Hyper-Calvinism and it's beliefs

[J.D.]

John from Monergism said that he agreed with all but one of the 5 points that Phil made . However , from an English standpoint the two lists have nothing in common with the other . One would have to read between the lines to discern an affinity . Even though John said he agreed with much of Phil's list ,that has no bearing on the Monergism list . This isn't theological here -- I'm dealing with the English language . I am 60% H-C on one list and a 0% H-C on the other .

Right, I agree with this. And the specificity of John's list makes all the difference to me.

For example, if someone asked me if I was an "antinomian", I would replay "it depends on what you mean by antinomian." There are so many different ways of defining antinomianism that there is no way I would say yes or no without some specificity as to what was meant.

 

[Allan]

Right, I agree with this. And the specificity of John's list makes all the difference to me.

For example, if someone asked me if I was an "antinomian", I would replay "it depends on what you mean by antinomian." There are so many different ways of defining antinomianism that there is no way I would say yes or no without some specificity as to what was meant.

And Phil 'does' define what he means in the article I asked people to read 'before' they posted. That way one can see that what he is saying meshes with Monergism list consistantly.

Geeze guys, even Monergism states both list define properly the views of hyper Calvinism. They 'endorse' Phil's list as a proper view of the different types of Hyper-Cal views. It is what it is, and it is just that - Hyper Cal view points.

 

[Allan]

Oh, and I was just advised that John who e-mailed me stating that he agrees, is in fact the head of monergism. John W. Hendrix

Now, I feel really silly sending him another e-mail requesting to know if those at Monergism as whole agree with Phil Johnson list and if the two lists in question (in Monergism view) are in fact basically the same thing.

I know what my answer will be now. Yes and yes, I already told you :laugh:

 

[reformedbeliever]

Oh, and I was just advised that John who e-mailed me stating that he agrees, is in fact the head of monergism. John W. Hendrix

Now, I feel really silly sending him another e-mail requesting to know if those at Monergism as whole agree with Phil Johnson list and if the two lists in question (in Monergism view) are in fact basically the same thing.

I know what my answer will be now. Yes and yes, I already told you :laugh:

You should be used to that by now bro. :laugh: j/k

 

[reformedbeliever]

I don't really hold to the views of supra or infra.... since I think that theology is rather limiting God to time... IMO.
If I did, I would lean heavily toward supra.

I may be called a hairy tic, but then again.... I'm really not seeking the applause of men. :thumbs:

 

[J.D.]

Is not kindness JD, and aspect of God's grace. Are the reprobate worthy of God being kind toward them? If not, it is an unmerited favor toward them and is that not what grace is.

I think there is a logical contradiction in putting the words "common" (universal) and "favor" together. Favor means preference. What is universal preference? And I think there is a biblical problem with common grace. The Bible says that the world is spared destruction for the elect's sake. God gives life in the womb and air to breath and rain from heaven to the just and the unjust. But He does this for the elect's sake. I believe it is incorrect to describe God's relationship to the reprobate as one of "grace". Kindness and pity, but not grace. He does not favor them.

This is where my point is made. I don't know if you read the article that this is refering to but here what Phil states in reference to 'common grace'.

I read it.

And your view here more than likely comes out of the previous one on common grace. You seem to have an issue with actaully claiming God to have any type of love (but pity) yet I must ask; why would he pity them if he did not have a love toward them??

Or what is kindness but an expression of love?

God's love is perfect and in every aspect in which God loves it is perfect. If it is a general love then it is perfect in that it be benificail toward all men, and if it be a specific special love then it is so only toward those He has sets that type love toward and all it's benifits.

To presume that because God's love is perfect God must only have one type of love, IMHO, is a desired ignorance toward what scripture consistantly teaches.

Please note that I do not deny that God has any sort of love for the reprobate. The sort of love that God has for the reprobate is best described as pity.

The fact that "love" must be defined and broken down into its elements to be understood correctly is not unique to Calvinsim nor Hyper-Calvinism. That God does not love the lost in the same way that He loves the saved is not disputed by any reasonable person.

I don't think that God's love can be properly defined as infatuous longing. God's love has to exist in the realm of His intelligence, not emotions.

Then would you say that the gospel message is genuinely given toward the reprobate that they might be saved? (I didn't say they would be saved, but that if they would respond it would be to their salvation)

The word "might" as a contigent proposition does not exist in God's understanding if He knows all things perfectly. Think about how this undeniable truth would apply. I would say that the Gospel is "genuinly given" in that the reprobate do "hear" the Gospel as it is openly proclaimed. But it is not "genuinly given" in the sense that God is "hoping" that the reprobate will get saved.

Agreed.


This is a curious responce. Do you not particularly hold to the idea of duty faith??

Yes, as Rippon clarified already, he and I hold to the idea of duty faith. I've studied the Gospel Standard confession and I don't understand their objection to duty faith.

I just saw you last post. Goodnight JD. Sleep well... while I'm stuck here all night at work :laugh:

And I'm stuck at work all day! I retire in four years and then I hope to be in ministry full time. I'm sure you're hoping for full time ministry too. God bless.

 

[J.D.]

Oh, and I was just advised that John who e-mailed me stating that he agrees, is in fact the head of monergism. John W. Hendrix

Now, I feel really silly sending him another e-mail requesting to know if those at Monergism as whole agree with Phil Johnson list and if the two lists in question (in Monergism view) are in fact basically the same thing.

I know what my answer will be now. Yes and yes, I already told you :laugh:

Yes, John Hendrix. He has done a great work for the Lord and the field of theology. As far as I'm concerned, his site has become the go-to place to understand Calvinism and reformed theology in general. I think that while John may label someone a hyper-calvinist, he does not roundly condemn them with a broad brush like Phil Johnson does. Some people are zealous to rekindle a war that is over, like the old Spurgeon vs Hyper-Calvinist dispute.

Some of the greatest Bible teachers and preachers were full Gospel Standard hyper-calvinists. Huntington and Gadsby come to mind. They wrote some great stuff. To this day, Gadsby's catechism is my favorite. Check it out here:

http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/gcat.htm

 

[swaimj]

Thanks Allan for putting this information in one place. It is very helpful. I wish the two lists from monergism and from Phil Johnson could be turned into a sticky and put at the top of these threads for easy reference.

Sometimes the C/A debates are a little like the issue of whether kissing a statue in catholicism is equivalent to worshipping the statue. If I ask the priest this question, the answer is always "no" because it is wrong to worship a statue. However, if I ask my next door neighbor about the statue of Mary on her front lawn, I get the distinct impression that she is worshipping the statue and believes that it has unique powers.

In calvinism there is well thought-out doctrine that is carefully stated. However, some people on boards like this who hold to the doctrine are not careful in their statements. My guess is that overstepping statements into hyper calvinism could be found easily on these threads by people who don't recognize the dangers of the hyper view or some of the fine nuances of the doctrine.

These two lists are nice checks so that people don't go too far in their arguments.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Unfortunately, the dictionary disagrees with you, PL.

The dictionary does not define theological words and their uses very well. Historically, a great many have believed that salvation comes by personal merit. That is heresy, even though the dictionary definition would deny that.

Also, what "God has said" has always been a matter of discussion, if you will. ... So, by which this is what "God said" are you going to measure heresy ?

By what God actually said. We may debate it because what God said is not entirely clear to us, but that doesn't mean that both are right.

 

[Allan]

Ok, I just got Monergism's e-mail back from John and he was very gracious to me.

My E-mail:

One final question:
I asked if you at Monergism "Do YOU agree with Phil Johnson and what He sets forth as hyper-Calvinistic views?

Or
Would YOU say that the two lists have nothing in common with each other?(but that obviously you hold your 16 points given are closer or a more accurate rendering of the Hyper view than Phils)


But in your reply you stated "I agree.."

I am just needing to know if you are speaking on their behalf or soley for yourself.

Reason:
In a debate thread, I am trying to bring some balance to the false accusations by other non-cals (of which I am) against other Cals who do not actually hold to hyper views, while at the same time showing my some of my Cal brethren where some might have tendencies toward a non-historical view point in Calvinism. One particular Cal believes the two lists have nothing to do with each other because on Phils listing he is "60% H-C" and yet on the Mongerism listing he is 0%.

That is why I am trying to assertain if those at Monergism agree the two lists are in fact agreeing with each other but that Phils is a condenced version establishing not each and every specific point but commonalities that can be broken down into 5 seperate types of Hyper-C views.

I am just trying get some common ground with at least two well established Calvinistic groups who agree on a basis for what constitutes a true Hyper view so that the rest of us can have a starting point. Any help would be appreciated.

His Responce:

Allan

First of all, it should be said that hyper-calvinism has about as much in common with traditional Calvinism as does Arminianism or semi-pelagianism. As far as I can tell, I do not see any contradiction between what Phil has listed or what we have listed. They are essentially saying the same thing. It is very possible that some persons are simply inconsistent in their beliefs so may take on one or more of the characteristics of a HC, but the two lists, I believe failry accurately represent what a HC is.

...
Hope this helps

John
Monergism.com

So in this e-mail we have Monergism stating plainly that they "do not see any contradiction between what Phil has listed or what we have listed. They are essentially saying the same thing." And that they belietve the two lists "fairly accurately represents what a HC is".

So by the endorsement of a well established and reputable Calvinistist group of that at Monergism toward the other group at Spurgeon.com and Phil Johson's own work regarding Hyperistic view, I will continue to hold both listings as not only a reasonable definer of Hyper-Calvinistic views but also that the lists are not only speaking of the same things but that they identify the same people.

 

[TCGreek]

Ok, I just got Monergism's e-mail back from John and he was very gracious to me.

My E-mail:

His Responce:


So in this e-mail we have Monergism stating plainly that they "do not see any contradiction between what Phil has listed or what we have listed. They are essentially saying the same thing." And that they belietve the two lists "fairly accurately represents what a HC is".

So by the endorsement of a well established and reputable Calvinistist group of that at Monergism toward the other group at Spurgeon.com and Phil Johson's own work regarding Hyperistic view, I will continue to hold both listings as not only a reasonable definer of Hyper-Calvinistic views but also that the lists are not only speaking of the same things but that they identify the same people.

Allan, If I were you, I would stick with my list too. :thumbs:

 

[Rippon]

So in this e-mail we have Monergism stating plainly that they "do not see any contradiction between what Phil has listed or what we have listed. They are essentially saying the same thing." And that they belietve the two lists "fairly accurately represents what a HC is".

So by the endorsement of a well established and reputable Calvinistist group of that at Monergism toward the other group at Spurgeon.com and Phil Johson's own work regarding Hyperistic view, I will continue to hold both listings as not only a reasonable definer of Hyper-Calvinistic views but also that the lists are not only speaking of the same things but that they identify the same people.

Still , if there is such a close correlation between the two lists -- why is there a significant gap between the two with my 0% score on John's list , and my 60% score on Phil's ? Despite JH's explanation , the two lists are as dissimilar as can be . Maybe The Message and the NASBU can be likewise related?!

 

[Rippon]

The Protestant Reformed Church has been unfairly tagged as Hyper-Calvinistic . The leading voice in that small denomination is David J.Engelsma . He wrote a book named "Hyper-Calvinism: The Call Of The Gospel" . Phil doesn't think so highly of it . However , here is what Engelsma believes Hper-Calvinism is :

But hyper-Calvinism is the denial that God in the preaching of the gospel calls everyone who hears the preaching to repent and believe . It is the denial that the church should call everyone in the preaching . It is the denial that the unregenerated have a duty to repent and believe . It manifests itself in the practice of the preacher's addressing the call of the gospel,"repent and believe on Christ crucified," only to those in his audience who show signs of regeneration and , thereby , of election , namely , some conviction of sin and some interest in salvation . ( Pages 15,16 )

 

[Rippon]

You know that whatever real hyper-calvinism is ( and the definition varies widely ) it marks a departure from true Calvinism . On the same token Arminianism ( of course many Arminians deny that they are -- whereas Calvinists own up to their theological stock ) signifies just as much ( if not more ) of a movement away from Calvinism . Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism are counterparts of one another . Semi-Pelagianism might be classed as hyper-Arminianism . Outright Pelagianism has no counterpart . It's just plain heresy .

 

[Rippon]

The both lists refer to the same aspects though said in in differing ways.
The #1 in Phils list corrisponds to the other on no evangelism

The #2 corrisponds to the one about having 'assurance' of your election before repentence and faith.

The # 3 corrisponds to the one about commanding all men everywhere to repent

The #4 corrisponds to the one about Gods grace does not work for the better of all men.

The #5 corrisponds to about 3 in monergism list (grace and betterment for man, Children dying in infancy, and choosing certain races.)

So I'm not understanding how you figure they have nothing in common with one another.

I went through each example of what you think links one list with the other . And , surprise , there is no correlation .

I'll use 'P' for Phil's short list , and 'M' for Monergism's longer listing .

P#1 regarding the Gospel call doesn't apply to all who hear . You think that's the same thing as "no evangelization" on M. No , they're different .On P it doesn't say no evangelism , but pertains to those who hear it .

P #2 denies duty faith . You think that is related to M which speaks of "having assurance of one's election before election and faith" .Well , that's a no-go . There is absolutely no connection between the two . I figured you were not sure about what duty-faith was since you didn't understand JD when he said he believed in it .

P #3 refers to no offer . You try to connect that with M's not commanding all men everywhere to repent . No Allan . They are not the same thing .Telling men to repent is not the same as "offering" them grace .

P # 4 is referencing no common grace . M's vague statement about God's grace works for the betterment of all men is not necessarily the same thing . I doubt that established Reformed scholars would see any connection there either .

P # 5 speaks of God having no love for the non-elect . But you try and foist a connection with M's "that the number of the elect may be known by you" . There is certainly no linkage here at all .

So far I see no kinship between the respective lists . Nada , none , zilch .

 

[Rippon]

Another thing . In your first post you said that you wanted to set the record straight about what really "constitutes a hyper view in contrast to the historic view." That statement puzzled me . Because in that same post you quoted Phil Johnson as saying :"When I employ the term I am using it in its historic sense." Did you have a senior moment , or what ?

 

[Rippon]

Another site Purtin mind also speaks of or affirms each of the 5 as being part of the historic Calvinism.

The Puritan Board does not have unanimity on the subject though . Some posters there think that Phil's list is defective ( my word ) compared to Monergism's list .

 

[Rippon]

In this he states:
A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
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
4. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

In your post # 10 you quoted Phil as saying that the five above propositions were in a declining order -- from the worst kind to a less extreme variety ( ultra-high Calvinism ) .

In that case if all three agreements I have with hyper-Calvinism really are the case ( which I doubt under scrutiny ) , then I do not have a 60% score .

In the new configuration :

# 1 = 30%
# 2 = 25%
# 3 = 20%
# 4 = 15%
# 5 = 10%

My adjusted score is now 45% , since my views ( numbers 3,4 &5 )are of the "less extreme variety." According to Phil I tend toward Ultra-High Calvinism .

If numbers 3,4 and 5 are weighted on a more favorable scale ( 15%,10% &5% respectively ) I'd get a score of only 30% . That meqans I would have less in common with H-C than true Calvinism .

This is silly . I am a Calvinist , and not a H-C . As J.D. mentioned before the only authentic H-C's are largely in the UK and members of the Gospel Standard Churches . But lest we look down upon them -- take a look at their honorable history . Amidst their warts are some stalwart and godly men who have served Christ mighily despite some errant theological views .

 

[Rippon]

P #3 refers to no offer . You try to connect that with M's not commanding all men everywhere to repent . No Allan . They are not the same thing .Telling men to repent is not the same as "offering" them grace .

More on #3 on Phil's list supposedly being equivalent to Monergism's "that God does not command all men everywhwere to repent."

John H. told you that he is not comfortable using "the offer" concept . Certainly John H. does not equate his terminological preference to be the same as believing that God does not command all men everywhere to repent ." You are really off-base here .

 

[Allan]

I went through each example of what you think links one list with the other . And , surprise , there is no correlation .

I'll use 'P' for Phil's short list , and 'M' for Monergism's longer listing .

P#1 regarding the Gospel call doesn't apply to all who hear . You think that's the same thing as "no evangelization" on M. No , they're different .On P it doesn't say no evangelism , but pertains to those who hear it .

P #2 denies duty faith . You think that is related to M which speaks of "having assurance of one's election before election and faith" .Well , that's a no-go . There is absolutely no connection between the two . I figured you were not sure about what duty-faith was since you didn't understand JD when he said he believed in it .

P #3 refers to no offer . You try to connect that with M's not commanding all men everywhere to repent . No Allan . They are not the same thing .Telling men to repent is not the same as "offering" them grace .

P # 4 is referencing no common grace . M's vague statement about God's grace works for the betterment of all men is not necessarily the same thing . I doubt that established Reformed scholars would see any connection there either .

P # 5 speaks of God having no love for the non-elect . But you try and foist a connection with M's "that the number of the elect may be known by you" . There is certainly no linkage here at all .

So far I see no kinship between the respective lists . Nada , none , zilch .

Rippon,
There is nothing that I can say that will convence you the two list are similar. Even from letters by Monergism itself who states they ARE IN FACT THE SAME, you still feel the list THEY put together (according to their understanding) and Phils have no correlation what-so-ever, don't believe them.

Your continued disbeleif doesn't change the facts they and others have set forth. Yes, I agree that the degrees to which some will take certain views as a Hyper teaching do vary, and that is why I went about getting a common consensus amoung other reputable Calvinists who not only understand true historic Calvinism but also that which goes beyond it, namely called Hyper-Calvinism.

Now, if you don't agree the two lists are similar then I would encourage you to e-mail Monergism and ask them how exactly they see the two list being the same and go into detail for them as to why these these lists are not the same in your view. Maybe you could help them to understand what true hyper-Calvinistic teachings are? Or, Maybe they can show you in what way they are the same.


With due regard to you feeling the Protestant Reformed Church has been unfairly tagged as Hyper-Calvinistic by Phil, I think you have it a little backwards. He is not the only person making such a statement. If you go to the Presbitarian websites and read their stuff on Hyper-C's you will find them making the same claims and sometimes a little more harsh. Also it wasn't that I was stating the Puritians Debate boards but more in a general reference to other Puritn Websits. One like this link writen by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon of the Puritan's Mind

Hyper-Calvinism formally took shape in 1707 at the time of John Hussey and his disciple, John Skepp. Skepp in turn prompted the young, and soon to be well-known Dr. John Gill, down a road that would spawn one of Hyper-Calvinism’s “greater” works, The Cause of God and Truth. Though Hyper-Calvinism had appeared in the writing of Hussey and the preaching of Skepp, Gill’s work far surpassed them both in notoriety and volume. Gill’s Hyper-Calvinist work focused on dismantling the heresy of Arminianism, the opposite extreme on the theological spectrum. However, in doing so, Gill’s result was an unbridled Hyper-Calvinism. (For a more in depth look at the history of these men and the debate surrounding Charles Spurgeon in later years see Iain Murray’s book Spurgeon and Hyper-Calvinism: the Battle for Gospel Preaching.) Later on, William Huntington kept this position alive through his influence and writing. But nowhere do we find scores of theologically astute men contending for this doctrine at any one time, or ever after, this time. The Protestant Reformed Church has recently taken these reigns in current years. They are the only denomination to still rigorously fight for Hyper-Calvinistic theology without calling it Hyper-Calvinism. They would deem it the Gospel. Prof. David Engelsma has written a defense of this in a book called Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel. In it he hoped to clear the denomination of the heresy of Hyper-Calvinism, but in my opinion, he did not accomplish that task. A critique of that book can be found at this link.

The Hyper-Calvinist cannot claim one Puritan to their side, nor any weighty theologians through the last 2000 years of church history. They cannot opt for full support from Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, Turretin, the English or American Puritans, the Princeton theologians, or any reputable preacher or theologian to date, though they appeal to them. Hyper-Calvinists claim certain theological aspects of these theologians and preachers, but not the system of doctrine which they would fully support. In other words, to gain any help from these by-gone saints, they would have to quote them out of context, which is often the case. For instance, Francis Turretin will be quoted on his work concerning the call of the reprobate and the Hyper-Calvinist will shout “Amen!” However, they will never be consistent with Turretin’s thought and quote his section on the love of God for all men. Turretin was unswerving with himself on these points. Such is the same undertaking with Augustine, Calvin, Rutherford, Edwards, and others. Hyper-Calvinists pick and choose what they would like them to say, but not what they really say in their context. Just about any web-based article you can find on the internet by Hyper-Calvinists engage in this type of bibliographic blunder.

Or here at the Presby site, speaking of the Hyper view of Prot. Ref. Churches and the denial of the gospel offer:

However, another position has appeared which is somewhere between hyper-Calvinism and orthodox Calvinism. The late Herman Hoeksema, an able theologian, and his denomination, the Protestant Reformed Churches of America, have taken the view that whilst God commands all men to repent and believe (and they are responsible to do so) yet there is no offer or overture of mercy expressive of God's lovingkindness or favour to those who hear (elect and non-elect). This is in line with their denial that God ever shows favour of any kind to the non-elect.