Hyper-Calvinism and it's beliefs

[Rippon]

As I have stated and many others in their researching HC, that the Gospel Standard Church is not the only HC, but the Protestant Reformed Churches are also accounted in that group, along with Primitive Baptists, and another group of two (if I remember off the top of my head rightly). HC is not a mytholoicagal animals but a very real one. However that refenence is usually made by those of the HC persuation who don't like the truth.

Oh , you are just mocking here . IOW, not telling the truth .

 

[Rippon]

... when we mention historic calvinism, what is it? How do you know without looking at his writings?

[/quote ]

Why do you keep coming back to this ?John Calvin's writings are not the definitive one-stop shop for Calvinists . Since many Calvinists here have read little to none of his works I do not see why you keep bringing this up .

Calvin was wonderful , but he was still just one fallible man . There are other fallible but valuable servants of the Lord which have enriched the Church through the centuries . Men such as Owen , Thomas Goodwin , Turretin , Gill , BB Warfield and countless others .None should be read exclusively and all should be put under the scrutiny of the light of the Word of God .

 

[Rippon]

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.

Okay , thanks for the qualifier ( just don't mention John Calvin again , the way you've done before .

 

[Rippon]

However the other list James gave equates much better

Do you accept its conclusions on Arminianism as well ?

 

[Rippon]

I think I know why you wont though. You know their right and if you do try to correct them, you will have your hands full. That is ok though, it is good to be reporved at times to help keep you were you aught to be with due regard to your historical view.

I'll translate your sentiments into more understandable English .

"I think I know why you won't though . You know they're right , and if you do try to correct them you will have your hands full . That is ok though . It is good to be reproved at times to keep you in your rightful place because your view doesn't reflect historical Calvinism."

You haven't a clue about historical Calvinism Allan . It wasn't so long ago that you said that all Christians believe in particular redeption . Also , you said that the term "General Redemption" meant the Calvinistic view of Christ dying for a limited number . You still have an erring understanding of the Effectual Call ( otherwise known as Irresistible Grace .( You can keep your current views , but you don't know what Calvinism really is on these and other heads -- Hence your inability to grasp Calvinistic basics .) You still think Foreknowledge means God looks ahead to see what independant man will decide with respect to salvation .

As far as Historical Calvinism goes . That needs to be fleshed-out . Calvinism has a long history . All the claimants have not held to the same particulars .For instance , today( the past 80 years or so ) I think that many in the Reformed Community ( not just Calvinistic Baptists ) are of an Amyrauldian flavor . Murray and Stonehouse's "Free Offer" is a prime example of that theological mindset . Murray was more solid in other doctrinal matters but he was way off in Arminianism-land to a large extent in that booklet . Amyrauldianism is kind of a halfway house between Arminianism and true , historic Calvinism . Though they would claim to be in the Calvinistic domain . And like Arminians , they would not dare care to be callled what they really are .

 

[Jarthur001]

Tell me, brother, is this condition of being "saved" in the eternal sense ?

Yes and no.

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 ?

In the eternal work of God, Salvation is finished and was applied to only His people on the very day He died on the tree.

1) Christ is called "Jesus" because He shall save His people from their sins (Matt. 1:21).

2) He is called the Saviour of His body (Eph. 5:23).

3) The Good Shepherd lays down His life for "the sheep" (John 10:15)

4) and He lays down His life for "His friends" (John 15:13).

5) He is said to die" that He might gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad" (John 11:52).

6) It is said that Christ "hath purchased the church with His own blood" (Acts 20:28).

There is no substitute for the time-honored, God-exalting truth of substitutionary atonement -that Christ our Lord actually bore the sins of those for whom He died specifically. If all were on the cross, it is clear all would be saved because the sins were washed away. However, He stood in the place of the "many" who would actually experience complete deliverance from all their sins.

Isaiah 53:11
Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.


Matthew 20:28
even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Matthew 26:28
for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Hebrews 9:28
so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

John 10:11
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

Now I understand someone will follow this post with a few verses that say Christ died for all and claim this all means all of mankind. Both sets of verses cannot be right if taken that way. There is but only one way to make them fit together and believe all the verses of the Bible as true.

Ok..with this work of God being true it still does not negate the fact that ALL of the elect must believe.

1) We are not ashamed, of the Gospel for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believes (Rom. 1:16).

2) God uses the instrumentality of faith in Christ's sacrifice to bring the CONSCIOUSNESS of justification and salvation (Rom. 3:24, 25; 4:5). This is the passaged I preached on this morning.

3) Faith, is a gift of God, and that it is no more a work than is circumcision (Rom. 4:11, 16). If faith is not needed then the gift that comes from God is worthless.


My Lord Jesus Christ substituted for "sheep" given Him by the Father, and not for the devil's "goats!" However, the instrument God uses to bring the sheep to the consciousness of salvation, is faith so that they can believe.

John 3...
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God..

So...the elect does believe. Why? well...the passage tells us why.

21But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God."

Gill says, the Persic version reads,
"that the work which is between God and him may be known"; that such deeds may be discovered, which are only known to God and himself.

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

.
All are not. But we have no idea who will and who will not. No one is "near" to salvation then the other. Therefore we preach to all.

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.

I disagree. Regeneration is the opening of eyes to believe. The elect will not always hear/understand their need for the gospel the 1st time they hear the gospel. It is when God pulls back the darkness that they can understand and believe.

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 ?

Your point matters little if it is indeed true. The fact remains that Paul is telling us to GO and Preach and we have no idea who the elect is. Even if as you believe, there be regenerated people that do not know it, which hardly makes sense to me, for with a new life, we see new life, which is not part of your idea here that I can see,.......any way, if we were to set that aside and believe as you have stated, you still must take Paul for his words and share the gospel for you do not know who the elect is.

 

[Rippon]

Now, the real question here is is he speaking for on behalf of the whole of PRC? Answer, no. Are all PRC Hyper? I never said that nor did the others of whom I quoted and have even stated such already. In any group there are always subgroups.

What about specific individuals ? Do you believe that Herman Hoeksema was a hyper-Calvinist ? What about David Engelsma and Herman Hanko ? If you are not that familiar with these particular men , just say so .

 

[Allan]

You haven't a clue about historical Calvinism Allan .

I have good idea, but it was for this reason (your posts and others that might have come) I used well known and respected Calvinists to set forth the difference between Historic Calvinism and HC. I did this so when people tried to spue stuff like this (what you wrote, and what you wrote earlier in the thread as seen below) it wouldn't have any real meaning

Yes , I'm sure a guy who has only heard of Calvinism in the last 7 or 8 years is going to explain to us poor deluded Calvinists what Hyper-Calvinism is . Come off it .

It wasn't so long ago that you said that all Christians believe in particular redeption . Also , you said that the term "General Redemption" meant the Calvinistic view of Christ dying for a limited number .

Your willful ignorance and misrepresentation on that issue is your own issue and even got a thread or two shut down for it. But again, this isn't about me, it now boils down to you and those who actually know Calvinism and what views constitute an HC (of which you have already agreed you fall squarely into) are the ones at odds here.

You still have an erring understanding of the Effectual Call ( otherwise known as Irresistible Grace

Wrong, I know exactly what it is.

You can keep your current views , but you don't know what Calvinism really is on these and other heads -- Hence your inability to grasp Calvinistic basics .) You still think Foreknowledge means God looks ahead to see what independant man will decide with respect to salvation .

See, here you show you ignorance in what another believes or understands. You can't debate with having to condescend people, ad-hominem, put down, et... especially when your wrong and can't stand it. And no, you're are incorrect about what I understand foreknowledge to be. And also, I do grasp Calvinistic basics, which is why I'm not accused of not understanding them like many are. I just don't agree with some of them.

As far as Historical Calvinism goes . That needs to be fleshed-out . Calvinism has a long history . All the claimants have not held to the same particulars .For instance , today( the past 80 years or so ) I think that many in the Reformed Community ( not just Calvinistic Baptists ) are of an Amyrauldian flavor . Murray and Stonehouse's "Free Offer" is a prime example of that theological mindset . Murray was more solid in other doctrinal matters but he was way off in Arminianism-land to a large extent in that booklet . Amyrauldianism is kind of a halfway house between Arminianism and true , historic Calvinism . Though they would claim to be in the Calvinistic domain . And like Arminians , they would not dare care to be callled what they really are .

This thread isn't about arminianism but Hyper-Calvinism. And since it is about Hyper-Calvinism the topic needs to be maintained with due regard to the OP.

 

[Allan]

What about specific individuals ? Do you believe that Herman Hoeksema was a hyper-Calvinist ? What about David Engelsma and Herman Hanko ? If you are not that familiar with these particular men , just say so .

This is not a thread about labeling 'who' is historically seen as an HC, but views constitute those of the HC.

I believe our discussions are going to go no further but downward Rippon. I don't wish that and since we are the only ones in any discussion with regard to the Op, I'm opting for it to be closed.

Thank you for your partisipation and your point of view.

 

[Allan]

Moderaters:

As the originater of the OP I would request for it to be closed since this thread is degenerating it something beyond it's intended purpose and most likely is not going to recover. There was good an meaningful discussion in the beginning and was benificial but has lost that aspect a few pages back.

Thank you,
Allan