Question: "What is hyper-Calvinism and is it biblical?"

[Yeshua1]

The important distinction here is the belief that some people are never offered grace by God and are damned to hell without any offer of grace from God. That is certainly a hyper calvinist.






What Rice argued for is the idea that this was not a predominate view for quite some time until Calvin went back and took them from Augustine and then expanded on that. And I do agree with Rice when he says:





Looking at this:



This explanation is not the same thing as much of the determinism I see from Hyper-Calvinists. Which seems to be that God ordains men to do specific evil acts in a way that micro-manages the evil or He is not sovereign if He does not. Which is different than what you just said.

We hold that the death of Christ was atonement to fave those whom the cross was intended to save, the Elect, that he died a specific death for a specific group of people, not to atone for all sinners, else all would be saved!

that is NOT hyper cal, just normal one!

 

[Revmitchell]

not to atone for all sinners, else all would be saved!

that is NOT hyper cal, just normal one!

That is very hyper. And it is not found in scripture and a very skewed view of the sovereignty of God. No such view of God's sovereignty can be found in scripture.

 

[Revmitchell]

In the book "Whosoever Will; A biblical-Theological Critique of Five -Point Calvinism" Dr. David Allen wrote:

"Moderate Calvinists......reject a strictly limited atonement, believe God's saving design in the atonement was dualistic1) He sent Christ for the salvation of all humanity so that His death paid the penalty for their sins, and(2) Christ died with a special purpose of ultimately securing the salvation for the elect."

 

[Yeshua1]

In the book "Whosoever Will; A biblical-Theological Critique of Five -Point Calvinism" Dr. David Allen wrote:

"Moderate Calvinists......reject a strictly limited atonement, believe God's saving design in the atonement was dualistic1) He sent Christ for the salvation of all humanity so that His death paid the penalty for their sins, and(2) Christ died with a special purpose of ultimately securing the salvation for the elect."

You are basically describing " 4 point" calvinists!

I know, as once held that position, but was convinced by the scriptures that jesus died to secure REAl salvation of actual, not a potential kind!

5 point calvinists NOT Hyper, as we still hold that one MUST receive Christ by faith to get saved, and that we MUST preach/teach christ to get that accomplished!

 

[Revmitchell]

You are basically describing " 4 point" calvinists!

I know, as once held that position, but was convinced by the scriptures that jesus died to secure REAl salvation of actual, not a potential kind!

5 point calvinists NOT Hyper, as we still hold that one MUST receive chrsit by faith to get saved, and that we MUST preach/teach christ to get that accomplished!

Or in other words a "moderate".

 

[Yeshua1]

Or in other words a "moderate".

Thing is that you and I would agree that we must teach/speak/preach about jesus and the gospel...

That God saves sinners by grace alone, faith alone!

 

[Revmitchell]

Reformed men who did not teach 'limited atonement":

John Calvin
Heinrich Bullinger
Thomas Cranmer
Richard Baxter
John Preston
John Bunyan
John Howe
Zacharias Ursinus
David Paraeus
Steven Charnock
Edward Polhill
Isaac Watts
Johnathon Edwards
David Brainard
Thomas Chalmers
Philip Dodridge
Ralph Wardlaw
Charles Hodge
Robert Dabney
W.G.T Shedd
J.C. Ryle
A.H.Strong

Source: David L. Allen, Steve W. Lemke. Whosoever Will A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism. Nashville Tennessee: B&H Academic, 2010.

 

[Revmitchell]

"To bear the sines means to free those who have sinned from their guilt by his satisfaction. He says many meaning all, as in Romans 5:15. It is of course certain that not all enjoy the fruits of Christ's Death, but this happens because their unbelief hinders them. That question is not dealt with here because the apostle is not discussing how few or how may benefit form the death of Christ, bu means simply that He died for others, not for Himself. He therefore contrasts the many to the one." ~ John Calvin

Source: torrence, Ed. D.W. Torrence and T.F., and Trans. W.B. Johnston. J. Calvin, The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews and the First and Second Epistles of St. Peter. Grand Rapids Michigan: Eerdmans, 1963. pg.131


Paul Makes common grace to all men, not because it in fact extends to all, but because it is offered to all. Although Christ suffered for the sins of the world, and is offered by the goodness of God without distinction to all men, yet not all receive Him." ~John Calvin

Source: ibid, pg. 117-18

 

[Yeshua1]

"To bear the sines means to free those who have sinned from their guilt by his satisfaction. He says many meaning all, as in Romans 5:15. It is of course certain that not all enjoy the fruits of Christ's Death, but this happens because their unbelief hinders them. That question is not dealt with here because the apostle is not discussing how few or how may benefit form the death of Christ, bu means simply that He died for others, not for Himself. He therefore contrasts the many to the one." ~ John Calvin

Source: torrence, Ed. D.W. Torrence and T.F., and Trans. W.B. Johnston. J. Calvin, The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews and the First and Second Epistles of St. Peter. Grand Rapids Michigan: Eerdmans, 1963. pg.131


Paul Makes common grace to all men, not because it in fact extends to all, but because it is offered to all. Although Christ suffered for the sins of the world, and is offered by the goodness of God without distinction to all men, yet not all receive Him." ~John Calvin

Source: ibid, pg. 117-18

believe calvin was teaching there that God offers salvation in the sense of a common grace towards all sinners,all are preached the gospel, but also ONLY intends and actual grants saving grace towards those who are Elect in chrsit, didn't he?

 

[Revmitchell]

believe calvin was teaching there that God offers salvation in the sense of a common grace towards all sinners,all are preached the gospel, but also ONLY intends and actual grants saving grace towards those who are Elect in chrsit, didn't he?

Nope................"Paul Makes common grace to all men, not because it in fact extends to all, but because it is offered to all."~ J. Calvin

It is just historically false that the "TULIP" has been the only view of Calvinists or even the only predominant view among Calvinists.

 

[Yeshua1]

Nope................"Paul Makes common grace to all men, not because it in fact extends to all, but because it is offered to all."~ J. Calvin

It is just historically false that the "TULIP" has been the only view of Calvinists or even the only predominant view among Calvinists.

actually, there has been universal agreement rearding 4 points, its just the one regarding if the intent of the atonement was unlimited/limited that gets disagreed upon!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Does Calvin believe in limited Atonement or not? Many say that Calvin did not believe it. Dr. Nicole proves them quite wrong, but not without careful efforts. :smilewinkgrin:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/john-calvins-view-of-limited-atonement/

 

[Yeshua1]

Does Calvin believe in limited Atonement or not? Many say that Calvin did not believe it. Dr. Nicole proves them quite wrong, but not without careful efforts. :smilewinkgrin:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/john-calvins-view-of-limited-atonement/

think only God knows that answer, for calvin , depending on which time of his writings, seem to teach both aspects of it at times!

Will see also that careful readin gof ALL of his work would led one to presume that calvin held to a substitutionary atonement, and that definite provision in it was made for the Elect of god!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

think only God knows that answer, for calvin , depending on which time of his writings, seem to teach both aspects of it at times!

Will see also that careful readin gof ALL of his work would led one to presume that calvin held to a substitutionary atonement, and that definite provision in it was made for the Elect of god!

Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father -- that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ. (John Calvin, Commentary on John, volume 1 3:16)

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

Nope................"Paul Makes common grace to all men, not because it in fact extends to all, but because it is offered to all."~ J. Calvin

It is just historically false that the "TULIP" has been the only view of Calvinists or even the only predominant view among Calvinists.

Really?

My guess is that that would be the view of all pastors and elders in every Presbyterian or Reformed church.

However, I'm not sure about "Calvinist" or Reformed Baptists. However, John Piper seems to fit the mold. See attached link.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/piper_atonement.html

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

This is a good read

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource...we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism

 

[Revmitchell]

Really?

My guess is that that would be the view of all pastors and elders in every Presbyterian or Reformed church.

However, I'm not sure about "Calvinist" or Reformed Baptists. However, John Piper seems to fit the mold. See attached link.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/piper_atonement.html

Which does nothing to disprove my point. It still stands.

 

[Revmitchell]

think only God knows that answer, for calvin , depending on which time of his writings, seem to teach both aspects of it at times!

Will see also that careful readin gof ALL of his work would led one to presume that calvin held to a substitutionary atonement, and that definite provision in it was made for the Elect of god!

I appreciate your integrity here.

 

[Yeshua1]

Really?

My guess is that that would be the view of all pastors and elders in every Presbyterian or Reformed church.

However, I'm not sure about "Calvinist" or Reformed Baptists. However, John Piper seems to fit the mold. See attached link.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/piper_atonement.html

Think thar Reformed christians take TULIP all points, while those of us reformed can be either 4/5 pointers!

 

[Revmitchell]

Think thar Reformed christians take TULIP all points, while those of us reformed can be either 4/5 pointers!

I know you don't really care about grammar and spelling but could you re-post this in a way that is more coherent. (not just being critical but just trying to understand what you are saying here)