Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Calvinism and Arminianism

I'm a big fan of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. I listen to his sermons quite a bit and have read him some. (His sermons are on a website dedicated to preserving his sermons - mljtrust.org). In sermon 5758, Calvinism Hypercalvinism and Arminianism, Dr. Lloyd-Jones says that a hyper-Calvinist is one who cannot make an offer of the gospel, or exhort people to repent because they are afraid of being inconsistent with their theological principles. He also said that there are parts of Calvinistic theology that cannot be reconciled by our minds, like the idea of election and at the same time the personal responsibility of everyone to repent.

My questions are this. Is his definition of Hyper- Calvinism correct? And secondly, since there is a lot of hammering each other on this site about the inconsistency of the systems, is Dr. Lloyd-Jones right in this or was he a compromiser. If you don't know, most of his work and sermons seemed to be in the 60's and up into the early 70's, at least what I have.

Calvinism; Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism - a sermon from Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones

I don't expect anyone to listen to someone's whole sermon, but it's there for reference. (22 minute mark and at about 46 minute mark was where I was). What are members opinions on this in general?

 

I put this up, @kyredneck , aware that people have differences of opinion in what Hyper-Calvinism is. But do you have anything to share on this. Is Lloyd-Jones's definition right, wrong, or incomplete. I tend to agree with him.

 

I have to admit I had to look up Fuller's "duty faith". But thanks. I want to read up on Fuller. And it does fit in. I guess I wasn't really thinking much about the issue of whether faith was a duty as much as just the logical gyrations we go through trying to prove election and predestination and then how it matches up logically with mans responsibility which to me at least has to occur at the time an individual is made aware of the gospel message - and so is a true difficulty in reconciling with predestination. By the way, you can add to the list of "hypers" hyper-active, which would be my grandson.

 

My knowledge of Fuller is limited. What I do know of him is mainly from the fact that Martyn Lloyd-Jones quotes him in his book, "The Puritans" when talking about something called "Sandemanianism". "Duty faith" is mentioned briefly, but there is a lot of discussion on the nature of saving faith. The sermon I listed from Dr. Lloyd-Jones seems to show the folly of constantly throwing verses at each other showing the truth of predestination and election and then ending up at an impasse when someone throws verses right back showing the truth of man's responsibility to respond. Lloyd-Jones's method of responding to scripture in a humble way recognizing our limitations is helpful to me at least. From what I know of him it was certainly not from lack of intellect that he used this approach.

 

I'm not familiar with the Hyper-Calvinist position to know for sure but I would have to see you cite some type of reference that any of them believe that a person is saved if they never hear of Christ or the gospel. And while I admit that what we call Calvinism covers a wide range of practices that statement is completely wrong concerning Calvinism in general.

 

@MrW . I'm not a Primitive Baptist. So I don't have to defend them but you need to reread the link you posted. From the link: Point 1 They are using "condition" in it's strongest sense, as if God sits back and has to wait and see whether he sees faith, repentance and so on in a person and then God responds by saving. Puritans and other Calvinists like Edwards and Owen used "condition" simply as something that must occur and without it the thing will not occur. So they would believe that faith and repentance must occur but that it is all the work of the Holy Spirit. God is not forced to wait to see if a person has faith and repentance but it is still true that they must be present. The Primitives then are not wrong in this but are stressing the work from God's side in a very strong way.

Point 4, points 7-8 These clearly refute the idea that no gospel or belief is necessary. They also point out that those that are called are the ones who come - with a strong emphasis on the call as primary.

You are misrepresenting Primitive Baptist beliefs. I know some and we have had some as guest speakers at our church. The one church I am familiar with has a missionary outreach also. I could worship with them any time but I like Sunday school for children and I have nothing against musical instruments - although I must admit I find their singing of hymns without music beautiful.

Very strong Calvinists do consciously try to limit themselves to preaching "Christ and him crucified" whereas more moderate Calvinists like Lloyd-Jones and Spurgeon have no reservations about pleading and reasoning and exhorting people to repent and believe the gospel. I don't even have any reservations about telling people Christ died for them because I am acting in a propositional manner and I know the ones who are called effectually will come and the others won't but the proposition or "offer" of the gospel or the "general call" was still true.

 

I guess they warped you bad. Sorry to hear that. Is the fact that it was "Hardshell" make a difference? The Primitive Baptist Church I am familiar with doesn't seem to be like you describe.