Hyper Calvinism defined

Alexander the adequate said:
That is your mental consent, demons believing who Jesus is? from that one verse you derive a doctrine concerning mental assent?

Regarding straying. Yes of course the verse teaches they stray from the truth, that is the interpretation I have supported, but you have claimed that they were never in the truth. Therfefore you minimize the words stray and return.
Jesus is the truth, if they were in the truth, with the truth, then they were in/with Jesus and then they strayed and therfore need to return.

If you are reading this to mean that they unnderstood some ideas, then they cannot stray and return.
Click to expand...
This post is full of nonsense!

It's mental assent (not consent).

I didn't say that I derived the doctrine of mental assent from the one verse I mentioned. It was just one clear example.

Being "in the truth" is not what we were discussing. We were discussing accepting the truth.

Of course someone can can stray, then possibly return, from understanding the truth; but, I wasn't talking about understanding the truth; I was talking about accepting that the truth is true.

You are veering all over the place, seemingly unable to understand or articulate logical points. Please try to stick to what we are actually discussing.
 
David1701 said:
This post is full of nonsense!

It's mental assent (not consent).

I didn't say that I derived the doctrine of mental assent from the one verse I mentioned. It was just one clear example.

Being "in the truth" is not what we were discussing. We were discussing accepting the truth.

Of course someone can can stray, then possibly return, from understanding the truth; but, I wasn't talking about understanding the truth; I was talking about accepting that the truth is true.

You are veering all over the place, seemingly unable to understand or articulate logical points. Please try to stick to what we are actually discussing.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I did respond quickly on the way out and wrote consent instead of assent. Apparently that was confusing to you an Iapologize.
I don't think we were talking about accepting truth, the verse was specically about going away from the truth and comming back.

But you are making a distinction between understanding and accepting.I agree there is a difference.. But if all you have is an understanding without acceptance, then you cannot stray, because you were never IN the truth
 
Alexander the adequate said:
Sorry, I did respond quickly on the way out and wrote consent instead of assent. Apparently that was confusing to you an Iapologize.
I don't think we were talking about accepting truth, the verse was specically about going away from the truth and comming back.

But you are making a distinction between understanding and accepting.I agree there is a difference.. But if all you have is an understanding without acceptance, then you cannot stray, because you were never IN the truth
Click to expand...
More nonsense...

Your use of "consent" did not confuse me! It just made me realise that you are confused.

I was not, at any time, talking about people who understand the truth, without accepting it. YOU are the one who introduced understanding to the discussion.

This is a waste of everyone's time, so I'm going to stop here.
 
David1701 said:
More nonsense...

Your use of "consent" did not confuse me! It just made me realise that you are confused.

I was not, at any time, talking about people who understand the truth, without accepting it. YOU are the one who introduced understanding to the discussion.

This is a waste of everyone's time, so I'm going to stop here.
Click to expand...
I understand if you want to stay silent, but I will reiterate for those other silent readers that verse in question stated that people stray from the truth. And can be returned to the truth.
If all it was talking about was someone understanding a concept, and they rejected it, then there is nothing to stray from. The Greek word for stray is also applied to sheep that leave the flock, They were part of the flock and left
So we know the intent of that verb is not just to indicate someone understood a point of doctrine and then rejected it.
They have to be a member of the flock before they can stray.

So back to the original issue, Can a Christian stray from the truth. Yes.
 
Alexander the adequate said:
That is your mental consent, demons believing who Jesus is? from that one verse you derive a doctrine concerning mental assent?

Regarding straying. Yes of course the verse teaches they stray from the truth, that is the interpretation I have supported, but you have claimed that they were never in the truth. Therfefore you minimize the words stray and return.
Jesus is the truth, if they were in the truth, with the truth, then they were in/with Jesus and then they strayed and therfore need to return.

If you are reading this to mean that they unnderstood some ideas, then they cannot stray and return.
Click to expand...
This idea of the other poster that straying from the truth refers to a person who gives mental assent, and that demons who believe and tremble are examples, is poor.
Demons believe because they are in the same realm with God and they see Him. There is no such thing as a demon giving mental assent to the presence and power of God. They all absolutely no who God is and they know it better than any human on the earth.
So to claim that a person gives mental assent to the truth of God and was never saved, contradicts calvinist ideas.
One idea that is contradicted is that Calvinists teach that unbelievers cannot know spiritual truth. But in this discussion we are being told that a person who has merely mental assent is privy to what the demons know.

So maybe, the poster, or another one of you could think again about where the concept of mental assent comes from in the Bible.
 
Last edited:
Alexander the adequate said:
I understand if you want to stay silent, but I will reiterate for those other silent readers that verse in question stated that people stray from the truth. And can be returned to the truth.
If all it was talking about was someone understanding a concept, and they rejected it, then there is nothing to stray from. The Greek word for stray is also applied to sheep that leave the flock, They were part of the flock and left
So we know the intent of that verb is not just to indicate someone understood a point of doctrine and then rejected it.
They have to be a member of the flock before they can stray.

So back to the original issue, Can a Christian stray from the truth. Yes.
Click to expand...
Of course they can and do. Thats why there are so many Christian cults. It's in the Bible.

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine.

Luke 15:4

The lost sheep knew that, without the instruction and the care of the shepherd, it was lost. Nevertheless, because of curiosity, it strayed, wandering away from the shepherd (James 1:14). The lost sheep represents the foolish and thoughtless wanderer from God to whom He says, "Do not listen to anything that will lead you away from Me and My truth" (see also Ezekiel 14:11). The caution in Proverbs 19:27—"Cease listening to instruction, my son, and you will stray from the words of knowledge"—is not just for children but for the well-educated adult who instead listens to the ungodly teachings of those who feign knowledge (II Timothy 4:3-4). How often have Christians allowed themselves to be enticed away by their own intellectual vanity? God corrects this type of person's straying by allowing the curse of his sins to fall upon him.

Martin G. Collins
 
Predestined said:
Of course they can and do. Thats why there are so many Christian cults. It's in the Bible.

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine.

Luke 15:4

The lost sheep knew that, without the instruction and the care of the shepherd, it was lost. Nevertheless, because of curiosity, it strayed, wandering away from the shepherd (James 1:14). The lost sheep represents the foolish and thoughtless wanderer from God to whom He says, "Do not listen to anything that will lead you away from Me and My truth" (see also Ezekiel 14:11). The caution in Proverbs 19:27—"Cease listening to instruction, my son, and you will stray from the words of knowledge"—is not just for children but for the well-educated adult who instead listens to the ungodly teachings of those who feign knowledge (II Timothy 4:3-4). How often have Christians allowed themselves to be enticed away by their own intellectual vanity? God corrects this type of person's straying by allowing the curse of his sins to fall upon him.

Martin G. Collins
Click to expand...
yes, Christians go astray from the flock. It happened then and it happens now.
 
Johnnybgood said:
Another failure and please don’t cut n paste a video . I have no interest in watching a Calvinist video .
Click to expand...

Of course not.
Why leave your little echo chamber where you hear nothing but your own beliefs reinforced? How ironic that you and your buddies spend all your time challenging/attacking Calvinism, but you don't want to have your own beliefs challenged.

This is what's wrong with America today. Nobody wants to hear any opposing points of view, and they even go so far as to try to censor any ideas they don't like,

So it's no surprise to me that you don't want to hear anything about Calvinism.
You're too afraid you might learn something.
Sad.
 
Johnnybgood said:
1 Cor 6
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed,you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God

And such were some of you - sexually immoral , adulterers , homosexuals etc

Eph 2
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.

At one time all unbelievers that became believers were children of wrath , gratifying the flesh and it’s desires .

So you have contradicted scripture . God loves sinners . While we were yet sinners Christ died for us . God loves the entire world , all sinners . And Paul was the chief , above all sinners - none believe him unless you want to change the meaning of chief . Another failure and please don’t cut n paste a video . I have no interest in watching a Calvinist video .
Click to expand...
I've not contradicted scripture. It is your lack of a serious hermeneutic that causes these issues. Yes, God loves sinners, but he hates the sin. If you cannot distinguish the difference, then you are showing that you aren't interested in harmonizing scripture and prefer rather to cherry pick scripture to suit your own belief system.

The same author of the books of 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Romans is the Apostle Paul. Chapter 1 of Romans talks about reprobation. I can only conclude that you don't believe scripture, or you consider the Apostle Paul to be a lunatic/schizophrenic.

Here is what he said.

Romans 1:16-32

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written: “But the righteous one will live by faith.”

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible mankind, of birds, four-footed animals, and crawling creatures.

24 Therefore God gave them up to vile impurity in the lusts of their hearts, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for falsehood, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged natural relations for that which is contrary to nature, 27 and likewise the men, too, abandoned natural relations with women and burned in their desire toward one another, males with males committing shameful acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a depraved mind, to do those things that are not proper, 29 people having been filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, and evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unfeeling, and unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them.


Notice Paul was speaking to believers.

I don't think there is any doubt that I will report your mischaracterization/misrepresentation of my post. It's almost expected. Next time spend the time to make a stronger post which shows an effort towards harmonization. You should know by now, that so-called 'gotcha' attacks are futile.
 
Last edited:
Theo1689 said:
Of course not.
Why leave your little echo chamber where you hear nothing but your own beliefs reinforced? How ironic that you and your buddies spend all your time challenging/attacking Calvinism, but you don't want to have your own beliefs challenged.

This is what's wrong with America today. Nobody wants to hear any opposing points of view, and they even go so far as to try to censor any ideas they don't like,

So it's no surprise to me that you don't want to hear anything about Calvinism.
You're too afraid you might learn something.
Sad.
Click to expand...

You are condemning yourself
 
Chalcedon said:
Phil Johnson, who has done extensive research on this subject very helpfully defines hyper-Calvinists using a five-fold definition. A hyper-Calvinist is one who:

  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.
As Phil says, “All five varieties of hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message.” So this is the key to understanding hyper-Calvinism: it undermines evangelism and/or somehow distorts the gospel message. Hyper-Calvinists emphasize God’s sovereignty but de-emphasize God’s love. They tend to set God’s sovereignty at odds with the clear biblical call to human responsibility.

www.challies.com

Hyper-Calvinism: A Brief Definition

The term hyper-Calvinist is often used as a pejorative. Almost any Calvinist who adheres to the doctrines of grace is likely to be considered a hyper-Calvinist by at least someone. Frankly speaking…
www.challies.com www.challies.com

hope this helps !!!
Click to expand...
I reread this and it just gets better with every time I read the article .

It’s worth a read for those who have not read it and are old minded .

hope this helps !!!
 
Chalcedon said:
I reread this and it just gets better with every time I read the article .

It’s worth a read for those who have not read it and are old minded .

hope this helps !!!
Click to expand...
Old minded? Why I resemble that remark. You meant opened mined right? As in a synonym for being non- prejudiced or tolerant. From a psychological perspective, the term is used to describe how willing people are to consider other perspectives or to try out new experiences.
 
Predestined said:
Old minded? Why I resemble that remark. You meant opened mined right? As in a synonym for being non- prejudiced or tolerant. From a psychological perspective, the term is used to describe how willing people are to consider other perspectives or to try out new experiences.
Click to expand...
Yes a typo ?
 
Alexander the adequate said:
I think we have already been over this. Your explanation here is stated as if the freewill belongs to the offering not the offerer. To the contrary, it is Identified as given from the freewill of the giver. An offering has no will at all, so no, freewill does not refer to the offering having a will, but to the offerer freely giving it.

It would be like saying "a generous gift" describes just the gift and has no meaning concerning the giver. Your argument applied here would claim that generous was an attribute of the gift, and not the giver
Click to expand...
Good point.

Yours Truly, Team Truth !

hope this helps !!!
 
Chalcedon said:
Good point.

Yours Truly, Team Truth !

hope this helps !!!
Click to expand...
As you know, in the phrase "voluntary offering", the word "voluntary" refers to the offering. It is an adjective and simply means that the offering is not obligatory. THAT is the truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top