-
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!
Do you recognise the differences between reformed/calvinist/Hyper?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
- Status
Limited atonement is hyper.
actually, that would be Reformed viewpoint on the atonement, but not Hyper just by that!
It is hyper just by that.
How so?
reformed hold to a definite atonement made for the elect by God at the Cross, but also hold to the need to have them hear and resond to the message of the Gospel!
Hyper would be saying that God freely chose to save them, and God will save them regardless of them hearing about jesus or not!
No way. It may be something that you disagree with, but it is not hypercalvinism. Limited atonement is classic calvinism.
Hypercalvinism would be antinomianism. I think it results from an inability to see the difference between soft-determinism and hard-determinism. Most of the straw-men you hear about calvinism (why should you evangelize, God's gonna do what he wants. I can't believe God would drag someone into heaven. I can't believe God would keep a sinner who wants to repent from doing it because they aren't elect) are descriptions of hypercalvinism.
Hypercalvinism only considers the ends, but not the means.
salzer mtn
Well-Known Member
When a person say's a belief is hyper it absolutly doesn't have a meaning. The word hyper means high-strung, excitable, extremely active. The doctines of grace are all high doctrine, not hyper.
Dr. David Allen:
Quote of John 3:16.
Argument against Limited atonement quoting only Calvinists.
What two things do these men have in common?
(Long list of theologians including Calvin, Bullinger, Ursinus, Bunyan, Edwards, Hodge, Strong.)
A: They are all Calvinists, and they all rejected Limited atonement.
2 Corinthians 5:19, “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.”
5-point Calvinists define “world” as the “elect.”
Extent of the atonement, two possibilities:
1. Jesus died for all humanity:
a. Arminians- He died for all equally.
b. 4-point Calvinists- He died for all, but especially the elect.
2. Jesus died for the elect.
Jesus died efficiently for all, but sufficiently for the elect. In the high Calvinist position, Jesus’ death is sufficient only for the elect.
Several theologians were named who signed either the Canons of Dort or the Westminster Confession, yet rejected Limited atonement.
“The dirty little secret that you’re not often told” about Dort is that the language was left ambiguous to allow both high Calvinists and those who rejected “strict particularism” to all sign the document.
Calvinists were repeatedly enjoined to read primary sources rather than only popular authors like John Piper and John MacArthur.
The first person ever to hold to limited atonement was a 9th century monk named Gottschalk. Gottschalk was condemned by three French councils.
Luther rejected Limited atonement, as seen in his comments on 1 John 2:2 and numerous other comments.
Numerous quotes from John Calvin were offered (such as his comments on Romans 5:18 and John 3:16) to demonstrate that he did not hold to Limited atonement.
Ursinus, “Christ satisfied for all…” but not in respect to its application.
The controversy in the second and third generation was over the introduction of Limited atonement into Calvinism.
With the introduction of Limited atonement into Calvinism leads to hyper-Calvinism.
http://www.challies.com/guest-blogg...essage-on-limited-atonement-by-dr-david-allen
Quote of John 3:16.
Argument against Limited atonement quoting only Calvinists.
What two things do these men have in common?
(Long list of theologians including Calvin, Bullinger, Ursinus, Bunyan, Edwards, Hodge, Strong.)
A: They are all Calvinists, and they all rejected Limited atonement.
2 Corinthians 5:19, “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.”
5-point Calvinists define “world” as the “elect.”
Extent of the atonement, two possibilities:
1. Jesus died for all humanity:
a. Arminians- He died for all equally.
b. 4-point Calvinists- He died for all, but especially the elect.
2. Jesus died for the elect.
Jesus died efficiently for all, but sufficiently for the elect. In the high Calvinist position, Jesus’ death is sufficient only for the elect.
Several theologians were named who signed either the Canons of Dort or the Westminster Confession, yet rejected Limited atonement.
“The dirty little secret that you’re not often told” about Dort is that the language was left ambiguous to allow both high Calvinists and those who rejected “strict particularism” to all sign the document.
Calvinists were repeatedly enjoined to read primary sources rather than only popular authors like John Piper and John MacArthur.
The first person ever to hold to limited atonement was a 9th century monk named Gottschalk. Gottschalk was condemned by three French councils.
Luther rejected Limited atonement, as seen in his comments on 1 John 2:2 and numerous other comments.
Numerous quotes from John Calvin were offered (such as his comments on Romans 5:18 and John 3:16) to demonstrate that he did not hold to Limited atonement.
Ursinus, “Christ satisfied for all…” but not in respect to its application.
The controversy in the second and third generation was over the introduction of Limited atonement into Calvinism.
With the introduction of Limited atonement into Calvinism leads to hyper-Calvinism.
http://www.challies.com/guest-blogg...essage-on-limited-atonement-by-dr-david-allen
Last edited by a moderator:
What Is Hyper-Calvinism?
What is “Hyper-Calvinism”? Phil Johnson has a good primer on the subject:
A fivefold definition: The definition I am proposing outlines five varieties of hyper-Calvinism, listed here in a declining order, from the worst kind to a less extreme variety (which some might prefer to class as “ultra-high Calvinism”):
A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear,
OR Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner,
OR Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal),
OR Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,”
OR Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.
All five varieties of hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2008/11/28/what-is-hyper-calvinism/
What is “Hyper-Calvinism”? Phil Johnson has a good primer on the subject:
A fivefold definition: The definition I am proposing outlines five varieties of hyper-Calvinism, listed here in a declining order, from the worst kind to a less extreme variety (which some might prefer to class as “ultra-high Calvinism”):
A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear,
OR Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner,
OR Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal),
OR Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,”
OR Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.
All five varieties of hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2008/11/28/what-is-hyper-calvinism/
Okay...I just don't see how that makes it true. For it to be hyper calvinism, it must go above and beyond what is traditionally considered to be calvinism. To consider 5-point calvinism hyper-cavlinism is, at best, a semantic game. At worst, it's deceptive.
So you believe the Calvinist I linked to is playing a semantic game or being deceptive?
The calvinist you linked identifies himself as a 5-point calvinist and then refutes hyper-calvinism.
Phil Johnson said:
All the calvinistic churches have the correct view of the atonement, as in their confessions of faith This shallow attempt to water down the teaching is like the weak and compromised baptist faith and message.
To label all calvinists hyper is foolish. you can do what you want, but any biblical calvinist rejects this out of hand.
it is quite fashionable to re-define terms nowadays to try and be more "seeker friendly".....but the teaching is what it is.
This truth comes to us as it has in history, not in a vacuum that people are free to re-define.
Any who do not hold all five points.....and there have been some notable and godly men, ryle, baxter etc,,,,, were inconsistent in this which is okay...you can only believe what God allows you to.
for any interested in a response;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QGJsGw36Hk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdUtAy2Hc-4
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok you are trying to make a point without actually addressing what he said about hyper-calvinism. Let's take a look at it.
Knowing that he affirms limited atonement, how do you understand what he wrote there?
Here is another one:
One hyper-Calvinist, reacting to my comments about this subject on an e-mail list, declared, "The message of the Gospel is that God saves those who are His own and damns those who are not." Thus the good news about Christ's death and resurrection is supplanted by a message about election and reprobation—usually with an inordinate stress on reprobation. In practical terms, the hyper-Calvinist "gospel" often reduces to the message that God simply and single-mindedly hates those whom He has chosen to damn, and there is nothing whatsoever they can do about it.
- Status