Hyper-Calvinism and it's beliefs

[pinoybaptist]

I have a few questions which I would like to throw in to this discussion.

1. What is the "gospel call" for ? Is it a call to eternal salvation ? Or is it a call to repentance and gospel, or Godly, living.

2. To what necessity is the "faith" being discussed ? Is it a necessity to eternal salvation ? Or is it a necessity to one's turning from their idols and false religions to the One True God: A result of one's already being "born again" and therefore a professed child of God ?

3. What is "common grace" and how is it defined ?

4. Where is salvation "offered", in the context in which this word "offered" is being used in our age and time ?

Thank you.

 

[webdog]

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.

"estimations" are like nostrils, we all have them. Mine is just as valid as yours, and I don't recall "accusing" anyone of anything. I believe points 3 and 5 are common, and I don't have to name names to think that.

 

[Pastor Larry]

"estimations" are like nostrils, we all have them. Mine is just as valid as yours,

Not necessarily. All estimations are not equally valid. Some are good and some are bad. Some people just have bad ideas. I am not saying anything about your opinion vs. mine in this case, but merely saying that estimations are not all equal.

and I don't recall "accusing" anyone of anything.

You accused people of believing that God does not offer salvation to all men without exception, and you accused people of believing that God does not love the non-elect. Those may be right accusations, but they are accusations.

I believe points 3 and 5 are common, and I don't have to name names to think that.

I think points 3 and 5 are extremely rare, and I think you naming names would demonstrate that.

I think 3 and 5 are indications of hyper-Calvinism, and I don't think it is widespread, particularly among people who call themselves Calvinists.

 

[pinoybaptist]

I agree with webdog.
He does not have to name names.
Those who believe certain points of what may be termed "hyper Calvinism" know who they are.
I am one of them, and I am not ashamed to say so, since I know I can pretty much defend what I believe, without expecting anyone to "come over to my side of the fence", and since I know my theology was not the basis for Christ's saving me, neither is the theology of anyone else on this board the basis for Christ's saving them.
What I believe cannot be called heresy since there is no one here that can prove that their position has always been the historically orthodox position of "the church" (whoever this church is).
The one who says his theology is an integral, inseparable part of why Christ saved him is the heretic, if there is such a one on this board, and I don't believe there is such a one.

 

[Pastor Larry]

1. What is the "gospel call" for ? Is it a call to eternal salvation ? Or is it a call to repentance and gospel, or Godly, living.

Yes.

2. To what necessity is the "faith" being discussed ? Is it a necessity to eternal salvation ? Or is it a necessity to one's turning from their idols and false religions to the One True God: A result of one's already being "born again" and therefore a professed child of God ?

Yes.

3. What is "common grace" and how is it defined ?

Common grace is God's grace given to the non-elect.

4. Where is salvation "offered", in the context in which this word "offered" is being used in our age and time ?

Salvation is offered to all who will believe in a number of contexts such as John 3:16 for starters, and too many others to be mentioned here.

 

[Pastor Larry]

What I believe cannot be called heresy since there is no one here that can prove that their position has always been the historically orthodox position of "the church" (whoever this church is).

Heresy is not measured against what the church (whoever this church is) has historically believed. It is measured against what God has said.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Heresy is not measured against what the church (whoever this church is) has historically believed. It is measured against what God has said.

Unfortunately, the dictionary disagrees with you, PL.

opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system. 2.the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine. (#3 was the Roman Catholic definition) 4.any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Also, what "God has said" has always been a matter of discussion, if you will.
Proof ?
There are Arminians and Calvinists on this board who cite the same "thus saith the Lord" and come up with different meanings and interpretations.
And there are Calvinists and Hyper-Calvinists who do the same.

So, by which this is what "God said" are you going to measure heresy ?

 

[J.D.]

I'm pretty much the same as Rippon. After describing my thoughts to someone a long time ago, this person said that I am a "Clarkian". I studied up on it and found that he was mostly right. Although I think Clark goes too far with mental assent and scripturalism (not H-C related issues), I agree with him on salvation for the most part.

I disagree with using the word "grace" to describe God's kindness toward the reprobate. The correct word is the one I used - "kindness". He is kind toward His enemies, even though He hates them. And yes, "hate" often means "not favored", and the reprobate are definitely "not favored".

I believe that God "loves" the reprobate only in that He pities them, but not in an affectionate way.

I believe in openly preaching the Gospel. I do not particularly object to referring to the Gospel as an "offer".

I believe that God purposed sin but did not actively "cause" it. It's a technical issue, but it's an important technicality. Arguments over whether God is the "author" of sin hinge upon what is meant by "author".

And I have no problem with the idea of faith as a "duty".

And like Rippon said, the monergism.com list is better than Phil Johnson's list. I have long thought that Phil's zealousness against HCism got in the way of his better judgment.

 

[Allan]

I just e-mailed John at Monergism asking him about the two lists and if 'they' say the two are similar or not at all. That will at least let the issue rest on what they agree with or not As soon as he returns my e-mail, I'll post it.

I received an e-mail back from John @ Monergism regarding whether they view Phils list and theirs as being similar just worded differently or if they have nothing in common.
Here is my e-mail to them and then theirs to me:

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:00 AM, AllanV<AllanV@************.com > wrote:

I have a question concerning the Hyper-Calvinism view.
Would you at monergism agree with Phil Johnson's work "A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism" that you have listed under your hyperlink of 'hyper-calvinism'??

I ask this because he sets forth 5 types of hyper-Cals as:
A fivefold definition: The definition I am proposing outlines five varieties of hyper-Calvinism, listed here in a declining order, from the worst kind to a less extreme variety (which some might prefer to class as "ultra-high Calvinism"):

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.

But in your heading under Hyper-Calvinism you state 16 various things hypers believe as shown here:
Most Calvinists reject as deplorable the following hyper-Calvinistic and destructive beliefs:

- that God is the author of sin and of evil
- that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect
- that the number of the elect at any time may be known by men
- that it is wrong to evangelize
- that assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith
- that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they later do
- that God has chosen some races of men and has rejected others
- that the children of unbelievers dying in infancy are certainly damned
- that God does not command everyone to repent
- that the sacraments are not means of grace, but obstacles to salvation by faith alone.
- that the true church is only invisible, and salvation is not connected with the visible church
- that the Scriptures are intended to be interpreted by individuals only and not by the church.
- that no government is to be obeyed which does not acknowledge that Jesus is the Lord, or that Biblical Law is its source of authority
- that the grace of God does not work for the betterment of all men
- that saving faith is equivalent to belief in the doctrine of predestination
- that only Calvinists are Christians (Neo-gnostic Calvinism


The question I'm needing answered is this:
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)

I don't mean nor what to put you on the spot of who is more right. The issue is simply do the two lists have nothing in common in relation to what Hypers adhere to.

And in their responce:

Allan

I agree with all of the points Phil Johnson makes that you have listed with the possible exception that we believe the gospel is a universal command, not simply an offer.

John
Monergism.com

So in their view, the two lists are speaking of the same things therefore they agree that the two charts share the same beliefs as to what constitutes real H-C with the possible exception of the 'offer' aspect.

 

[Allan]

And like Rippon said, the monergism.com list is better than Phil Johnson's list. I have long thought that Phil's zealousness against HCism got in the way of his better judgment.

Just to address this portion.

Monergism's list refers to the same things that Phil does and they agree with his listing (as seen in my previous post), the only difference is that Phil condences those beliefs into 5 types of Hyper views and not just every single view they hold. The others mentioned in Monergism fall into the 5 varying types of the Hyper views.

 

[J.D.]

Just to address this portion.

Monergism's list refers to the same things that Phil does and they agree with his listing (as seen in my previous post), the only difference is that Phil condences those beliefs into 5 types of Hyper views and not just every single view they hold. The others mentioned in Monergism fall into the 5 varying types of the Hyper views.

The monergism.com list is very specific and removes the arguments over word definitions.

 

[Allan]

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 .

WHat about these which I listed around page 2:
What about what the Westminister Standard: <-- Article written via Presbytarians (the below is an excert from it

6. The Westminster Standards

The term "offer" or "free offer" is used in the Westminster Standards (Westminster Confession of Faith VII/III; Larger Catechism Ans. 32, 63, 68; Shorter Catechism Ans. 31 and 86).

The Larger Catechism puts it beyond doubt that the term is used in reference to non-elect persons; "...who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ" (Larger Catechism Ans. 68).

Attempts have been made of late to rob the term "free offer" of much of its real meaning, as if it meant no more that "present" or "exhibit" (see H. Hanko, Protestant Reformed Journal Nov. 1986, pp. 16f).

The intended meaning is far more than this. Anyone wishing to catch the true meaning of these terms and the general outlook of the Puritan period should read the "Sum of Saving Knowledge" drawn up by David Dickson and James Durham and often printed along with the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, no doubt due to its claim to be "A Brief Sum of Christian Doctrine contained in the Holy Scriptures, and holden forth in the foresaid Confession of Faith and Catechisms".

The section on "Warrants to Believe" and its handling of Isaiah 55/1-5 and 2 Cor. 5/19-21 are especially noteworthy and the many references to God's promises, offers of grace, sweet invitations, loving requests etc.

or how about J. I. Packer's view - though not born in the 16th or 17 th century but born 1926 I can't discount his thoughts here :

James I. Packer (born 1926):
God in the gospel expresses a bona fide wish that all may hear, and that all who hear may believe and be saved
(Celebrating the Saving Work of God, p. 151)

God's love is revealed in the universal invitations of the gospel, whereby sinful humans are invited to turn in faith and repentance to the living Christ who died for sins and are promised pardon and life if they do. 'God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.' 'God is love (agape). This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.' And God in the gospel expresses a bona fide wish that all may hear, and that all who hear may believe and be saved. This is love in active expression.

or what about John Howe (Presby I think ? - of the 16 and 17th century) The Goodness of God, Part II preached in 1691:

15. Lastly, The terms upon which he offers peace and pardon and eternal life to offending creatures, are the highest proofs and evidences imaginable of the wonderful goodness of God, notwithstanding that so great multitudes do, finally, refuse them and perish. And to this purpose, it should be considered, that the apostle speaks of this as matter of transport more than doubt, and that it did need more to be admired than evinced. "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life," John 3:16. The silence that is there used is more speaking than any speech could be. He so loved the world, at so stupendous a rate. It is a very speaking silence that he doth not tell us how great that love is; he leaves us to understand it to be altogether inexpressible, that he should give his only Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish — and whereas, men have an impotency to the exercise of that faith that is requisite to their attaining salvation, what is that impotency? It stands only in an affected blindness and obduracy of will; that which they call moral impotency. Now moral doth not excuse, but aggravate the faultiness. No man takes moral impotency to be an excuse, but a high aggravation. As if a man is guilty of murder, and he brings this to excuse him, — "I could not but kill that man because I hated him, I did so violently hate him that I could not but do this unto him." That moral impotency (his extreme hatred) aggravates the crime, that that made it to be done, made it so highly faulty, and so much the more heinous, that it is done. He is not less guilty, but the more, by how much the more his hatred was predominant and prevalent in the case. Why, so this disaffection to God and to Christ and to holiness (which is impotency), is an impotency seated in the will, and the ignorance hath its root, it ariseth and proceeds from thence, that is, that men are "alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance that is in them, and because of the blindness of their hearts." A blindness which they love, a blindness which they choose, as it is, Eph. 4:18. Whereupon, all their misery is self-created. The miseries wherein men are involved in this world, which make it another hell to them (a hell on this side hell), and the miseries of the final and eternal state, they are all self-created; that is, they do arise from a fixed, inveterate malignity against the Author of their being, and that very nature itself, whereof their own, at first, was an imitation. An amazing thing, but it were impossible, if men did love God, to be miserable. Loving him is enjoying him, and enjoying him is felicity, if any thing be, or can be. The image of men's future miseries you have in their present state. What is it that makes the world such a hell as it is, but men's hatred of God and of one another? For (as was said) if there were no contention at all among men on earth, but who should love God best, and one another best, and who should do most for him, and for one another, what a heavenly life should we live here, a heaven on this side heaven: but the hell on this side hell, is only this, that men's hearts are filled with enmity against God, and one another; and from this malignity proceeds their infidelity, that they do not unite to God in Christ when they are called to it; which is no excuse, but an aggravation. But, in the mean time, that is the most wonderful goodness that can be thought, that such overtures should be made to men, God having given his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

[Allan]

The monergism.com list is very specific and removes the arguments over word definitions.

No problem, yet they do agree with what Phil states and that their two lists are in fact refering to the same things. That is what I am getting at.

So what Phil set forth in his 5 types of Hyper-C's, they consider their list inclusive to what he gives.

So if you (in the general sense) fall into one of more of the 5 catagories you hold to one or more of the 16 on Mongerism listing as well. They are not a seperate listings, one might be more concise, but they both equate to the views that define the Hyper-C's views.

 

[J.D.]

No problem, yet they do agree with what Phil states and that their two lists are in fact refering to the same things. That is what I am getting at.

So what Phil set forth in his 5 types of Hyper-C's, they consider their list inclusive to what he gives.

So if you (in the general sense) fall into one of more of the 5 catagories you hold to one or more of the 16 on Mongerism listing as well. They are not a seperate listing, more concise maybe, but they both equate to the views that define the Hyper views.

Well there must be some reason that I find one list suitable and the other objectionable. I'll have to think about it and get back to this to see if I can explain the difference. Too tired right now.

 

[Allan]

I disagree with using the word "grace" to describe God's kindness toward the reprobate. The correct word is the one I used - "kindness".

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.

He is kind toward His enemies, even though He hates them. And yes, "hate" often means "not favored", and the reprobate are definitely "not favored".

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'.

4. The denial of common grace. The Protestant Reformed Churches (see #3 above) grew out of a controversy between Herman Hoeksema and the Christian Reformed Churches over the issue of common grace. Hoeksema denied that there is any such thing as common grace, and in the midst of the controversy, the PRC was founded.
The idea of common grace is implicit throughout Scripture. "The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works" (Ps. 145:9). "He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment. Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" (Deut. 10:18-19). "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 5:44-45).
The distinction between common grace and special grace closely parallels the distinction between the general call and the effectual call. Common grace is extended to everyone. It is God's goodness to humanity in general whereby God graciously restrains the full expression of sin and mitigates sin's destructive effects in human society. Common grace imposes moral constraints on people's behavior, maintains a semblance of order in human affairs, enforces a sense of right and wrong through conscience and civil government, enables men and women to appreciate beauty and goodness, and imparts blessings of all kinds to elect and non-elect alike. God "causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" (Matt. 5:45). That is common grace.
The doctrine of common grace has a long history that goes all the way back to Calvin and even Augustine. But type-4 hyper-Calvinism denies the concept, insisting that God has no true goodwill toward the non-elect and therefore shows them no favor or "grace" of any kind.

I believe that God "loves" the reprobate only in that He pities them, but not in an affectionate way.

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.

I believe in openly preaching the Gospel. I do not particularly object to referring to the Gospel as an "offer".

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)

I believe that God purposed sin but did not actively "cause" it. It's a technical issue, but it's an important technicality. Arguments over whether God is the "author" of sin hinge upon what is meant by "author".

Agreed.

And I have no problem with the idea of faith as a "duty".

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


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

 

[Rippon]

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 .

 

[Allan]

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 .

Apparently you don't know this but you can only write to John in the 'Contact us' at Monergism link.

Does he or does he not answer questions for monergism that are directed toward the them as whole? ANswer YES. He speaks on their behalf.

Actaully, I realize we are speaking of the English language and as I showed you previously, if you hold any on Phils list I gave you some of those which correlate to them from Monergism. I realize you see some kind of difference but mongerism does not. (with the possible exception of 'offer')

 

[Rippon]

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

JD has said that he has no problem with the idea of faith as a duty .So he holds to duty faith as do I . You also hold to it . It is the obligation of sinners to repent and believe -- hence "duty faith" .The Gospel Standard folks deny Duty Faith for instance .

 

[Allan]

JD has said that he has no problem with the idea of faith as a duty .So he holds to duty faith as do I . You also hold to it . It is the obligation of sinners to repent and believe -- hence "duty faith" .The Gospel Standard folks deny Duty Faith for instance .

Ok, that is why I was wanting clarification due to 'how' he stated it.