Perhaps a theology primer would be in order:
Posted on 09/03/2004 8:47:55 PM PDT by Choose Ye This Day
And which theology might that be? ;-)
Well, what good and what evil? Do you think everyone born has the 10 commandments written on their heart? Or they know the difference between Christ and Satan? And if someone doesn't exhibit the "thou shall not steal" or "thou shall not murder" trait then he REALLY has it written on his heart but it's just surpressed.
Nice trick but, with all due respect to the many fine Western people throughout the ages who have believed this, no cigar. I would need more than this article to prove this to me.
BTW-I have no idea where anyone stands (including myself) on this theologically. It just seems logically stupid to me.
However, before I could answer your question(s) specifically I would need to know precisely how a "hyper-Calvinist" equates to "heretic". So far as I know its common usage meaning is merely someone who has "out Calvined Calvin" (usually in the area of predestination/double predestination). No one, to my knowledge, has equated "hyper-Calvinist" with being non-Christian.
My short answer, then, and without some further clarification of terms from you, would be that my understanding of heretic does not include "hyper-Calvinism". My longer answer would probably include some comments to the effect that if more people around here would practice the art of forgiveness these kinds of questions wouldn't come up in the first place.
It made sense to John Calvin, and countless other well-regarded Christian theologians of all persuasions.
I will agree that it is impossible to reconcile natural law with total depravity as some members of the GRPL view the extent of total depravity. I think some members of the GRPL say total depravity when they are actually describing absolute depravity or some closely akin to it.
It is my view that man is totally depraved in the sense that he has a sinful nature and cannot by any means earn eternal life. In other words he is totally drprived of the ability to save himself because perfection is the standard absent a saving knowledge of Christ.
And if someone doesn't exhibit the "thou shall not steal" or "thou shall not murder" trait then he REALLY has it written on his heart but it's just surpressed.
Some people steal and know it is wrong, and some people even steal so much and so often that it becomes such a part of their nature that it can actually alter their brain chemistry so that they can no longer comprehend that it is wrong. How else do you think Ted Bundy was able to pass a lie detector test?
I agree with you. The sad part is that you Calvinists are the ones labeled as the disruptors.
In the service of the Lord,
I'm sorry, I presumed, that you were fully versed in the terms.
I'm not sure how you have come to define heretic as someone who is non-Christian when the definition itself and its origin in Greek plainly reveals that it is a division WITHIN the Christian church. Please see 1 Co 11:19. I'm also not even sure that its common theological use today is to mean that the individuals are not saved, even if there may be an implication that such persons may not be saved. There is, after all, a level of doctrinal error which is so great that one cannot possibly know the Lord in any salvific way. But, that is neither here nor there.
My concern is that you seem to be glibly dismissing the use of hyper-Calvinist when it is plain that Calvinists themselves regard hyper-Calvinists as heretics. Of course, whether or not the term on this forum has lost all meaning is irrevelant to YOUR job, unless you want to admit that the term has lost all meaning with you as well. If that is the case, then you might as well declare that heretic is a perfectly acceptable word.
Furthermore, I don't think you even has a firm grasp of the common meaning of a hyper-Calvinist. Hyper-Calvinism, simply stated, is a doctrine that emphasizes divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility. It, therefore, is NOT a question of predestination/ double-predestination, which are both orthodox Calvinist & Reformed doctrines and have existed for millennia. I suppose that you may be under some confusion that Supralapsarian Calvinism, or high-Calvinism as it is sometimes called, are all hyper-Calvinists. This is actually a modern blurring of the terms, just as Phil Johnson does for what seem to be political reasons with the CRC. Supralapsarian Calvinists, unless they are excluding human responsibility cannot be hyper-Calvinists, even if their order of decrees is wrong.
As far as acts of Christian charity and forgiveness, I'd also like to point out another equally import thing which Christians are COMMANDED to pursue, which is JUSTICE. That becomes impossible when a false balance is used or when the judge is not sufficiently knowledgable in Christian doctrine. It is not not a mutally exclusive end with forgiveness. We are actually commanded to both seek justice and give a place for our wrath. Even if we are prevented from seeking justice, we can still have faith that the Lord himself will sort it all out. So, whether you wish to do anything about permitting us to seek justice is not so important for us.
I do appreciate the time you took. I presume by your response that I should be free to label any of the posters here as Pelagians, Molinists, Open-Theists, Modalists, Unitarians, Sabellians, Monarchianists, Subordinationists, deists, Ebionites, Docetists, Arians, gnostics, neo-gnostics, etc (I'm sure I'm missing a few that are listed in my book of Christian orthodoxy, heterodoxy, & heresy). After all, under your definition, they cannot be considered heretics, i.e. non-Christian, since the originators of these doctrines were a part of the visible Christian church. And, from my reading of this forum, there are plenty of examples here. It might be interesting to see just how skilled some of the other groups here are at practicing this version of forgiveness when they are daily labeled with these interesting terms.
In the service of the Lord,
***you act like an immature crybaby ala Kerry***
blah, blah, blah, babble, babble, babble
***I don't go whining to the moderator***
No, one of your neener pals has already admitted to that. It seems to me that you are among the ones who bait and he/ they are the ones who come along with the popcorn for the show and to punch abuse.
As has always been the case, you are free to say anything you wish to say, while I am obligated to react to what you say according to the rules and guidelines given to me by the owner of the site. That is to say, let your conscience be your guide, and take the responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
It seems to me that you're overlooking Christ's several mandates regarding forgiveness (70x7; forgive me as I forgive them; etc), but that is on your head. But be that as it may, I am not here to justify my actions nor to listen to long-winded and repetitive divinations of "the rules". If you - and, of course, everyone else - would conduct yourself on this forum as a Christian, there would be no need for me or my "office".
As you say (or rather, almost say), let God mete out justice; it will not be achieved by mortal man. In any event, I'm not going to engage in a long and drawn out discussion of the rules. They are clearly posted, they are easily understood and it should be clear to all that they are most times enforced with a certain amount of lenience. If that is not satisfactory, well, there are other places on the Internet one can go vent. I've heard the argument "I did no wrong, he's the one!" so many times that it carries little or no weight any longer. Rather than demand the Golden Rule, practice it, and you'll do just fine.
True, but the same can be said for many, many ideas, philosophies, and world religions.
Can you prove Christianity is true? Can you prove Christ died for our sins? Can you prove that the Holy Ghost is real, and can teach us the truth of all things?
If more people practiced "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," we wouldn't have terms like "heretic" and "non-Christian" thrown about.
Not to anyone but myself. Christianity is based on faith. That's the way God designed it. And we have the scriptures to support these views. (We'll leave it at that.)
But there is no inspired Word of God for the natural law hypothesis. It's like believing the ten tribes of Israel settled in the US. People develop all sorts of philosophies and use scriptures to support their position. Or evolution and gathering spurious data to support the contention while ignoring other evidence to the contrary.
A person can choose to believe natural law or not. Lots of far great men of faith then I'll ever be believed in it. To me it doesn't make any difference unless someone chooses to shade their theology according to this philosophy which is not based on scripture. That is always a danger in these types of things. I personally don't accept anything unless I'm certain it's true.
One would think a member of the GRPL such as yourself ought to be a bit careful about tossing around the word heretic when one of the main remaining mambers of the GRPL claims that Billy Graham preached/preaches a false Gospel.
I don't remember electing myself to the GRPL. Perhaps I was unconditionally elected and the Calvinists have just forgotten to tell me I'm in the club. Just think, the KOETT have begged for inclusion and I have not even asked, but got elected anyway. Now, I get to know all the cool stuff.
Wow, this kind of thing should be proudly displayed on my resume.
{!}
NEENER!
NEENER!
NEENER!
Perhaps some time off would do you as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.