Are you a hyper Calvinist ?

[civic]

Also John Calvin was quite clear that God does not love all men, only those that he elected. He hates all others and by His sovreign will, has determined that they will burn in hell. He is not even a friend to any man except those who chosen by him. This is 180 degrees from the truth about the God of scripture. Many Calvinists today will say that they don't believe all of what Calvin actually believed, yet they still want to call themselves by his name. If I were them, I would distance myself as far away from Calvin as I could. They twist and turn their way around calling God the author of evil, but they can't escape the fact that that's exactly the end result of what they believe. They also lie to themselves in thinking that men really do have free will, yet their doctrine espouses just the opposite. John Calvin was not shy in proclaiming that we do not have free will. At least he is consistent, even though he is consistently wrong. Their doctrine has been responsible for the splitting of many churches and some just shut down. Many Calvinists are more interested in converting non-Calvinists into Calvinists than they are converting the lost to salvation. Of course, God has already determined who would be saved, so why bother with the lost anyway? Calvin was rightfully called a heretic.

You are spot on about Calvin . I do know some Calvinists who share the gospel like non Calvinists .

 

[TedT]

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

I accept these things but I am not a Calvinist because he missed the boat on so many other points of reality about our creation and our fall.

WE can only become sinners liable to hell by our own choice to sin, not by our creation. Therefore no amount of words, books or libraries are acceptable to me if they conclude that we are created sinners in Adam and he caused this world of grief.

Neither can I accept that there are people who are damned to hell who could be saved if GOD was just patient enough. 1 Cor 4 Love is patient, love is kind. If HIS love is perfect, HIS patience is perfect and never ending.

No one is condemned to or liable to end in hell who can be saved but only those who have put themselves outside of HIS loving mercy and grace by their free will. There will be no one in hell who could be saved if GOD had only waited for them to answer the call to repentance and not cut them off. Only the reprobate who chose by their free will to deny YHWH as their GOD and Saviour because they believed HE was liar and a false god are condemned by having put themselves eternally outside of HIS grace.

The sheep were those who put their faith in HIM as their GOD and Saviour by their free will (some only to escape hell) though they later became HIS sheep gone astray into sin by their free will decision to rebel against HIS commands. Because they had once put their faith in HIM, HE could draw them back to that faith but those who never had faith cannot be brought back by anything HE can do because they've never had anything but hate for HIM:
Berean Standard Bible
Jn 3:18 Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Calvinist and Arminian type theologies all deny the perfection of HIS love and patience, selling HIM short to fit hell into the gospel after rejecting our pre-conception choices as the cause for our election or reprobation and the meaning of the difference between the people of the kingdom and the people of the evil one: Matt 13:37 He replied, “The One who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed represents the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil.

 

[civic]

I accept these things but I am not a Calvinist because he missed the boat on so many other points of reality about our creation and our fall.

WE can only become sinners liable to hell by our own choice to sin, not by our creation. Therefore no amount of words, books or libraries are acceptable to me if they conclude that we are created sinners in Adam and he caused this world of grief.

Neither can I accept that there are people who are damned to hell who could be saved if GOD was just patient enough. 1 Cor 4 Love is patient, love is kind. If HIS love is perfect, HIS patience is perfect and never ending.

No one is condemned to or liable to end in hell who can be saved but only those who have put themselves outside of HIS loving mercy and grace by their free will. There will be no one in hell who could be saved if GOD had only waited for them to answer the call to repentance and not cut them off. Only the reprobate who chose by their free will to deny YHWH as their GOD and Saviour because they believed HE was liar and a false god are condemned by having put themselves eternally outside of HIS grace.

The sheep were those who put their faith in HIM as their GOD and Saviour by their free will (some only to escape hell) though they later became HIS sheep gone astray into sin by their free will decision to rebel against HIS commands. Because they had once put their faith in HIM, HE could draw them back to that faith but those who never had faith cannot be brought back by anything HE can do because they've never had anything but hate for HIM:
Berean Standard Bible
Jn 3:18 Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Calvinist and Arminian type theologies all deny the perfection of HIS love and patience, selling HIM short to fit hell into the gospel after rejecting our pre-conception choices as the cause for our election or reprobation and the meaning of the difference between the people of the kingdom and the people of the evil one: Matt 13:37 He replied, “The One who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed represents the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil.

thanks for giving us a Ted talk - good stuff to ponder in your post brother.

 

[PapaLandShark]

I always call them Star Sucks- burnt coffee covering it up with caramel, additives, sugar and every flavor known to man to hide their bad coffee flavor.

Starbucks "burnt" experience hearkens back to when they used 2,000 kilo blowback systems with their coffee roasters and stored their "French" roast too close and open too all their other roasts.

Ask me how I know. Nah...no need. I was there.

Worked for their direct competitor who no longer exists back in the day.

 

[civic]

Starbucks "burnt" experience hearkens back to when they used 2,000 kilo blowback systems with their coffee roasters and stored their "French" roast too close and open too all their other roasts.

Ask me how I know. Nah...no need. I was there.

Worked for their direct competitor who no longer exists back in the day.

I knew we were kinfolk in another life lol.

 

[civic]

Starbucks "burnt" experience hearkens back to when they used 2,000 kilo blowback systems with their coffee roasters and stored their "French" roast too close and open too all their other roasts.

Ask me how I know. Nah...no need. I was there.

Worked for their direct competitor who no longer exists back in the day.

For a wedding gift in 85 my best friend bought me a really nice Italian espresso machine. That was the gateway into buying quality beans from Petes at the Embarcadero in the SF Bay Area. Bought a grinder and the rest is history. I started roasting my own coffee back in 2015.

 

[James]

I always call them Star Sucks- burnt coffee covering it up with caramel, additives, sugar and every flavor known to man to hide their bad coffee flavor.

I will drink a cappuccino once in a while but I do not like the sweet coffee drinks

 

[civic]

I will drink a cappuccino once in a while but I do not like the sweet coffee drinks

Not me no milk or sugar just black coffee.

 

[Rockson]

They twist and turn their way around calling God the author of evil, but they can't escape the fact that that's exactly the end result of what they believe.

You spoke of the end result of what they believe. I did a post once on another site where Calvinists challenged me that they DO NOT believe certain things like they're saying God is the author of evil. They claimed I was misrepresenting them.

I told them it's like this. You can say all you want that you don't believe in the COLOR of green and you want nothing to do with it. But if you're mixing blue and yellow in your theologies guess what you end up with. GREEN. So doesn't mean how much one on the surface makes claims they don't want it or agree with it. You can't say what you say and not end with what you say you're against.

 

[Diserner]

The only logically consistent Calvinist, is a Hyper.

If I were going to be a Calvinist—I would definitely be a Hyper.

 

[civic]

The only logically consistent Calvinist, is a Hyper.

If I were going to be a Calvinist—I would definitely be a Hyper.

I’ve always said that and compatiblism is nothing but the inconsistent Calvinist who cannot come to terms with the doctrines and compromises making excuses for God trying to get Him off the hook for the logical conclusions derived from their systematic. For example secondary causes yet God determined those causes makes Him culpable for the cause. It’s double talk.

 

[Rockson]

The only logically consistent Calvinist, is a Hyper.

If I were going to be a Calvinist—I would definitely be a Hyper.

Using a baseball analogy I'd say a Hyper Calvinist being a pitcher is really throwing a plain straight ball. I don't agree with it but at least they're playing it straight. Any other Calvinists is like they're throwing a fast one, (a fast ball) trying to throw something past one making people think they didn't see the inconsistency in just what went by . Or one could call it a curve ball it has a straightforward trajectory but they curve it off at the end. There is however no way one can curve their theology for effect to make it plateable. One can see what it truly is. You're right. The hyper is really holding true to what they say they believe. Other Calvinist leave an impression with me they really don't like being a Calvinist. If they liked it why try to curve it? Seeing they probably don't I'd encourage them....just give it up.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The only logically consistent Calvinist, is a Hyper.

If I were going to be a Calvinist—I would definitely be a Hyper.

How about hyper-Arminian? I don't believe you are but I might believe the only logical Armianian is a hyper-Arminian that is saved one minute and damned the next. (Kinda joking but serious at the same time.) I believe it is logically consistent to say that if you can be lost because of sin, and we sin at least daily or weekly, which we all do, then I think I must see this as hyper position and logically consistent with some forms of Arminianism.

 

[Diserner]

How about hyper-Arminian? I don't believe you are but I might believe the only logical Armianian is a hyper-Arminian that is saved one minute and damned the next. (Kinda joking but serious at the same time.) I believe it is logically consistent to say that if you can be lost because of sin, and we sin at least daily or weekly, which we all do, then I think I must see this as hyper position and logically consistent with some forms of Arminianism.

The logic doesn't work the same way here.

A logically consistent Arminian does not believe every sin loses salvation.

There's just zero logical basis for that.

 

[civic]

The logic doesn't work the same way here.

A logically consistent Arminian does not believe every sin loses salvation.

There's just zero logical basis for that.

only certain sins can lose salvation ?

and is it just 1 single sin, a few, many ?

if so how many, whats the cut off line ?

how many sins does it take to lose ones salvation ?

 

[praise_yeshua]

The logic doesn't work the same way here.

A logically consistent Arminian does not believe every sin loses salvation.

There's just zero logical basis for that.

I know Arminians that believe any sin causes loses salvation. Not saying you do. I struggle with seeing Arminianism not ultimately coming to that conclusion. I can't accept the position of sinless perfection.

 

[Diserner]

only certain sins can lose salvation ?

and is it just 1 single sin, a few, many ?

if so how many, whats the cut off line ?

how many sins does it take to lose ones salvation ?

Fallacy of the Beard: Vague Doesn't Necessarily Mean Invalid [#FallacyFridays]

Welcome to #FallacyFridays, the day for learning logical fallacies! Though these posts are posted every Friday, today is as good any to learn about the flaws in our logic that

cerebralistic.com

The fallacy of the beard occurs when someone dismisses a claim by saying that there is no difference between itself and its opposite since a blurry line exists between them.

One may throw doubt on the reality of a beard by a process beginning by asking whether a man with one hair on his chin has a beard. The answer is clearly ‘No.’ Then one may ask whether with two hairs on his chin a man has a beard. Again the answer must be ‘No.’ So again with ‘three, four,’ etc. At no point can our opponent say ‘Yes,’ for if he has answered ‘No’ for, let us say, 29 hairs and ‘Yes’ for thirty, it is easy to pour scorn on the suggestion that the difference between twenty-nine and thirty hairs is the difference between not having and having a beard. Yet by this process of adding one hair at a time, we can reach a number of hairs which would undoubtedly make up a beard. The trouble lies in the fact that the difference between a beard and no beard is like the difference between white and grey in the fact that one can pass by continuous steps from one to the other.

Also known as "a continuum fallacy."

All I need answer is—it's not one.

And Scripture gives us the boundaries and several unpardonable sins, like refusing to forgive someone.

 

[civic]

I know Arminians that believe any sin causes loses salvation. Not saying you do. I struggle with seeing Arminianism not ultimately coming to that conclusion. I can't accept the position of sinless perfection.

ditto

 

[Diserner]

I know Arminians that believe any sin causes loses salvation. Not saying you do. I struggle with seeing Arminianism not ultimately coming to that conclusion. I can't accept the position of sinless perfection.

Well, they are extremely rare, less than 1%.

It is not the logical extrapolation of the position, as it is the case with divine determinism.

False equivalence fallacy.

 

[civic]

Fallacy of the Beard: Vague Doesn't Necessarily Mean Invalid [#FallacyFridays]

Welcome to #FallacyFridays, the day for learning logical fallacies! Though these posts are posted every Friday, today is as good any to learn about the flaws in our logic that

cerebralistic.com

The fallacy of the beard occurs when someone dismisses a claim by saying that there is no difference between itself and its opposite since a blurry line exists between them.

One may throw doubt on the reality of a beard by a process beginning by asking whether a man with one hair on his chin has a beard. The answer is clearly ‘No.’ Then one may ask whether with two hairs on his chin a man has a beard. Again the answer must be ‘No.’ So again with ‘three, four,’ etc. At no point can our opponent say ‘Yes,’ for if he has answered ‘No’ for, let us say, 29 hairs and ‘Yes’ for thirty, it is easy to pour scorn on the suggestion that the difference between twenty-nine and thirty hairs is the difference between not having and having a beard. Yet by this process of adding one hair at a time, we can reach a number of hairs which would undoubtedly make up a beard. The trouble lies in the fact that the difference between a beard and no beard is like the difference between white and grey in the fact that one can pass by continuous steps from one to the other.

Also known as "a continuum fallacy."

All I need answer is—it's not one.

And Scripture gives us the boundaries and several unpardonable sins, like refusing to forgive someone.

Jesus who is the Authority on forgiving sin declared there was only a single sin that was unforgivable, not many.

And that single and particular sin cannot be committed today since He is no longer walking this earth doing His miracles. That sin was an exclusive sin that the pharisees were guilty of attributing the miracles of Jesus to be by the power of Beelzebub.

hope this helps !!!