Hyper-Calvinism and it's beliefs

continued:

And here is a Presbitarian site linking to this article by Sherman Isbell which speaks of "The doctrine of the Westminster standards respecting the free offer of the gospel, compared with Herman Hoeksema's reconstruction of covenant theology"

 

No, you are the one adding to what he stated. He didn't say he was "uncomfortable using 'the offer' concept", that is your exagerted interpretion to what he plainly stated.

He said "with the possible exception that we believe the gospel is a universal command, not simply an offer. " He doesn't negate the view but would have it clarified better.

Secondly, why do you keep stating things like "supposedly being equivalent to Monergism's" when they in FACT state they ARE THE SAME.

Try contacting them and setting THEM straight. I'm sure you can correct their errors and get them to recant their statements.

 

I agree, and that is one main reason I sought THEIR opinion of the two lists and if they were of the same thing. They or rather he (John Hendrix) stated yes, "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."

Then he adds "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. "

I want to further state this is not to say if a person holds to some aspects of a Hyper-view that automatically constitutes them as a Hyper-C, no more than if a person holds to one or more points of the TULIP makes them a Calvinist.

These were given to help those who aren't familiar with Hyper views to know what they are and not just lable a person who is Calvinistic a Hyper. BUT, it is also placed here to help those of the Calvinistic persuasion to see what consitutes a hyper viewpoint in contract to what Historical Calvinism has held to.

Thus a Calvinist could have Hyper tendencies in or on a particular view but not resolutely be a Hyper-Cal and therefore I place this here to give balance to both sides to re-evaluate what they understand as a Hyper view.

 

Refer to post #85, ..period. :thumbs:

 

Rippon, the problem is with you.

Secondly, you misunderstood the OP and ran with it.
NOTE:

meaning the differences between historic Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism.
Do you understand now?

 

Now you're being completely silly and obtuse.

 

You were asking for any correlation between the two lists. I gave some and whether or not 'my' rendition is correct is not your real problem (mine maybe) but 'your' main problem STILL is with Monergism and their statement:

So, as soon as you contact them and get them straightened out we can put this behind us.

But till then, the lists stand as that which defines fairly and accurately what represents an HC or one with HC tendencies toward certain aspects of their view(s).

 

And unfortunately your the only person how doesn't understand it. Or maybe because you have no real argument you had to find something else.

Hold up - I never said I was not going to take a historical look at anything. Where did you get that??
Here is your quote:

Please show me where I said anything concerning 'not' looking at a historical anything.

Got it :thumbs:

 

Yes it does It deals with the 'offer' of salvation being toward both the elect and non-elect. A view that HC's deny.

 

'
Actaully, I'm in the process of getting Phil at Spurgeon.com approval of the Monergism listing as well. I seriously doubt that he will disagree, but I am still asking for confirmation. I (and many others - most specifically Calvinists) would disagree with such a vague definition of absolutism, and man has no part in it. There is an abundance of information to show what HC is and where it is distintively different from the historically held Calvinistic view. Mr Johnson did not say "we have defined our own criteria" but just like monergism set their criteria up in accordance where the two views divide from the the historical perspective of Calvinsim.

The criteria of hyper is that which is not consistant with the historically held views of Calvinism. WHile it can not be set down as one simple defintion to fit all types of HC's a definition in deed can be brought about to identify them individually - and that is what Phil was meaning. Not only is it definable (though I agree anybody can take a good thing and turn it into a witch hunt) but it's prime and basic views have been withstood for the last 3 or 4 centuries. These are summed up in the two listings set forth. And it is set forth not by a Non-Cal's understanding (Like Dave Hunt) but by Cals who understand Calvinism much better than I do and that which is called HC.

But let me also state this if may, I do agree that Hyper-Calvinism is best labeled extreme but extreme in accordance with the historical view Calvinsim. A the lists help identify those who are or have HC tendencies.