What on earth?

It sounds like there are different understandings of what a "first cause" is on this board so some definitions would help your discussion.

I've found "hyper-calvinism" to be a slippery word that usually eludes objectivity. I suppose if someone meets the charge, then she would not believe in preaching the gospel to all creatures-that seems to be the only real hyper-calvinistic position that I know of past or present. Another version would be a robust antinomianism I suppose. Yet, it's hard to pin down either of these objectively without someone flat out claiming either position to be hers.

I don't know if that helps or not,
BJ

 

This whole dunnybrook issue distills down to the following:

Can the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God grant free-will to His human creatures or not?

And it really doesn't matter whether that one is saved or not because logically if He can give it to the saved then He can give it to anyone because:

If one says yes He can grant free-will to His human creatures, then that one is impuned for the destruction of the Sovereignty of God.

If one says no, then that one is accused of making God the author of sin and/or confusion.


HankD

 

Well said, Hank!

skypair

 

Isaiah,

If I can untwist this -- you appear to be saying that everything you do is what God wanted you to do.

Let me see if I can understand you --- let's say you sin. So you 'plan' and 'think' to sin but God determined/predesinated for you to "step into" sin? But it was your fault?

How exactly did God "determine" that you would sin if you did your own "thinking" and "planning" and "choosing?" At what point would God say that, on account of His plan, He was sovereign at this point in your decision? That this is what He determined for you to do -- that it was His purpose that you sin?

Sorry, Isaiah. I think that all you are saying is that you had free will to choose bad or good and God retained His sovereignty over the outcome of your choices. This is hard for predestinarians to understand since total sovereignty does not acknowledge that anything escapes God's control -- but even by your description, it appears that our choices escape His control, it's the consequences do not.

skypair

 

God says "Be ye holy, for I am holy." It is His will for us to be holy and NOT to sin. We sin because we have a sin nature. The only real difference between me and a lost person is that I've been forgiven and won't have to pay the price for my sins since Jesus paid the price. If I sin or even think about sinning, the Holy Spirit convicts me. I ask for forgiveness for that sin, and He is faithful and just to forgive me. If I fail to turn from that sin as a Christian, I will suffer sickness, pain, and possibly financial loss, and eventually I could even be taken out of this life rather than be left here to bring reproach upon the Lord's name.

 

That's right, Jon!!

skypair

 

The technical definition of a hyper-calvinist is a person who denies that the non-elect, the reprobate, have a duty to believe the Gospel even though they will not.

The consequence of this is a kind of Pharisaism where the elect become a kind of elite, where evangelism and missions are de-stressed and where the simple offer of the Gospel is couched in less than free and open language.

Simple Calvinism does maintain that in order for God to be God; i.e. eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. He must necessarily not only foreknow everything that comes to pass but that because of His nature as God, He cannot but also have ordained these things coming to pass.

That is: since God is eternal and One, everything that "happens" does so, for Him, instantaneously and He "sees" it from every angle. Therefore, for anything to "happen" which He did not want to happen would mean a radical upset to His nature as Sovereign over His creation since we would have the ridiculous situation where He is, effectively surprised by events.

Also, the Bible is quite clear that God ordains sin: He hardened Pharaoh's heart (Ex. 4:21), He caused His Son to be delivered over "by definite plan" to be Crucified (Acts 2:23), if there is "calamity" in a city, He has done it (Amos 3:6); He gives the reprobate over to his base desires (Romans 1), etc. In each case He is active in ordaining the sin of sinners.

By extension it cannot be pleaded that these are isolated, special cases, but that, again, in order for Him to be the God we confess and worship, His providence in this, as in every regard, must be meticulous and absolute.

But this is never in such a way that the wills of the sinners are over-ridden. The Bible is also clear that the fallen are utterly incapable of pleasing God, that they are dead in trespasses and sins and, as it relates to this discussion, they hate God and are at enmity with Him. They sin because they want to. Pharaoh didn't want to let Israel go, the Temple authorities wanted to kill Jesus, the Assyrians wanted to conquer Palestine and the desires God gives the reprobate over to come from their own fallen natures.

God ordains sin, but never in such a way that the will of the sinner is violated. Sinners sin because they sin, they like it, and they want to do it.

 

and who put that desire into their heart? Did it appear there like magic? How did it get there?

HankD

 

Rom 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience...

john.

 

We're all born with desires already inclined toward sin. At the same time, this condition of creation--people naturally inclined toward sin, and soil naturally inclined to grow weeds, and people naturally mortal is the judgment of God on the sin of Adam.

In other words, we're born with it, it comes from Adam through procreation--corrupted human beings reproducing more corrupted human beings--as a result of the judgment of God.

 

How did Adam get it?

HankD

 

How did Adam get what? A nature inclined toward sin? It was the result of the judgment of God for his sin.

 

Brandon, do you think the belief that God is the author of sin is a form of Hyper-Calvinism? I do.

 

johnp can say whatever he wants to, but his message says different. From monergism.com...

I have seen all of the bolded on here last week alone by a handful of people.

 

Webdog and I agree. And so do the Calvies at Monergism.com.

 

I don't care. Both terms "calvinism" and "hyper-calvinism" are rather useless. That's my honest opinion. There's too many disagreements as to what constitutes them, and if it's majority rule then fine. JohnP is well aware that his position is in the minority past or present no matter what group is in view, but giving him the hyper label seems useless to me. What other minority positions deserve the label? Is there a proper place to vote for such issues?

I posted on my blog a little while ago about useless terms and included calvinism but forgot to include "hyper-calvinism," in hindsight it surely belongs. The most useless term I've come into contact with is "biblical." It's objectively meaningless in most every theological discussion.

 

Why? Are all terms useless? Pelagian? SDA? Catholic? Doesn't it help to understand ones theological position using terms?
The OP asked for a definition of a hyper calvinist, and why johnp is one.

 

Saying that God ordains the sin of men is not the same thing as saying that He is the author of sin.

Being the author of sin would mean that one is a sinner. God does not sin, nor does He cause sinners to sin since they do what they are inclined to anyhow.