Is Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism in fact the same?

webdog · Apr 28, 2008

reformedbeliever said:

Where is the scholarship from teh Arminian side? That is one of the problems IMO... there is way more scholarship from the Calvinist side and little from the Arminian side. Compare the two. List the authors.
Click to expand...

There are more catholics than calvinists...should we all become catholics?

Dale-c · Apr 28, 2008

No one will admit they are hyper.
Click to expand...

Actually there was once a friend of mine who posted on here that claimed to be a "7 point" calvinist.
Or perhaps it was 8 points?
At any rate he was as close to actually calling himself a hyper as I have ever seen. Now he is an atheist last I heard.
Truly sad and shows the dangers of the heresy of hyper calvinism.

I believe hyper calvinism to be even worse that hyper arminianism.

Rippon · Apr 28, 2008

Dale-c said:

I believe hyper calvinism to be even worse than hyper arminianism.
Click to expand...

I don't know of anyone (aside) from your friend, who slid all the way from hyper-Calvinism to atheism .Historically there was the danger that Arminianism would lead to Deism I believe .These days it sometimes degenerates into open theism . That's the logical outcome of Arminianism .

I made up the term 'hyper-Arminianism'. If anything that designation would mean semi-Pelagianism . And that would be worse than hyper-Calvinism .

Outsider · Apr 28, 2008

Is Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism in fact the same?

Quote:
Man's ability and responsibility are coextensive. That is, they must match up exactly or else it is irrational. If a man is to be held responsible for something, then he must have the ability to do it. On the other hand, if a man does not have the ability to perform it, he cannot be obligated to do it.

The Arminian looks at this premise and says, "Agreed! We know that all men are held responsbile to repent and believe [which is true, according to the Bible]; therefore we must conclude that all men have the ability in themselves to repent and believe [which is false, according to the Bible]." Thus, Arminians teach that unconverted people have within themselves the spiritual ability to repent and believe.

The hyper-Calvinist takes the same premise (that man's ability and responsibility are coextensive) and says, "Agreed! We know that, in and of themselves, all men are without spiritual ability to repent and believe [which is true, according to the Bible]; therefore we must conclude that unconverted people are not under obligation to repent and believe the gospel [which is false, according to the Bible]."
Click to expand...

I do not understand the similarities. According to this writer:
"The Arminian looks at this premise and says, "Agreed! We know that all men are held responsbile to repent and believe [which is true, according to the Bible];" and
"The hyper-Calvinist takes the same premise (that man's ability and responsibility are coextensive) and says, "Agreed! We know that, in and of themselves, all men are without spiritual ability to repent and believe [which is true, according to the Bible];"

According to this writer, all men are held responsible to repent and believe (Arminian), yet all men are without spiritual ability to repent and believe (Hyper-Calvinist). The writer says that man's ability and responsibility are coextensive.

Man's ability and responsibility are coextensive. That is, they must match up exactly or else it is irrational. If a man is to be held responsible for something, then he must have the ability to do it. On the other hand, if a man does not have the ability to perform it, he cannot be obligated to do it.
Click to expand...

I am not seeing how this matches up.

Jarthur001 · Apr 28, 2008

Outsider said:

I am not seeing how this matches up.
Click to expand...

The full statement you have asked about can be found here....

http://www.founders.org/journal/fj24/sidebar2.html

Jarthur001 · Apr 28, 2008

One may wish to look at this site.

OldTruth.com

There you will find..THE BALANCED TRUTH OF CALVINISM
The 1st heading in the chart is...

Man's responsibility

A..Rightly emphasize it but believe it implies man's ability & so deny man's total depravity.

C....Believe that man is absolutely responsible for his actions while God is absolutely sovereign.

HC....Deny man's responsibility in a vain effort to protect the doctrine of man's depravity. Reduces man to being a block of wood.

click the link to see other headings and how Calvinism stands in the middle and the right balance of truth.

********added later....mainly for the non-Calvinist to read

While you visit that site you may want to read this link.....

http://www.oldtruth.com/calvinism/soulwinnercalvin.html

which starts out with this quote..

"John Calvin…is looked upon now, of course, a theologian only, but he was really one of the greatest of gospel preachers. When Calvin opened the Book and took a text, you might be sure that he was about to preach "Through grace are ye saved, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God."
CH Spurgeon (14:216)
Click to expand...

Jarthur001 · Apr 28, 2008

in...

Burning Straw Dummies
(with an outline of the Doctrines of Grace)
by
Randy Seiver

Seems to agree with the OP

CONSIDER THE BIBLE'S ANSWER TO THE UNBIBLICAL EXTREMES OF BOTH ARMINIANISM AND HYPER-CALVINISM.

Both Arminians and hyper-calvinists believe that responsibility and ability must go together:

The Arminian teaches that since Scripture teaches that people are responsible to believe and repent, they must be able to do so.

The Hyper-calvinist reasons that since Scripture teaches that people are unable to believe and repent, they are not responsible to do so
Click to expand...

.

Jarthur001 · Apr 28, 2008

Rev Ken Collins has another view ...I'm not sure why he says this....but note what he says at the end.

Arminianism is a view of the atonement that is named, not for Armenia, but for the Dutch Protestant theologian Arminius. It was in response to Calvinism. Because Calvin’s views were already established when Arminius formulated his rebuttal, Calvinists attacked Arminianism as a heresy, even though both viewpoints are legitimately drawn from scripture and within the historic mainstream. The controversy has not ended: recently, a well-known preacher misrepresented Arminianism on television and portrayed it as a dangerous heresy. The Arminian position is as follows:

Salvation is conditional upon repentance and faith.

The atonement is universal; that is, Jesus died for everyone.

We are morally free. We must choose between good and evil, salvation and death; and we are held accountable for our choice. (That is, Jesus died for everyone, but only those who have faith are saved.)

The grace of God can be resisted. We can choose not to be saved. (Matthew 23:37)

There is danger of apostasy. While it is not possible to lose one’s salvation through commission of a sin or misplace it through oversight, it is possible to deliberately abandon it—or to put it in other words, you can’t fall from grace, but you can jump. (Hebrews 6:4-5)

Within the United States, most evangelical groups that are Wesleyan in theology or origin adhere to some form of Arminianism. Outside the United States, most evangelicals subscribe to some form of Arminianism. Arminianism is more compatible with eastern Orthodoxy than Calvinism is.
Click to expand...

Jarthur001 · Apr 28, 2008

Rev. Garry Eriks says in ..."What's Wrong with Hyper-Calvinism?"

The hyper-Calvinist, then, makes the same mistake as the Arminians and free-willists, only he draws a different conclusion. Both think that to command or demand repentance and faith of dead sinners must imply that such sinners are not dead and have in themselves the ability to repent and believe.

The free-willist says, then: "To command must imply ability, therefore, men have the ability."

The hyper-Calvinist says: "To command must imply ability, therefore we will not command any but the elect."
Click to expand...

JustChristian · May 3, 2008

reformedbeliever said:

Where is the scholarship from teh Arminian side? That is one of the problems IMO... there is way more scholarship from the Calvinist side and little from the Arminian side. Compare the two. List the authors.
Click to expand...

Does scho;arship=correct theology? I think not. Jesus dealt mainly with uneducated people.

Is Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism in fact the same?

webdog Active Member
Site Supporter

Dale-c Active Member

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Outsider New Member

Jarthur001 Active Member

Jarthur001 Active Member

Jarthur001 Active Member

Jarthur001 Active Member

Jarthur001 Active Member

JustChristian New Member

Useful Searches

Is Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism in fact the same?

webdog Active Member Site Supporter

Dale-c Active Member

Rippon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Outsider New Member

Jarthur001 Active Member

Jarthur001 Active Member

Jarthur001 Active Member

Jarthur001 Active Member

Jarthur001 Active Member

JustChristian New Member

webdog Active Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter