Evidence for God from Science

I'm not really feeling the force of the objection here. Let's say it is valid, that you shouldn't say "Christ died for you" even though for all you know He DID. Well, what conclusion can you draw from that? That you should reword some things? You could quote any number of Scriptures. You could say "Christ died so that anyone who believes in Him will be saved" or "Accept Christ and you will know you are saved" or any number of other things that could fit into Calvinism.

So I see this more as an aside that doesn't do anything to actually invalidate Calvinism. At best it could call into question the evangelism methods of some Calvinists and serve as a reminder to be intentional about how you word things.

I think we need to recognize the difference between the general call and effectual call here. This may have been posted, but an article on hyper-calvinism that touches a bit on the subject-

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm

narnia4 wrote:I'm not really feeling the force of the objection here. Let's say it is valid, that you shouldn't say "Christ died for you" even though for all you know He DID. Well, what conclusion can you draw from that? That you should reword some things? You could quote any number of Scriptures. You could say "Christ died so that anyone who believes in Him will be saved" or "Accept Christ and you will know you are saved" or any number of other things that could fit into Calvinism.

So I see this more as an aside that doesn't do anything to actually invalidate Calvinism. At best it could call into question the evangelism methods of some Calvinists and serve as a reminder to be intentional about how you word things.

I think we need to recognize the difference between the general call and effectual call here. This may have been posted, but an article on hyper-calvinism that touches a bit on the subject-

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm

As I've said before, I have a difficult time on where I draw the line between "True Calvinism", and hyper Calvinism. I honestly do not know the distinction.

And after reading that spurgeon.org article, it seems that Calvinists themselves, have a difficult time drawing the line. If anything, there certainly is no consensus within Calvinism, to what constitutes hyper Calvinism.

Philip wrote:

In view of such passages, it is legitimate to ask: "If Christ died only for the elect, how can the offer of salvation be made to all persons without some sort of insincerity, artificiality, or dishonesty being involved? Is it not improper to offer salvation to everyone if in fact Christ did not die to save everyone?"

As for the statement above, by jlay: Yes, yes, YES!!! Of, course, I'd say that Five Point Calvinists would correct you by saying, there is NO "offer."

To practice open and honest evangelism from a Five Point perspective, not only could one not SINCERELY state to ANY unbeliever that God desires his repentance and a relationship with him (as you have no way of knowing), but to truly be honest, one would have to state that 1) THERE IS NO CHOICE (by man) at all, and that 2) only IF such an unbeliever happened to be one of God's chosen Elect, can he and will he be saved, and 3) he would have to wait upon God regenerating him to belief even for THAT to happen. And so then what could one make of such an unbeliever's situation? Under Five Point beliefs, what could you further and honestly tell him? That if he is unwilling to repent and believe at the present time, to just chill and to "hope" for and await his regeneration, and that his regeneration MIGHT yet happen, but also caution him that as the Bible states that wide is the path to destruction and that "few are chosen," that there is an enormous but unknown (to us) possibility that he (as well as any unbeliever he knows) may well be one of the non-elect, and thus damned before birth? And that if that turns out to be that he IS of the non-Elect, that he might as well resign himself to a horrible fate of continuing misery now and eternal punishment thereafter, as it will be inescapable for him. As well, any effort to give such a unbeliever hope or attempt to encourage or convince him to seek the Lord would be done for naught, as seeking the Lord is (supposedly) not something an unbeliever is (supposedly) even capable of - at least NOT UNTIL THE LORD SO MOVES HIM. I'd say these would be HONEST Five Point evangelism. But Five Point evangelism efforts - at least of those I've seen - never explain the "rest of the story" - as they typically stick to only the positives.

As Calvinist Churches' statements of belief (on websites, in church literature) are so often couched in historical and theological terminology, the reality of what their beliefs (would) mean for the world are not clearly understood by a great many in their own congregations, and certainly not by most younger people in and those new to Reformed Churches. I think the reason is that such churches well know it will keep people from their churches and cause others to leave.

Another rant-filled, scripture-lite contribution there, brother. Keep up the good work, won't you?

DannyM wrote:

Philip wrote:

In view of such passages, it is legitimate to ask: "If Christ died only for the elect, how can the offer of salvation be made to all persons without some sort of insincerity, artificiality, or dishonesty being involved? Is it not improper to offer salvation to everyone if in fact Christ did not die to save everyone?"

As for the statement above, by jlay: Yes, yes, YES!!! Of, course, I'd say that Five Point Calvinists would correct you by saying, there is NO "offer."

To practice open and honest evangelism from a Five Point perspective, not only could one not SINCERELY state to ANY unbeliever that God desires his repentance and a relationship with him (as you have no way of knowing), but to truly be honest, one would have to state that 1) THERE IS NO CHOICE (by man) at all, and that 2) only IF such an unbeliever happened to be one of God's chosen Elect, can he and will he be saved, and 3) he would have to wait upon God regenerating him to belief even for THAT to happen. And so then what could one make of such an unbeliever's situation? Under Five Point beliefs, what could you further and honestly tell him? That if he is unwilling to repent and believe at the present time, to just chill and to "hope" for and await his regeneration, and that his regeneration MIGHT yet happen, but also caution him that as the Bible states that wide is the path to destruction and that "few are chosen," that there is an enormous but unknown (to us) possibility that he (as well as any unbeliever he knows) may well be one of the non-elect, and thus damned before birth? And that if that turns out to be that he IS of the non-Elect, that he might as well resign himself to a horrible fate of continuing misery now and eternal punishment thereafter, as it will be inescapable for him. As well, any effort to give such a unbeliever hope or attempt to encourage or convince him to seek the Lord would be done for naught, as seeking the Lord is (supposedly) not something an unbeliever is (supposedly) even capable of - at least NOT UNTIL THE LORD SO MOVES HIM. I'd say these would be HONEST Five Point evangelism. But Five Point evangelism efforts - at least of those I've seen - never explain the "rest of the story" - as they typically stick to only the positives.

As Calvinist Churches' statements of belief (on websites, in church literature) are so often couched in historical and theological terminology, the reality of what their beliefs (would) mean for the world are not clearly understood by a great many in their own congregations, and certainly not by most younger people in and those new to Reformed Churches. I think the reason is that such churches well know it will keep people from their churches and cause others to leave.

Another rant-filled, scripture-lite contribution there, brother. Keep up the good work, won't you?

Danny, let me ask you something. Is it really possible to point out errors that are seen in a doctrine,and to show how that doctrine changes the nature of God, without offending one who holds to that doctrine? I think it's time, as someone said before, to suck it up, put your big boy pants on, and deal with the issues and concerns that people have against Calvinism. Why not make it a point to differentiate hyper Calvinism, from 5 point Calvinism, so that if the two are truly different, we all can see that we should be against hyper Calvinism, not mainstream Calvinism. I, for one would love for someone to convince me that there is a difference, and where the difference is.
Because, for the life of me, I honestly cannot see the difference between what is referred to as "hyper Calvinism", and what 5 point Calvinists believe. I even see that Calvinists themselves, cannot come to a consensus, on what the definition of hyper Calvinism is.

RickD wrote:Danny, let me ask you something. Is it really possible to point out errors that are seen in a doctrine,and to show how that doctrine changes the nature of God, without offending one who holds to that doctrine? I think it's time, as someone said before, to suck it up, put your big boy pants on, and deal with the issues and concerns that people have against Calvinism. Why not make it a point to differentiate hyper Calvinism, from 5 point Calvinism, so that if the two are truly different, we all can see that we should be against hyper Calvinism, not mainstream Calvinism. I, for one would love for someone to convince me that there is a difference, and where the difference is.
Because, for the life of me, I honestly cannot see the difference between what is referred to as "hyper Calvinism", and what 5 point Calvinists believe. I even see that Calvinists themselves, cannot come to a consensus, on what the definition of hyper Calvinism is.

Rick, don't blame me for your inability to comprehend. What is it you think you've brought to the thread? Specifically, what did Philip say that requires me to "suck" anything up? Perhaps you would like to present an argument? That would be a start. Because so far you have ignored all arguments and just resorted to reposting the same scriptures. That you even have the nerve to write what you have above shows a remarkable lack of self-awareness.

DannyM wrote:

RickD wrote:Danny, let me ask you something. Is it really possible to point out errors that are seen in a doctrine,and to show how that doctrine changes the nature of God, without offending one who holds to that doctrine? I think it's time, as someone said before, to suck it up, put your big boy pants on, and deal with the issues and concerns that people have against Calvinism. Why not make it a point to differentiate hyper Calvinism, from 5 point Calvinism, so that if the two are truly different, we all can see that we should be against hyper Calvinism, not mainstream Calvinism. I, for one would love for someone to convince me that there is a difference, and where the difference is.
Because, for the life of me, I honestly cannot see the difference between what is referred to as "hyper Calvinism", and what 5 point Calvinists believe. I even see that Calvinists themselves, cannot come to a consensus, on what the definition of hyper Calvinism is.

Rick, don't blame me for your inability to comprehend. What is it you think you've brought to the thread? Specifically, what did Philip say that requires me to "suck" anything up? Perhaps you would like to present an argument? That would be a start. Because so far you have ignored all arguments and just resorted to reposting the same scriptures. That you even have the nerve to write what you have above shows a remarkable lack of self-awareness.

Now, Danny, here you are personally insulting me, and you are appealing to an argument of emotion:

don't blame me for your inability to comprehend

What is it you think you've brought to the thread?

Perhaps you would like to present an argument?

Because so far you have ignored all arguments and just resorted to reposting the same scriptures. That you even have the nerve to write what you have above shows a remarkable lack of self-awareness.

The very emotional arguments you have been reeling against.

Thus, you have been hoist by your own petard.

RickD wrote:Now, Danny, here you are personally insulting me, and you are appealing to an argument of emotion

Rick, I’m not insulting you at all. I’m sorry if you think I came off that way, brother.

don't blame me for your inability to comprehend

You’ve admitted you cannot comprehend things in this thread. Referring to your inability to comprehend something is not insulting you personally; it’s merely stating a relevant fact.

What is it you think you've brought to the thread?

Again, this is absolutely relevant to the thread.

Perhaps you would like to present an argument?

Again…

Because so far you have ignored all arguments and just resorted to reposting the same scriptures. That you even have the nerve to write what you have above shows a remarkable lack of self-awareness.

Again, this is just an observation based on your arguments in this thread. You have indeed shown a lack of self-awareness in that you have asserted, re-asserted and re-asserted again in the face of answers. To the point where you actually appear to be accusing *me* of not answering objections. All I can do at this point is suggest you read through the thread again.

The very emotional arguments you have been reeling against.

Well, I’m mildly indignant, for sure. But I am hardly over-emotional.

Thus, you have been hoist by your own petard.

Not quite.

I think that what must be examined are, what do the END results of Five Point Calvinism mean for the world, IF true?

1) for the world (during the lifetimes of everyone on earth)?

2) and beyond this world (the eternal results and destiny of each person)?

3) How and upon what basis has God chosen and achieved the results above (while men are on earth, and later, for eternity)?

4) How God's actions and results (according to Five Point Calvinism) match up with the entirety of His Self-described Holy Character?

My problem with Five Point Calvinism has never been Five Point beliefs that God is sovereign or that He has chosen all believers before time. What I have a problem with are assertions that God chose the Elect completely independent of His ability to know ALL future things relating to man: all things, events and actions involving man, including all of his choices and the hearts of each (all these about each person and over their entire lifetimes), or that God could not have remained sovereign and also given us a choice HE created, made possible by something (the Cross) ONLY He has done. Or that God chose us independent of whether He foreknew we would meet HIS criteria for Who the elect would be (those whom, before they die, have repented and have faith in Jesus). Or that ALL can't either embrace His wooing or reject it?

Now, let's measure the reality of what the Five Point-construct of God's actions would mean vs. Scriptural descriptions of God's Holy character. A whole lot does not add up in such an analysis, I don't see how anyone can harmonize the PURPORTED reality of the Five Point-constructed god's actions and Scriptures describing our Holy God's character.

At the very least, IF Five Point Calvinism is true, then one has to admit that, at least for the vast majority of the world, God's choices will have ENDED in utter misery, untold suffering and anguish during their lifetimes of most men (yes, THEY choose to sin, but the Five Point-constructed god would have made sure that their sinful states are inescapable for them - and thus they are assured and continuous, and, as well, their sins also severely impact both the Elect and the non-Elect, while both are on earth); with unimaginable, ongoing and ever-growing hate and brutality across the earth; and subsequently, in eternal punishment and suffering, forever and ever. Of those non-elect people meeting this fate, can we not fairly say that God would have hated them before they were even born or had sinned, and will continue to hate them - FOREVER? These are why, I say, the god asserted by the Five Point construct, at least statistically speaking, is much more of a hater of men than a lover of them, and thus would be a nightmare for most of the world.

My assertions questioning Five Point beliefs have nothing to do over whether we deserve mercy (we don't) or whether or not God has the right to choose as He so wills (He DOES!). But what God CANNOT do is contradict His Holy Character with actions that aren't in sync with It. He can't say He despises unrepentance and rebellion and then sanction, desire and ASSURE them by creating some men in such a way that turning from these evils would be an impossibility for them. This would mean that God is double-minded and that He has favorites (independent of His criteria for each) - which are both unscriptural.

RickD wrote:

narnia4 wrote:I'm not really feeling the force of the objection here. Let's say it is valid, that you shouldn't say "Christ died for you" even though for all you know He DID. Well, what conclusion can you draw from that? That you should reword some things? You could quote any number of Scriptures. You could say "Christ died so that anyone who believes in Him will be saved" or "Accept Christ and you will know you are saved" or any number of other things that could fit into Calvinism.

So I see this more as an aside that doesn't do anything to actually invalidate Calvinism. At best it could call into question the evangelism methods of some Calvinists and serve as a reminder to be intentional about how you word things.

I think we need to recognize the difference between the general call and effectual call here. This may have been posted, but an article on hyper-calvinism that touches a bit on the subject-

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm

As I've said before, I have a difficult time on where I draw the line between "True Calvinism", and hyper Calvinism. I honestly do not know the distinction.

And after reading that spurgeon.org article, it seems that Calvinists themselves, have a difficult time drawing the line. If anything, there certainly is no consensus within Calvinism, to what constitutes hyper Calvinism.

Rick, HyperCalvinism is a hard thing to nail down. DIfferent people have different definitions for it and it tends to issue relative to their own positions. After they've established their position then anyone who goes further than them is a "Hyper-Calvinist". Some Low Calvinists would define all High Calvinists as Hyper-Calvinists but I think that's hardly fair, because as I read it anyway, High Calvinists are closer to the actual positions originally put forth by Calvin. High Calvinists might define far radical groups like Westboro Baptist Church that we've spokien about in the past as Hyper-Calvinist (and I know nobody here would defend what WBC is). I thought I had a handle on what was High and what was Hyper, but as I've dived into it more the past several days, I'm not so sure I can nail it down, but I think I recognize the quack when I hear that duck open it's mouth.

Philip wrote:I think that what must be examined are, what do the END results of Five Point Calvinism mean for the world, IF true?

1) for the world (during the lifetimes of everyone on earth)?

2) and beyond this world (the eternal results and destiny of each person)?

3) How and upon what basis has God chosen and achieved the results above (while men are on earth, and later, for eternity)?

4) How God's actions and results (according to Five Point Calvinism) match up with the entirety of His Self-described Holy Character?

My problem with Five Point Calvinism has never been Five Point beliefs that God is sovereign or that He has chosen all believers before time. What I have a problem with are assertions that God chose the Elect completely independent of His ability to know ALL future things relating to man: all things, events and actions involving man, including all of his choices and the hearts of each (all these about each person and over their entire lifetimes), or that God could not have remained sovereign and also given us a choice HE created, made possible by something (the Cross) ONLY He has done. Or that God chose us independent of whether He foreknew we would meet HIS criteria for Who the elect would be (those whom, before they die, have repented and have faith in Jesus). Or that ALL can't either embrace His wooing or reject it?

Now, let's measure the reality of what the Five Point-construct of God's actions would mean vs. Scriptural descriptions of God's Holy character. A whole lot does not add up in such an analysis, I don't see how anyone can harmonize the PURPORTED reality of the Five Point-constructed god's actions and Scriptures describing our Holy God's character.

At the very least, IF Five Point Calvinism is true, then one has to admit that, at least for the vast majority of the world, God's choices will have ENDED in utter misery, untold suffering and anguish during their lifetimes of most men (yes, THEY choose to sin, but the Five Point-constructed god would have made sure that their sinful states are inescapable for them - and thus they are assured and continuous, and, as well, their sins also severely impact both the Elect and the non-Elect, while both are on earth); with unimaginable, ongoing and ever-growing hate and brutality across the earth; and subsequently, in eternal punishment and suffering, forever and ever. Of those non-elect people meeting this fate, can we not fairly say that God would have hated them before they were even born or had sinned, and will continue to hate them - FOREVER? These are why, I say, the god asserted by the Five Point construct, at least statistically speaking, is much more of a hater of men than a lover of them, and thus would be a nightmare for most of the world.

My assertions questioning Five Point beliefs have nothing to do over whether we deserve mercy (we don't) or whether or not God has the right to choose as He so wills (He DOES!). But what God CANNOT do is contradict His Holy Character with actions that aren't in sync with It. He can't say He despises unrepentance and rebellion and then sanction, desire and ASSURE them by creating some men in such a way that turning from these evils would be an impossibility for them. This would mean that God is double-minded and that He has favorites (independent of His criteria for each) - which are both unscriptural.

Sorry Philip but this is nothing more than an appeal to emotions. If you have a scriptural rebuttal to what Danny and August offered over several pages then please state it.

Byblos wrote:

Philip wrote:I think that what must be examined are, what do the END results of Five Point Calvinism mean for the world, IF true?

1) for the world (during the lifetimes of everyone on earth)?

2) and beyond this world (the eternal results and destiny of each person)?

3) How and upon what basis has God chosen and achieved the results above (while men are on earth, and later, for eternity)?

4) How God's actions and results (according to Five Point Calvinism) match up with the entirety of His Self-described Holy Character?

My problem with Five Point Calvinism has never been Five Point beliefs that God is sovereign or that He has chosen all believers before time. What I have a problem with are assertions that God chose the Elect completely independent of His ability to know ALL future things relating to man: all things, events and actions involving man, including all of his choices and the hearts of each (all these about each person and over their entire lifetimes), or that God could not have remained sovereign and also given us a choice HE created, made possible by something (the Cross) ONLY He has done. Or that God chose us independent of whether He foreknew we would meet HIS criteria for Who the elect would be (those whom, before they die, have repented and have faith in Jesus). Or that ALL can't either embrace His wooing or reject it?

Now, let's measure the reality of what the Five Point-construct of God's actions would mean vs. Scriptural descriptions of God's Holy character. A whole lot does not add up in such an analysis, I don't see how anyone can harmonize the PURPORTED reality of the Five Point-constructed god's actions and Scriptures describing our Holy God's character.

At the very least, IF Five Point Calvinism is true, then one has to admit that, at least for the vast majority of the world, God's choices will have ENDED in utter misery, untold suffering and anguish during their lifetimes of most men (yes, THEY choose to sin, but the Five Point-constructed god would have made sure that their sinful states are inescapable for them - and thus they are assured and continuous, and, as well, their sins also severely impact both the Elect and the non-Elect, while both are on earth); with unimaginable, ongoing and ever-growing hate and brutality across the earth; and subsequently, in eternal punishment and suffering, forever and ever. Of those non-elect people meeting this fate, can we not fairly say that God would have hated them before they were even born or had sinned, and will continue to hate them - FOREVER? These are why, I say, the god asserted by the Five Point construct, at least statistically speaking, is much more of a hater of men than a lover of them, and thus would be a nightmare for most of the world.

My assertions questioning Five Point beliefs have nothing to do over whether we deserve mercy (we don't) or whether or not God has the right to choose as He so wills (He DOES!). But what God CANNOT do is contradict His Holy Character with actions that aren't in sync with It. He can't say He despises unrepentance and rebellion and then sanction, desire and ASSURE them by creating some men in such a way that turning from these evils would be an impossibility for them. This would mean that God is double-minded and that He has favorites (independent of His criteria for each) - which are both unscriptural.

Sorry Philip but this is nothing more than an appeal to emotions. If you have a scriptural rebuttal to what Danny and August offered over several pages then please state it.

Byblos, just because there's no scripture quoted, that doesn't mean it's nothing more than appeal to emotions. This post by Philip, seems to me , to be an appeal to look at how each of us views God's character, or His nature. And scripture has been used to argue against Calvinism, as a whole. The same thing happens on both sides, when scripture is used. Both sides disagree on how scripture is interpreted.

RickD wrote:Byblos, just because there's no scripture quoted, that doesn't mean it's nothing more than appeal to emotions. This post by Philip, seems to me , to be an appeal to look at how each of us views God's character, or His nature. And scripture has been used to argue against Calvinism, as a whole. The same thing happens on both sides, when scripture is used. Both sides disagree on how scripture is interpreted.

Then perhaps we need to simply agree to disagree and end all conversation as I don't see any other way out of this.

Sorry Philip but this is nothing more than an appeal to emotions. If you have a scriptural rebuttal to what Danny and August offered over several pages then please state it.

Let me ask you - the END results as I described them, of what Five Point Calvinism must mean for the vast majority of the world - for all those unElect:

1) Are the end-result realities I noted not true?

2) Are they not a nightmare for MOST of the world?

3) Has the Five Point (understanding/construct of) God not chosen the above realities for the non-Elect, separate from any decisions or sins any would one day make - and in fact He chose these realities for them before their very births?

While the REACTION to Five Point answers to the above might indeed become emotional, the questions themselves, however, as to their end-resulting realities, are either true or are not. Are the realities I described not true and were or were they not chosen COMPLETELY independent of any sin or in reaction to any CHOICE any man might have made?

I'm trying to get to the bottom line, here. I don't doubt that my Five Point brothers here aren't honorable, loving people, or that they aren't sincere in what they believe. But the fact is that a suffering Lord died for me - and thus I have a strong emotional and actual reaction to that. Tell me that my God supposedly hated my unbelieving aunt and chose her misery while here and now her likely horrific and eternal punishment, when He had the solution but hated her - before birth or sin, not based upon any foreknowledge of rejection, etc? Well, I'm going to have an emotional reaction to that as well. But is that the reality? You see the entire Bible teaches against hate - tells us to love our enemies and to pray for them. But Five Point Calvinism states that God has always hated His enemies (which at one time were ALL of us).

So will someone please answer my simple three questions? Are the end results I've stated and how we got there wrong?

Philip wrote:

Sorry Philip but this is nothing more than an appeal to emotions. If you have a scriptural rebuttal to what Danny and August offered over several pages then please state it.

Let me ask you - the END results as I described them, of what Five Point Calvinism must mean for the vast majority of the world - for all those unElect:

1) Are the end-result realities I noted not true?

Do you think those realities will change if you were wrong about God's character?

Philip wrote:2) Are they not a nightmare for MOST of the world?

How is the world not a nightmare after the fall?

Philip wrote:3) Has the Five Point (understanding/construct of) God not chosen the above realities for the non-Elect, separate from any decisions or sins any would one day make - and in fact He chose these realities for them before their very births?

And again how does this change the reality that the vast majority will be damned, regardless of our interpretation of God's character?

Philip wrote:While the REACTION to Five Point answers to the above might indeed become emotional, the questions themselves, however, as to their end-resulting realities, are either true or are not? Are the realities I described not true and were or were they not chosen COMPLETELY independent of any sin or in reaction to any CHOICE any man might have made?

Philip, those realities are true irrespective of your or my stance on the TULIP.

Philip wrote:I'm trying to get to the bottom line, here. I don't doubt that my Five Point brothers here aren't honorable, loving people, or that they aren't sincere in what they believe. But the fact is that a suffering Lord died for me - and thus I have a strong emotional and actual reaction to that. Tell me that my God supposedly hated my unbelieving aunt and chose her misery while here and now her likely horrific and eternal punishment, when He had the solution but hated her - before birth or sin, not based upon any foreknowledge of rejection, etc? Well, I'm going to have an emotional reaction to that as well. But is that the reality? You see the entire Bible teaches against hate - tells us to love our enemies and to pray for them. But Five Point Calvinism states that God has always hated His enemies (which at one time were ALL of us).

So will someone please answer my simple three questions? Are the end results I've stated and how we got there wrong?

Well I Think I've answered that but here are a few questions for you to ponder (and not necessarily answer):

1. Does God love everyone equally?
2. Do we have any inherent power within us to save ourselves
3. Are some people saved and not others?
4. What conclusion do you draw from answering these questions?

Rick, HyperCalvinism is a hard thing to nail down. DIfferent people have different definitions for it and it tends to issue relative to their own positions. After they've established their position then anyone who goes further than them is a "Hyper-Calvinist". Some Low Calvinists would define all High Calvinists as Hyper-Calvinists but I think that's hardly fair, because as I read it anyway, High Calvinists are closer to the actual positions originally put forth by Calvin. High Calvinists might define far radical groups like Westboro Baptist Church that we've spokien about in the past as Hyper-Calvinist (and I know nobody here would defend what WBC is). I thought I had a handle on what was High and what was Hyper, but as I've dived into it more the past several days, I'm not so sure I can nail it down, but I think I recognize the quack when I hear that duck open it's mouth.

Bart, if Calvinists themselves, don't agree on what hyper calvinism is, then how can we, non Calvinists be faulted, for not knowing the difference?