A Discussion Amongst Calvinists

[saturneptune]

Over the last few years, I have come to believe in the five points of Calvinism (for lack of a better term, another thread). Besides reading the Bible, A fellow BB member, Tom Butler has had a great influence in my life over this issue. I was thrown a loop the other day when I heard an unnamed person say to our pastor, "I will go on visitation if you want me to, but people are going to be saved anyhow if they are elect, so I do not put a high priority on it."

I grew up in a conservative Presbyterian church (PCA), which approaches 100% belief in "Calvinism" and its 5 points. The local church has a very aggressive visitation program, and the presbytery and general assembly spend millions of dollars each year supporting missionaries.

My question is this. Where did the notion come from that Calvinism and not being interested in visitation, missions, or evangelism are linked? One has nothing to do with the other. The Presbyterian church certainly does not believe that, and God's sovereignty is one of their bedrock beliefs. It is our job to tell others about the Gospel. It is God's business how He uses it and who He uses it on. To me, it seems the height of laziness or a lack of understanding the Scriptures to think everything is in autopilot, while we waste away in a pew.

Thanks for your input, and this is NOT a free will-Calvinist debate.

 

[jbh28]

Where did the notion come from that Calvinism and not being interested in visitation, missions, or evangelism are linked?

1. From hearing a "Calvinist" say something similar to what you mentioned.
2. Reading it in anti-calvinism books, magazines and papers. (Sword of the Lord) aka straw man.

It's one thing to disagree with a doctrine and another to say things untrue. It would be like someone linking baptists with those nuts from Kansas that picked funerals just because they are "baptists."

Thanks for your input, and this is NOT a free will-Calvinist debate.

Good luck with that

 

[Rippon]

Over the last few years, I have come to believe in the five points of Calvinism (for lack of a better term, another thread). Besides reading the Bible, A fellow BB member, Tom Butler has had a great influence in my life over this issue. I was thrown a loop the other day when I heard an unnamed person say to our pastor, "I will go on visitation if you want me to, but people are going to be saved anyhow if they are elect, so I do not put a high priority on it."

I grew up in a conservative Presbyterian church (PCA), which approaches 100% belief in "Calvinism" and its 5 points. The local church has a very aggressive visitation program, and the presbytery and general assembly spend millions of dollars each year supporting missionaries.

My question is this. Where did the notion come from that Calvinism and not being interested in visitation, missions, or evangelism are linked? One has nothing to do with the other. The Presbyterian church certainly does not believe that, and God's sovereignty is one of their bedrock beliefs. It is our job to tell others about the Gospel. It is God's business how He uses it and who He uses it on. To me, it seems the height of laziness or a lack of understanding the Scriptures to think everything is in autopilot, while we waste away in a pew.

Thanks for your input, and this is NOT a free will-Calvinist debate.

It started among hyper-Calvinists in England during the early 18th century.

Certain American non-Fundamentalists in the mid-20 century linked Calvinists (proper) to hyper-Calvinism. They did this to the extent that they seldom referenced hyper-calvinism as such but Calvinism as not believing in evangelism,missions etc. Certain branches of Fundamentalism still propagate this myth today.

Then, among mainstream Evangelicals men such as Ergun Caner, Peter Lumpkins,Timothy Rogers and others of likemind have carried the same ball.

 

[saturneptune]

It started among hyper-Calvinists in England during the early 18th century.

Certain American non-Fundamentalists linked Calvinists (proper) to hyper-Calvinism. They did this to the extent that they seldom referenced hyper-calvinism as such but Calvinism as not believing in evangelism,missions etc. Certain branches of Fundamentalism still prpogate this myth today.

Then, among mainstream Evangelicals men such as Ergun Caner, Peter Lumpkins,Timothy Rogers and others of likemind have carried the same ball.

Thank you for the answer, and I mean that. I did not know the problem went back that far, but to me, this is one of the problems today that give a false picture of the Doctrine of God's Sovereignty.

 

[Rippon]

Thank you for the answer, and I mean that.

Thanks. But take my observations with a grain of salt. Someone recently told me that I seldom know what I am talking about.

I did not know the problem went back that far, but to me, this is one of the problems today that give a false picture of the Doctrine of God's Sovereignty.

David Cloud who has the OTimothy website is a main culprit these days in causing prevasive lies about Calvinism.

 

[saturneptune]

Thanks. But take my observations with a grain of salt. Someone recently told me that I seldom know what I am talking about.



David Cloud who has the OTimothy website is a main culprit these days in causing prevasive lies about Calvinism.

If you would, please look at the other thread you just posted in.

 

[Iconoclast]

Someone can learn of the teaching without a Spirit taught understanding.
A saved person is excited about evangelism knowing that God is directing his steps.As far as we know God might save each person we come in contact with so we can preach and pray for all.
God's plan is certain.We are called to be faithful to all men,rich,poor,old ,young all types of persons. The results belong to God.
To fail to pray and be ready to be used as a means by God is sin.To suggest God has not ordained the means and the people to be used as the instruments is sinful presumption.
Thr arminian sins by putting man on the throne. The hyper-calvinist sins by replacing God and His eternal decree with a false fatalistic philosophy that denies God's purpose for calling His elect in the first place.

13Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:

14And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

15But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

We are chosen to salvation to be partakers in the work of redemption that God is doing in this fallen world.
Any professed "calvinist" that shrinks back from this is a distortion of the truth

 

[Tom Butler]

Rippon mentioned hyper-Calvinists. They believe that God elects sovereignly, but also saves whom he elects whether they ever hear the gospel or not. If that's true, there's no point in missions and evangelism.

When someone confuses Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists, you can imagine how such ignorance gets played out.

 

[Ron Wood]

I was brought up as a true Hyper-Calvinist Primitive Baptist. I never had to struggle with the doctrine of free-will because I had it drilled into me that there was no such thing. I heard election every time I heard a man preach. But I never heard the Gospel. They believed and taught very plainly that election is salvation. The elect are saved without ever hearing the Gospel because they are elect. I can't tell you how many times I heard it said that the most remote person in the farthest reaches of the earth who has never heard of Christ is saved if he is elect. They were vehemently anti-missionary and anti-call. If you called on men to believe on Christ you were Arminain.

But when I started preaching many years ago I had to question what the Gospel was that I was supposed to preach. The gospel I had heard all of my life was a message of hope in election but not in Christ. I struggled a great deal with this. But thanks be to God that He opened the Book up to me and showed me that election isn't salvation. So I started preaching the doctrines of grace. I thought that I was preaching the true Gospel because I mentioned Christ and limited atonement and election in Him and all that the doctrines are. I was preaching the doctrines as salvation though and not Christ.

Then He put me under a faithful pastor who truly preaches the Gospel and I learned by sitting in the pew what it was to preach the Gospel. It is to preach Christ in His glorious person and work. I still preach the doctrines but now I preach them as they are in Christ. The passage that I remember which totally destroyed all my previous thoughts on preaching the Gospel was Rom. 10:13-17. So now the Primitives call me an Arminian and the Reformed call me a hyper and an Antinomian. I disagree with the statement of Spurgeon that Calvinism is the Gospel. Calvinism isn't the Gospel Christ is. But you can't preach Christ without preaching the 5 points.

 

[David Lamb]

Rippon mentioned hyper-Calvinists. They believe that God elects sovereignly, but also saves whom he elects whether they ever hear the gospel or not. If that's true, there's no point in missions and evangelism.

When someone confuses Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists, you can imagine how such ignorance gets played out.

And think of how many individual posts, and indeed, whole threads, would not have appeared on the BB if there was no confusion between Calvinism and hypercalvinism!

 

[Allan]

It started among hyper-Calvinists in England during the early 18th century.

Certain American non-Fundamentalists in the mid-20 century linked Calvinists (proper) to hyper-Calvinism. They did this to the extent that they seldom referenced hyper-calvinism as such but Calvinism as not believing in evangelism,missions etc. Certain branches of Fundamentalism still propagate this myth today.

Then, among mainstream Evangelicals men such as Ergun Caner, Peter Lumpkins,Timothy Rogers and others of likemind have carried the same ball.

Actually, according to Reformed works on Calvinism History state it goes back to the late 16th century (around 1690ish) where it is noted to have it's root (the Crispian Controversy) and developed till the last decade or so of the 17th century where heated controversy was now in the forefront. At least that is what those of the Reformed view state.

Richard Davis (1700), Joseph Hussy especially stands as one who was the vocal mouth pieces for Hyper-Calvinism (per Reformed works)... and then Skepp who was basically the first 'Baptist" Hyper-Calvinists. - on through to John Gill and on from there as well.

You will find Reformed pastors and such even BEFORE mid 20th century who spoke out against what was even then known as Hyper-Calvinism.. men like Spurgeon and others.

Hyper-Calvinism came out of High Calvinism, being an offshoot of the Supra view.

Here is one from APuritansmind.com

Historically Speaking

Hyper-Calvinism is not a movement which has withstood the test of time. It is like Dispensationalism in that it is a fairly new invention in the scheme of Church History. Hyper-Calvinism formally took shape in 1707 at the time of John Hussey and his disciple, John Skepp. Skepp in turn prompted the young, and soon to be well-known Dr. John Gill, down a road that would spawn one of Hyper-Calvinism’s “greater” works, The Cause of God and Truth. Though Hyper-Calvinism had appeared in the writing of Hussey and the preaching of Skepp, Gill’s work far surpassed them both in notoriety and volume. Gill’s Hyper-Calvinist work focused on dismantling the heresy of Arminianism, the opposite extreme on the theological spectrum. However, in doing so, Gill’s result was an unbridled Hyper-Calvinism. (For a more in depth look at the history of these men and the debate surrounding Charles Spurgeon in later years see Iain Murray’s book Spurgeon and Hyper-Calvinism: the Battle for Gospel Preaching.) Later on, William Huntington kept this position alive through his influence and writing. But nowhere do we find scores of theologically astute men contending for this doctrine at any one time, or ever after, this time. The Protestant Reformed Church has recently taken these reigns in current years. They are the only denomination to still rigorously fight for Hyper-Calvinistic theology without calling it Hyper-Calvinism. They would deem it the Gospel. Prof. David Engelsma has written a defense of this in a book called Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel. In it he hoped to clear the denomination of the heresy of Hyper-Calvinism, but in my opinion, he did not accomplish that task. A critique of that book can be found at this link.

The Hyper-Calvinist cannot claim one Puritan to their side, nor any weighty theologians through the last 2000 years of church history. They cannot opt for full support from Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, Turretin, the English or American Puritans, the Princeton theologians, or any reputable preacher or theologian to date, though they appeal to them. Hyper-Calvinists claim certain theological aspects of these theologians and preachers, but not the system of doctrine which they would fully support. In other words, to gain any help from these by-gone saints, they would have to quote them out of context, which is often the case. For instance, Francis Turretin will be quoted on his work concerning the call of the reprobate and the Hyper-Calvinist will shout “Amen!” However, they will never be consistent with Turretin’s thought and quote his section on the love of God for all men. Turretin was unswerving with himself on these points. Such is the same undertaking with Augustine, Calvin, Rutherford, Edwards, and others. Hyper-Calvinists pick and choose what they would like them to say, but not what they really say in their context. Just about any web-based article you can find on the internet by Hyper-Calvinists engage in this type of bibliographic blunder.

 

[Rippon]

Actually, according to Reformed works on Calvinism History state it goes back to the late 16th century (around 1690ish) where it is noted to have it's root (the Crispian Controversy) and developed till the last decade or so of the 17th century where heated controversy was now in the forefront. At least that is what those of the Reformed view state.

Topias Crisp was accused of fanning what later became known as hyper-Calvinism. But not all Calvinist scholars agree. Spurgeon thought Crisp was one of the greatest of Christian divines.

Richard Davis (1700), Joseph Hussy especially stands as one who was the vocal mouth pieces for Hyper-Calvinism (per Reformed works)... and then Skepp who was basically the first 'Baptist" Hyper-Calvinists.

Yes.Late in life for both of them. Not during the majority of their ministries if my memory is correct on this one.

- on through to John Gill and on from there as well.

I don't regard John Gill as a hyper-Calvinist.Dr.Tom Nettles doesn't either. Although a number of hypers looked to Gill (especially after his death) as a guru of sorts for their cause.

You will find Reformed pastors and such even BEFORE mid 20th century who spoke out against what was even then known as Hyper-Calvinism.. men like Spurgeon and others.

I never said otherwise,did I? Their were solid Calvinists of the late 18th and during the 19th century who spoke out against true hyper-Calvinism.

Spurgeon dealt with the assults of James Wells in particular. He nicknamed him King James (privately).

Christmas Evans was one who fell into a kind of hyper-Calvinism --Sandemanism. He recovered his old gospel passion after a number of cold lifeless years.

Hyper-Calvinism came out of High Calvinism, being an offshoot of the Supra view.

Yes,it used to be called high Calvinism,unltra-Calvinism or other terms.

But just because one is a Supra doesn't = hyper-Calvinism.

 

[Allan]

I don't regard John Gill as a hyper-Calvinist.Dr.Tom Nettles doesn't either. Although a number of hypers looked to Gill (especially after his death) as a guru of sorts for their cause.

The vast majority of reformed historians and scholars, I know of or can find, all state John Gill was definitively hyper in his views. I am simply going by what the majority of Reformed writers are saying with respect to their theological view in contrast to that of Hyper-Calvinism (and those who held them)

Whether or not he really was or was not.. I leave to the majorityof the Reformed view on this one.

I never said otherwise,did I? Their were solid Calvinists of the late 18th and during the 19th century who spoke out against true hyper-Calvinism.

You stated "Certain American non-Fundamentalists in the mid-20 century linked Calvinists (proper) to hyper-Calvinism."

I was showing it was much earlier than mid 20th century, not beginning in America, and that it was the Reformed group who linked Calvinists (proper) to Hyper-Calinvism.. in the sense it sprang forth from Calvinism

But just because one is a Supra doesn't = hyper-Calvinism.

I agree.

 

[Rippon]

The vast majority of reformed historians and scholars, I know of or can find, all state John Gill was definitively hyper in his views. I am simply going by what the majority of Reformed writers are saying with respect to their theological view in contrast to that of Hyper-Calvinism (and those who held them)

Are you sure you aren't just citing theologians in general --not specifically Calvinist scholars?

Timothy George doesn't regard John Gill as a h-C. Neither does Robert Reymond to my knowledge. A.W.Pink didn't. Abraham Booth didn't. My namesake,John Rippon didn't. The list could go on for a while.

You stated "Certain American non-Fundamentalists in the mid-20 century linked Calvinists (proper) to hyper-Calvinism."

Yes,I did.

I was showing it was much earlier than mid 20th century, not beginning in America, and that it was the Reformed group who linked Calvinists (proper) to Hyper-Calinvism.[sic]. in the sense it sprang forth from Calvinism

No,that's not the case. There is a clear line of demarcation. You know very well that certain Fundamentalists starting in the mid-20th century-- and it continues today --deliberately distort the truth. They mix hyper-Calvinism togther with Calvinism proper.

Of course originally hyper-Calvinism sprang out of Calvinism. But the two are different entities. No Calvinist of the 19th or 20th century linked the two together in the manner of certain mid-20th century preachers and teachers of Fundamentalism.

 

[saturneptune]

These are all excellent responses, from Allen and Rippon especially on the historical background. Anyone who has read this thread has got to see the huge gap between Calvinists and hypers. I wonder how the hypers explained the last few verses of Matthew and verses like "Faith comes by hearing......."

 

[Allan]

Are you sure you aren't just citing theologians in general --not specifically Calvinist scholars?

No.. Monergism, Purtians Mind, even some Presbitary sources. Different scholars and historian works they cite for readers reference materials.

Timothy George doesn't regard John Gill as a h-C. Neither does Robert Reymond to my knowledge. A.W.Pink didn't. Abraham Booth didn't. My namesake,John Rippon didn't. The list could go on for a while.

A.W Pink bounced back and forth between the two (specifically with regard to the gospel being offered) John Rippon is noted also as being hyperist in some of his views as well (some say full).. these again, are from Reformed sources, not non-reformed.

No,that's not the case. There is a clear line of demarcation. You know very well that certain Fundamentalists starting in the mid-20th century-- and it continues today --deliberately distort the truth. They mix hyper-Calvinism togther with Calvinism proper.

Of course originally hyper-Calvinism sprang out of Calvinism. But the two are different entities. No Calvinist of the 19th or 20th century linked the two together in the manner of certain mid-20th century preachers and teachers of Fundamentalism.

I agre that there is a clear demarcation. The reformers show attest to this even prior to 19th and 20th century, and it was 'they' who linked the two views since Hyper springs 'from' the reformed view of Calvinism. That was my point. Since you are stating that you mean 'some' try to claim that Hyper IS Calvinism.. that is distinctly different than the term 'linking' implies, since the two are in fact, linked.

 

[Rippon]

Monergism, Purtians Mind, even some Presbitary sources. Different scholars and historian works they cite for readers reference materials.

When I find the time I will cite Calvinists scholars/authors/preachers who deny that John Gill was a h-C.

A.W Pink bounced back and forth between the two (specifically with regard to the gospel being offered)

Again,we are not talking about A.W.Pink and his alleged hyperism (which I think is bogus). I simply stated that he,to my knowledge never indicted that Gill was a hyper. If I am wrong on that cite the contrary.

John Rippon is noted also as being hyperist in some of his views as well (some say full).. these again, are from Reformed sources, not non-reformed.

You are straying from the subject again. John Rippon strenously denied that John Gill was a h-C.

I agree that there is a clear demarcation.

You agree,but object in the following.

The reformers show attest to this even prior to 19th and 20th century,

The reformers? The Reformers were in the 16th century.

and it was 'they' who linked the two views since Hyper springs 'from' the reformed view of Calvinism. That was my point.

Who,exactly are the "they"? I don't understand why you even think that "point" is so relevant to this discussion.

Since you are stating that you mean 'some' try to claim that Hyper IS Calvinism.. that is distinctly different than the term 'linking' implies, since the two are in fact, linked.

I still don't get what you are trying to say.

The mid-20th century to present day Fundamentalists who conflate H-C with Calvinism are a different breed altogether than 19th and 20th century Calvinist scholars. The 19th and 20th century Calvinist scholars were and aren't into obscuring the differences between H-C and Calvinism.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Rippon mentioned hyper-Calvinists. They believe that God elects sovereignly, but also saves whom he elects whether they ever hear the gospel or not. If that's true, there's no point in missions and evangelism.

The point of missions or evangelism is to preach Christ a victorious savior and the sinner a redeemed soul, not to preach Christ a possible savior if the sinner acquiesces to the wooing of the Spirit.

 

[pinoybaptist]

And think of how many individual posts, and indeed, whole threads, would not have appeared on the BB if there was no confusion between Calvinism and hypercalvinism!

And I wouldn't have reached 6418 posts....:laugh:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

And I wouldn't have reached 6418 posts....:laugh:

your always substantiating how your NOT Hyper-Calvinist, correct?