The disparity (disunity) in Calvinism

[justbyfaith]

That's fine. Just start calling it Hyper Calvinism, okay? We will all agree with you then; I know I will...

Hyper-Calvinism is Calvinism of the hyper- sort.

Therefore there are hyper-Calvinists who can accurately be defined as Calvinists.

I have said that if what I say of Calvinism doesn't resonate with you as being what you believe, then I am not addressing you; let those who believe what I have been refuting respond.

Up till now, none of them have responded (because clearly, their beliefs are refuted and they have no answer to my refutations)...

But I have only experienced opposition from those who say that what I am refuting is not believed in Calvinism.

If it is believed in hyper-Calvinism, then it is believed in Calvinism; because hyper-Calvinism is a sub-section of Calvinism.

I do know that there are some hyper-Calvinists here that I have been seeking to address (such as @brightfame52).

But he has declined to answer because as a hyper-Calvinist, he realizes he has no leg to stand on.

Instead, he has allowed the rest of you to argue that what I have been refuting is believed by no Calvinist.

But in certain situations, he will pop up and state what he believes.

And if I am addressing his beliefs and referring them to him as being Calvinistic, is it not because he claims to be a Calvinist?

 

[ReverendRV]

Hyper-Calvinism is Calvinism of the hyper- sort.

Therefore there are hyper-Calvinists who can accurately be defined as Calvinists.

I have said that if what I say of Calvinism doesn't resonate with you as being what you believe, then I am not addressing you; let those who believe what I have been refuting respond.

Up till now, none of them have responded (because clearly, their beliefs are refuted and they have no answer to my refutations)...

But I have only experienced opposition from those who say that what I am refuting is not believed in Calvinism.

If it is believed in hyper-Calvinism, then it is believed in Calvinism; because hyper-Calvinism is a sub-section of Calvinism.

I do know that there are some hyper-Calvinists here that I have been seeking to address (such as @brightfame52).

But he has declined to answer because as a hyper-Calvinist, he realizes he has no leg to stand on.

Instead, he has allowed the rest of you to argue that what I have been refuting is believed by no Calvinist.

But in certain situations, he will pop up and state what he believes.

And if I am addressing his beliefs and referring them to him as being Calvinistic, is it not because he claims to be a Calvinist?

Let's agree on something real quick; Hyper Calvinism is Calvinism without the 5-Solas...

You won't be allowed to teach that Hyper Calvinism is Calvinism. I appreciate you saying you are really against Hyper Calvinism; but you can't get away with a Bait and Switch Logical Fallacy of Argumentation. I'm used to Posters giving a little while they're under pressure, only to go back to their Anti Calvinism...

Stick to the distinction, or get ready for some Moderation. I love a GREAT Debate; do this, and you'll be fine...

 

[justbyfaith]

Calvinists know this, Hyper Calvinists don't...

Alright, I will qualify all of my statements here by saying that they are in refutation of hyper-Calvinism and not necessarily Calvinism as a whole.

I think I made it clear before, however, that I was aware that what I was refuting was not believed by every Calvinist.

Since there may be some who are classified as Calvinists, who believe in doctrines of hyper-Calvinism, I have addressed the doctrine in particular and have not mentioned whether it was a doctrine of Calvinism or hyper-Calvinism.

I am dealing with a bunch of people here, many of them who are hostile to my preaching (calling me a troll and every other name in the book).

I have sent a message of peace to these boards and I hope that my peace may rest upon them.

But I know that some who do not yet know the Lord will even hate me for what I am preaching;

Because it requires that a person receive Christ in order to be saved;

Whereas certain Calvinists here (and I don't think that they are of the hyper- sort) have preached that regeneration precedes faith and to that I conclude that in their doctrine, faith is not even necessary for salvation.

I believe that some Calvinists are even banking on that idea and have set up Calvinism as a smoke-screen; even as an excuse to not receive Jesus as their Lord and Saviout.

Concerning @brightfame52,

I have even seen him deflect the question of whether or not he has received Jesus personally (I have known him for a while now).

But I will say again that my motivations for preaching what I do are not based on "the evil in my heart".

It is a good treasure if you are willing to look at it.

 

[justbyfaith]

Let's agree on something real quick; Hyper Calvinism is Calvinism without the 5-Solas...

You won't be allowed to teach that Hyper Calvinism is Calvinism. I appreciate you saying you are really against Hyper Calvinism; but you can't get away with a Bait and Switch Logical Fallacy of Argumentation. I'm used to Posters giving a little while they're under pressure, only to go back to their Anti Calvinism...

Stick to the distinction, or get ready for some Moderation. I love a GREAT Debate; do this, and you'll be fine...

However, since you appear to be threatening me, I may in fact revert to my old way of doing things and address the doctrine without saying whether it is Calvinism or hyper-Calvinism.

 

[ReverendRV]

Alright, I will qualify all of my statements here by saying that they are in refutation of hyper-Calvinism and not necessarily Calvinism as a whole.

I think I made it clear before, however, that I was aware that what I was refuting was not believed by every Calvinist.

Since there may be some who are classified as Calvinists, who believe in doctrines of hyper-Calvinism, I have addressed the doctrine in particular and have not mentioned whether it was a doctrine of Calvinism or hyper-Calvinism.

I am dealing with a bunch of people here, many of them who are hostile to my preaching (calling me a troll and every other name in the book).

I have sent a message of peace to these boards and I hope that my peace may rest upon them.

But I know that some who do not yet know the Lord will even hate me for what I am preaching;

Because it requires that a person receive Christ in order to be saved;

Whereas certain Calvinists here (and I don't think that they are of the hyper- sort) have preached that regeneration precedes faith and to that I conclude that in their doctrine, faith is not even necessary for salvation.

I believe that some Calvinists are even banking on that idea and have set up Calvinism as a smoke-screen; even as an excuse to not receive Jesus as their Lord and Saviout.

Concerning @brightfame52,

I have even seen him deflect the question of whether or not he has received Jesus personally (I have known him for a while now).

But I will say again that my motivations for preaching what I do are not based on "the evil in my heart".

It is a good treasure if you are willing to look at it.

He is the only Hyper Calvinist I know of here. And Regeneration does precede Faith; that's regular Calvinism...

 

[ReverendRV]

However, since you appear to be threatening me, I may in fact revert to my old way of doing things and address the doctrine without saying whether it is Calvinism or hyper-Calvinism.

Just warning you in public...

 

[justbyfaith]

He is the only Hyper Calvinist I know of here. And Regeneration does precede Faith; that's regular Calvinism...

I thought you said that in regular Calvinism, the doctrine is sola fide...

 

[justbyfaith]

He is the only Hyper Calvinist I know of here. And Regeneration does precede Faith; that's regular Calvinism...

Much of what I have been preaching has been attempt to reach him (and others like him) with the truth, as a matter of fact.

 

[ReverendRV]

Much of what I have been preaching has been attempt to reach him (and others like him) with the truth, as a matter of fact.

I am against Hyper Calvinism...

 

[justbyfaith]

I am against Hyper Calvinism...

All you have to do is say that it is hyper-Calvinism that I am refuting on any given instance where I am not refuting basic Calvinism.

 

[Arial]

So, I feel that I am being forbidden to deal with some of the doctrines inherent in hyper-Calvinism simply because most of the Calvinists here are not of the hyper- sort and therefore deny those doctrines.

If you are not a hyper-Calvinist, then simply don't respond to my arguments against hyper-Calvinism.

And also, don't think that you are correct in saying that hyper-Calvinism is not Calvinism. It is Calvinism of the hyper- sort.

T.C. Sproul put it this way. "Calvin would roll over in his grave to hear something called hyper-Calvinism." Hyper-Calvinism is by definition not Calvinism. If you want to argue against the beliefs that are found in what is called hyper-Calvinism, start a thread with that title, or label what you say as hyper if that is what you are addressing. Don't argue against Calvinism by arguing against hyper-Calvinism. They are not the same thing.

You could say something like this is what hyper-Calvinists believe and I am sure you will find the Calvinists refuting whatever it is if it truly falls into the category of hyper. But don't just make up what hyper says, show it. Give quotes. And after the issue has been settled don't continue to argue as though it has not been settled. Norman Geisler wrote a whole book calling five point Calvinism hyper-Calvinism, saying he was a Calvinist, and then proceeded to deny it at every point.

If you are interested, that book is Chosen But Free. It was countered point by point by James R. White "The Potter's Freedom." White's book is an example defending a position and refuting a claim and exposing its weak points (something Geisler's book is full of----unsupported claims, and mishandling of the word.

 

[Josheb]

So, I feel that I am being forbidden to deal with some of the doctrines inherent in hyper-Calvinism simply because most of the Calvinists here are not of the hyper- sort and therefore deny those doctrines.

If you are not a hyper-Calvinist, then simply don't respond to my arguments against hyper-Calvinism.

And also, don't think that you are correct in saying that hyper-Calvinism is not Calvinism. It is Calvinism of the hyper- sort.

The "hyper" in "hyper-Calvinism" is your clue to three things: 1) they are a minority and therefore - by definition - not representative of the whole and 2) arguments against them say nothing about Calvinism as a whole, and 3) all attempts to make arguments against the minority view apply to all others is a fallacy built from a composition error.

Do not make fallacious arguments and expect others to think them rational. The only response fallacy warrants is to note the fallacy and move on.

 

[Josheb]

No, he was not.

He lived some 1600 years before Calvin was even born.

It was a joke. Hence the winking emoticon.

Let me recommend you take the rest of the day off from the forum because you are so over-invested that you don't recognize jokes when read.

As to all those many posts claiming over and over and over again and again the evidence is in the posts..... There were no posts when the claim was first made, it is not up to us to evidence your claims and attempts at shifting the onus/burden are fallacious arguments.

 

[Josheb]

And my motivation for posting the way I do has to do with the shirking of responsibility to receive Christ that is promoted by Calvinistic doctrine.

No such condition exists in Calvinism and if you'd ever read Calvin, you'd know that. What you've done with that sentence is tell everyone you are motivated by a straw man.

I want for Calvinists to understand that they are responsible to receive Christ and that they will be held accountable if they reject Him.

ROTFLMBO!!!!

Okay. I understand it.

Can we get
ALL THE CALVINISTS HERE IN THIS THREAD
to openly declare
they understand they are responsible to receive Christ
and they will be held accountable if they reject him?​

When all the Cals in this thread state they understand will you go away?

 

[ReverendRV]

No such condition exists in Calvinism and if you'd ever read Calvin, you'd know that. What you've done with that sentence is tell everyone you are motivated by a straw man.

ROTFLMBO!!!!

Okay. I understand it.

Can we get
ALL THE CALVINISTS HERE IN THIS THREAD
to openly declare
they understand they are responsible to receive Christ
and they will be held accountable if they reject him?​

When all the Cals in this thread state they understand will you go away?

I declare I understand I am responsible to receive Christ, and know I would be held accountable by God for rejecting Jesus as my LORD and Savior...

Sola Fide!

 

[Josheb]

I declare I understand I am responsible to receive Christ, and know I would be held accountable by God for rejecting Jesus as my LORD and Savior...

Thanks. How about you @Carbon, @Arial, @makesends, @DialecticSkeptic, @David1701, @atpollard, @fastfredy0, @ReverendRV is @Ladodgers6 around? Can you each post you understand?

Can we get
ALL THE CALVINISTS HERE IN THIS THREAD
to openly declare
they understand they are responsible to receive Christ
and they will be held accountable if they reject him?​

Help this guy, @justbyfaith out.

 

[Josheb]

Prediction: I bet he moves the goalposts .

Justs saying

 

[ReverendRV]

Prediction: I bet he moves the goalposts .

Justs saying

Keep reading. He moved the goal posts from Calvinism to Hyper Calvinism; while trying to keep the goal posts on Calvinism...

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I have seen it....some Calvinists believe in free will, others don't.

Some believe that God is the First Cause of everything, others don't.

Some make these issues a hill that they would be willing to die on (saying that one cannot be a Calvinist and not agree), yet other Calvinists disagree with them.

I believe that this is because Calvin may have said certain things in some places outright and then said other things in other places that might bring people to an opposite conclusion.

Otherwise, why is there so much disagreement between Calvinists?

Time and time again, I have mentioned what was preached to me by one Calvinist, and then addressed it elsewhere; only to find that it "is not the teaching of Calvinism" according to the Calvinist that I am talking to "now"...

I am not going to play games with you folks.

If all you are going to do is say that certain beliefs in Calvinism are not believed by you as Calvinists, then I am forced to make this assertion:

That Calvinism is divided against itself and therefore its kingdom cannot stand.

If certain Calvinists believe things that are opposite to Calvinistic teaching, how is the teaching going to survive?

I would say to all of you that you had better get some doctrinal unity. Even as it is written by Paul,

1Co 1:10, Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

In the final analysis, there's really NO REASON AT ALL to bother with "systematics", period. It's 1 Cor 1:12 all over again.

EVERY Born Again Christian has the Holy Spirit indwelling, and James 1:5-8 promises WISDOM given liberally to whomever asks for it SINGLE MINDEDLY.

The "Theologians" in Jesus time, were so "GOOD" at their jobs, that they COMPLETELY MISSED the time of their visitation, and murdered their Savior out of religious ignorance.

1Jo 2:27 "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him".

That about covers it.

 

[David1701]

Thanks. How about you @Carbon, @Arial, @makesends, @DialecticSkeptic, @David1701, @atpollard, @fastfredy0, is @Ladodgers6 around? Can you each post you understand?

Can we get
ALL THE CALVINISTS HERE IN THIS THREAD
to openly declare
they understand they are responsible to receive Christ
and they will be held accountable if they reject him?​

Help this guy, @justbyfaith out.

Yes, we are responsible to believe in Jesus Christ and would be held accountable, if we rejected him.