I Would Like to Opine Regarding Calvinism that...

[Allan]

I'M the one that asked about John Piper and asked what a Seven Point Calvinst was.

They were both asked in seriousness and I wanted to know what other Calvinists thought Piper was (since he hold to double-predestinationism) and if they had ever heard of a Seven Point Calvinist.

Both, I found on John Pipers Website. (I heard about Seven Point Calvinist when looking for something else under Calvinism)

Here is the Link to Resouses from the ministry of John Piper.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/QuestionsAndAnswers/ByTitle/1418_What_does_John_Piper_mean_when_he_says_that_he_is_a_sevenpoint_Calvinist/

Now, someone explain to me how holding to double-predestinationsim doesn't make one a hyper-Calvinist.

Not trying to derail the thread, I just was asking on here since many Cals are here posting and I was looking for Calvinists answer. -Jauthor, aren't you proud of me

 

[whatever]

Now, someone explain to me how holding to double-predestinationsim doesn't make one a hyper-Calvinist.

I reckon it depends on how you hold to it. That article you linked to doesn't say anything about how reprobation works, and I think that makes the difference. Plus, hypers do not go for evangelism and missions but Piper does.

 

[Jarthur001]

I'M the one that asked about John Piper and asked what a Seven Point Calvinst was.

They were both asked in seriousness and I wanted to know what other Calvinists thought Piper was (since he hold to double-predestinationism) and if they had ever heard of a Seven Point Calvinist.

Both, I found on John Pipers Website. (I heard about Seven Point Calvinist when looking for something else under Calvinism)

Here is the Link to Resouses from the ministry of John Piper.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/QuestionsAndAnswers/ByTitle/1418_What_does_John_Piper_mean_when_he_says_that_he_is_a_sevenpoint_Calvinist/

Now, someone explain to me how holding to double-predestinationsim doesn't make one a hyper-Calvinist.

Not trying to derail the thread, I just was asking on here since many Cals are here posting and I was looking for Calvinists answer. -Jauthor, aren't you proud of me

Well just take my word for it...it does not.

Allan, the real problem is that there are many views of double-predestination. Most freewillers think that ALL Calvinist are what is called postive/postive election. How ever MOST Calvinist hold to postive/negative model. I have already addressed this in short order in another thread.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=879160&postcount=149


However this is not hyper-Calvinisim in itself..though I guess it could be viewed that way. Hyper-Calvinisim was given its lable to those that over emphasize irresistible grace way over the other points and seeing no need for missions.


In Christ...James

 

[webdog]

1. Infant baptism and hyper-calvinism are unrelated.
2. Piper does not "recognize" infant baptism.
3. You know this already.
4. I don't know what this has to do with the OP, except that it is also a poor misrepresentation of Calvinism.

Do you just do this for fun?

1. Yeah, right.
2. Wrong.
3. I know that you are wrong.
4. Hardly. See Allan's following post that he quotes from Piper's website. He's as hyper as they come. Quit denying it.

 

[webdog]

However this is not hyper-Calvinisim in itself..though I guess it could be viewed that way. Hyper-Calvinisim was given its lable to those that over emphasize irresistible grace way over the other points and seeing no need for missions.

Come on, James. Double predestination is as hyper as you get. Double predestination makes God the author of sin. Double predestination is the only logical conclusion to calvinism.

 

[Allan]

James you know better than to give me fluff like that:

Take MY word for it... If you wont take mine I sure wont take yours.

Hyper-Calvinisim was given its lable to those that over emphasize irresistible grace way over the other points and seeing no need for missions.

So a person claiming to be a seven point Calvinist (that being double-predestinatin - positive/negitive - since it is covered undered the "I") most definately falls into that catagory.

And No, to be a hyper you do not have to hold to both but also can hold to one or the other, since both are distortions of the original 5 points and necessitate a differing view and attitude than that of Classical Calvinists.

 

[Jarthur001]

Come on, James. Double predestination is as hyper as you get. Double predestination makes God the author of sin. Double predestination is the only logical conclusion to calvinism.

One is free to use the lable however one wises, being that "hyper" can be applied to anything is why I say this. I kinda said this in my post above. And you are also right to say a +/+ model of election, would make God the author of sin. Yet again let is be known that MOST Calvinist hold to +/- election.

However this is how it is viewed in most theology schools....

1. [Hyper-Calvinism] is a system of theology framed to exalt the honour and glory of God and does so by acutely minimizing the moral and spiritual responsibility of sinners . . . It emphasizes irresistible grace to such an extent that there appears to be no real need to evangelize; furthermore, Christ may be offered only to the elect. . . .
2. It is that school of supralapsarian 'five-point' Calvinism [n.b.—a school of supralapsarianism, not supralapsarianism in general] which so stresses the sovereignty of God by over-emphasizing the secret over the revealed will of God and eternity over time, that it minimizes the responsibility of sinners, notably with respect to the denial of the use of the word "offer" in relation to the preaching of the gospel; thus it undermines the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly in the Lord Jesus with the assurance that Christ actually died for them; and it encourages introspection in the search to know whether or not one is elect. [Peter Toon, "Hyper-Calvinism," New Dictionary of Theology (Leicester: IVP, 1988), 324.]

Your claim.." Double predestination is the only logical conclusion to calvinism." ...would make some 3 pointers and some 4 pointers disagree with you. 5 pointers would ask you....what model of DP do you mean? There are at least 3 models that I know of.

 

[Jarthur001]

Allan,

James you know better than to give me fluff like that:

Take MY word for it... If you wont take mine I sure wont take yours.

I guess this means...you do not take my word for it.

So a person claiming to be a seven point Calvinist (that being double-predestinatin - positive/negitive - since it is covered undered the "I") most definately falls into that catagory.

Look....
One is free to lable another person anything they wish. If you want to pin "Hyper" on Piper, you are free to do so. But I think the best idea is to ask Piper. He will reply to your email, though it maybe a few weeks before he does. All I can tell you for sure is what I believe.

However...I do not see how you can say Piper is hyper with his "2 wills of God Doctrine".
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1995/1580_Are_There_Two_Wills_in_God/

But you are free to lable anyone.

And No, to be a hyper you do not have to hold to both but also can hold to one or the other, since both are distortions of the original 5 points and necessitate a differing view and attitude than that of Classical Calvinists.

Many models under calvinism...

Supralapsarianism, Infralapsarianism, Amyraldism

Meaning think Supralapsarianism is hyper. I am not Supralapsarian and I can understand why some would say this. I however disagree. But this is just me. You believe what you want. I not going to argue over labels.

 

[whatever]

1. Yeah, right.
2. Wrong.
3. I know that you are wrong.
4. Hardly. See Allan's following post that he quotes from Piper's website. He's as hyper as they come. Quit denying it.

When you are ready to have a reasonable and rational discussion please let me know. You have just proven that you are still not ready to discuss theology seriously.

 

[Allan]

Just breath James, it will be alright.

I wasn't labeling (specifically) but WAS asking clarification ON a label that SEEMS to be indicitive of what "I think" as double-predestinationism and Hyper are.

When I asked some Calvinst friends I went to school with the very mention of the double-pred. raised a slight "ire" in them. Maybe because it normal use in the commons relates to the +/+ and not +/-. However stating both as the same heading con not only become confusing but will cause many inapproprietly "label" someone something they would rather not be affiliated with.

 

[webdog]

When you are ready to have a reasonable and rational discussion please let me know. You have just proven that you are still not ready to discuss theology seriously.

I'm sorry...you were discussing theology? Your numbered points looked only like personal opinion. I saw no "thology" in there. I have yet to see you admit when you are wrong on here. I'm as serious as need be. "Piper is hyper". Period. (Almost sounds like one of those election campaign ads...no pun intended)

If you can prove otherwise instead of lowering yourself to attacks, feel free.

 

[webdog]

...would make some 3 pointers and some 4 pointers disagree with you.

All 5 points (and in Piper's case...7) stand and fall with each other. No such thing as a 3 or 4 point calvinist.

 

[Pastor Larry]

"Piper is hyper". Period. (Almost sounds like one of those election campaign ads...no pun intended)

And like most election campaign ads, it isn't true. If you think Piper is hyper, then you don't know what hyper means. And that is not surprising, given your lack of learning on the general topic.

 

[webdog]

And like most election campaign ads, it isn't true. If you think Piper is hyper, then you don't know what hyper means. And that is not surprising, given your lack of learning on the general topic.

...or are you just blind to hyper calvinism, pastor? That wouldn't be surprising given your lack of learning what non calvinists believe. Whether you like it or not, double predestination is hyper calvinism. Quit telling me to learn something, and learn something yourself.

 

[Pastor Larry]

...or are you just blind to hyper calvinism, pastor?

Not at all.

That wouldn't be surprising given your lack of learning what non calvinists believe.

So far, everything that a non Calvinist has said here is something i already knew. So I have no idea what you are talking about. What do non Calvinists believe that I need to learn?

Whether you like it or not, double predestination is hyper calvinism.

Typically it's not. Hyper Calvinism is generally those who do not believe should evangelize. They deny duty faith. They do not preach the gospel to all. Double predestination is held by some hypers, but it is also held by some who are not hyper Calvinists.

Quit telling me to learn something, and learn something yourself.

I am willing. Teach me. And along the way, learn some things yourself.

We have shown beyond any doubt that you do not understand Calvinism. You know a few things here and there, but not enough, and you believe some things that simply aren't true. Only you can fix that.

 

[webdog]

We have shown beyond any doubt that you do not understand Calvinism.

If you feel like repeating this over and over again makes it so, all the power to you. I hope you are convincing yourself.

Typically it's not. Hyper Calvinism is generally those who do not believe should evangelize. They deny duty faith. They do not preach the gospel to all. Double predestination is held by some hypers, but it is also held by some who are not hyper Calvinists.

Double predestination makes God the author of sin...which is the main proponent, IMO, of hyper calvinism...not evangelism. If you feel it's more "hyper" that man doesn't evangelize, fine. I feel it's blatant heresy to hold to the notion that God is the author of sin.

 

[Pastor Larry]

If you feel like repeating this over and over again makes it so, all the power to you. I hope you are convincing yourself.

Repeating it does not make it true. It is true before it was ever said. Repeating is merely making the appeal for you to change your actions in this regard.

Double predestination makes God the author of sin

No it doesn't. That is silly. God is not the author of sin, and double predestination does not make him so. Again, this stems from a lack of basic understanding of how Calvinism views cause/effect and decrees. You may be right, and Calvinism may be wrong. But you are incorrect about what Calvinism believes.

What you state is what some Calvinists beleive, but it is not an inherent part of the system.

I feel it's blatant heresy to hold to the notion that God is the author of sin.

You are correct, but what you "feel" is irrelevant. You are correct becasue you agree with Scripture.

 

[russell55]

Double predestination makes God the author of sin...which is the main proponent, IMO, of hyper calvinism...not evangelism.

The problem with this is the IMO. These terms have accepted technical definitions, and we can't go around putting our own new meanings to the terms. On this question, even Wikipedia does a pretty good job of getting the definition of hypercalvinism right as the denial of duty-faith and duty-repentence.

The archetypal Hyper-Calvinist position may be found explicitly set forth in the confessional articles of the Gospel Standard (Baptist) Churches, specifically: Articles of Faith of the Gospel Standard Aid and Poor Relief Societies, (Leicester, England: Oldham & Manton Ltd., n.d.). Article 26 in that publication reads, "We deny duty faith and duty repentance — these terms suggesting that it is every man's duty spiritually and savingly to repent and believe. We deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So that we reject the doctrine that man in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God"

You'll notice that under the the non-technical ways the term is used the article says that the term is used non-technically to refer to the belief that

God is the source of sin and of evil

but not even that nontechnical usage would not apply almost all double predestinationists, since virtually all of double predestinationists believe that sin and evil come by way of God's permission rather than his direct action. So even if you were using the term in the more sloppy non-technical sense, you'd be wrong.

 

[whatever]

I'm sorry...you were discussing theology? Your numbered points looked only like personal opinion. I saw no "thology" in there. I have yet to see you admit when you are wrong on here. I'm as serious as need be. "Piper is hyper". Period. (Almost sounds like one of those election campaign ads...no pun intended)

If you can prove otherwise instead of lowering yourself to attacks, feel free.

I and several others have tried repeatedly to show you your misunderstandings and all you can see are attacks. Sad.

I'll tell you what. Here are two chances to prove that you are ready for theological discourse. Pick one, or answer both if you like.

First, prove that there is a relationship between infant baptism and hyper-calvinism.

Second, you said that Piper "recognizes infant baptism". Explain how that could be true in light of this:

There is no weakening of our conviction that the New Testament teaches us to be baptized by immersion as believers. That is firmly fixed in the BBC Elder Affirmation of Faith, which every elder must affirm. Thus the official position of Bethlehem Baptist Church remains that only baptism by immersion of believers will be taught and practiced by the church.

Quoted from http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2005/1306_Baptism_and_Church_Membership_The_Recommendation_from_the_Elders_for_Amending_Bethlehems_Constitution/

 

[Jarthur001]

Hummm. It seems like the Calvinist on this thread, were right after all.

The archetypal Hyper-Calvinist position may be found explicitly set forth in the confessional articles of the Gospel Standard (Baptist) Churches, specifically: Articles of Faith of the Gospel Standard Aid and Poor Relief Societies, (Leicester, England: Oldham & Manton Ltd., n.d.). Article 26 in that publication reads, "We deny duty faith and duty repentance — these terms suggesting that it is every man's duty spiritually and savingly to repent and believe. We deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So that we reject the doctrine that man in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God"