assume that the man holds to either of these positions, is to assume the very worst of him.

But positions 3), 4), and 5) seem to explain how the man could both hold the notion that Arminians can be saved and believe in the true Gospel of salvation by grace, through faith, not of man and not of works.

If the man holds position 3), it would evidence a difference in the definition of terms. If a man believes the true Gospel, but holds to a unique system of nomenclature, are we to conclude that he is unregenerate?

If the man holds position 4), it would demonstrate that he has committed a logical fallacy. If a man believes the true Gospel, but is prone to logical fallacies, are we to conclude that he is unregenerate?

Position 5) could be held for a number of reasons. For example, the man could believe the true Gospel, but could be emotionally attached to the idea that Arminians are regenerate. His strong emotions in this regard could prevent him from admitting that which reason tells him is true. Alternatively, he may not have spent a great deal of time thinking about the issue (of whether Arminians are regenerate or unregenerate) and so affirms that Arminians are saved because that is what he has been taught in the past.

To assert that all “tolerant Calvinists” are unregenerate is to presuppose that all “tolerant Calvinists” use the same nomenclature as you, recognize and avoid logical fallacies, do not hold to any romantic or paradoxical positions, take the time to follow all of their positions to their logical conclusions, affirm these logical conclusions as their actual beliefs, and have the ability to articulate precisely what they believe. To assert that all “tolerant Calvinists” are unregenerate, therefore, is indeed to claim that salvation necessitates an understanding of theological vocabulary, a realization of the logical implications of various statements, and a decent ability to articulate specified beliefs. I cannot see how this position can be reconciled with the claim that the Gospel is “what matters.” But I am certainly open to correction, as I think we both seek an understanding of the truth.

Edited by Darth Gill : "Fixed fonts to make it easier to read."

[Brandan Kraft]

Wow centinel!!! Brother, that was one of the best refutations of Carpenter logic I've seen to date!!! Thanks!

[GraceAmbassador]

To assert that all “tolerant Calvinists” are unregenerate is to presuppose that all “tolerant Calvinists” use the same nomenclature as you, recognize and avoid logical fallacies, do not hold to any romantic or paradoxical positions, take the time to follow all of their positions to their logical conclusions, affirm these logical conclusions as their actual beliefs, and have the ability to articulate precisely what they believe. To assert that all “tolerant Calvinists” are unregenerate, therefore, is indeed to claim that salvation necessitates an understanding of theological vocabulary, a realization of the logical implications of various statements, and a decent ability to articulate specified beliefs. I cannot see how this position can be reconciled with the claim that the Gospel is “what matters.”

Brethren:

Unfortunately, Marc may deny it and may not even be able to be aware of it, but he heroically defends exactly that:

If one does not the same nomenclature as he does; if a man is incapable of recognizing logical fallacies, if they do hold some romantic and paradoxical positions, if they don't take time to take their positions to their logical conclusions as their actual beliefs, they are unregenerate since these things are evidences of regeneration (although in fairness he does not state that clearly). The claim that the Gospel is "what matters", would he be able to recognize what he defends, should be stated by Marc, as "The Gospel is what matters but..." and then list all the things he uses to add what matters and the evidence that one "has what matters".

This is not a slander upon his character and not even an indictment as himself being an unregenerate. It is only an assertion from someone who believes that as a teacher who undeniably in a praiseworthy manner establishes himself to defend the Gospel, he adds a lot to the evidence of what is the true Gospel. Adding "evidences" to determine what the Gospel is, or who "has it" without no other consideration and establishing a dogma about it is the same as "adding to the Gospel". Some Jews held to their legalistic ways and their own "safety nets" about Salvation, as well as their "romantic" attachment to the Jewishness of early Christianity and refused to eat certain things fearing perhaps to "lose their Salvation". However Paul calls these "weak BRETHREN".

Paul himself, even while still being Saul, was called a BROTHER by Annanias. Some may argue correctly that it was because God commanded him to do so. Yet Annanias was still fearful. That is the key: We should call and consider people BROTHERS AND SISTERS by that which God commands and under that which God considers the conditions for being a BROTHER AND A SISTER, and not our own feelings and opinions about them, their theology, their past or what we think of them. To God indeed ONLY THE GOSPEL MATTERS!

So, hold on Marc with your accusations of slander to people who disagree with you and come to conclusions about what you defend in your writings. There is no slander; only conclusions on what you teach.

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

3) He does not believe that all Arminians believe in Arminianism.
4) He does not recognize the logical contradictions implicit in his statements.
5) He recognizes the logical contradictions implicit in his statements, but he insists on believing them anyway.

These are all possibilities for an immature believer in the same manner that a moral sin is possible. A lot of it has to do with the lack of sound teaching in the Christian world. If the teaching was sound and biblical on Definite Atonement (as it should be) there would not be so much ignorance and excuses being made.

Nonetheless, if a professed Christian ultimately persists in loving certain tenets of free-will heresy--as the 'enlightenment' of truth grows more and more certain, he/she does prove to be unregenerate. All of this is a matter of becoming 'convinced' in one's own mind.

[InChristAlways]

Paul himself, even while still being Saul, was called a BROTHER by Annanias. Some may argue correctly that it was because God commanded him to do so. Yet Annanias was still fearful. That is the key: We should call and consider people BROTHERS AND SISTERS by that which God commands and under that which God considers the conditions for being a BROTHER AND A SISTER, and not our own feelings and opinions about them, their theology, their past or what we think of them. To God indeed ONLY THE GOSPEL MATTERS!

So, hold on Marc with your accusations of slander to people who disagree with you and come to conclusions about what you defend in your writings. There is no slander; only conclusions on what you teach.

Originally Posted by foundinHim
Hi Milt . How is your son doing ?

My quote of John Calvin , as I said in my post , had nothing to do with reconciliation as such . I do not think I am alone in quoting famous " gurus " of the past . The content of the threads would be severely reduced if we took the quotes out . I am capable of speaking on my own . But yes , quoting a venerable Christian on a theme does add some weight to an argument . I just want to stress that my opinions are not novel . Of course the venerable believers of the past could be wrong . You can interact with the quotes if you disagree .

Hi FiH. When you read through the Bible the first time and then went and looked at writings and opinions of past "vererable" believers, did they ever make you question your own belief or opinion on scripture? And how many times did you change opinions/views based upon reading more and more of famous "gurus" of the past?
It appears that some christians forums I am on change doctrines and beliefs as much as a chameleon changes colors and wonder how many form their beliefs strictly from scripture and through the Spirit and hang unto them, even if it may go against the "grain" of traditional church teachings [as some of the beliefs I hold on to go against the "grain" of tradition? Thanks and blessings.