Alan Dale Gross
Active Member
Yep, you were
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What is a hyper-Calvinist? How do we sustain our strong Calvinistic convictions without slipping into hyper-Calvinism?
- Thread starter Alan Dale Gross
- Start date
Greetings DaveXR650. Peace to you and yours! My first time here on this Baptist board, although I have been on other boards before.
I would like to second your observation regarding Hyper-Calvinism (what I call a High Calvinist). In some issues, the High Calvinist position is a progression through the logic of a position, step by step, until they reach what even appears to me to be the logical conclusion of their own particular starting point. However, as we well know, being an inch off square at the foundation leaves you a foot off square at its top.
The problem, as I see it, seems to be that many High Calvinists today don't understand fully how their preferred theologians reached their conclusions down through the years. It required a significant amount of logical deduction and a particular starting point.
A prime example for me is the introduction of the Supralapsarian Model of decrees developed by Beza. A foundational model in which the logic of High Calvinism began to evolve. Upon studying the Supralapsarian model, it is clear to me how some of the logical conclusions are reached in Hyper-Calvinism (and thus the errors). Because when you start with the Supralapsarian model as the foundation of your logic, the conclusions clearly lead to Hyper-Calvinism.
The model that I believe is more biblically congruent with multiple themes within the Bible is the Infralapsarian Model (which is actually the most held model by Reformed theologians down through the years). In my experience, if a Calvinist's theology is more in line with the Infralapsarian Model, they are less likely to be a High Calvinist and more in line with general Calvinism. The starting point simply not leading to Hyper-Calvinism.
Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure.
Great analysis here on your posting, and do think that those after Calvin even tended to go more extreme than Calvin did himself regarding this plansand purposes to get worked out and fulfilled?..
Also amuses me when those who claim that are "mild Calvinists" such as a Norman Geisler based that upon being a 3 point Calvinist, and accused those holding to all 5 points being Hyper pr extreme Cals. but to me he was just a real Arminian theologian?
Think even Baptist theologian Millard Erickson made same such claims also
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Welcome.
I would say in Hyper-Calvinism you have a belief that justification is accomplished either in the mind of God before time as we know it even started or at least at the time Christ died. Thus any type of outreach is either unnecessary or to the extent the gospel is spreading, the purpose is to reach the elect. Salvation amounts to a realization that one is indeed elect.
I think High-Calvinism is very strong on God's predestination of everything but they teach that although the elect and only the elect will be saved, they are truly lost until they are saved. Thus what is occurring when a person "gets saved" is truly that a lost, albeit elect person, due to the work of the Holy Spirit repents of sin and turns to Christ by faith. John Owen would be a High-Calvinist. They would accept all the 5 points of the TULIP without any of the equivocations you hear. John Owen for example has the most famous defense of limited atonement in "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" that has ever been put forth. But - Owen also said that the gospel of Christ when put forth in word or preaching is accompanied by an "invitation" and that he had it on authority of scripture that anyone who came to Christ by faith would be saved.
Obviously, from the above you can see that there is a lot of leeway for one to perceive differently what is going on and yet still be on board with a system. For a Calvinist like Owen, when he said that scripture says that anyone who comes to Christ will be saved - did he in the back of his mind also think that only the elect will respond and therefore "could come" doesn't mean they will come or have any chance to come if not elect? Was it just a hypothetical statement which in reality is no different from the hyperCal above who is just being more honest and less nuanced? Then you go to guys like J.C. Ryle who say they believe in all the doctrines of grace and then explicitly teach that you have it in your power to accept or reject the truth of the gospel, and he taught that you should approach people with the truth that "Christ has died for you" and that if you are not saved at last it will be your own doing by your own will.
So then the question is, are guys like Ryle really Calvinists, or are they really not Calvinists in the strict sense but were attempting to maintain their credentials and group affiliation while being a little "off" in their teaching.
That's why this is all more complicated that it seems at first. You have stated positions and confessions. And then you have the question of how people perceive those. And with confessions, you have the probability that they were written to bring in all who were close enough in theology to associate together and therefore some of the positions may look unclear but it was on purpose that they are unclear because they wanted to be as inclusive as possible.
Thank you Dave. And thank you for your pleasant, objective, and informative post.
Most people I would consider a High Calvinist start with the basic assumption of the Supralapsarian model (knowingly or unknowingly), i.e., God's first intent of creation was to predestine the elect to eternal life. Their logic follows from this first assertion and ends, well, where it clearly follows. (a first intent I deny as being biblical, see below). To be clear. I do not deny election.
We are instructed through scripture that by God the Son “all things were created” (Col1:16, Heb 1:2) in both “heaven and earth” (Col1:16), for it is God the Son our Lord “through whom are all things”(1Cor 8:6) “and without [whom] was not anything made that was made.” (John 1:3, Heb 1:2). Not only were all things made through God the Son but all that was created, all that is, and all that will be, is made “for Him” (Col 1:16, Rom 11:36, Heb 2:10). As Augustine wrote, “Thou hast formed us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee.”
Scripture tells us that God the Son is the Alpha (Rev 22:13, 1:8, 1:11, 21:6), the beginning, and that God the Son is the Omega (Rev 22:13, 1:8, 1:11, 21:6), the purposeful end of this world that is to ‘unite all things’ (Eph 1:10) to Him, for Him (Col 1:16, Rom 11:36, Heb 2:10). Therefore, the purposeful beginning and the purposeful end, that is the object of final end that was decreed from the precipice of creation, is that all creation culminates toward its intended end, and that is God the Son (Eph 1:10, Rom 11:36, Rev 22:13, 1:8, 1:11, 21:6).
God the Son is the first intent and the final intended end of creation. It is not the elect.
I agree. Also, that to God be given the glory and credit, which is commendable.
I agree.
Your above quote reminded me of another characteristic of the High Calvinist that seems to be common, in my experience. That is, many I have encountered don't acknowledge the spectrum that is allowed within the confessions. The topic of limited atonement being a prime example. I would like to add, I distinguish between and Calvinist and a High Calvinist.
Many High Calvinists take the TULIP (developed in approx. 1905) and assert that it is the only doctrine of the Calvinist since the counsel of Dort. When in reality, the "L" has been/is currently disputed within the Calvinist ranks themselves. There were post-Reformation scholars such as John Davenant, Amyraut, Jean Daille, Bishop Ussher, and Richard Baxter, along with modern scholars such as R. T. Kendall, Alan Clifford, Charles Bell, Curt Daniel, Kevin Kennedy, and David Ponter that all assert Unlimited Atonement but particular election.
I have a Calvinist friend, I am not a Calvinist proper, that claims that High Calvinist have highjacked Calvinism. What he means by this is that the High Calvinist has presented Calvinism as not having a spectrum under the confessions and being dogmatic in the High Calvinist view only. I tend to agree with his assertion.
I often point out that John Calvin in some areas would even be considered a moderate Calvinist in today's landscape.
I agree with all this.
Great conversation Dave. Thank you for your time.
Peace to you, brother.
Thank you brother. All glory and praise to God for anything He has done through me. All the errors are mine.
I totally agree with this, that is, there began to be Calvinists and those that expanded and developed additional thought to Calvinism. Thus creating a spectrum.
Peace to you, brother.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Limited atonement is a perfect example of the range of views or at least the range of the way the views are explained in Calvinism. Some Calvinists explain limited atonement as Christ's blood being sufficient for all mankind, yet God specifically had in mind the elect at the time Christ actually died. Others say no, the sins of the elect were atoned for, actually atoned for, at Christ's death. Those not elect did not and can not have their sins atoned for because it is done and set as is. There are whole books written to explain how the atonement can truly be limited and yet a true free offer of salvation is extended to everyone who hears the gospel.
And you are right. It seems that Calvin, and a lot of early theologians either weren't thinking about this because they had more pressing issues, had another view of the atonement, or didn't write much on it that we have access to. And there were Calvinists who flat out believed in a universal atonement, were aware of the controversy, and wanted to remain Calvinist.
Greetings again Dave. Loved your last post. Very informative (and fair).
Regarding the topic of Calvin's view of Atonement. It would appear there are 4 recent views.
1. Calvin believed in limited atonement (mostly High Calvinist by my estimation).
2. Calvin held a "form" of unlimited atonement. (a list who think this)
3. Calvin's view cannot be ascertained (short list who think this it would appear).
4. Calvin, like Luther and others in his day, adhered to the Lombardian formula.
As you said, Calvin never spoke to the distinction and you touched on some possibilities why. But to me it seems that he did not speak to it because He, like the majority of the Reformers of the day, held the Lombardian formula. Which is that Christ died for all sufficiently and for the elect efficaciously. This was the overwhelming view of the day.
This would seem to be, only assuming here, why there is such a long list who hold #2. Because one would think that if one held that "Christ died for all sufficiently" then Christ did in fact shed His blood for all . Because the Lombardian formula is that Christ died for all "sufficiently".
A good article for this would be David Allen's "Calvin and the Extent of the Atonement: 21st Century Research". For those that are interested.
Peace to you brother
Hyper clas hold to bogus eternal justification, as they seem to see all of the elect as already born in a saved state
Seems to tie into eternal justification and double predestination for heaven and Hell, while "normal calvinists" like myself see all sinners, even elected ones, must make t commitment to receive Jesus as our Lord and Savior, and see election/predestination referring to the condition of the redeemed in Christ, not those lost still.
There are legitimate questions to just how much Calvin himself held to the Limited Atonememnt view of Doctrines of GraceThank you brother. All glory and praise to God for anything He has done through me. All the errors are mine.
I totally agree with this, that is, there began to be Calvinists and those that expanded and developed additional thought to Calvinism. Thus creating a spectrum.
Peace to you, brother.
And the so called 4 point Calvinist arose due to preciously this confusion over limited/universal atonement
Think view read most expressed have encountered has been while the atonement was of sufficient worth to have saved all, God the Father intended to have that grace applied towards the elect in Christ as a Particular atonement
When does "evangelism" go wrong?
By feeding the awful lie to the flock that they're responsible for others' eternal destiny.
I agree. For me, it seems clear that Calvin held to the Lombardian formula. As did most Reformers of his day. Thus, in the strict formulation of "limited Atonement", Calvin did not hold limited atonement. There are modern day essays from Calvinists that assert this.
To delve into more murky waters. My contention is that the Arminians largely were responding to those like Beza and the development of the High Calvinist position (which came after Calvin). Which then prompted a response from all Calvinists at the counsel of Dort.
Not that the Arminians would have agreed with everything Calvin said. It just that it is my contention that the development of the High Calvinist was the final straw for those that more inclined toward Arminius.
Peace to you brother
What a great week, JesusFan. Many blessings from God all around. Peace to you brother.
As I stated in another post, most of the eternal justification, double predestination, etc., logically follows from the Supralapsarian Model. To me, it clearly leads to those formulations. The problem is, the first intention of the Supralapsarian model is false. The first intention of the Supralapsarian model is that the elect are for whom God created.
That is, the elect are postulated as the first intent and the last ended end. Which I showed in another post through scripture as being false.
Without the Supralapsarian model, and using an Infralapsarian model, common High Calvinist formulations fall away. And one is left with simple Calvinism.
Hope your week is a great one
Seek God's truth as if hidden treasure (Prov 2)
With the teaching that we get saved by our own efforts and "full free will"
While Both Supra and Infra understandings are allowed in Calvinism, it appears that the Classic view expressed by the Confessions and authors of Theology seem to have favored the Infra view as the standard majority view within Calvinism
Hyper Calvinism to me biggest issues are denial of the Graet Commission, due to their Eternal Justification position, and skirting very close to God being causer of Sin and Fall