[CCWoody]

Of course, I might just make my own conclusions, and start considering every non-Calvinist to be a "universalist".

I would think that a "hyper-Ariminian" would be a good thing to define, especially since it does appear that there are those here who are carrying Arminianism to the same extent that some Calvinist carry Calvinism into hyper-Calvinism.

Any of the following would make one a "hyper-Arminian":

1. carrying the "fairness" of God to a "Plan B" method of salvation.
2. carrying the "love" of God to universalism.
3. etc...

whatdayathink?

[Jerry_M]

Maybe a bit over the top, that's what I think. No need to be confrontational deliberately, let's allow the truth of our position to speak for us.

There is plenty for us to address without having to define "Hyper-Arminianism". In fact, when you think about it, all positions fail when compared to Calvinism, that is why you see me using "non-Calvinist" as much as possible.

From my vantage point, there is the truth of the Gospel (Calvinism), and everything else, whether it be Heathanism, Paganism, Hyper-Calvinism, Arminianism, etc., etc. etc.

[xzins]

Any of the following would make one a "hyper-Arminian": carrying the "fairness" of God to a "Plan B" method of salvation. carrying the "love" of God to universalism. etc...

You asked what Jerry thought. I think my writing is on your mind. But, then again, I could be flattering myself. Thanks for the compliment.

I believe the Love of God is God's primary attribute and that any supposed act/teaching of God will pass the love test.

I believe that those who have never heard of Christ are under a different judicial dispensation. They are in a different position from those who have rejected Christ. (Albeit not a particularly good position.....far better to pass from death to life through the marvelous grace of our loving Lord.)