Care to respond to this critique?

[Brandan Kraft]

Well the guy has a new argument I haven't seen before.... Let's give him some kudos for originality. Scroll on down to the section titled: "The crux of the issue: Eternal Timelessness versus Everlasting time"

Time has to do with succession. However, as what Reymond has pointed out, the advocates of timeless eternity confuse the "idea of succession" with the "succession of ideas". The idea of "divine time" therefore has to do with the "idea of succession". God never does learn anything new nor change in any way, yet that does not mean that He does not have an [epistemic] idea of succession in which He knows every single event in successive detail. To make it simpler, God knows everything past, present and future, but these past, present and future events do happen successively in chronology before God.

I disagree with him that we deny the concept of a "succession of ideas." God's unfolding plan of predestination certainly was a succession of ideas, but these succession of ideas start at the end view and work their way back. The succession of ideas is not timely, but LOGICAL. I wouldn't call that "divine time" though! We also do not deny that God works His ideas out in time. But to say God's perception is BOUND by that time is ridiculous.

[Forester07]

Here's another critique...: http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/ddd_...ification.html

Actually this is the same guy that this thread was originally started for. Here is his blog that is in the OP.

http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/...yper-Calvinism

[rlhuckle]

Most seminaries (IMO) are merely theological "sales" and "engineering" academies that specialize in the design and marketing of deities.

[Robert R. Higby]

Exactly, they fashion a god in their own image that would run the universe as they see fit and proceed to market him/her to the world for profit!

[Saint Nicholas]

Actually this is the same guy that this thread was originally started for. Here is his blog that is in the OP.

http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/...yper-Calvinism

After reading some of the articles on their website, I have found that they have misrepresented our beliefs to some degree.

My comments will be in blue letters after some of their statements.

• God is the author of sin and evil

This is true,

• Human beings have absolutely no will whatsoever

This is false. All men have a will. But their will is not free from God's own will.

• Individuals are not responsible for their own decisions and actions

If their definition of responsible means to be accountable, then I would disagree
If they define responsible as to mean that human actions and decisions originate
soley within themselves apart from any Divine Causality, then I agree

• Justification occurs in eternity, not in time

On the former, I agree. On the latter, I disagree.

• God does not command all people to repent of sin

God commands His elect people to repent of sin. And they do obey that command
because God causes them to repent.The non-elect will for ever rebel against any command from God.

• Not everyone is required to believe upon Christ Jesus for salvation

If they mean ( and I think they do) man has a duty and the ability to believe, I disagree.

• God creates unbelief in the hearts of the non-elect

I agree. Unbelief is existent within the non-elect via a positive decree from the initial creation of each unique soul.

• Assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith.

I disagree. Assurance of election can only be known after regeneration and faith.

• Election is evident simply by a profession of faith, regardless of sanctification(antinomianism)

To the former, I agree. To the latter, I disagree. Sanctification is the fruit and
and consequence of a true profession of faith.

• Saving faith is equivalent to believing predestination (only “Calvinists” are Christians)

I disagree. There are many Calvinist that are not Christians either.

• Limited atonement must be believed in order to hear the gospel and be saved

I disagree. You must first be born from above. Then and only then can a true believer
understand Limited atonement.

• Evangelism is unnecessary, or even wrong

Proclaiming the Gospel is never wrong and unnecessary. However most current forms
Evangelism (soul winning) are quite wrong.

• God has no love whatsoever for humanity in His providence (common grace)

God loves Elect humanity, and hates non-elect humanity.

[GraceAmbassador]

When a person starts his/her argument, or uses in any debate the argument "The Westminster Confession of faith "against, or in favor, or teaches" this person sounds to me (maybe unwillingly and unknowingly) placing an importance over the WFC that is equal to the Bible itself. It is what I said in another Thread: it sounds as Papist as Papist can be. It is an imposition; you believe different then the WFC therefore you're wrong, (heretic, etc.). So, this fellow has no credibility. He was the one who made me place a status on F.B. once where I said that I was tired of debating with Presbies while they could not say anything without quoting the WCF miles and hours before they ever even quoted the Bible. No credibility to me! Novices! Bible students seeking the notoriety that they certainly will NEVER achieve because the very monster they defend will make sure that they never come out of their shell and be useful for the biblical Gospel.

Milt

[Saint Nicholas]

When a person starts his/her argument, or uses in any debate the argument "The Westminster Confession of faith "against, or in favor, or teaches" this person sounds to me (maybe unwillingly and unknowingly) placing an importance over the WFC that is equal to the Bible itself. It is what I said in another Thread: it sounds as Papist as Papist can be. It is an imposition; you believe different then the WFC therefore you're wrong, (heretic, etc.). So, this fellow has no credibility. He was the one who made me place a status on F.B. once where I said that I was tired of debating with Presbies while they could not say anything without quoting the WCF miles and hours before they ever even quoted the Bible. No credibility to me! Novices! Bible students seeking the notoriety that they certainly will NEVER achieve because the very monster they defend will make sure that they never come out of their shell and be useful for the biblical Gospel.

Milt

Well said Milton! This very box (prison cell) that they are confined too can only be shattered and opened by God's merciful Grace upon them. That is why I deplore denominationalism. Those that try to break away are shunned and labeled as backslidden or heretics.

They themselves are no better than the Papists in this regard.

Nicholas