J.D. said:
if the intent is to properly identify what Hyper-Calvinism is, one should not use a source that is disputed such as Phil Johnson's writings are. In fact, his may be the poorest source available. Phil's definition is overly general and reductionist.
Also, Rippon's comparison of the "P" list and the "M" list is accurate.
And to clarify something, I did not say that the monergism.com was the goto guys, but the goto place for information. I do not endorse every opinion of the man John Hendrix, even though he is a much better theologian than Phil Johnson. No offense intended Phil.
If I thought that the HC label appropriately described my views, I would gladly own it. I don't think my semantical objection to "common grace" puts me there.
First JD, you seem to be forgetting something very important thing. I did not just paste Phil's list up and say it is the end all of the argument.
Secondly, Phil Johnson's list is not as 'disputed' as you seem to think. I haven't found much out there against it at all.
Thirdly, I didn't give Phil Johnson's list without getting others to set their endorsment to it as well. It is an aide to help. Therefore I went to the 'go to place' where Calvinistic information was considered reliable. And John Hedrix gave his endorsement stating that what Monergism sees as HC views and what Phil sets forth in his outlining of 5 basic HC are the same things.
I would like some clarification on something though, if I may? I realize you didn't say they were the 'goto guys' specifically (and I appologize for the misquote) but my intent in the phrasing was about them as a reliable information on Calvinism - thus the 'goto guys'. But if they are a 'goto place' for reliable information on Calvinism but they are wrong on what constitutes HC, then how can anyone trust them on basic Calvinism if they don't understand the extremes of it?
I'm not saying Monergism (John Hendrix) is infalable nor am I saying he is the most knowagable person alive regarding Calvinism. But I am saying he is very well respected in his views and understanding, so for him to agree with 'disputed' listing of Phil makes one wonder, why? For one Monergism in their listing did not give an exhaustive listing but listed 'some' HC beliefs and destructive veiws that most Calvinists reject as deplorable. This is where you guys are missing the boat concerning his opinion of Phils listing being the same as his.
Another quick note - Phil's list is not to label a person an HC but to respectively show where some Cal's vary from the Historical view into non-historical (HC) views.
I gave examples as to what I think the views share but Monergism is one who can best answer it. For me- the #1 in Phils list corrisponds to the other on no evangelism.
Monergism states:
"- that it is wrong to evangelize"
Phils #1
The denial of the gospel call which states (in brief):
This first variety of hyper-Calvinism denies the general, external call, and insists that the gospel should be preached in a way that proclaims the facts about Christ's work and God's electing grace—without calling for any kind of response. This is the worst form of hyper-Calvinism in vogue today... At least the Arminian preaches enough of the gospel for the elect to hear it and be saved. The hyper-Calvinist who denies the gospel call doesn't even believe in calling sinners to Christ. He almost fears to whisper the gospel summons to other believers, lest anyone accuse him of violating divine sovereignty.
Monergism's
"- that assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith"
Correlates to Phils #2 .
The denial of faith as a duty which states (in brief):
Those holding this position go to great lengths to deny that faith is ever presented in Scripture as the duty of the unregenerate. (Obviously, much Scripture-twisting is necessary to justify such an opinion. See, for example, Acts 17:30.) Instead, advocates of this position suggest that each sinner must seek a warrant for his faith before presuming to exercise faith in Christ. The sinner does this by looking for evidence that he is elect (an utterly absurd notion, since faith is the only real evidence of election).
...
The hyper-Calvinist, on the other hand, reasons thus: If sinners are incapable of faith apart from God's enabling grace, then the gospel would not call them to faith. Therefore the gospel cannot really mean that faith is the sinner's duty. And so the hyper-Calvinist adjusts the message in a way that nullifies the sinner's responsibility.
Monergism's "- that God does not command everyone to repent";
Correlates to Phil's #3
The denial of the gospel offer which states (in brief)
Type-3 hyper-Calvinism is based on a denial that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect. An alternative of this view merely denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal.
Though on the surface this does not appear the same due to the commanding all to repent and offering the gospel. My point is more in line with the intent of God. Does He truly desire for sinners to repent, and "does the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect. " So in this one I can agree it might need a little more fleshing out, and is most likely why Mongerism stated
"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.".
Monergism's
"- that the grace of God does not work for the betterment of all men";
Correlates to Phil's #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.
5. The denial of God's love toward the reprobate. Type-5 hyper-Calvinism is closely related to type-4. To deny that God in any sense loves the reprobate is to suggest that God holds us to a higher standard than He himself follows, for he instructs us to love our enemies—and Scripture teaches that when we love our enemies, we are behaving like God, who shows lovingkindness even to the reprobate (Deut. 10:18; Matt. 5:44-45).
Furthermore, to insist that God's demeanor toward the non-elect is always and only hatred is a de facto denial of common grace—the same error of type-4 hyper-Calvinism.
There are some who hold this view, yet manage ... to avoid other hyper-Calvinist opinions. The most influential advocate of the type-5 position was Arthur Pink. I hesitate to label him a hyper-Calvinist, frankly, because he fought the stronger varieties of hyper-Calvinism in his later years. A few other Puritan and mainstream Reformed theologians have also denied the love of God to the reprobate. They are a distinct minority... It's a hyper-Calvinistic tendency, but not all who hold the view are hyper-Calvinists in any other respect.
This error stems from a failure to differentiate between God's redemptive love, which is reserved for the elect alone, and His love of compassion, which is expressed in the goodness He shows to all His creatures (cf. Matt. 5:44-45; Acts 14:17).
These 5 types (or 4 if you don't think the offer aspect is a solid one) given by Phil Johnsom are outlining 5 different types of HC views. Just because a person holds to one or two doesn't make them a Hyper, as he even states regarding A. W. Pink. It merely shows views or tendencies toward those views. Even Rippon acknowledges his tendencies toward those views and that is what the list was placed here by me to do. To allow the non-cals something to be able to look at and see what an actaul HC view is instead of just declaring a Calvinist a Hyper, but also to allow a person who's view has those tendencies to be able to look and do a double check. Is that really a bad thing? To make sure you where your view is, where you claim it to be.
.
, Paul was whipped five times (2 Cor. 11:2) . . . "