tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post116374257626967105..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The Functional Hyper-Calvinism of Dr. Emir Caner or "Will the Real Hyper-Calvinist Please Stand Up?"Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1164064342308161092006-11-20T18:12:00.000-05:002006-11-20T18:12:00.000-05:00No where does the Bible teach one time that God ga...No where does the Bible teach one time that God gave man the choice to choose Justification. God has often given justified people the choice to be obedient to his will, to be sanctified. No man has unlimited free will. God says all men are clay and God is the potter. If a person says “I must have free will or God made me a robot” that is a relativeist claim and it implys they could have unlimited free will. Unlimited free will would be a deity since it’s omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent in order to be unlimited. Hank’s arguements are a theological blunder.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1163882153317776602006-11-18T15:35:00.000-05:002006-11-18T15:35:00.000-05:00Would I be out-of-line to suggest that Arminians d...Would I be out-of-line to suggest that Arminians do not understand the full import and extent of sin?<BR/><BR/>"Sin is bad, but it can't be -so- bad as to render a man unwilling to choose God" seems to be the sentiment. Clearly, sin can render a man physically dead, depending on the nature of the sin--why is it hard to believe, then, that sin would make a man spiritually dead? <BR/><BR/>I think it is instructive often times to ensure we're precise with our definitions. It's all and well to oppose "predestination" to "free will", for example, as long as the Calvinist and Arminian both agree on the definition of each. I frame it, generally, thus: A man is free to choose whatever he will. He can choose what he wants and is not somehow compelled one way or another. The issue is not that a man -can't- choose Christ; it's that he -won't- choose Christ because he doesn't -want- to -until- he is born again.<BR/><BR/>Preaching to the choir.<BR/><BR/>What specifically does Hunt believe regarding the damnation of a Calvinist (under the circumstances he mentions)? In my mind, the Gospel, condensed down into a sentence or two, is this: "All men have sinned and are liable to death; Christ died to save sinners. Repent and believe, and you will be saved." That message is hardly specific to Arminians or Calvinists. What is Hunt's point?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1163806558862240992006-11-17T18:35:00.000-05:002006-11-17T18:35:00.000-05:00I stand corrected. Regarding the above, please rea...I stand corrected. Regarding the above, please read 'Dave Hunt' for 'Dr. Caner' throughout.<BR/><BR/>My apologies to Dr. Caner.Hiraethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08745527476050999805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1163792614949358822006-11-17T14:43:00.000-05:002006-11-17T14:43:00.000-05:00Perhaps I was not clear. The quote at the end is ...Perhaps I was not clear. The quote at the end is from Dave Hunt, not Dr. Caner. That said, it's telling that Ergun still has not deigned to call Dr. White his brother, and both he and his brother endorse the work of Dave Hunt publicly.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1163767118777444992006-11-17T07:38:00.000-05:002006-11-17T07:38:00.000-05:00Principal John Macleod of the Free Church College,...Principal John Macleod of the Free Church College, Edinburgh, said much the same thing in his magisterial 'Scottish Theology'<BR/><BR/>"In regard to the claims of God, each of these extremes (of Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism) worked from a common principle which they turned to opposite ends. The Hyper-Calvinistic brethren held that there is no world-wide call to Christ sent out to all sinners to whom the in letter the Gospel comes, neither are all bidden to take Him as their Saviour. On the other hand, they maintained that Christ is held forth or offered as saviour to those to whom God effectually calls. To such positions they came because they reasoned that man, as a bankrupt in spiritual resources, cannot be called upon to do what is out of the compass of his power. He can neither repent nor believe. So it was out of place to call upon him to do what he cannot do. In this, when we look into it, we find the common Arminian position that man's responsibility is limited by his ability. The Arminian holds to the presence of a certain ability in those that are called; otherwise sinners could not be called upon to repent and believe the Gospel. Each side takes up the principle from its own end. They fail together to recognise that the sinner is responsible for his own spiritual impotence. It is the fruit of sin; and man's sin does not destroy nor put out of court God's right to ask for an obedience alike in service and repentance and faith that his sinful creatures have disabled themselves from yielding to Him. His title to make His demand is entirely and absolutely unimpaired."<BR/><BR/>John Macleod Scottish Theology (Edinburgh, Banner of Truth Trust, 1974) P.141Highland Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18205436472908741409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1163748393941729822006-11-17T02:26:00.000-05:002006-11-17T02:26:00.000-05:00Dr. Caner ought to know better. This is salvation ...Dr. Caner ought to know better. This is salvation by works, the work in question being doctrinal agrement with Dr. Caner. Apparently Dr. Caner cannot see that, in claiming that a person cannot be a consistent Calvinist and be saved he is, in essence saying that God demands more than repentance and faith in Jesus Christ to be saved from the wrath to come, that God looks down from heaven and says to the angels, "We shall save Dr. Caner because his beliefs are right, and he was converted under an arminian ministry, but that man over there is a Calvinist, and was converted under Calvinist preaching, so he's going to hell."<BR/><BR/>If a contrary statement were made by a Calvinist, I expect Dr. Caner would be the first to point out the utter lack of Christian charity in such a statement.Hiraethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08745527476050999805noreply@blogger.com