For All you Calvinists, and otherwise

[Havensdad]

I have been asked to provide some resources for further study on the subject of Supra, Infra, and Hyper Calvinism. The absolute BEST free resource, that I know of, is Derek Thomas' lectures on Reformed Theology by Reformed Theological Seminary. Lectures #9 thru 11 address these issues in depth (though they are titled "Total Depravity").

They are available, for free, from the RTS page, on Itunes U.

http://itunes.rts.edu/

 

[Bethelassoc]

The Primitive Baptist and Churches of Christ sects initially called themselves "Reformed Baptist".



The Stone-Campbell Movement: The Story of the American Restoration Movement by Leroy Garrett, pp. 144-145:


Primitive Baptists of the Wiregrass South by John G. Crowley, pp. 59-60:


Both sects claimed, pre-schism, to be just "Reformed" Baptists.

Some but not all. There were many at that time that went by Regular Baptists, Old School Baptists, Hardshell Baptists; some were still United Baptists, some were even Predestinarian Baptists. After the Black Rock Address, Primitive Baptists became the accepted term, though many are still called Regular/ Regular Primitive Baptists.

 

[Bethelassoc]

Of note, Benoni Stinson, founder of The General Conference of General Baptists founded his denomination (in 1823 - well before the SBC) as a recoil from the United Baptists (regular) (similar to today's Primitive Baptists, which coexisted in the same era, but had little or no dealings with each other) who were indeed "hyper-Calvinistic" to a fault. One had to "prove" that they were among the elect to participate with a local church! How one could do that, apart from being born into the church is a mystery -- and the reason that those churches never really grew much.

Stinson, thinking he was turning leftward in his theology, actually took a centrist "cafeteria-line" approach to his theology and the theology he would hand down to his newly formed denomination. They are Arminian, believe that they can loose their salvation, but that God saves "infants and idiots" (so, if one gets hit in the head and looses his faculties, he would be insured of gaining eternal life according to their theology). They also use a 'presbytery" system, loosely adopted from the Presbyterian church, for offering "credentials" to their pastors and deacons, it being made up of the deacons and pastors from associational churches.

This hard line United Baptist association (I believe it was Wabash District?) eventually went Primitive Baptist and I believe are no longer in existence. Not sure if they would've been considered H-C though.

 

[Luke2427]

O.K., brother, I have to correct you here. Hyper Calvinism does not equal Supralapsarianism. A person can be a non-hypercalvinist, and a supralapsarian at the same time.

The definition of Hyper-Calvinism, classically speaking, has nothing to do with the order of the decrees. Hyper-Calvinism's sole defining characteristic, is downplaying evangelism because of election. One can be a Supra, or Infra, and a Hyper, or a Supra, or Infra, and a non-Hyper.

Right. In fact I lean towards, if not fully embrace, supralapsarianism.

It is the only logical position it seems to me.

When it comes to planning, one always starts with the end result first.

He doesn't first say, "I think I'll go out here on this property and pour some concrete."

First of all he ordains the ends- that he will build a house. Then he ordains the means- to pour concrete, etc...

God first of all ordained the end- to save some and condemn others.

Then he ordained the means- to permit the fall.

 

[Jarthur001]

I think science (quantum physics and mechanics) has stumbled perhaps on the "wiggle room" that God has, by design forged into creation.



Quantum physics and mechanics has taught us during this past century, that things are not as "completely certain" as one might think, with respect to the atomic and sub-atomic realm. Personally, I see this as part of God's grand design to allow for freedom for his creation, albeit, within the established parameters He has set forth.

Hello Quantum,

The error in quantum physics is very simple. Here is that simple statement....”You can't see the forest for the trees.”

If we look at a quantum system, and consider it alone, we forget about the greater system which it is occupied. Virtual particles are not new matter at all, but part of the cycle of the system.

 

[Jarthur001]

Anyway, here are the "Order of God's Decrees" as commonly held.

Supralapsarian (Hyper-Calvinism

Infralapsarian (sublapsarian)

Amyraldian

Arminian

.​

Semi-Pelagian

Pelagian

This view is basically a naturalistic view of salvation as opposed to a supernaturalistic view. The primary issue between the naturalist and the supernaturalist may be summed up in one question: Does man save himself or does God save him? In its purity, Pelagianism affirms that all the power exerted in saving man is native to man himself. It is basically a salvation by works mentality that continues to show up in various forms today.

Pelagianism denies that human nature has been corrupted by sin, and hence maintains that every infant comes into the world in the same condition as Adam before the Fall. Man thus has a free will and the ability to justify himself before God. St. Augustine was successful in having Pelagianism condemned by the church at the council of Ephesus in the year 431.​

Hello,

I have no idea who wrote this, but I must disagree with a number of things.

Supra which is "prior to", does not mean you are Hyper. However, it would hard to be hyper without believing in supralaps. (prior to the fall)

Also, if you read Amyraut, You will find Amyraldism is really just a reworded form of infralapsarianism. It is what others have called hypothetical universalism. The only reason I can see why people want to see the order in Amyraldism is to say that Christ loves everyone and has died for everyone, which is allowed under Amyraldism. Other wise what you have in Amyraldism is simply infralapsarianism.

Also, real historical Arminianism is closer to Calvinism than some people want to admit. Above you have posted something that says it is close to Semi-Pelagianism when in fact it is really closer to Calvinism.

Arminianism still teaches salvation through grace. Semi-Pelagianism is pure works base.

The problem is most people that claim to be Arminian today have beliefs closer to Semi-Pelagianism. Some...are pure Pelagian and dont even know it.

 

[quantumfaith]

Hello Quantum,

The error in quantum physics is very simple. Here is that simple statement....”You can't see the forest for the trees.”

If we look at a quantum system, and consider it alone, we forget about the greater system which it is occupied. Virtual particles are not new matter at all, but part of the cycle of the system.

John,

The error in your analysis is even more simple, there is "nothing" virtual about quantum physic theory.

 

[webdog]

All I have to do is read posts and compare what people express as their beliefs with the various forms of Arminianism or Pelagianism.

There is no "proof" that a committed fundamentalist will accept anyway. They are right by definition. Note that I am not calling ANYONE in particular a committed fundamentalist. I'll leave that up to each individual to define for themselves.

Time to inject another tool into the board. This is primarily what I use to discern the theological position of posters who make comments in any one direction.

To some of you, this may be new information, to others, you studied it long ago, but sort of forgot that this exists. At least I've not seen it raised during one of these discussions since I joined the board.

I'm sorry, you don't get off that easy. You made a charge, you need to back it or retract is. When I disagreed with your doctrine you automatically defaulted me to your false understanding and applied your "label" to me, to which I immediately corrected you.

The Arminianism of most on this board is the Wesleyan form, which points more toward Pelagianism than does classical Arminianism

 

[webdog]

The problem is most people that claim to be Arminian today have beliefs closer to Semi-Pelagianism. Some...are pure Pelagian and dont even know it.

The same can be said of most calvinists being fatalists and double predestinarians.

 

[quantumfaith]

Hello Quantum,

The error in quantum physics is very simple. Here is that simple statement....”You can't see the forest for the trees.”

If we look at a quantum system, and consider it alone, we forget about the greater system which it is occupied. Virtual particles are not new matter at all, but part of the cycle of the system.

For your perusal and perhaps enjoyment.

http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf

 

[glfredrick]

Molinism: ?????

You skipped giving us the "low down" of this theological/philosophical position which is gaining in acceptance among christian thinkers, philosophers, apologists and theologians.

Molinism, or "middle knowledge" fits within elements in the table above in the Arminian semi-Pelagian areas, though some would also consider that it extends to Amyraldian area as well.

Middle knowledge is an attempt to reconcile the free will actions of humans with the divine sovereignty of God by, in essence, suggesting that God knows all possible worlds (or conditions) and has an adequate plan that takes into account all free actions. This position, of course, takes away from the Divine control of the cosmos and places more things in the natural realm.

It gets very complicated, and it is also (mostly) a very human and logical construct, not something that we can find based solidly in Scripture, but that is what a lot of theology is, and that is not really a problem -- theology is not "Scripture proof-texting" but rather a means of describing what it is that we see in Scripture as principles and doctrines.

 

[glfredrick]

glfredrick:

BTW: I wanted to say Thank You for all those "definitions". Really do appreciate it. Currently I am actually reading a book by a "reformed" theologian. Kenneth Keathley. "Salvation and Sovereignty". I do realize, many of the "devoted" reformers probably do not put much "stake" in Dr. Keathley, but I am, for the moment enjoying the read.

My pleasure... There are some things "figured out" in the theological realm that many who have not had the experience of higher-level doctrinal education have not yet seen. I've found that these theological tables help one to understand the starting point of their or other's positions when speaking to the issue of salvation, doctrines of grace, etc. Sometimes we just keep talking past each other without realizing where we really stand and why one position is exclusive of another, etc.

The big deal is that we OUGHT to be able to have a conversation about these issues without going to war over them. It is not like we're the first ones to deal with this stuff, or that theological tenets make or break one's salvation! In fact, that is exactly the issue...

We act as if our theology sends someone to hell or not -- when in fact, that IS God's business.

 

[kyredneck]

.....Although I have always had a pretty good knowledge of the hymns Baptists sing, I don't recall seeing any of the hymns we sang Sunday morning in any other hymnal I have used.....

Robert, I hope that you don't tire of me, but one more question: Were some or most of the hymns in the minor keys?

 

[Jarthur001]

I'm sorry, you don't get off that easy. You made a charge, you need to back it or retract is. When I disagreed with your doctrine you automatically defaulted me to your false understanding and applied your "label" to me, to which I immediately corrected you.

The Arminianism of most on this board is the Wesleyan form, which points more toward Pelagianism than does classical Arminianism

A site called..."Arminian today" says this too.....

Arminianism is often given a bad reputation but not because those who oppose Arminianism necessarily find fault with the theology itself as much as they find fault with the presentation of so called Arminianism in many churches in the United States. I am convinced that much of what people see being called Arminianism coming from the pulpits in America is not true, biblical, reformation Arminianism but is semi-Pelagianism. Semi-Pelagianism, as many of you know, has some similarities to Arminianism in that we both teach that salvation is a free will choice to be made by the individual but the differences between semi-Pelagian theology and Arminianism are many.

Let me note several key differences between semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism.

* Depravity - Semi-Pelagianism teaches that the doctrine of total depravity is false. Man is born good and becomes a sinner by wilful neglect of God's law.

Arminianism teaches that man is born depraved. We are born depraved and only by the grace of God can we overcome sin (Ephesians 2:1-3).

* The Sovereignty of God - Semi-Pelagianism would find more friends among those who believe in open theism than in Arminianism. Semi-Pelagianism essentially denies the sovereignty of God by stressing the freedom of man to an unbiblical extreme. Arminianism teaches that God is completely sovereign. God reigns over His creation with complete control (Matthew 5:45). Nothing happens outside of the sovereignty of God (Psalm 115:3). God "works all things according to the counsel of his will" (Ephesians 1:12 ESV). Even salvation is by the sovereignty of God (Jonah 2:9; Ephesians 2:8-9).

* Salvation - Semi-Pelagianism teaches that man works with God in salvation. To use a common phrase from altar calls, "If you take one step, God will take two." Or another misleading analogy, "Faith is one row, works are the other row that takes to heaven." In some circles, salvation is by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-7) but then they stress the works of man to keep oneself saved often pointing to James 2:14-26 but using it out of the context of the whole of Scripture. Arminianism teaches that from first to last, salvation is a work of God by His Spirit (John 6:44). No good works can obtain the righteousness necessary for eternal life in heaven (Isaiah 64:6). Because of our depraved state, we can only find salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ and His work on the cross (Romans 10:4). Without Jesus' blood, we have no salvation (Hebrews 9:22). We are saved by faith in Jesus alone and not our goodness or good works (Philippians 3:7-10).

* Free Will - Semi-Pelagianism stresses the freedom of the will of man to the extreme that God does nothing in the earth except by man using his freedom to allow God to act. God's sovereignty takes a backseat in semi-Pelagian theology because of the stress on God giving freedom of the will to humanity. Arminianism does embrace the teaching of free will but we don't believe that God can not act outside of our using our will. God can and does override people's will in the Bible as in the case of Pharaoh (Romans 9:17-18). Furthermore, Arminianism teaches that the only way that man can be saved is not by their own choosing to be saved but submission to the drawing power of God to salvation. In other words, semi-Pelagianism preaches a gospel of "Come and give your heart to Jesus" but Arminianism teaches "Surrender to the Holy Spirit drawing you to Jesus." Is there a difference? Yes! One stresses man as the focus while the other stresses Jesus as the focus (Hebrews 12:1-2).​

http://arminiantoday.blogspot.com/2007/10/mistaking-arminianism.html

 

[Luke2427]

The same can be said of most calvinists being fatalists and double predestinarians.

I think Calvinists are double predestinarians.

Fatalism says that men are reduced to be victims of the whims of fate.

Calvinism teaches that men and nature and all things are under the Sovereign control of God.

There is a vast difference.

 

[glfredrick]

O.K., brother, I have to correct you here. Hyper Calvinism does not equal Supralapsarianism. A person can be a non-hypercalvinist, and a supralapsarian at the same time.

The definition of Hyper-Calvinism, classically speaking, has nothing to do with the order of the decrees. Hyper-Calvinism's sole defining characteristic, is downplaying evangelism because of election. One can be a Supra, or Infra, and a Hyper, or a Supra, or Infra, and a non-Hyper.

It could be seen that way, but there really is no way of defining hyper-Calvinism if we toss it off of the continuum. I disagree that one can be hyper-Calvinistic and not at least Supralapsarian. The main distinction (and I believe it says this in the chart) is that hyper-Calvinists often see God's election as preceding any other of the acts, and thus, nothing else really matters because it was all decided and decreed (determinism) before hand, so there is no other recourse than to the decree.

That position is, then, mutually exclusive to anything south of Supralapsarian.

It is a misunderstanding of this and other issues that drives much of our debate about these issues on the board. If one can be both a hyper-Calvinist AND an Infralapsarian, then all rules are off and there is no apt descriptor. But that is not the case, and thinking so mostly means that the person who holds that anyone can be a hyper-Calvinist apart from their category is mainly tossing out a pejorative and a fundamentalistic view as a means to gain a foothold in a debate apart from the theological facts of the case.

 

[Luke2427]

It could be seen that way, but there really is no way of defining hyper-Calvinism if we toss it off of the continuum. I disagree that one can be hyper-Calvinistic and not at least Supralapsarian. The main distinction (and I believe it says this in the chart) is that hyper-Calvinists often see God's election as preceding any other of the acts, and thus, nothing else really matters because it was all decided and decreed (determinism) before hand, so there is no other recourse than to the decree.

That position is, then, mutually exclusive to anything south of Supralapsarian.

It is a misunderstanding of this and other issues that drives much of our debate about these issues on the board. If one can be both a hyper-Calvinist AND an Infralapsarian, then all rules are off and there is no apt descriptor. But that is not the case, and thinking so mostly means that the person who holds that anyone can be a hyper-Calvinist apart from their category is mainly tossing out a pejorative and a fundamentalistic view as a means to gain a foothold in a debate apart from the theological facts of the case.

I think you are right- it would be terribly inconsistent to be a hyper calvinist and not be a supralapsarian.

But I am contending that one can be, and indeed many are, supralapsarians who are NOT hypercalvinists.

 

[glfredrick]

This hard line United Baptist association (I believe it was Wabash District?) eventually went Primitive Baptist and I believe are no longer in existence. Not sure if they would've been considered H-C though.

According to Stinson's autobiography and other supporting documents that he left for the founding of the GCGB, they were indeed hyper-Calvinistic -- at least the churches he had been associated with in the central-west Kentucky area.

To note other's input on the history of the Regular Baptists -- yes, there were several branches and sects which spanned the range between Arminian and hyper-Calvinistic. Additionally, there were additional divisions between "revivalist" and "non-revivalist" churches. The whole history of the division and later re-unification (in part) of the early American Baptists is almost a life-long avocation.

 

[webdog]

A site called..."Arminian today" says this too.....



http://arminiantoday.blogspot.com/2007/10/mistaking-arminianism.html

This means what exactly?

 

[glfredrick]

Hello,

I have no idea who wrote this, but I must disagree with a number of things.

Supra which is "prior to", does not mean you are Hyper. However, it would hard to be hyper without believing in supralaps. (prior to the fall)

Also, if you read Amyraut, You will find Amyraldism is really just a reworded form of infralapsarianism. It is what others have called hypothetical universalism. The only reason I can see why people want to see the order in Amyraldism is to say that Christ loves everyone and has died for everyone, which is allowed under Amyraldism. Other wise what you have in Amyraldism is simply infralapsarianism.

Also, real historical Arminianism is closer to Calvinism than some people want to admit. Above you have posted something that says it is close to Semi-Pelagianism when in fact it is really closer to Calvinism.

Arminianism still teaches salvation through grace. Semi-Pelagianism is pure works base.

The problem is most people that claim to be Arminian today have beliefs closer to Semi-Pelagianism. Some...are pure Pelagian and dont even know it.

The definitions are fairly well-defined in the theological world. I just copied them from a theology textbook. I've seen them in similar forms in multiple works and on-line.

Also, the entire affair is somewhat a continuum, with no real "hard-defined" edges, so to speak. Persons without a well-defined theology will often drift here and there, and instead of being a straight line up and down the chart, they may waver side-to-side, which is, of course, perfectly acceptable other than it makes one's theological position very difficult to negotiate and defend (which we see often on the board and elsewhere). That's why I took the time to post the info.

One thing I have found is that people are more fond of their preferred LABEL than the theology behind it, oftentimes. Once confronted with the theological category and the implications thereof, they may wish to switch labels, but alas, they have so much invested with the label that they cannot, so they begin disagreeing with the theology behind the label. Make sense? (Probably not... :tear