I am Discouraged

[Xan]

the T in the Tulip is ''Total depravity'', that is the teaching that man is so irreconcilably depraved that he cannot accept Christ on his own and needs the I in tulip ''Irresistable Grace'' to force him into salvation whether he likes it or not to be saved. This is where draydon's husband gets his beliefs whether you believe they have been stretch by him is one thing but the root of his beliefs are calvinistic.

Hypercalvinism is not Calvinism, it is heresy and it also has no basis even in the reformed faith, although those who are not Calvinist have stuck the label there and it stuck for some reason. I do know know why you insist on misrepresenting the teachings of the reformed faith, but I'll spell it out once again.

The T in tulip means that the human being is dead in sin that he cannot accept Christ on his own and needs the regeneration of the Holy Spirit (not the *I* in tulip as you insist) in order to then accept Christ. The *I* means that once that regeneration occurs, it is impossible for them not to accept Christ

How is the different than what I said, it sounds Identical to me yet you say I have some how misrepresented you belief.

There is no "like it or not" you will be saved. Nobody is saved against their will. Nobody is dragged kicking and screaming into heaven, nobody is forced to reject Christ who wanted to accept him.

I'm a Calvinist, I should know what I believe, and if you dont understand, then stop acting like you do. If you do understand then stop deliberately misrepresenting them.

So you are saying we can choose to resist God's grace if we wanted to? And you are saying all men are giving opportunity to be saved? If not, then you believe exactly as I believe you believe. If you do not believe as I think you do, then explain to me what it is you do believe about limited atonement and Irresistable grace

Ezekiel33, I responded to you concerning this issue back on page 4, and all you did was quote me but not respond, yet now you have re-opened the discussion. I believe the answer you're looking for can be answered with that post:

"No sinner ever makes himself choose God and His holiness. It is God who chooses us. Calvinists believe God's election is unconditional and sovereign. John 15:16 "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain." Here is an example of God's election; Romans 9:11-13: "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated;" and verse 16: "So then, it is not of him that: willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."

It is not the Calvinist viewpoint that we make no decisions or that we cannot accept Christ. Although, it is true that no one can accept Christ on our own, and even non-Calvinists believe that."

you can claim this teaching is not what the calvinist teach but the reality is even you believe he has carried the teaching to far, his beliefs stem from a calvinistic view of the gospel.

If someone misinterprets a belief and carries it the extreme, how is that the fault of the actual teachings?

Didn't say it was the calvinist fault. I said that is where he got his ideas from. Calvinism itself is off base but if you will not claim the teachings of this guy I will not say it is your fault any way.

I haven't accepted it, nor am I trying to get anyone else to accept it. (I know you are not accusing; just making a clarification statement.) However, you had some false understanding of Calvinism. You stopped pursuing your understanding of it with me after I posted the explanation, so I thought you at least realized what their position is until you started debating a Calvinist (LadyRaven) on what she believes. As I said, I don't want to debate the position since I don't hold to the belief, but I'm wanting to insure you understand what it is they actually believe and not a misconception of it. Do you have any more questions on what their beliefs are?

[Axxman]

He isn't my only leader. Sometimes I am his leader also.

You keep saying these things...and I keep asking you to back up things with scripture...which you never do.

[mrs]

Why do i find a consistent pattern of there being one off base or inflammatory person that latches on to every thread and takes people round and round in circles?

[LadyRaven]

So you are saying we can choose to resist God's grace if we wanted to? And you are saying all men are giving opportunity to be saved? If not, then you believe exactly as I believe you believe. If you do not believe as I think you do, then explain to me what it is you do believe about limited atonement and Irresistable grace

As to your last few statements, "if...then", you need to understand that I and only I have the right to state if my views are in agreement with your presented understanding of them, not YOU. You have every right to claim that you dont understand what I am saying or how it is in disagreement with what you have stated, but you dont have the right to define my belief for me. As I stated before, based on the wording you have chosen to use, it is quite reasonable to assume that you do not even understand what Calvinism IS, much less have any authority to draw conclusions about it.

To the question that I made bold, I do believe that if we wanted to we could resist God's grace. I believe that is a moot point, however, because what needs to be asked is...would we want to? To the Calvinist, before the work of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, when the ears and eyes of man are opened, we just dont want to accept it. So we wont. After the heart is regenerated and the eyes and ears of man are opened, we will not refuse it because we just do not wish to reject it.

As to the next question, that needs to be defined.

Is the offer made to all men universally? Yes, like the Arminian does, the true Calvinist believes that it is offered to each and every man, woman and child on earth. And, like the Arminian believes, the Calvinist believes that unregenerate man cannot understand, hear or accept it without the help of the Holy Spirit. The difference between the Calvinist and Arminian is HOW and WHEN the Holy Spirit helps the unbeliever, WHAT FORM that help takes and HOW EFFECTIVE that help is once it is given to the unbeliever.

The Arminian view is universally that the gospel can be refused and therefore that help is not universally effective, in the theological sense.

There is disagreement in the Arminian Camp as to HOW and WHEN the grace of God is made available to the unbeliever and in WHAT FORM that help takes. Therefore, to keep it short, I'll just state that, in contrast to most Arminian views, the Calvinist believe that the help of the Holy Spirit that is made to the unbeliever is in the form of a grace that opens the eyes, ears and understanding of the gospel and in the form of a circumcised heart that is no longer hardened to God. It results in a person with a nature alive, a nature that genuinely wishes to follow God, repent, receive salvation, and experience life under grace. This help is given before the decision is made and is, logically, the cause of that decision.

The Hypercalvinist, on the other hand believes that the offer is not made by God to all men and not only this, should not therefore be made to all men by the church.

Once the offer is made to all men universally, is the ability to accept that offer given to all men universally?

The Calvinist would answer this as a 'no' because, logically, it would lead to universal salvation (a doctrine the Bible clearly contradicts) as the Calvinist also believes that once a man's eyes and ears are opened, that man will completely desire God and accept the offer in all cases because the will of man has been changed so profoundly that the 'old man' (the unregenerate man) is 'dead.' This new man cannot comprehend or desire a life without God, he genuinely desires to be saved and will completely accept the gospel as a personal choice.

The Hypercalvinist thinks that this is a stupid question because the offer isn't made to all men universally in the first place.

The Arminian camp is divided on this issue. Some do believe that the offer is given to all, some do not. And once that offer is given, man can reject it.

Hypercalvinism is not Calvinism, it is heresy and it also has no basis even in the reformed faith, although those who are not Calvinist have stuck the label there and it stuck for some reason. I do know know why you insist on misrepresenting the teachings of the reformed faith, but I'll spell it out once again.

The T in tulip means that the human being is dead in sin that he cannot accept Christ on his own and needs the regeneration of the Holy Spirit (not the *I* in tulip as you insist) in order to then accept Christ. The *I* means that once that regeneration occurs, it is impossible for them not to accept Christ

How is the different than what I said, it sounds Identical to me yet you say I have some how misrepresented you belief.

It is the difference between cause of something and the nature of the means used to cause the thing desired. The regeneration of the Holy Spirit is the cause of the acceptance of the gospel, not the irresistible grace. Grace is a means by which that regeneration is accomplished and the term "Irresistible Grace" describes the EFFECT and NATURE of that grace. Regeneration is what the Holy Spirit does, Grace is HOW it is done, and 'irresistible" is what that grace is like/what effect it has.

[LadyRaven]

you can claim this teaching is not what the calvinist teach but the reality is even you believe he has carried the teaching to far, his beliefs stem from a calvinistic view of the gospel.

This is neither historically or theologically a correct statement.

These are the hallmarks of hypercalvinism and all of them are antithetical to true Calvinism. They are not perversions or stretches of Calvinist teachings, nor are they logical conclusions based upon them.

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

4. Denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal, OR

5. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR

6. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

"Hyper-Calvinism" is not actually a proper theological term or a proper name for a heresy. Most titles for theological systems or heretical deviations tend to relate to the person who described it (Calvinism, Arminianism...or Marcionism), a dictionary definition of a concept (predestination vs free-will or...gnosticism) or a time in history (Reformation theology). The term Hyper-Calvinism is instead a pejorative term. It alleges a semblance of Calvinism, but the problem is that it has nothing whatever to do with Calvinism. To non-Calvinists, Calvinism is a pejorative term in and of itself, and there is so little understanding of what Calvinism actually teaches that when a new teaching arose among a minority group of English Particular Baptists in the mid 1770s, people named it "hyper-Calvinism."

In fact, this theological system should have been named Skeppism, Particular Proclamation or something similar and has as much to do with Arminianism as it does to Calvinism at it's base. While the hyper-Calvinist and the Calvinist would agree that Romans 3:10-18, John 3:19-21, and Romans 8:6-8 teach that man, in his natural fallen state is completely unable to understand, desire or accept the salvation that he would need in order to love God and attain eternal life, the hyper-Calvinist and the Arminian would agree (against the Calvinist) that man's ability and responsibility are related so that if you are responsible, you must be able. If you do not have the ability to do something, you have no duty to it.

Men like John Skepp, Lewis Wayman, John Brind and Joseph Hussey began teaching that one should not teach or call unbelievers to repent and believe the gospel because they are unable and thus not obligated to do so. Article 26 of the "Articles of Faith of the Gospel Standard Aid and Poor Relief Societies (Leicester, England: Oldham & Manton Ltd., n.d.). states, "We deny duty faith and duty repentance

[LadyRaven]

Actually if you check out post 90 you will see that although she claim i misrepresented calvinism she went on to explain it exactly the way I did. I understand what she said and I believe her when she says that is what they believe.

No, if you do not understand that they are different then you did not understand what I said at all.

[speckles]

you can claim this teaching is not what the calvinist teach but the reality is even you believe he has carried the teaching to far, his beliefs stem from a calvinistic view of the gospel.

This is neither historically or theologically a correct statement.

These are the hallmarks of hypercalvinism and all of them are antithetical to true Calvinism. They are not perversions or stretches of Calvinist teachings, nor are they logical conclusions based upon them.

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

4. Denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal, OR

5. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR

6. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

"Hyper-Calvinism" is not actually a proper theological term or a proper name for a heresy. Most titles for theological systems or heretical deviations tend to relate to the person who described it (Calvinism, Arminianism...or Marcionism), a dictionary definition of a concept (predestination vs free-will or...gnosticism) or a time in history (Reformation theology). The term Hyper-Calvinism is instead a pejorative term. It alleges a semblance of Calvinism, but the problem is that it has nothing whatever to do with Calvinism. To non-Calvinists, Calvinism is a pejorative term in and of itself, and there is so little understanding of what Calvinism actually teaches that when a new teaching arose among a minority group of English Particular Baptists in the mid 1770s, people named it "hyper-Calvinism."

In fact, this theological system should have been named Skeppism, Particular Proclamation or something similar and has as much to do with Arminianism as it does to Calvinism at it's base. While the hyper-Calvinist and the Calvinist would agree that Romans 3:10-18, John 3:19-21, and Romans 8:6-8 teach that man, in his natural fallen state is completely unable to understand, desire or accept the salvation that he would need in order to love God and attain eternal life, the hyper-Calvinist and the Arminian would agree (against the Calvinist) that man's ability and responsibility are related so that if you are responsible, you must be able. If you do not have the ability to do something, you have no duty to it.

Men like John Skepp, Lewis Wayman, John Brind and Joseph Hussey began teaching that one should not teach or call unbelievers to repent and believe the gospel because they are unable and thus not obligated to do so. Article 26 of the "Articles of Faith of the Gospel Standard Aid and Poor Relief Societies (Leicester, England: Oldham & Manton Ltd., n.d.). states, "We deny duty faith and duty repentance

[LadyRaven]

HyperCalvinism started out with the Baptists? Who woulda thunk it. Not me, that's for sure. Funny though, as it doesn't resemble the teachings of any baptists i know. Wonder how it happened.

If you had 5 Baptists in a room you might have 6 different opinions...because the way I understand it, the defining doctrine of the Baptists is adult baptism of the believer. I am not sure there are any other defining doctrines common to all of them. I found some of the Baptist Brands listed in Charitow's post to be rather humorous though.

Like:

Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists

(As opposed to the grumpy stand-offish ones?)

Primitive Baptists

(I picture whole congregations in loin cloths for some reason)

Regular Baptist Churches

(As opposed to the irregular, strange ones?)

Separate Baptist

Separate Baptists in Christ

(They separated and then separated again I guess)

Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists

(Um, yeah...)

Some Baptists are Calvinists (Reformed baptists, sovereign grace baptists, the Founders, for example, I know there are more I just dont know what they are all called) and some are very Arminian (Free-Will Baptists, Wesleyan Baptist, and I believe Missionary Baptists are too). It might be true that most Baptists are not Calvinist, but it's hard to say on this one.

[speckles]

So, Let's suppose that drayden's hubby is a hypercalvinist. Then what? I mean, how does she follow the scriptural teachings about submission without submitting to heresy? I'm not sure that just submitting in other areas and running off to another church is the answer, cause the scripture also says to submit to an unbelieving husband and wouldn't a heretic qualify?

[Guest Biblicist]

"You wives must submit to your husbands' leadership in the same way you submit to the Lord. For a husband is in charge of his wife in the same way Christ is in charge of his body, the church...So you wives must willingly obey your husbands in everything, just as the church obeys Christ...and the wife must see to it that she deeply respects her husband - obeying, praising, and honoring him." (Eph. 5:22-24,33) The Living Bible

This applies to Godly marriages.

No it doesn't. This verse makes no distinction.

However, this section of verses does.

1 Peter 3:1 Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives,

2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.

3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.

4 Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight.

5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands,

6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

I have a very dear friend who can attest to the fact that submitting to an unbelieving husband will bring him to the Lord. In His time, in His manner.

There are no variables in submitting to one's husband. We are commanded to submit. Period.