The Hypers

[Hazelelponi]

We're getting off what I think is the topic which is: There is no verse in the Bible the says God loves (favors) the reprobate. I define reprobate as someone who will end up in hell and I define "love" as "volition to favor". If you know of such a verse, put it forward.

You're correct.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

We're getting off what I think is the topic which is: There is no verse in the Bible the says God loves (favors) the reprobate. I define reprobate as someone who will end up in hell and I define "love" as "volition to favor". If you know of such a verse, put it forward.

I will agree with this.

But that verse about the rich young man keeps popping up in my mind.

Maybe that's the fleshly part of my mind.

I have few books on this subject with various teachings.

D.A. Carson
Macarthur
Sproul

Perhaps I need to review.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

It is a parable as you pointed out.

I do not do eschatology as well. I have no interest in it for some reason.

I stand corrected.

After some research and reading about the rich young man it is not a parable.

Jesus had this interaction with the rich man.

Mar 10:17 And as He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and began asking Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
Mar 10:18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.
Mar 10:19 “You know the commandments, ‘DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, Do not defraud, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.’”
Mar 10:20 And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.”
Mar 10:21 And looking at him, Jesus loved him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
Mar 10:22 But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property.

 

[fastfredy0]

But that verse about the rich young man keeps popping up in my mind.

Well, I agree with you that there is some wriggle room as to whether the "rich guy" was saved or not.

On the saved side you got: good marks for obedience which is a critical indication and Jesus said He loved the guy.

On the unsaved side you have: He's rich and Christ says the odds for rich people are poorer and this guy is linked implicitly to the statement.

If I was on a jury I'd want more evidence.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I stand corrected.

After some research and reading about the rich young man it is not a parable.

Jesus had this interaction with the rich man.

Mar 10:17 And as He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and began asking Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
Mar 10:18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.
Mar 10:19 “You know the commandments, ‘DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, Do not defraud, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.’”
Mar 10:20 And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.”
Mar 10:21 And looking at him, Jesus loved him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
Mar 10:22 But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property.

.i read the parables, and the stories which read like parables, in 3s. We can look at the preceding and the following parables and see a broader context at play.

The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:9–14) teaches about humility and justification before God. It contrasts a self-righteous Pharisee, who boasts of his righteousness, with a humble tax collector, who seeks mercy and is justified.

This parable sets a thematic stage for the rich young ruler, who approaches Jesus with confidence in his moral obedience but leaves unjustified due to his attachment to wealth, leading Jesus to note that what is impossible for man to do, is possible for God.

This is followed by the parable of the mina and hoarding what was entrusted.

Mark has a similar grouping; the rich young ruler’s story follows Jesus’ teaching on divorce (Mark 10:1–12) and His blessing of the children (Mark 10:13–16).

After the rich young ruler, Mark 10:32–34 describes Jesus predicting His death and resurrection for the third time, as they head toward Jerusalem.

The pattern in both Mark and Luke shows covenantal divorce of the unfaithful from the old Covenant, and coming to Jesus to follow Him with all we have in humility and the New Covenant inauguration or Kingdom parables.

We look at the rich young ruler as a real person with real attachments to material wealth and status, but what's impossible for the young man in his flesh is possible for God. That's a part of the parable - placing faith in the power of God to accomplish what we are unable to accomplish in our flesh.

Whether you want to add spiritual connotation to that (since I don't have money myself I often do) since all scholars often spiritualize spiritual wealth and poverty etc. is up to you but regardless I see hope in it because Jesus reminds God accomplishes what man cannot; eg live perfectly under the law.

And when we recognize Christ in that in truth, we are saved and then come to Him in humility and repentance and ready to do His Work.

 

[makesends]

I wonder at what point does it become semi-pelagian. Which I believe is heresy.

Any religion that compromises the Christian doctrines of original sin and the necessity of divine grace for salvation is heresey as far as I'm concerned.

To me, any doctrine that compromises salvation-entirely-by-grace, is heresy.

 

[makesends]

Can someone explain what we do with this verse....

Mark 10:21 And looking at him, Jesus loved him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

Was this just the humanity of Christ that loved this reprobate?

I think it is 'love' in this sort of sense: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those having been sent to her! How often would I have gathered together your children, the way in which a hen gathers together her chicks under the wings, and you were not willing!"

 

[ElectedbyHim]

I think it is 'love' in this sort of sense: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those having been sent to her! How often would I have gathered together your children, the way in which a hen gathers together her chicks under the wings, and you were not willing!"

Interesting.

 

[makesends]

Hyper-Calvinism is a term used to describe a theological position that emphasizes God's sovereignty to an extreme degree, often at the expense of human responsibility and the universality of the gospel offer. It's a specific interpretation of Calvinism that برخی critics argue distorts traditional Calvinistic beliefs.

Here's a more detailed explanation:
Core Tenets of Hyper-Calvinism:

• Strong Emphasis on God's Sovereignty:
  Hyper-Calvinism prioritizes God's absolute sovereignty in salvation, often to the point of minimizing human agency and responsibility.
  
  
• Denial of the Gospel Offer:
  Some forms of Hyper-Calvinism deny that the gospel is a genuine offer to all who hear it. They might argue that the gospel is only meant for the elect, and therefore, it's inappropriate to universally call on all to repent and believe.
  
  
• • Withholding Assurance:
    Some Hyper-Calvinists may hesitate to offer assurance of salvation to professing Christians, believing that some might not be among the elect.
  • Limited View of God's Love:
    Hyper-Calvinism can lead to a limited view of God's love, suggesting that God's saving love is only for the elect, not for all.

Key Differences from Traditional Calvinism:

• • Human Responsibility:
    .Opens in new tab
    Traditional Calvinism acknowledges the depravity of man but also emphasizes human responsibility in responding to the gospel. Hyper-Calvinism tends to minimize or deny this responsibility.
  • Universality of the Gospel Offer:
    .Opens in new tab
    Calvinism, while affirming God's sovereignty in election, still emphasizes the call to repentance and faith for all who hear the gospel. Hyper-Calvinism may restrict the offer of salvation to the elect.

Examples of Hyper-Calvinist viewpoints:

• • A belief that preaching the gospel to all is ineffective because God has already chosen who will be saved.
  • A reluctance to invite all to believe in Christ, due to a concern that some might not be among the elect.
  • A view that God's love is limited to the elect, and not extended to those who are not chosen for salvation.

In essence, Hyper-Calvinism is a theological perspective that, while rooted in Calvinistic thought, takes certain aspects of Calvinism to an extreme, potentially leading to a diminished view of God's love, human responsibility, and the scope of the gospel message.

I'm a little curious where you got these definitions from. Some of the things listed seem to me to not even be what some Hyper-Calvinists believe, but what some people consider logical implication of what Hyper-Calvinists believe.

Also, many people I know and love as Calvinists can be called Hyper, by only one or two of the items listed. I would be one who emphasizes God's sovereignty to an extreme degree, often ("often"? —Always!) minimizing human agency. In fact, I deny it, concerning Salvation, and hold to monergistic action in Sanctification, too, BY USE OF (among other things) human 'agency' (whatever that means...). But to me, that doubles-down on human responsibility!

I.e. I don't like the definitions —too vague, too general.

 

[ReverendRV]

I wonder at what point does it become semi-pelagian. Which I believe is heresy.

Any religion that compromises the Christian doctrines of original sin and the necessity of divine grace for salvation is heresey as far as I'm concerned.

Provisionism is Semi Pelegianism; or outright Pelegianism. Hyper Arminianism is worse than Hyper Calvinism, because Hyper Arminianism waves it's hand at Grace...

 

[ReverendRV]

Scripture does teach the He does hate the reprobate.

Like I said, I am on the fence on this.

Would Hyper Calvinism deny that God Hates the Unregenerate Elect? As in God doesn't have Storge or Phileo Love for them; before they are Adopted by God and before they are the Bride of Christ? Would it say God has always Storged the Elect?

While we were at Enmity with God? I mean, God SET his Love on Israel...

 

[ReverendRV]

Can someone explain what we do with this verse....

Mark 10:21 And looking at him, Jesus loved him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

Was this just the humanity of Christ that loved this reprobate?

It's at least that; Jesus Kept the Commandment to Love his Neighbor. Through Christ, God truly DOES Love the World...

But I've heard some people say this may have been the Lost Saint Paul; Saul of Tarsus. Could that Love be Hyper Calvinism?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Can someone explain what we do with this verse....

Mark 10:21 And looking at him, Jesus loved him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

Was this just the humanity of Christ that loved this reprobate?

I like how jesus not only loved him, But showed he knew him. He tried to point him to what could save him. It is obvious the person loved money or things more than God. Hence he broke the first command. Jesus tried to expose that. But sadly the person would not repent.

Imagine the story if the person said. I struggled he knows he has not kept the law since birth. And jesus just proved it.. And Asked jesus for strength and mercy..

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Where are we told that this is a parable? In context, the passage in Mark says:

“Now as He was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before Him, and asked Him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. "You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Do not defraud,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother.’" And he answered and said to Him, "Teacher, all these things I have kept from my youth." Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me."” (Mr 10:17-21 NKJV)

It certainly reads like an actual event, rather than a parable.

Yes. This was not an parable

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I'd like to see a list of name(s) of people we know are going to hell that we are told God loves.

If we take John 3 literally, it would be every one of them.

I believe the prophet says God takes no pleasure That the wicked should die. But that they should repent and live (ez 33)

Seems like a generous version of the definition of God's love for individuals. One would have to explain it in t he light of the following verses:

• Deuteronomy 18:12 For everyone who does these things is utterly repulsive to the Lord;
• Deuteronomy 25:16 For everyone who does such things, everyone who acts unjustly [without personal integrity] is utterly repulsive to the Lord your God.
• Leviticus 20:23; Psalm 2:4-9; Psalm 11:4-5,6; Psalm 11:5; Psalm 58:10a; Proverbs 3:32a; Proverbs 6:16–19; Nahum 1:2; Hosea 9:15; Malachi 1:3-4; John 3:36b; Romans 9:13; Romans 9:22; Revelation 14:10, 11; Revelation 18:20
• Psalm 5:4 For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; No evil [person] dwells with You. 5 The boastful and the arrogant will not stand in Your sight; You hate all who do evil. 6 You destroy those who tell lies; The Lord detests and rejects the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.
• Psalm 7:11 God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry [with the wicked] every day. KJV
• Psalm 11:5 The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, And His soul hates the [malevolent] one who loves violence. 6 Upon the wicked (godless) He will rain coals of fire; Fire and brimstone and a dreadful scorching wind will be the portion of their cup [of doom]. 7 For the Lord is [absolutely] righteous, He loves righteousness (virtue, morality, justice); The upright shall see His face.
• Habakkuk 1:13 Your eyes are too pure to approve evil, And You cannot look favorably on wickedness.
• 1 Corinthians 16:22 If anyone does not love the Lord [does not obey and respect and believe in Jesus Christ and His message], he is to be accursed.
• Hebrews 1:9 “You have loved righteousness [integrity, virtue, uprightness in purpose] and have hated lawlessness [injustice, sin].
• Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God

Nothing is more absurd than to imagine that anyone beloved of God can eternally perish or shall ever experience His everlasting vengeance. It is the imagination of weak minds that gently coos, “God hates the sin, but loves the sinner.” This statement is a profane lie! Should Noah have had a banner across the side of the ark comforting the drowning rebels with the words, “God hates the sin, but loves the sinner”? There is nothing in man justifying God’s love; there is nothing in God requiring He love man. It is a result of confused thinking to say, “God hates the sin, but loves the sinner.” Sin is not a separate thing that can be hated and punished by itself. Sin is the rebellious choice of a rational creature to despise His Creator and violate His commandments. God hates the actor and activity of this rebel creature. He will send people to hell, not sins. The saying is a profane lie! Author Unknown

If God did not love the sinner. No one would be saved.

We were all sinners at one time (according to the law we are still sinners in practice, we are just saved by grace

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Only in the framework Ges given us to understand, in the capacity we are able. I think His Covenant relationship with His people best expresses it since it's His crowning Glory.

Hebrew usage of the word love and hate can be confusing

God tells us to love our parents, our spouse, our children. With a sacrificial love in eph 5 he says husbands love (agape) your wife’s.

Yer jesus also said if we do not hate them, we can not be his disciple

Luke 14: 26
“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

This seems contradictory. But it is not. In reality it shows a principle

The word hate does not always mean literal hate, It means to love less.

Jesus is saying we must love him more than those in our lives.

We also see Jesus loved one nation in the OT more. One he called out. Even more than the nations brothers (edom being one of them)

So we have to be careful when we see the word hate and love to always take it in context.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Well, I agree with you that there is some wriggle room as to whether the "rich guy" was saved or not.

On the saved side you got: good marks for obedience which is a critical indication and Jesus said He loved the guy.

On the unsaved side you have: He's rich and Christ says the odds for rich people are poorer and this guy is linked implicitly to the statement.

If I was on a jury I'd want more evidence.

The rich man asked how to inherit eternal life “what can I do”

So we know right away, he did not understand that eternal life is not something we can earn. It is given by Grace.

2nd, tried to show him that no one can earn life. We are all guilty “why do you call me good. No one is good but God”

Sadly this did not cause a reaction.

So Jesus showed him the only way apart from grace to earn salvation. Keep the law without fail (cursed is the one who does not confirm and keep every word) and they guy still did not understand, he said he kept them all from birth

So finallyJesus tried to prove to him that he had not kep the law since birth. Sell everything you have (do you love God with all your mind heart and soul)

Instead of again repenting, the guy walked away said.

The law was a schoolmaster to lead this man to christ.. Sadly, this man did not see. He thought he was righteous and did not need salvation.

So we can know for a fact at this point he was not saved.

Now did the guy repent later? We do not know.. but we know at this point he was not saved.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I think it is 'love' in this sort of sense: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those having been sent to her! How often would I have gathered together your children, the way in which a hen gathers together her chicks under the wings, and you were not willing!"

Which is still love.

He did not hate them in other words.

 

[Arial]

I'm a little curious where you got these definitions from. Some of the things listed seem to me to not even be what some Hyper-Calvinists believe, but what some people consider logical implication of what Hyper-Calvinists believe.

Also, many people I know and love as Calvinists can be called Hyper, by only one or two of the items listed. I would be one who emphasizes God's sovereignty to an extreme degree, often ("often"? —Always!) minimizing human agency. In fact, I deny it, concerning Salvation, and hold to monergistic action in Sanctification, too, BY USE OF (among other things) human 'agency' (whatever that means...). But to me, that doubles-down on human responsibility!

I.e. I don't like the definitions —too vague, too general.

I agree. Mainly because if you ask ten people who "know" what hyper-Calvinism is, you will likely get ten different responses.

For example. when I first heard the term it was in a writing (don't remember who or where, it was twenty years ago) it was defined as an extreme legalism, a legalism that focused on outward behavior to determine whether one was of the elect, and from the pulpit, set sound doctrinal teaching aside. Its focus in respect to doctrine was solely on election, not on Christ and him crucified. I think my father fell victim to that.

But when I began reading Geisler's book "Chosen But Free", (and never finished, because even I, as a new Calvinist, could see he was deliberately trying to muddy the waters, but instead read James White's, The Potter's Freedom) Geisler defined a Hyper-Calvinist as anyone who believed all five points of the TULIP. He called himself a Calvinist in order to throw a truck load of mud into the water. Then he proceeded to justify his claim by redefining all of the terms of TULIP, instead of using them according to what Calvinism means by those terms.

 

[fastfredy0]

If God did not love the sinner. No one would be saved.

We were all sinners at one time (according to the law we are still sinners in practice, we are just saved by grace

I grant that God loves the elect. My point is God does not love the those who are not among the elect. God is holy and His love is therefore holy, thus God does not love the sons of Satin as that is contrary to His essence. In Colossians 3:14 love is called “the bond of perfectness which binds everything together in perfect harmony” ESV Those who are no among the elect are not loved as the is no "bond of unity" between God and Satan's children. A "bond of unity" is everything bound together in agreement when each one seeks the best for others; God himself and those “in Christ” being bonded in agreement.

Nothing is more absurd than to imagine that anyone beloved of God can eternally perish or shall ever experience His everlasting vengeance.