Hyper-Calvinism and it's beliefs

I don't believe that will sway the calvinists that already spoke on here even if both sides are in agreement. It depends on ones interpretation of John Calvin's writings as well as how they view scripture.

Let me clarify my vagueness. I was referring to absolutism in reference to Hyper calvinism. An example is Absolute Predestination, in which man has no part in his "salvation". It didn't take place while hearing a gospel message preached, after a message was preached, etc. He just is one of God's elect. He was born that way. Historic calvinists don't agree with an absolute view such as that.

I guess we could nitpick about OSAS, eternal security, but my focus for absolutism lies more in the man has no part, just like the extreme arminian view that man does all the foot work in getting saved/ God has no part.

Of course there is a difference between the two systems. The problem at hand from what I understand when talking to calvinists is that they do redefine terms that don't coincide with what John Calvin penned in his writings. But does everyone fully understand what Calvin actually wrote?

Right. But like what was mentioned before in this thread, HC is an extreme view. It is taking (some, if not most) tenets of calvinism to an absolute view. Does every HC believe this way? No. Does every calvinist believe in the 5 points?..... Here's where the fighting takes place. I think there's as much inner debating about calvinism as there is with the C/A conflict.

Wouldn't it be extreme to arminianism as well? I think both sides of the C/A debate have extremes... even verging on heretical. I won't say that I have a clear understanding of HC, but I have studied denominations that hold to some of it's views, and it sure makes me search out the scriptures.

David

 

Unfortunately you don't have it . Your 'your' should be the contraction -- 'you're' .

 

This is so old ...

 

It would be a hard task to round-up anyone who scores much of any score on Monergism's list . That hyper-Calvinist animal just might be mythological . ( With the possible exception of Outside the Camp folks and 5Solas ).

Allan , if you're ( a contraction meaning you are ) serious about wanting to find an historical view of Hyper-Calvinism you need to study The Gospel Standard Church . Look at their creed ( or rather , Confession ) . You'll notice their departure from true Calvinism in 7 or so Articles of Faith .

It's of no consequence if Phil and John H. say they agree with the list of the other , it will not alter the fact that the respective propositions have no bearing on the other . That's why I had scored some Hyper-points on Phil's list and 0% on Monergism . If there was any true kinship between 'P' and 'M' I would have had about the same score on each .You are so bent on harmonizing those two listings when there is no intersection to be had . There is no overlap . There is nothing in common .Your ( the correct spelling and usage ) examples of matches between the two were simply misfits .It's a case of comparing apples with artichokes .

 

You don't read ( or spell )very well . I said that one would be hard pressed to find any Hyper-Calvinist who scores any points on Monergism's list . I did not say that hyper-Calvinists do not exist .

"HC is not a mytholoicagal animals ..." ?! Have you been drinking again ?

You're going to extremes with your wrongly spelled words .Think things out a bit before you type .

 

I am not the only one who can read plainly enough to see glaring differences between the two lists Allan . J.D. is another on the BB who can tell the difference . Others are busy just reading this thread and not participating . I am sure others will come forward to expose the fraud of "they both say the same thing ."

Allan :"My list stands" . What singular list are you speaking of ?

You didn't address the specifics I made in particular with the two lists . I would say your cross-referencing skills are woefully deficient .

So it is indeed "you're" problem , Buddy .

 

Anyone who puts the Protestant Reformed Churches into the category of being hyper-Calvinistic is in error ( perhaps willful error ) . A champion of the Calvinistic cause -- John Gerstner , wrote the Forward to Engelsma's book on Hyper-Calvinism . He defended the PRC from Hyper-Calvinistic charges .

Gerstner was the mentor of R.C. Sproul . I had the pleasure of meeting both of these men . And I know some PRC folks also .

 

Ouch. Let me again clarify some things and maybe we can settle down the tempers, eh? I will use the term "some calvinists" rather than just calvinists. I do know some that claim calvinistic leanings that do define terms different than others. That was my point. Yes the bible is the standard for any christian, but when we mention historic calvinism, what is it? How do you know without looking at his writings?

Rippon you've prejudged me without knowing where I stand. I do stand with the calvinists rather than the arminians but I believe my earlier quote about inner debates has shown through. I don't understand it all, don't claim to, don't think anyone on here is an expert on it either. But I was defending the fact that you may have your thoughts on calvinism aside from what two websites state.

I appreciate Allan starting this thread to hash out some of the extreme teachings so both sides can see where the other stands.

 

From.......
http://www.opc.org/OS/html/V10/3f.html

Comes from ...Ordained Servant

Arminianism, Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism

 

Speaking of historic Calvinsm....
Another site says about the same thing as the one I just posted...

Site..... http://www.trinity-baptist-church.com/diff6.shtml

From the pastor of Trinity Baptist Church

 

Tell me, brother, is this condition of being "saved" in the eternal sense ?
I mean (and I have asked this question several times on the board) does hearing the gospel by the elect result in the blood of Christ being applied to him and being effective for him, washing away his sin, and acquiring for him the eternal salvation that God in eternity past planned he should have ?

I have no objection about the gospel being preached to anyone who will listen wherever and whenever an opportunity to do so is presented but like the hyper-Calvinist I do not believe that just any man is obliged to repent.

The obligation to repent and believe is to every elect child of God, who has already (as opposed to one who is to be) regenerate.

What both Arminians and Calvinists fail to realize, or refuse to accept (because it will go against orthodox teaching as well as seminary teaching) is that Paul in the above quoted text is speaking of regenerate and elect Jews who are still caught up in their religion for the simple reason that Christians of his era are so fearful of orthodox Jewry that these have not been reached with the good news of Christ's finished salvation. Therefore the question: how then shall they hear without a preacher ?

 

I am in full agreement with this article by the deceased William Payne .It is not comprehensive , but what it states about the stance of most Hyper-Calvinists is true .

Allan , another list for ya'!

 

Allan , how would the points raised by Pastor Paine as being Hyper-Calvinistic be representative of the PRC ? Not one of those H-C propositions are held by the PRC . That's why it is wrong for anyone to lump them in the H-C category .Of course if you aren't familiar with the PRC you can pass on this .