Pristine Grace
Page 1 of 4 1 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 75

Thread: A Few Thoughts on Hyper Calvinism

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    86
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    A Few Thoughts on Hyper Calvinism

    A Few Thoughts on Hyper Calvinism

    James White


    The following exchange took place around the year 2000. If I am recalling correctly, an unsolicited e-mail arrived with a large "cc" list of people. As you will see, my initial response was very brief, because I learned long ago that these kinds of impromptu e-mail lists will suck the life right out of you if you let them. False teachers have, seemingly, unlimited time resources. In any case, when the reply came, I did invest a few moments to type out a few thoughts I have had on the subject of the demands of hyper-Calvinists. I hope they are useful to others as well.

    ******

    The person who wrote this (below) does not see the MAIN work of the Devil.
    The Devil works in FALSE RELIGION. It is his goal to keep people in false
    religious refuges of self-righteousness. The work of the Devil is to keep
    people believing that salvation is conditioned on the sinner in any way to
    any degree. The work of the Devil is to get people into churches where the
    false gospel is preached. The work of the Devil is to keep people believing
    that Jesus Christ died for all persons without exception, thus keeping them
    believing that the difference between heaven and hell is not the work of
    Christ alone but is the work of man.

    The work of the Devil is to keep false religionists focused on fighting the
    immorality of the day, such as gambling, abortion, assisted suicide,
    homosexuality, taking God out of schools (as if He were ever in there to
    begin with), drugs, and pornography, thinking that fighting these things
    proves that one is a child of God -- whereas God says that everything that
    false religionists do (even their morality and sincerity) is an abomination
    in the sight of God.

    What is more wicked:

    (1) Two homosexuals in a gay bar singing homosexual songs

    or

    (2) A married Arminian couple (man and wife) who have always been faithful
    to each other sitting in an Arminian church singing hymns?

    Lost religionists have no idea that BOTH of these are an abomination in the
    sight of God. They do not realize that ALL who are going about to establish
    a righteousness of their own (which includes ALL Arminians) are lost. They
    do not believe the gospel of salvation conditioned SOLELY on the atoning
    blood and imputed righteousness of Christ. They are ignorant of the
    righteousness of God revealed in the gospel (Romans 10:3). They are haters
    of God. They are just as filthy and wicked as those who are engaged in
    open, gross immorality.

    Homosexuality, abortion, and pornography are most certainly wicked, but what
    did Jesus say about the moral self-righteous religionists in relation to the
    wicked immoral sodomites?

    "BUT I SAY TO YOU, IT WILL BE MORE TOLERABLE FOR THE LAND OF SODOM IN
    JUDGMENT DAY THAN FOR YOU." (Matthew 11:24)

    While all these self-righteous religionists who believe in salvation
    conditioned on the sinner are condemning sodomy, they do not realize that it
    will be more tolerable for the sodomites in the day of judgment than for
    them.

    Soli Deo Gloria,

    Marc D. Carpenter
    www.outsidethecamp.org

    __________

    [James White then wrote:]

    I am reminded by this kind of rhetoric that even God's truth can be
    professed without love and without balance.

    I feel for anyone who thinks themselves to have such a perfect understanding
    of all things that they can make the comparison made above. Most of the
    folks I know in Reformed churches once stood and sang hymns without a full
    knowledge of the doctrines of grace: to compare them to two homosexuals is
    simply sad.

    God protect us all from imbalance.

    James

    __________

    [I then wrote:]

    James White said:
    <<I am reminded by this kind of rhetoric that even God's truth can be
    professed without love and without balance.>>

    In the mind of most professing Calvinists who speak peace to Arminians,
    "love" and "balance" include speaking peace when there is no peace, saying
    that one who is ignorant of righteousness of God revealed in the gospel is a
    brother in Christ, and saying that those who believe in salvation
    conditioned on the sinner are saved. This shows that these professing
    Calvinists do not know what the true gospel is. What they call "love" and
    "balance" God calls Satanic. Those who defend or excuse God-haters show
    themselves to be God-haters. True love will tell the unregenerate that they
    are lost and their deeds are evil, in hopes that they will seek the remedy.
    To promote a lost religionist in his false refuge is actually HATRED and is
    promoting his eternal destruction. I am not saying this to be mean or
    unloving; I say this hoping that both Arminians and tolerant "Calvinists"
    will believe the true gospel of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood
    and imputed righteousness of Christ alone and repent of dead works and
    idolatry, including repenting of speaking peace to those who worship a god
    who cannot save.

    The gospel is the good news of salvation based on the atoning blood and
    imputed righteousness of Christ alone. In the gospel, the righteousness of
    God is revealed (Romans 1:17). Anyone who believes that any part of
    salvation is
    conditioned on the sinner (which includes all Arminians) is lost. Those who
    do not believe the gospel (which includes all Arminians) are
    lost (Mark 16:16). Those who are ignorant of the righteousness of God
    revealed in the gospel (which includes all Arminians) are lost (Romans
    10:3). This is not saying that
    believing the true gospel is a prerequisite to salvation; it is saying that
    when God regenerates someone, He glorifies Himself by causing that person to
    believe the true gospel of salvation based on the blood and imputed
    righteousness of Christ. There are not many paths to God; there is only one.
    And if anyone preaches another gospel, let him be accursed (Galatians
    1:8-9). If anyone does not abide in the doctrine of Christ, he does not have
    God (2 John 9). If anyone will speak peace to one who believes a false
    gospel, then he, too, is evil (2 John 11). God is glorified in the salvation
    of sinners when He manifests all His redemptive glory to their hearts. He
    will not have His saved ones spit in the face of His Son and dishonor His
    redemptive glory.


    I am also willing to correspond with any of you who would like to discuss
    this.

    Soli Deo Gloria,

    Marc

    __________

    [James White then wrote:]

    Greetings:

    I generally do not participate in massive "cc" e-mails where dozens of
    people who have not requested the original e-mail, nor the replies, are
    involved. As I look through list of folks, however, I see many I know, many
    who are friends and acquaintances. (Indeed, I'm glad to get the e-mails of
    a number of you I didn't have before!). So I will make one response to this
    hyper-Calvinistic presentation simply because I believe it needs to be
    refuted. Hyper-Calvinism does those of us who are historic Calvinists no
    good: indeed, many who will not even talk to us about the sovereignty of
    God's grace do so because hyper-Calvinists have added *perfection of
    understanding* to the gospel as *the* standard of salvation itself and they
    assume that we, likewise, hold such a position.


    =====James White said:
    <<I am reminded by this kind of rhetoric that even God's truth can be
    professed without love and without balance.>>

    In the mind of most professing Calvinists who speak peace to Arminians,
    "love" and "balance" include speaking peace when there is no peace, saying
    that one who is ignorant of righteousness of God revealed in the gospel is a
    brother in Christ, and saying that those who believe in salvation
    conditioned on the sinner are saved. This shows that these professing
    Calvinists do not know what the true gospel is. What they call "love" and
    "balance" God calls Satanic. Those who defend or excuse God-haters show
    themselves to be God-haters.=====

    Let's consider well what is being said here. If you do not make perfection
    of understanding an addition to the gospel, you are "speaking peace" to an
    Arminian. I have no idea how recognizing the simple truth that one does not
    have to have perfection of understanding to have eternal life is to be
    confused with "speaking peace" to a belief that, from looking at the list,
    most everyone reading this exchange would admit is in significant error on
    many points. I do no speak peace to Arminianism. Anyone who knows me knows
    this. I would not have dedicated the past nine radio programs we produce
    through our ministry to a refutation of Norman Geisler's new anti-Reformed
    book _Chosen But Free_ if I was "speaking peace" to Arminianism.
    Recognizing that one can have traditions in their thinking that are not
    biblical and still be a Christian is not the same as "speaking peace" to
    falsehood. My goodness, do we not *all* have such traditions? If
    perfection is the standard *to be saved,* who of us actually is? Are
    hyper-Calvinists claiming to have no traditions, to have a perfection of
    understanding in all matters? I fear those who make such claims.

    Most on this list I would assume came to understand the doctrines of grace
    through a process: a breaking, difficult process, one that has, for many of
    us, cost us dearly. But it was not that PROCESS that saved us. It seems
    that some would have us to believe that God births no children, but only
    mature adults, in the kindgom, in the sense that unless you have a
    full-orbed, perfect understanding of the relationship of all parts of the
    gospel to each other that you do not, in fact, know Christ. I am so
    thankful that is transparently false.

    Seemingly we are likewise being told that the "Arminian" is ignorant of the
    righteousness of God and trusting in salvation "conditioned" upon
    themselves. I suppose a hard-core, convinced Arminian might well believe
    those things, and I for one would believe that such a faith is not likely
    genuine. But I've met very FEW such people. The vast majority of those I
    meet who have difficulty with the doctrines of grace do so out of ignorance,
    not malice or rebellion. And what do we do with them? The previous message
    likened a couple singing hymns in an "Arminian church" to two homosexuals in
    a bar. Such a concept makes no place for the simple truth of IGNORANCE.
    How many do you we all know who are simply untaught and unaware, blanketed
    by layers of evangelical tradition? Are we seriously to call such a person
    a God-hater? Because they were converted to Christ within an imperfect
    fellowship (gracious, who is converted to Christ within a perfect one?), are
    we to make our OWN understanding and practices an ADDITION to the gospel so
    that they remain in their sins, and are, in fact, God-haters?

    What seems ironic is that our hyper-Calvinistic friends will say they
    believe it takes an act of grace to bring a person to an understanding of
    such issues as sovereignty, providence, election, and depravity: yet, they
    will tell God that He MUST give this grace *on their timetable* and none
    else. The idea that God can bring a person over time to come to understand
    fully what it means to truly believe "you have not chosen Me, but I have
    chosen you" has no place in the rigorous, and sadly unloving, world of the
    hyper-Calvinist.


    =====True love will tell the unregenerate that they
    are lost and their deeds are evil, in hopes that they will seek the
    remedy.=====

    Of course: but in the hyper-Calvinistic view that assumes that to be
    regenerated one must have memorized Pink's _Sovereignty of God_ or some
    other such standard. I was converted to Christ as a youth: a very young
    youth in fact. I wouldn't have understood the terms "reprobation" or
    "predestination," but I did understand sin, love, and Jesus' dying. It
    seems that possibly the hyper-Calvinist confuses the tremendous necessity
    that I hope we all feel to honor God by the proclamation of the *entirety*
    of God's truth (I preached on particular redemption just this morning in
    fact) and the constant effort to bring people to a full understanding of
    these vital issues with the fact that God can, to borrow from one of my
    fellow elders, draw a straight line with a crooked stick. God is not
    dependent upon the perfection of OUR understanding in bringing regeneration
    to the heart: and unless you are ready to say that the Apostles preached
    that the object of saving faith included all five points, in clarity,
    perfection, and completeness, right from the start, you have a problem. I
    do have to wonder why Titus had to teach and preach these truths (Titus
    2:11-15) if, in fact, every Christian who had saving faith already knew them
    implicitly?


    =====To promote a lost religionist in his false refuge is actually HATRED
    and is
    promoting his eternal destruction. I am not saying this to be mean or
    unloving; I say this hoping that both Arminians and tolerant "Calvinists"
    will believe the true gospel of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood
    and imputed righteousness of Christ alone and repent of dead works and
    idolatry, including repenting of speaking peace to those who worship a god
    who cannot save.=====

    And it is my hope that our hyper-Calvinist friends will come to realize that
    they need to let God bring His children to a full understanding of His truth
    in His time, not theirs. I can reject such rhetoric because I am consistent
    on this point: I do not compromise the Reformed faith in the face of
    opposition (anyone who has attended my live, public debates against Roman
    Catholics on Long Island, for example, knows what I mean): but I likewise do
    not insist that one of the divine gifts given in regeneration is perfection
    of theology. God has, in His wisdom, set certain standards: I do not
    believe that a faith that does not include repentance from sin and trust in
    Christ as Savior saves. I don't believe faith as propounded by Rome, for
    example, saves. But it is a simple matter of imbalance to then fly to the
    other side and demand *perfection* of faith as the standard. Indeed, I
    learned this week, while preparing for the ministry of the Word, more about
    the wonderful work of Christ in our behalf: does that mean I had an
    imperfect faith yesterday, and a perfect faith today? Did I "get saved"
    this week because my understanding is better now than it was before? I
    don't believe so.

    I will close with this: in God's gracious providence I've had the
    opportunity of writing about the doctrines of grace in a couple of books
    that have, in His will, gotten into the hands of folks all across the world.
    Just yesterday a fellow called into our radio program from England to talk
    about some issues. One of the things he noted was that until he had
    encountered our website and my tapes, he had been a garden-variety Arminian.
    But, though he went through some sleepless nights, he now sees the truth of
    the doctrines of grace. Is someone asking me to believe that when he first
    encountered my writings this Englishman, though professing faith in Christ,
    was an enemy of God, a rebel in his sins, but, once he accepted what I had
    to say, he was regenerated? Regenerated men seek out such material and give
    it a hearing? You see, if one takes that position (and I can't see how our
    hyper-Calvinistic correspondent wouldn't fit in this category), one is
    forced to assert that in point of fact it was not the gospel message that
    converted this man, but a sudden growth in his understanding of the
    relationship of certain elements. Such is simply untenable.

    Balance, my friends. It is a difficult thing to maintain. It takes grace,
    maturity, experience. May God be pleased to give us all spirits that are
    steadfast and balanced, always tempered by love and a recognition that there
    is not a single person reading this note who can honestly say that he or she
    has a perfect and complete understanding of all there is to know of God's
    grace and truth.

    James

  2. #2
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,823
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    121
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    70
    Thanked in
    45 Posts

    Re: A Few Thoughts on Hyper Calvinism

    I didn't see any problem with Marc's letter and I would hardly call that hyper-calvinism. In fact, I'd have to say Mr. Carpenter was right on! I'm sad to see Mr. White didn't agree.
    This is my signature.

  3. #3
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    50
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    99
    Thanked in
    49 Posts

    Re: A Few Thoughts on Hyper Calvinism

    Are you honestly suggesting, Brandan, that Mr. White had NO valid points in his evaluation of Carpenter? I agree that many points are weak, however, blanket approval of Carpenter as opposed to his critics is not objective. We must avoid unholy reverence of any man's views.

    I also believe most of Marc's points, however, I know that he has a larger agenda that is not honestly stated in these letters. He subscribes to 'eternal law' philosophy in his view of the atonement--believing that those (such as myself) who have other convictions on it are lost. That is only one example of his falsehoods. Although many of the arguments in this letter are 'smooth' and certainly biblical, they only focus on agreement with a Dutch acronym (the 'L' in Limited Atonement--which really should be termed 'Definite (not limited) Atonement') and ignore other critical aspects of the gospel.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  4. #4
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,823
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    121
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    70
    Thanked in
    45 Posts

    Re: A Few Thoughts on Hyper Calvinism

    Quote Originally Posted by BillTwisse
    Are you honestly suggesting, Brandan, that Mr. White had NO valid points in his evaluation of Carpenter? I agree that many points are weak, however, blanket approval of Carpenter as opposed to his critics is not objective. We must avoid unholy reverence of any man's views.
    Not at all. However, I don't think his objections can be derived from that letter - but from further examination of his other teachings. I don't hold Carpenter in any esteem whatsoever and believe he has actually caused harm to the body of Christ with his divisive attacks on good Christians. But White, if he was going to critique Carpenter, chose a poor example of Carpenter's literature to write about.
    This is my signature.

  5. #5
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,823
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    121
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    70
    Thanked in
    45 Posts

    Re: A Few Thoughts on Hyper Calvinism

    Went back and re-read and realize that Marc blew it --- LOL. Mr. White was asking for it, but Marc went off again into his tolerant calvinism junk. Don't think for an instant that I'm on Carpenter's side with his anti tolerant calvinism agenda. It has to be the weirdest thing I've ever seen - so many other more crucial gospel doctrines are being ignored by him. However, his initial letter was pretty good.
    This is my signature.

  6. #6
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    50
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    99
    Thanked in
    49 Posts

    Re: A Few Thoughts on Hyper Calvinism

    Yes, my friend, I understand completely and everything is good. I had one of those 'moments of shaking' in my spirit and it was simply expressed in what I said. I know it sounded accusatory and for that I apologize.

    I have a difficult time with any revered teacher who eloquently makes use of gospel language in all that is said--but still indulges in self-exaltation as a judge over the regeneration of other professed Christians. And there are certainly names I could give besides the individual we were discusing. I don't see this attitude at all in the apostles of Christ. Paul lived to see many men betray his gospel and become the very foundation of Antichrist--men whom he formerly trusted as leaders and stewards of that same gospel. Peter was gracious in dealing with Simon the magician, even though he probably knew that Simon was reprobate. The apostles were cautious in accusing other men before God and we should be also.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Few Thoughts on Hyper Calvinism

    frankly, i'm a bit sick of hearing about marc carpenter and his heresies. and i'm a bit disappointed by the following he seems to have even around these parts. i think james white definitely had many valid points and what is comes down to is just what he said--"balance." from observing the carpenterites i think i'd agree with white that what is basically going on is a certain level of immaturity in the faith with rhetoric very similar to that of independent separatist fundamentalists. and the end result will be the same as them--in their mind the only ones who will be in heaven will be themselves and anyone who agrees with them. they will isolate themselves from the rest of the world and not let anyone else in. to me it sounds very similar to the pharisees:

    Mt 23:13 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

    Lk 11:52 "Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves did not enter, and you hindered those who were entering."

    i'm personally tiring of this rhetoric being spread around these boards and have had the inclination to leave the forums several times because of it (and i know others here who feel the same way). those are my few thoughts on hyper calvinism and the carpenterite version of it.
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  8. #8
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,823
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    121
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    70
    Thanked in
    45 Posts

    Re: A Few Thoughts on Hyper Calvinism

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple
    frankly, i'm a bit sick of hearing about marc carpenter and his heresies. and i'm a bit disappointed by the following he seems to have even around these parts.
    I am surprised he even has a following! He has anathamatized just about everyone! LOL He doesn't disturb me all that much (he says I'm unregenerate, but my assurance isn't based on Mr. Carpenter's opinion of me) and I do think he's a Christian. But he's way off base on a lot of topics. His number one problem is not so much his beliefs, but his wrathful approach to others. I don't know his heart, but it does appear that he is more inclined to anathamatize rather than take an individual aside and speak the truth lovingly. Certainly there are times for name-calling, but balance needs to be maintained.

    I can understand how Mr. Carpenter has ended up in his situation - (no fellowship) and come to believe he and just a few others are the only true Christians. There is so much HERESY out there and so much JUNK even in "calvinistic" circles, it's easy to turn your back on the whole lot of it.
    This is my signature.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    593
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Few Thoughts on Hyper Calvinism

    Carpenter has, in my opinion, brought an important truth of Scripture to the forefront, which the vast majority of professors neglect. And that is the issue of peace speaking. But he has drawn some hasty conclusions from a superficial reading of 2John 9-11. But the issue he has brought to light is important nonetheless.


    Harald

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Few Thoughts on Hyper Calvinism

    White's response is riddled with gospel falsehoods and straw men.

    White labels Carpenter's assertions "hyper-calvinism". This is clearly an attempt to redefine the term to mean something that it does not, and/or an attempt to marginalize/smear Carpenter's positions to be "extreme" and "outside orthodoxy".


    James White:
    So I will make one response to this hyper-Calvinistic presentation simply because I believe it needs to be refuted. Hyper-Calvinism does those of us who are historic Calvinists no good: indeed, many who will not even talk to us about the sovereignty of God's grace do so because hyper-Calvinists have added *perfection of understanding* to the gospel as *the* standard of salvation itself and they assume that we, likewise, hold such a position.


    Here White asserts that those who insist that the gospel must be and will be understood by every regenerated soul, that these people are getting in the way of spreading the gospel. Yes the true gospel will meet with opposition, yes you will be reviled. So his position is since understood truth is not important, don't create roadblocks by asserting it. This attack on the truth does not come from one born of the truth.



    James White:
    Let's consider well what is being said here. If you do not make perfection of understanding an addition to the gospel, you are "speaking peace" to an Arminian. I have no idea how recognizing the simple truth that one does not have to have perfection of understanding to have eternal life is to be confused with "speaking peace" to a belief that, from looking at the list, most everyone reading this exchange would admit is in significant error on many points.


    White sets up a straw man by falsely asserting that Carpenter is saying a person must have "perfection of understanding" in addition to the gospel. White's "gospel" consists of no definable truth, so in his view he is not speaking peace.



    James White:
    I do no speak peace to Arminianism. Anyone who knows me knows this. I would not have dedicated the past nine radio programs we produce through our ministry to a refutation of Norman Geisler's new anti-Reformed book _Chosen But Free_ if I was "speaking peace" to Arminianism.


    But White does speak peace, since he only considers Arminianism as "in significant error on
    many points", but not damnable heresy. He considers some arminians as spiritual brethern, therefore if even one person can be regenerate (according to White) and remain as an arminian, then this becomes his gospel boundry. The toleration exposes the boundry.



    James White:
    Recognizing that one can have traditions in their thinking that are not biblical and still be a Christian is not the same as "speaking peace" to falsehood. My goodness, do we not *all* have such traditions? If perfection is the standard *to be saved,* who of us actually is? Are hyper-Calvinists claiming to have no traditions, to have a perfection of understanding in all matters? I fear those who make such claims.

    Here he continues with the false assertion of perfectionism, something that is not being stated by Carpenter.


    James White:
    Most on this list I would assume came to understand the doctrines of grace through a process: a breaking, difficult process, one that has, for many of us, cost us dearly. But it was not that PROCESS that saved us. It seems that some would have us to believe that God births no children, but only mature adults, in the kindgom, in the sense that unless you have a full-orbed, perfect understanding of the relationship of all parts of the gospel to each other that you do not, in fact, know Christ. I am so thankful that is transparently false.

    White correctly states most reformed folks came to the position through a process. And this is the very reason why most reformed folks are still ignorant of the gospel, since they view these truths as something to be arrived at later, through deeper study. Since these truths are not essential (according to most "reformed"), it really doesn't matter if you understand them or not. Anyone who has had the gospel revealed knows these truths are essential, and those holding doctrine opposed to even one point, have not been regenerated.


    James White:
    Seemingly we are likewise being told that the "Arminian" is ignorant of the righteousness of God and trusting in salvation "conditioned" upon themselves. I suppose a hard-core, convinced Arminian might well believe those things, and I for one would believe that such a faith is not likely genuine. But I've met very FEW such people.

    The very definition of arminianism absolutely must condition salvation on themselves, otherwise it would not be arminianism. By White saying hard core arminians are "not likely" genuine, he leaves the door open that they MIGHT be regenerate. Again toleration exposes his gospel boundry, and he partakes of their idolatry.


    James White:
    The vast majority of those I meet who have difficulty with the doctrines of grace do so out of ignorance, not malice or rebellion. And what do we do with them? The previous message likened a couple singing hymns in an "Arminian church" to two homosexuals in a bar. Such a concept makes no place for the simple truth of IGNORANCE.

    Ignorance is always associated with lostness, truth is always associated with salvation.


    James White:
    How many do you we all know who are simply untaught and unaware, blanketed by layers of evangelical tradition? Are we seriously to call such a person a God-hater? Because they were converted to Christ within an imperfect fellowship (gracious, who is converted to Christ within a perfect one?), are we to make our OWN understanding and practices an ADDITION to the gospel so that they remain in their sins, and are, in fact, God-haters?

    False "Christian" sects, look very devout, speak a lot of bible language, AND ARE GOD HATERS!


    James White:
    What seems ironic is that our hyper-Calvinistic friends will say they believe it takes an act of grace to bring a person to an understanding of such issues as sovereignty, providence, election, and depravity: yet, they will tell God that He MUST give this grace *on their timetable* and none
    else. The idea that God can bring a person over time to come to understand fully what it means to truly believe "you have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you" has no place in the rigorous, and sadly unloving, world of the hyper-Calvinist.


    Yes God saves His people in His timetable, and gives them an understanding of the truth. His people are indwelt by the Spirit of Truth. He does not leave them in gross idolatry, but saves them from it, by the TRUTH! "the sadly unloving, world of the "hyper-calvinist", an attempt at smearing and false labeling.


    James White:
    Of course: but in the hyper-Calvinistic view that assumes that to be regenerated one must have memorized Pink's _Sovereignty of God_ or some other such standard....

    This again is a continuation of the "perfectionism" straw man White continues to build up. It is a slander and falsehood.


    James White:
    ...do have to wonder why Titus had to teach and preach these truths (Titus 2:11-15) if, in fact, every Christian who had saving faith already knew them implicitly?

    A church is always made up of saved and unsaved persons. The truths are preached to edify and convert. Every saved person does know the gospel implicitly. White continues with the "truth-free gospel".


    James White:
    I will close with this: in God's gracious providence I've had the opportunity of writing about the doctrines of grace in a couple of books that have, in His will, gotten into the hands of folks all across the world. Just yesterday a fellow called into our radio program from England to talk about some issues. One of the things he noted was that until he had encountered our website and my tapes, he had been a garden-variety Arminian. But, though he went through some sleepless nights, he now sees the truth of the doctrines of grace. Is someone asking me to believe that when he first encountered my writings this Englishman, though professing faith in Christ,was an enemy of God, a rebel in his sins, but, once he accepted what I had to say, he was regenerated?...


    The Englishman is still dead in his sins as new "calvinist" if he did not consider his former arminian profession as dung, he has never repented. Gospel repentance can only happen if the gospel is applied in power to his heart by the power of God. The fact White doesn't understand this only reveals White's lostness.


    James White:
    Balance, my friends. It is a difficult thing to maintain. It takes grace, maturity, experience. May God be pleased to give us all spirits that are steadfast and balanced, always tempered by love and a recognition that there is not a single person reading this note who can honestly say that he or she has a perfect and complete understanding of all there is to know of God's grace and truth.

    White's responses were neither gracious or balanced, but loaded with false assertions, gospel falsehoods and slanders.

    The greatest heresy today is Arminianism and worst than that, Tolerant Calvinism.

    For the record, I am not a member of OTC. When I see open attacks on the true gospel by great "reformed leaders", it shows what a terrible time we are in.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    286
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Few Thoughts on Hyper Calvinism

    jim2300 is right.


    Bill

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Few Thoughts on Hyper Calvinism

    Quote Originally Posted by whs1
    jim2300 is right.


    Bill
    please refrain from "me too" posts. especially in a thread which almost begs for trolling.

    http://www.5solas.org/media.php?id=313

    Me too posts
    Please try to refrain from short posts that say nothing but, "I agree with you", "Amen", "You took the words of of my mouth", or "What she said." It's ok every once in a while, but please don't make a habit of it.

    No trolling
    Do not post any message for the purpose of causing an uproar, dissension, or strife.
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Few Thoughts on Hyper Calvinism

    interesting comment from http://www.ritchies.net/p1wk7.htm:
    1. This is probably the right place to deal with a question that is probably in many Protestants' minds at this point: how can one be saved, if he does not believe in salvation by faith alone? In other words, if salvation involves (as we believe), renouncing our own righteousness and clinging to Christ's righteousness instead (Philippians 3:2-9), then how can people be saved who explicitly tie salvation to several human works?
    2. The answer (I believe) lies in two complementary principles, one negative and one positive. Really they are two sides of the same basic truth. The negative principle is this: it is always dangerous to tie salvation to the accurate belief and understanding of key doctrines. Salvation is never presented this way in the Bible examples of evangelism, except in the most basic way (cf. Acts 8:37, And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."). The positive principle is this: Salvation is by trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, not by trust in doctrines about the Lord Jesus Christ. In other words, many Christians who believe what they are told by their leaders, and perform many unnecessary "religious" acts, nevertheless trust in the Lord with all their heart and thereby are saved.
    3. I believe that when Christianity ceases to be a matter of the heart, and begins to be an organized religion, then there is always the danger that we will put the formal profession in the place of the heart reality. This is why we will find a much greater percentage of unsaved "Christians" in the R. Catholic Church than in a well-taught, heartfelt Protestant church. But we must remember that every Christian, even one in the most radically Protestant organization, still belongs to an organized religious body, so the danger is always there. The danger is greater, however, when the form of Christianity being observed is full of external symbols which themselves have the appearance of power and authority, and which can draw worshipers (temporarily or permanently) away from Christ and away from salvation.
    here is simply where the carpenterites do not agree with what i'm going to call "mainstream contemporary calvinism." they affirm neither of these principles since there seems to be no allowance for incomplete knowledge/comprehension or progress in knowledge/comprehension of the gospel. what i'm understanding is that one must have a total and complete understanding of TULIP (and its logical implications) in order to be saved.

    they affirm that it is on God's timetable, but they do not affirm that one could be saved without full adherence to and knowledge of TULIP. i wonder if i then was not saved until i heard about TULIP. it took me a long time to embrace L (and i most likely still do not embrace it in precisely the way the carpenterites do)...does this mean then that i wasn't saved until then? i would bet that this is true of most people (that they came to embrace all of the doctrines of grace as a process after embracing Christ). the question is, is salvation the result of an affirmation of the principles of TULIP? does salvation only come to those who immediately and unquestionably embrace every element and implication of TULIP (as interpreted and understood by the carpenterites)? if so, where do we find this insistence in Scripture? where are these syllogisms and logical inferences found in the word of God?
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    383
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Few Thoughts on Hyper Calvinism

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple
    interesting comment from http://www.ritchies.net/p1wk7.htm:
    1. This is probably the right place to deal with a question that is probably in many Protestants' minds at this point: how can one be saved, if he does not believe in salvation by faith alone? In other words, if salvation involves (as we believe), renouncing our own righteousness and clinging to Christ's righteousness instead (Philippians 3:2-9), then how can people be saved who explicitly tie salvation to several human works?
    2. The answer (I believe) lies in two complementary principles, one negative and one positive. Really they are two sides of the same basic truth. The negative principle is this: it is always dangerous to tie salvation to the accurate belief and understanding of key doctrines. Salvation is never presented this way in the Bible examples of evangelism, except in the most basic way (cf. Acts 8:37, And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."). The positive principle is this: Salvation is by trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, not by trust in doctrines about the Lord Jesus Christ. In other words, many Christians who believe what they are told by their leaders, and perform many unnecessary "religious" acts, nevertheless trust in the Lord with all their heart and thereby are saved.
    3. I believe that when Christianity ceases to be a matter of the heart, and begins to be an organized religion, then there is always the danger that we will put the formal profession in the place of the heart reality. This is why we will find a much greater percentage of unsaved "Christians" in the R. Catholic Church than in a well-taught, heartfelt Protestant church. But we must remember that every Christian, even one in the most radically Protestant organization, still belongs to an organized religious body, so the danger is always there. The danger is greater, however, when the form of Christianity being observed is full of external symbols which themselves have the appearance of power and authority, and which can draw worshipers (temporarily or permanently) away from Christ and away from salvation.
    here is simply where the carpenterites do not agree with what i'm going to call "mainstream contemporary calvinism." they affirm neither of these principles since there seems to be no allowance for incomplete knowledge/comprehension or progress in knowledge/comprehension of the gospel. what i'm understanding is that one must have a total and complete understanding of TULIP (and its logical implications) in order to be saved.

    they affirm that it is on God's timetable, but they do not affirm that one could be saved without full adherence to and knowledge of TULIP. i wonder if i then was not saved until i heard about TULIP. it took me a long time to embrace L (and i most likely still do not embrace it in precisely the way the carpenterites do)...does this mean then that i wasn't saved until then? i would bet that this is true of most people (that they came to embrace all of the doctrines of grace as a process after embracing Christ). the question is, is salvation the result of an affirmation of the principles of TULIP? does salvation only come to those who immediately and unquestionably embrace every element and implication of TULIP (as interpreted and understood by the carpenterites)? if so, where do we find this insistence in Scripture? where are these syllogisms and logical inferences found in the word of God?
    .. The web site article above is speaking about doctrine before salvation , not after,The proper understanding is regeneration then Holy Spirit authenticates word to us, you say you have not embraced limited atonement yet,disciple by now you either believe it or you dont,. there is no middle ground where the truth is concerned, How could we be sure of anything and contend for the faith,. if it was like you say above.....Ivor Thomas...

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Few Thoughts on Hyper Calvinism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivor Thomas
    .. The web site article above is speaking about doctrine before salvation , not after,The proper understanding is regeneration then Holy Spirit authenticates word to us,
    i have no idea what you're saying here. perhaps you could clarify. the carpenterites appear to be saying that one cannot be saved unless... and so they are establishing the criteria for salvation, regeneration, conversion, or whatever you want to call it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivor Thomas
    you say you have not embraced limited atonement yet,disciple by now you either believe it or you dont,. there is no middle ground where the truth is concerned, How could we be sure of anything and contend for the faith,. if it was like you say above.....Ivor Thomas...
    perhaps you missed it...here's what i said:

    and i most likely still do not embrace it in precisely the way the carpenterites do

    my point is, i do embrace it, but probably understanding it differently than the carpenterites.
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    286
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Few Thoughts on Hyper Calvinism

    Hey, Disciple,
    I am not a "troll" [what ever that is].

    I am a human being, last time I checked.


    This world is very wicked.



  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Few Thoughts on Hyper Calvinism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivor Thomas
    .. The web site article above is speaking about doctrine before salvation , not after,The proper understanding is regeneration then Holy Spirit authenticates word to us, you say you have not embraced limited atonement yet,disciple by now you either believe it or you dont,. there is no middle ground where the truth is concerned, How could we be sure of anything and contend for the faith,. if it was like you say above.....Ivor Thomas...
    i honestly don't think that this was what the article was speaking about (perhaps you could point out where in the "outline" this distinction is made, i.e., about doctrine before salvation, not after).

    and the question becomes, what is the timetable and what is the standard? the argument seems to be that God regenerates and we should automatically have it all figured out and if one doesn't then they are labelled unregenerate. there doesn't seem to be any allowance for incomplete knowledge (it's all or none) or progress of knowledge (it must be complete and immediate...i.e., there can be no "wrestling" with God over it). i agree with the order of things, but i do not agree on the implications of what you conclude from it. it is an example of non sequitur...the conclusion simply does not follow from the premise. this syllogism involves many false assumptions:

    Minor Premise: God regenerates
    Major Premise: Person A believes
    Conclusion: God immediately and fully imparts all knowledge of TULIP to Person A (if the conclusion is not true then neither premise is true of you)

    what's more about this logic is that we are not really even talking about any particular Scripture but a system of logic which utilizes a systematic theology on soteriology. and this system of logic is not correctly used and layers are heaped upon layers because now not only is that syllogism employed but so is this:

    Minor Premise: Person A doesn't fully believe or understand TULIP yet
    Major Premise: Person B (who purports to believe TULIP) believes Person A may be saved (regenerate)
    Conclusion: Person B is unregenerate

    and not only that but it has been extended thusly:

    Minor Premise: Person C does not believe Person A is saved (regenerate)
    Major Premise: Person C believes Person B may be saved (regenerate)
    Conclusion: Person C is unregenerate

    such a loop of logic results in a hangman's noose. and as far as i'm concerned, that's about all that the carpenterites can use their rhetoric for (figuratively speaking of course). the Scripture is very fitting here:

    1 Tim 6:3 If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, 5 and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain...20 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "knowledge"-- 21 which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith.


    2 Tim 2:14 Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers...But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness,...23 But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivor Thomas
    Hey, Disciple,
    I am not a "troll" [what ever that is].

    I am a human being, last time I checked.


    This world is very wicked.
    trolling is a term for people who roam around forums with the purpose of causing strife and uproars. it's a technical online term.
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    103
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Few Thoughts on Hyper Calvinism

    This is my first post here, so hello everyone!

    I don’t believe that a person is required to know the TULIP in order to become a christian. What I do believe is that the Lord Jesus Christ must get all the glory in salvation, so it must and will be acknowledged and believed that he did it all.

    1 Cor 1:28-31
    28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

    30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

    31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

    If we believe that we had a part in our salvation, then we are not giving all the glory to Christ. We are still glorying in ourselves and robbing Christ of his glory and I don’t believe God will stand for it. The thief on the cross probably didnt understand the TULIP, but I feel sure he did understand that he could do nothing and Christ was his only hope.

    The only way we can believe this is if God reveals it to us, but when he regenerates us, I believe he WILL reveal this truth to us and then will go on to teach us more and more about himself.

    John 14:26
    But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

    I believe that religion today teaches that we have a part in our salvation, that it is NOT all of Christ, but a joint effort between Christ and man. Many people are deceived, believing they are a christian, when in reality they are not --if they are taking credit for any part of their salvation. And also I don't see how a person who knows this truth could stay in a church that says the opposite.

    Every Blessing,
    Carol
    Run John Run! The Law commands,
    But gives me neither feet, nor hands,
    Far grander news the gospel brings,
    It bids me fly, and gives me wings.
    ----John Bunyan

    http://members.cox.net/ckizzz/index

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    593
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Few Thoughts on Hyper Calvinism

    As to Carpenter's view on peace-speaking I would say a few things. Many who do not like what he is saying dislike him most probably because they are sinning in this area. The key passage involved is 2John 9-11. And especially verses 10 and 11. John, the apostle, who by inspiration penned these words, did not have reference to a one time (occurrence of) speaking of peace to a person who does not bring the very doctrine of the Christ. This not to say that a one time speaking of peace to one not bringing Christ's doctrine is harmless. But John did not say that a person was sharing in the evil works of the transgressor if he once spoke a greeting to him. Both the KJV and LITV, which is the version Carpenter appears to use, translate the Greek in such manner that one may think a one time bidding of God speed (v. 10) is in view.

    and do not speak a greeting to him (LITV)

    neither bid him Godspeed (KJV)


    The same goes for "biddeth...Godspeed" (KJV) in v. 11. The key here is v. 11, "biddeth". It appears as that Carpenter's interpretation and consequent teaching hangs on the belief that "biddeth" here speaks about a one time occurence of bidding Godspeed or speaking peace. Consequently he judges men and men (professing such) unregenerate if he sees or hears them even once speak peace to someone he knows holds to a false gospel, false from his point of view. In the sphere of objective reality it may be that some or even many of those he judges unregenerate are so for a fact, but it is not so safe to judge (pass judgment) thus solely based on a one time occurrence of peace speaking which he may have witnessed.
    But in v. 11 John for a fact was inspired to use a present participle, not an aorist (aka "point action") tense. This in turn means that the bidding of Godspeed in v. 11 is pictured by him as not a one time occurrence but rather as something ongoing or habitual. The Textus Receptus (and other editions also) has the words "ho gar legôn autô chairein..." in v. 11 at the beginning. I.e. "For the one saying to him to be rejoicing", literally. But the verb "chairein", an infinitive present active, is also used in the NT to mean "a greeting", so it may just as well be expressed "for the one expressing to him a greeting...". And familiarly spoken "the-one-expressing-to-him-a-greeting" is the same as: a "peace-speaker".

    John authoritatively (v. 10) forbade those he addressed not to be receiving a person not bringing Christ's doctrine "into house". With "into house" I believe he meant a house, building, where they assembled for worship of God. He also forbade them not to be expressing a greeting to the same transgressor. In v. 11 he states that the one expressing a greeting to him (i.e. a habitual peace-speaker) is partaking in his evil or harmful works. John did not say "becomes a partaker" by speaking peace, but that he is already a partaker, that he by his habitual peace-speaking evidences himself as a traitor in the camp of saints.

    Tolerant Calvinists so-called evidence by their habitual and continuous speaking peace to free willers that they in reality have the same mind, albeit the doctrinal system seemingly differs. Yet one of the points where they unite in judgment is most often "sola fide", the teaching made famous and popular by Martin Luther, which is however a falsehood and heresy when examined in Scripture light. Or popularly known as "justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone".

    But this not to say that dogmatic "intolerant Calvinists" (if they may be labeled thusly) like Carpenter and others are automatically orthodox and sound men, as if their not speaking peace to arminians and tolerant calvinists constituted them orthodox & sound. Carpenter clearly errs on some vital points of New Testament doctrine, but that is another issue.


    Harald

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Few Thoughts on Hyper Calvinism

    Quote Originally Posted by harald
    The key passage involved is 2John 9-11. And especially verses 10 and 11. John, the apostle, who by inspiration penned these words, did not have reference to a one time (occurrence of) speaking of peace to a person who does not bring the very doctrine of the Christ. This not to say that a one time speaking of peace to one not bringing Christ's doctrine is harmless.
    first of all, using 2 john to apply to any teaching someone deems to not be in accord with whatever they wish to call "the teaching of Christ" (v. 9) is bad exegesis. in the context, john is specifically referring to the gnostic/docetistic heresies of denying that Christ actually came in the flesh (v. 7). this is the "teaching of Christ" that is referred to in v. 9 not whatever Christian doctrine we wish to assign to it. "this teaching" that is referenced in v. 7 is what is being referred to in v. 10 when it says, "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting" so the context is very specific. what people are doing here with 2 john is simply a cavalier treatment of Scripture and very poor exegesis. if i apply 2 john the way the carpenterites do, then i can just turn it around on them and say that they don't abide in the teaching of Christ (since i deem that they are in error) and i therefore am not allowed to speak peace to them. if we're allowed to make the teaching of Christ in 2 john refer to whatever we wish then chaos results. here the carpenterites are obviously reading TULIP into this "teaching of Christ."

    the main problem here is just simply bad and untrained exegesis. that's all there is to it. i am simply amazed at how much these heretics get out of just one small epistle of 13 verses and how the internet world is in an uproar over it. those who want to handle accurately the word of truth should not idly sit by whilst God's word is being used with such a disregard for context and carelessly treated. the Word of God is not a smorgasbord of disjointed ideas and principles (somehow divorced from their original contexts) for us to pick out what we like and use it however we like. God forbid that we handle His holy Word in such a manner and treat it so lightly.

    furthermore, even 2 john did apply, it isn't a declaration that the person who speaks peace is unregenerate but that he participates in his evil deeds (v. 11). the gist is that if you treat these heretics as brothers by greeting them and extending hospitality to them, then you participate in their deeds...therefore you shouldn't do it. it's much like paul in 1 Co 5 (or even Mt 18:18ff) where he instructs the church to not associate with someone who is under church discipline. he doesn't say or even imply that if you don't treat them the way he instructs that you are then somehow lost and unregenerate (or that you prove yourself such). that's a conclusion that the carpenterites are much too cavalier with and is not a conclusion that the word of God ever makes.

    Quote Originally Posted by harald
    But in v. 11 John for a fact was inspired to use a present participle, not an aorist (aka "point action") tense. This in turn means that the bidding of Godspeed in v. 11 is pictured by him as not a one time occurrence but rather as something ongoing or habitual.
    present tense does not necessarily mean repeated, continuous, habitual, or ongoing action--present can be used to refer to "point action" as you call it (though the aspect or perspective of the present tense is always "linear" meaning that is action in progress, regardless of whether it is repeated or not). the idea of repetition is not a feature of the semantics of the form but of the context (semantics of the word used, the words surrounding it, etc.). for example, if i say in the present tense that, "he speaks peace" i could either mean that he does it once or that he does it continually in the present. but the present tense does not alone provide this information since i could mean either one by using it. here is a good links to read regarding these very difficult concepts:

    http://www.ntgreek.net/present.htm
    http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b...ect.html#23346

    in addition, aorist is not "point action" (as in punticular or only done once never to be repeated again) but undefined action (in other words, its aspect or the perspective is not on its repetition or non-repetition but on just the mere fact of its occurrence). so we need to be careful here not to make too much out of the use of a present rather than aorist. it may be significant, but this is not based on the tense (or word form) alone but on the whole context.

    Quote Originally Posted by harald
    John authoritatively (v. 10) forbade those he addressed not to be receiving a person not bringing Christ's doctrine "into house". With "into house" I believe he meant a house, building, where they assembled for worship of God.
    this most likely refers to the custom of the day of taking in itinerant preachers, missionaries, etc. into their homes (whether to stay, rest, eat, etc.) and being hospitable to these so-called brothers and sisters. i do not think this is a reference to a building where they met as a church but is a reference to their homes. we need to remember that this culture was much more accustomed to hospitality and entertaining in their homes than ours. he's telling them to withhold that custom from these false teachers and that is all.

    Quote Originally Posted by harald
    Yet one of the points where they unite in judgment is most often "sola fide", the teaching made famous and popular by Martin Luther, which is however a falsehood and heresy when examined in Scripture light. Or popularly known as "justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone".
    perhaps you could elaborate here. i'm not exactly sure what you're saying here.
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

Page 1 of 4 1 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Hello every one!!
    By Nicholas Heath in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-28-06, 08:08 AM
  2. The meaning of matt 25:31-40
    By beloved57 in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-19-06, 10:53 AM
  3. Where does it say Jesus went to Hell to get the Keys to Heaven?
    By Faithnhope in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-07-05, 02:24 PM
  4. Happy 4th of July (Independence Day)
    By Brandan in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-05-05, 11:48 AM
  5. Lou Rugg AKA Louis Ruggerio
    By John 6-37 in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-25-04, 07:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •