What is a hyper-Calvinist? How do we sustain our strong Calvinistic convictions without slipping into hyper-Calvinism?

[Alan Dale Gross]

Yep, you were

only quoting the OP

 

[Paleouss]

Hyper-Calvinism is the incomplete endpoint result of following one logical step after another.

Greetings DaveXR650. Peace to you and yours! My first time here on this Baptist board, although I have been on other boards before.

I would like to second your observation regarding Hyper-Calvinism (what I call a High Calvinist). In some issues, the High Calvinist position is a progression through the logic of a position, step by step, until they reach what even appears to me to be the logical conclusion of their own particular starting point. However, as we well know, being an inch off square at the foundation leaves you a foot off square at its top.

The problem, as I see it, seems to be that many High Calvinists today don't understand fully how their preferred theologians reached their conclusions down through the years. It required a significant amount of logical deduction and a particular starting point.

A prime example for me is the introduction of the Supralapsarian Model of decrees developed by Beza. A foundational model in which the logic of High Calvinism began to evolve. Upon studying the Supralapsarian model, it is clear to me how some of the logical conclusions are reached in Hyper-Calvinism (and thus the errors). Because when you start with the Supralapsarian model as the foundation of your logic, the conclusions clearly lead to Hyper-Calvinism.

The model that I believe is more biblically congruent with multiple themes within the Bible is the Infralapsarian Model (which is actually the most held model by Reformed theologians down through the years). In my experience, if a Calvinist's theology is more in line with the Infralapsarian Model, they are less likely to be a High Calvinist and more in line with general Calvinism. The starting point simply not leading to Hyper-Calvinism.

Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure.

 

[JesusFan]

Greetings DaveXR650. Peace to you and yours! My first time here on this Baptist board, although I have been on other boards before.

I would like to second your observation regarding Hyper-Calvinism (what I call a High Calvinist). In some issues, the High Calvinist position is a progression through the logic of a position, step by step, until they reach what even appears to me to be the logical conclusion of their own particular starting point. However, as we well know, being an inch off square at the foundation leaves you a foot off square at its top.

The problem, as I see it, seems to be that many High Calvinists today don't understand fully how their preferred theologians reached their conclusions down through the years. It required a significant amount of logical deduction and a particular starting point.

A prime example for me is the introduction of the Supralapsarian Model of decrees developed by Beza. A foundational model in which the logic of High Calvinism began to evolve. Upon studying the Supralapsarian model, it is clear to me how some of the logical conclusions are reached in Hyper-Calvinism (and thus the errors). Because when you start with the Supralapsarian model as the foundation of your logic, the conclusions clearly lead to Hyper-Calvinism.

The model that I believe is more biblically congruent with multiple themes within the Bible is the Infralapsarian Model (which is actually the most held model by Reformed theologians down through the years). In my experience, if a Calvinist's theology is more in line with the Infralapsarian Model, they are less likely to be a High Calvinist and more in line with general Calvinism. The starting point simply not leading to Hyper-Calvinism.

Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure.

Great analysis here on your posting, and do think that those after Calvin even tended to go more extreme than Calvin did himself regarding this plansand purposes to get worked out and fulfilled?..

Also amuses me when those who claim that are "mild Calvinists" such as a Norman Geisler based that upon being a 3 point Calvinist, and accused those holding to all 5 points being Hyper pr extreme Cals. but to me he was just a real Arminian theologian?

Think even Baptist theologian Millard Erickson made same such claims also

 

[DaveXR650]

Greetings DaveXR650. Peace to you and yours! My first time here on this Baptist board, although I have been on other boards before.

I would like to second your observation regarding Hyper-Calvinism (what I call a High Calvinist). In some issues, the High Calvinist position is a progression through the logic of a position, step by step, until they reach what even appears to me to be the logical conclusion of their own particular starting point. However, as we well know, being an inch off square at the foundation leaves you a foot off square at its top.

Welcome.
I would say in Hyper-Calvinism you have a belief that justification is accomplished either in the mind of God before time as we know it even started or at least at the time Christ died. Thus any type of outreach is either unnecessary or to the extent the gospel is spreading, the purpose is to reach the elect. Salvation amounts to a realization that one is indeed elect.

I think High-Calvinism is very strong on God's predestination of everything but they teach that although the elect and only the elect will be saved, they are truly lost until they are saved. Thus what is occurring when a person "gets saved" is truly that a lost, albeit elect person, due to the work of the Holy Spirit repents of sin and turns to Christ by faith. John Owen would be a High-Calvinist. They would accept all the 5 points of the TULIP without any of the equivocations you hear. John Owen for example has the most famous defense of limited atonement in "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" that has ever been put forth. But - Owen also said that the gospel of Christ when put forth in word or preaching is accompanied by an "invitation" and that he had it on authority of scripture that anyone who came to Christ by faith would be saved.

Obviously, from the above you can see that there is a lot of leeway for one to perceive differently what is going on and yet still be on board with a system. For a Calvinist like Owen, when he said that scripture says that anyone who comes to Christ will be saved - did he in the back of his mind also think that only the elect will respond and therefore "could come" doesn't mean they will come or have any chance to come if not elect? Was it just a hypothetical statement which in reality is no different from the hyperCal above who is just being more honest and less nuanced? Then you go to guys like J.C. Ryle who say they believe in all the doctrines of grace and then explicitly teach that you have it in your power to accept or reject the truth of the gospel, and he taught that you should approach people with the truth that "Christ has died for you" and that if you are not saved at last it will be your own doing by your own will.

So then the question is, are guys like Ryle really Calvinists, or are they really not Calvinists in the strict sense but were attempting to maintain their credentials and group affiliation while being a little "off" in their teaching.

That's why this is all more complicated that it seems at first. You have stated positions and confessions. And then you have the question of how people perceive those. And with confessions, you have the probability that they were written to bring in all who were close enough in theology to associate together and therefore some of the positions may look unclear but it was on purpose that they are unclear because they wanted to be as inclusive as possible.