Calvinism/Hypercalvinism?

Like I said on another post it sounds like God can be "just a little bit sovereign".
How would Calvinists rank God's Sovereignty on a scale of 1 to 10.
1 Being Arminian and 10 being that God made Jeffry Dahmer kill and eat his victims?

 

Before this thread can go anywhere scripturally, these questions have to be ansewred.

What is sovereignty.Does God's sovereignty limit him to what he has done, could he have done things differently. What establishes sovereignty.

 

Sovereignty is God's absolute reign over heaven and earth with total freedom from any external control, and is well expressed in Daniel 4:35

and Psalm 135:6

To my knowledge, the Bible does not address this speculation. The fact that He did and does them the way He did and has done, would make me assume they have been done right. Beyond that, I cannot say.

[ September 07, 2002, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

No. It is in the area of human responsibility that they differ. A hypercalvinist says, "God is Sovereign, so what people do doesn't count." A calvinist says, "God is Sovereign and it matters what people do".

 

But Jesus told His disciples to pray to God: "Lead us not into temptation."

 

I guess I'm a free will Calvinist.

 

Brother Glen, I think the difference is often just when one "Calvinist" thinks another "Calvinist's" views are more extreme than his own - then he calls him a "hyper-Calvinist"; Or an "Arminian" would think all "Calvinists" are "Hyper." I'm not really sure if there is an established definition for "Hyper-Calvinist." Elder Stanley Phillips embraces the term in his book Hyper-calvinism...Is It The Truth?, and equates it will those who believe "that legally, before the justice of God, all the elect have already been 'saved' judicially, but not experimentally. In the experimental application of salvation, the Holy Spirit works first, in bringing those redeemed to spiritual life and immortality; and then, and only then, can the gospel be of benefit to them."

I don't think so.

 

Bro. Vaughn:

Could it be you meant experiential instead of experimental ?

 

Bro. Glen

Here is a web site that gives the commonly accepted definition of hyper-calvinism.

http://www.gty.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm

According to what Mr. Johnson thinks, we [Primitive Baptists] would be labeled hyper-calvinists. Unfortunately I think Mr. Johnson, author of the article, has limited exposure to our faith.

Nonetheless, take a look, I think it will answer the question posed initially.

Hope all is well in California.

Jeff.

[ September 07, 2002, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: Jeff Weaver ]

 

From what I have read on here, I would consider the PBs hyper calvinists. I haven't read this article but reading Glen, pinoybaptist, chris folsom and others on here have done nothing to dissuade me from believing that. When they started here, I knew nothing about primitives. The more I find out, the more concerned I am about their doctrine. However, I do consider them as friends.

 

Pinoy, I'm not at home right now to look up the quote, but I am 99% sure that I copied it correctly. Elder Phillips use of "experimental" in the quote probably has the same meaning as you have in the word "experiential." At least that's the way I understand him.

Bro. Jeff, it is good to see that you are online and posting here again. Welcome back! Thanks for the article link.

The Elder Phillips I quote above is a Primitive Baptist (of the Absolute variety). As I note, he has embraced the term "hyper-calvinist" as compatible with the Primitive Baptist position of spiritual regeneration as opposed to the "Calvinistic" position of (what seems to me) gospel regeneration. In his book, he uses "hyper-calvinism" to refer to the Primitive Baptist (and others) position, "Calvinism" to refer to the historic views of Calvin and others who seem to hold gospel regeneration, and "neo-Calvinism" to refer to the views of Fuller, et. al. This seems to be a fair representation to me. I notice in Johnson's article, he says that "'hyper-calvinism' is something of a misnomer. It is actually a rejection of historic Calvinism." I know that I and other Sovereign Grace believers would concur with that last statement, though not necessarily agreeing with all of Johnson's conclusions in his article.

[ September 07, 2002, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

Bro. Robert

Thanks for the welcome back.

Your assessment of the notion of gospel regeneration is correct, IMO.

I think for me at least, that gospel regeneration gets the cart before the horse as it were, and it is where I must part company with John Calvin. Once upon a time a long time ago, I addressed this issue with a funny anecdote. I will try to repeat it if anyone is interested.

As a personal aside, we have gotten moved, and are slap dab in the middle of a remuddle. We have the interior downstairs pretty well finished in this old house, and are moving outside to get the claps replaced that need it, scraping and painting done before winter. We transferred our church memberships back down here last weekend, and have the associational session being held at the local church this coming weekend, so Wednesday all carpentry stops in favor of cooking and cleaning.

Hope all is well in Texas.,

 

But I think before you label us hyper-Calvinists or hypo ( )-Calvinists, wouldn't it be fair to investigate about our people ? After all, saying you are concerned about our doctrine can mean a lot of things.
How 'bout trying these websites:

religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nms/primitive_baptists.html

pb.org

 

God sovereignly chose the system of "Free will" for Angels (Lucifer and crew) and mankind "Adam and Eve etc". God did not HAVE to give them free will - He sovereignly CHOSE it before they were ever created - and at infinite cost to Himself.

God sovereignly "chose" to draw all men unto Himself AFTER the fall so that fallen depraved humanity ALSO could CHOOSE to accept Christ. The "Drawing" power of God is "more than sufficient" to enable choice for lost and totally depraved humanity. And God "sovereignly chose" that ALL men would be drawn.

God sovereignly chose to die for the sins of the "Whole World".

God sovereignly chose to "Love the World".

God is "sovereign" because nobody made Him MAKE those choices - He simply did.

In Christ,

Bob

[ September 08, 2002, 02:11 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

I am not particularly concerned since you are not in my immediate sphere of ministry. If you were to attend my church on a regular basis, we would have some serious talks about your doctrine. As I say, everything I know is what you guys have said. If you are misrepresenting your beliefs, then perhaps my position needs to change. Assuming you are telling the truth, I do have some concerns. But I still consider you my friend.

 

Glen,

I think maybe you misunderstood me. My comments were simply directed what pinoy's comments that I needed to read these websites before I made a decision. I was simply commenting that if yours and his writings were accurate, I didn't need to read other websites to confirm it. Only if you were misrepresenting it would I need that. I assume you are not misrepresenting it. I understand we wouldn't attend each others church. And that is fine with me. It is a long drive anyway and I have to preach here.