Hyper-Calvinism and it's beliefs

[TCGreek]

Ok, great.

Do you agree or disagree with 5 types of hyper views in which Phil discribes?
Or
Some of them?
Or
How about Monergism's list?


And yes, I'm proding you. :laugh:

I agree with all five, but I mus admit that some of the arguments that have been used are not as strong as others.

Some of them are quite forced as I said.

I haven't look at Phil or Monergism's list.

 

[TCGreek]

I'm a Cal by exegetical decision not a forced-fed one. :laugh:

 

[Allan]

I haven't look at Phil or Monergism's list.

Well what are you waiting for brother, read! Read brother, read! :laugh:
In the OP there is the Primer to Hyper-Calvinism hyperlink which will take you the actaul article for a better and more thorough defining of terms/positions.

 

[Allan]

Can anybody be kind enough to show me a link where one can study hyper-Calvinism in depth, with quotes from hyper-Calvinists that precisely say that evangelism is no longer necessary, and the reasons they set forth ?
thanks.

You will find what you want (in general - it gives the baptist churches that hold to it) in the hyperlink I provided in the OP - A Primer for Hyper-Calvinism it speaks some. It is in first of the 5 types he sets forth that are at odds with the historical Calvinism or Sovereign grace doctrines.

So if you research those churches and evangelism and hyper-calvinsim I'm sure you'll get all the info you want.

 

[TCGreek]

Well what are you waiting for brother, read! Read brother, read! :laugh:
In the OP there is the Primer to Hyper-Calvinism hyperlink which will take you the actaul article for a better and more thorough defining of terms/positions.

I read primers on hyper -calvinism before.

As I said, "I'm a cal by exegetical decisions..."

 

[webdog]

Allan, you have done a great service. From now on, when someone on your side confuses Calvinism with Hyper-C, it will reveal their failure to read your posts, or a willing ignorance of a distinction between the two.

One of the main complaints I hear from both Cals and Non-Cals is that each side misrepresents the other side's views. I doubt if that will be eliminated altogether, but you've done your part.

You're correct. Based on the OP, I will need to label more of the calvinists here on the BB as hyper :laugh:

 

[Allan]

I read primers on hyper -calvinism before.

As I said, "I'm a cal by exegetical decisions..."

Ok, I'm not trying 'force feed you' :laugh:

And I realize you have 'read 'primers' on hyper-calvinism before', but I am trying to at the very least set a basic standard regarding the views of the Hyper-C persuasion. I believe Phil has set forth 5 types of H-C's in which the various other aspects some hold as hyper can fall into. Thus specific reference material is need for a basic common ground that both sides can review and agree with. I am setting out Phil Johnsons reveiw as a condences but presice view of the 5 types of Hyper views, which can incorrportate smaller or less definitive aspects. Thus the more validation from other Calvinists regarding the material the better the chances are that this thread be helpful and insightful to all.

Like I said I actually am not trying to make you read it but I appreciate your interaction thus far. Thank you.

 

[TCGreek]

Ok, I'm not trying 'force feed you' :laugh:

And I realize you have 'read 'primers' on hyper-calvinism before', but I am trying to at the very least set a basic standard regarding the views of the Hyper-C persuasion. I believe Phil has set forth 5 types of H-C's in which the various other aspects some hold as hyper can fall into. Thus specific reference material is need for a basic common ground that both sides can review and agree with. I am setting out Phil Johnsons reveiw as a condences but presice view of the 5 types of Hyper views, which can incorrportate smaller or less definitive aspects. Thus the more validation from other Calvinists regarding the material the better the chances are that this thread be helpful and insightful to all.

Like I said I actually am not trying to make you read it but I appreciate your interaction thus far. Thank you.

Allan,

I deny all five points of hyper-calvinism as outlined in the OP.

 

[pinoybaptist]

You're correct. Based on the OP, I will need to label more of the calvinists here on the BB as hyper :laugh:

I think there are very few Calvinists here who can actually be labeled hyper.
I know I have been labeled as such.

 

[webdog]

I think there are very few Calvinists here who can actually be labeled hyper.
I know I have been labeled as such.

...according to the OP, the majority can be.

 

[Pastor Larry]

...according to the OP, the majority can be.

Which of the five points in the OP do you think could be applied to the majority of Calvinists here?

 

[webdog]

Points 3 and 5 are quite common here.

 

[Pastor Larry]

3. 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
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

And who here, who is a Calvinist, would be guilty of that? Having been involved in these conversations for a long-time, I am aware of a few here who would hold to that, but very few, and certainly not enough to call it "common."

 

[webdog]

Let them come forward. Quite a few.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Why let them come forward? You seem to think you know who they are. Just mention their names and let's see if we (and they) agree with you.

 

[webdog]

Why let them come forward? You seem to think you know who they are. Just mention their names and let's see if we (and they) agree with you.

As a mod, I'm sure you know hot to use the search funtion. So I'm not accused of misrepresenting anybody, let them come forward.

 

[Pastor Larry]

As a mod, I'm sure you know hot to use the search funtion.

I would not know what to search for.

So I'm not accused of misrepresenting anybody, let them come forward.

My suspicion is that you would be misrepresenting people. There are a few who would qualify under #3 or #5, but it is certainly not common in my estimation.

I think it would have been better judgment to refrain from making the charge, particularly since you are not willing to back it up. Not making accusations is always better than having to retract them, or plead out from substantiating them.

 

[Rippon]

I affirm that the Lord has no love for the non-elect . But I think I am in a distinct minority here . I am perhaps the only one who has this conviction on the BB .

I do not believe that God has different gradations of love for all people .

 

[Rippon]

3. 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),

The word "offer" needs to be clarified . It smacks too much of a sales proposal . The Lord actually bestows salvation on those of His choosing . I know the word "offer" was used in some historic Reformed Confessions . But the meaning was not what the word connotes today . It originally meant the proclamation of the Gospel -- the presentation of it .BTW , regarding The Synod of Dort -- that was written in Latin and Dutch I believe . The English translation needs refinement .

I do not believe that God sincerely wants the reprobate to be saved . It is not His desire .God has no unmet desires .He saves those He intends to save .

But as Christians we are to tell others the bad news of their lost estate and then the Good News of the Gospel .There should be no restrictions on whom we proclaim these truths . Matthew 28 is our duty , our commission .

However , the Lord who has commanded that all who hear the Gospel need to repent and believe also wills , and intends the salvation of the elect and them alone .

 

[webdog]

There's one, Larry.

Next?