A Discussion Amongst Calvinists

[jbh28]

Do you think Hyper-Calvinism is orthodox? Would you consider it heresy? It appears to me like there is a lot of difference between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism.

There are a lot.

Here is a site I found useful that had a couple of things about the differences between Calvinists and hypers.

http://www.oldtruth.com/calvinism/avoidingconfusion.html

8) Calvinists do believe that it is the duty of men to repent and believe the gospel. This is one of our quarrels with the Hyper-Calvinists.

9) Calvinists do believe that the gospel is (to quote Calvin) to be preached indiscriminately to the elect and to the reprobate (Commentary on Isaiah 54:13). This is another one of our quarrels with the Hyper-Calvinists.

 

[mcdirector]

I am glad to see this discussion. I have never personally met a Calvinist who was not thoroughly behind missions and evangelism. Yet, I have repeated heard the charge that Calvinists don't believe in either. All I have been able to do is shake my head and say, "not in my experience."

 

[Rippon]

Do you think Hyper-Calvinism is orthodox? Would you consider it heresy? It appears to me like there is a lot of difference between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism.

I don't think hyper-Calvinism is damnable heresy. It is just the reverse image of Arminianism. There are some regenerate Arminians and there are some regenerate hyper-Calvinists.There is sub-biblical teaching in both the Arminian and hyper-Calvinist camps.

The Gospel Standard folks are a case in point. They represent hyper-Calvinism.But a number of them are godly and true servants of the Lord. Benjamin Ramsbottom has put out some excellent,spiritually edfying material over the years. The Banner of Truth has featured a number of his articles.

When compared to free-willism gone wild,the health-&wealth mess,process theology, and other tremendously destructive teachings -- hyper-Calvinism is not so extreme.It has "some" bad teachings,but it's not nearly the bad boogeyman as has been made out.

 

[Rippon]

I am speaking of those who are reformed and making their arguments.
If you are all a dither and silly enough to assume I am making up claims that there are those of the Reformed view and well know, who hold John Gill to by hyper - do some research.. it will take all of 5 minutes.

You had originally said that though Gill may have given verbal assent to the evangelism efforts of George Whitefield that "does not mean that he himself as not necessarily opposed to it."

I had then replied that I didn't know "where you were coming up with that stuff about Gill perhaps being opposed to the evangelism of George Whitefield. You won't find evidence to substantiate that charge. Stick to facts."

You had made a total speculation and tried to pass it off as factual. That's bogus.There were certain Baptist churches at that time that would not support Whitefield's evangelistic efforts. That was not the case with Gill's church. They supported Whitefield. If Gill was just half the h-C as some say then he would have denounced Whitefield from the pulpit. He did no such thing.


.

Again, I did say he would 'pick an audiance [sic]of what he viewed as elect only'.

You had said that a hyper view would be to have the gospel message only for the elect. And I had responded that Gill believed in an indiscriminate proclamation of the gospel. He didn't pick an audience of what he viewed elect only. That indeed would be a mark of hyper-Calvinism.

Gill never did any such thing and he never taught any such thing.

If you can, please find me some primary evidence where Gill held it to be the duty of all who heard the gospel to savingly repent (evangelical repentance) and believe in Christ for salvation.

When I have challenged you to bring forth info in support of your claims you flippantly told me to google. Now you hypocritically tell me to provide info that Gill held to duty faith. So be it Mr.Inconsistent.

"And even not coming to Christ,and believing in Him in this spiritual manner,when he is revealed in the external ministry of the Word,as God's way of salvation,is criminal and blameworthy,notwithstanding men's want of both will and power." (1735 The Cause of God and Truth p.87)

This for me would bring him primarily out of the hyper camp, at least as far as I have read.

Well the quote I furnished should do the trick.

 

[Robert Snow]

When compared to free-willism gone wild,the health-&wealth mess,process theology, and other tremendously destructive teachings -- hyper-Calvinism is not so extreme.It has "some" bad teachings,but it's not nearly the bad boogeyman as has been made out.

I don't know. Although I think the health-and-wealth teachings so popular among televangelist is certainly not the Gospel, I would think that Hyper-Calvinism would be at least as bad, maybe even worse. And theology that makes God, not only responsible of sin, but makes Him designing sin just to show off His glory, would seem as bottom of the barrel as it could get.