# Hard-Core Hyper-Calvinists on Web



## Neogillist (May 17, 2008)

Most of them don't even go to church. They write on their blogspots, they discuss issues on their board. I don't even think they would qualify as Christians. Their theology basically sums up to five points, which I guess we could be called the "Five Points of Hyper-Calvinism":

1. Equal-ultimacy: God is as active in getting the reprobates to hell as he is in taking the elects to heaven.

2. No Duty-Faith: The reprobates are not responsible to believe in Christ, they only have to ackowledge him as Lord.

3. No Common Grace: God hates the reprobate with an absolute hatred. He hates them, he hates them and he can't help it but hate them.

4. No Progressive Sanctification: Since the elects are under grace, they cannot sin as the moral law is not binding on them.

5. Eternal Justification: There is no point to pray for the forgiveness of sin since sins were forgiven from eternity long before they would be committed.

The sad thing is that some of these guys used to be, or have been members of PB, and got kicked out, while a few might still be members. 

Check this out, if you don't believe me:
Confession of a Hyper-Calvinist

Welcome to Pristine Grace


----------



## Blueridge Believer (May 17, 2008)

If the devil can't push you off the ladder he'll push you over the top.


----------



## AV1611 (May 17, 2008)

The best policy is to ignore them.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 17, 2008)

You have to PAY to read their entire forum....wow


----------



## JM (May 17, 2008)

I always thought a hyper was someone who did not see the need for the proclamation of the Gospel, "if God wanted to save a person He would get to it in His own time..." kind of thing...


----------



## Justified! (May 17, 2008)

Neogillist said:


> Most of them don't even go to church. They write on their blogspots, they discuss issues on their board. I don't even think they would qualify as Christians. Their theology basically sums up to five points, which I guess we could be called the "Five Points of Hyper-Calvinism":



So questions if I may?



> 1. Equal-ultimacy: God is as active in getting the reprobates to hell as he is in taking the elects to heaven.



A.W.Pink talks about this in his book the Sovereignty of God. And he made this point that I thought interesting.
_an examination of God’s dealings with Pharaoh makes it clear that Egypt’s king was indeed a "vessel of wrath fitted to destruction." Placed on Egypt’s throne, with the reins of government in his hands, he sat as head of the nation which occupied the first rank among the peoples of the world. There was no other monarch on earth able to control or dictate to Pharaoh. To such a dizzy height did God raise this reprobate, and such a course was a natural and necessary step to prepare him for his final fate, for it is a Divine axiom that "pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall." Further,—and this is deeply important to note and highly significant—God removed from Pharaoh the one outward restraint which was calculated to act as a check upon him. The bestowing upon Pharaoh of the unlimited powers of a king was setting him above all legal influence and control. *But besides this, God removed Moses from his presence and kingdom. Had Moses, who not only was skilled in all the wisdom of the Egyptians but also had been reared in Pharaoh’s household, been suffered to remain in close proximity to the throne, there can be no doubt but that his example and influence had been a powerful check upon the king’s wickedness and tyranny.* This, though not the only cause, was plainly one reason why God sent Moses into Midian, for it was during his absence that Egypt’s inhuman king framed his most cruel edicts. God designed, by removing this restraint, to give Pharaoh full opportunity to fill up the full measure of his sins, and ripen himself for his fully-deserved but predestined ruin._

Now in the case of Nebuchadnezzar the Lord could of done the same and removed Daniel's influence from Nebuchadnezzar, but he did not.



> 2. No Duty-Faith: The reprobates are not responsible to believe in Christ, they only have to ackowledge him as Lord.
> 
> 3. No Common Grace: God hates the reprobate with an absolute hatred. He hates them, he hates them and he can't help it but hate them.



I guess my question for this is God did love the reprobate why does he send them to hell?



> 4. No Progressive Sanctification: Since the elects are under grace, they cannot sin as the moral law is not binding on them.



Was not the purpose of the law was to bring the elect to Christ Jesus?
*Galatians 3:24*
_Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith._
And even after our regeneration, it should be our guide and brings of to conviction when we sin, but we're still justified by Christ finished work on the cross.



> 5. Eternal Justification: *There is no point to pray for the forgiveness of sin since sins were forgiven from eternity long before they would be committed*.
> 
> 
> > Could you show us an example of this?
> ...


----------



## MrMerlin777 (May 17, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> The best policy is to ignore them.



I agree. Ignore 'em.

Nothing one says is gonna get through their hard heads anyway.

Where I'm from we have a few hard shell baptist churches up in the hills. Some of these folks are the most hateful people I've met.


----------



## AV1611 (May 17, 2008)

Marc,

The problem is not so much what they believe but the conclusions they draw from it. For example, I agree with EJ (as did Goodwin, Witsius, Gill, Twisse and Kuyper) however that does not mean "There is no point to pray for the forgiveness of sin since sins were forgiven from eternity long before they would be committed." 

How do I put this politely? They have gone further than Gill who himself took things too far, but at least Gill was a scholar and manifested the fruit of the Spirit.


----------



## Justified! (May 17, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Marc,
> 
> The problem is not so much what they believe but the conclusions they draw from it. For example, I agree with EJ (as did Goodwin, Witsius, Gill, Twisse and Kuyper) however that does not mean "There is no point to pray for the forgiveness of sin since sins were forgiven from eternity long before they would be committed."
> 
> How do I put this politely? They have gone further than Gill who himself took things too far, but at least Gill was a scholar and manifested the fruit of the Spirit.



I would agree, we still have sinned against Holy God and need to ask for forgiveness the Bible is quite clear in this. And also we preach the Gospel because it is commanded to us. maybe it's just my militart back ground but this is pretty simple, God says we do.
I would just like some actual quotes stating that this is what they said "as there is no point of praying for forgiveness". Kind of like that show "Dragnet" _just the facts mam_
Anyways thanks for answering.


----------



## Justified! (May 17, 2008)

MrMerlin777 said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > The best policy is to ignore them.
> ...



I think we should confront someone with the truth, up to a point. We all were in darkness(error) at one point. As for _Nothing one says is gonna get through their hard heads anyway._ There are MANY examples of the Lord saving the most vile sinner.
*1 Timothy 1:15 *
_This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief._
And there is also a time to step away as well.
*Matthew 7:6*
_“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces._
But that is were the leading of the Spirit would have to guide us.


----------



## Neogillist (May 18, 2008)

Yea, I put down a description of the consequences they draw from the doctrines, not really a definition of the doctrines themselves. It is possible to be doctrinally hyper-Calvinistic, and yet practically evangelicalistic, but for them, they are both doctrinally and practically hyper, which is destructive and selfish because the gospel is being quenched rather than preached. For them to "preach the gospel" is nothing more than stating doctrinal facts without urging people to believe. 

About A. W. Pink, he does go overboard in his work "The Sovereignty of God," and does appear to teach equal ultimacy. I personally don't believe in equal ultimacy, however, because there appears to be a lot of nominal Christians who are not truly regenerate, and yet have tasted the gospel to various degrees (especially in large liberal evangelical churches). Various passages of Scriptures also teach that some reprobates will naturally attend the means of grace for a while, and then fall away. I think it might even be possible for some unregenerates to go to church all their lives and live an godly life outwardly, and yet remain unsaved, although a passage in John 15 where the Father is said to cut off unfruitful branches seem to suggest that all neophytes will eventually fall out of their profession before they die. Some churches are so carnal that I would bet over 95% of their members are unbelievers, so this would only apply to true Bible-believing churches where discipline is exercised. If equal ultimacy were true, however, I would expect all true bible-believing churches to be filled with true believers, since all reprobates who would hear the gospel would be hardened immediately by God and reject it straight away. The example with Phaoroh is good to prove that God does fatten up certain men for destruction, but it does not follow that he treats all reprobates as such unlike hyper-Calvinists will claim. Pink also teaches "sovereign hardening of the heart", which I think is unscriptural. If God sovereignly hardens the reprobates, He would be breaking his own commandment that they should not harden their hearts (see the book of Hebrews). This would be sheer hypocrisy on God's part. In many ways, I personally find A. W. Pink a lot more hyper-Calvinistic than Gill himself, although he still held to duty-faith.


----------



## Hippo (May 18, 2008)

I think that as several people have pointed out it is attitude and approach rather than particular doctrines that mark most of these folks out as the loonatic fringe and puts there church membership (even if they wanted it) in doubt.

Many perfectly respectable and sound Christians deny common grace and several of the other doctrines listed (admitadly not usually all of them) , but they are perfectly orthodox.

Bear in mind that we are routinely called hyper calvinists beacuse we hold to limited atonement, the term is mainly only of perjorative use these days.

The danger is of worshipping theology not God and when the bible does not fit in with the theology it is the bible that takes the back seat. This error usually exhibits itself by the doctrine of the Church taking the back seat behind purity and inclusivity, and eventually leads to the rejection of the physical church.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (May 18, 2008)

Good points Mike.


----------



## etexas (May 18, 2008)

PuritanBouncer said:


> You have to PAY to read their entire forum....wow


 I love the PB. Even with as bad a day as I am having I can ALWAYS find humor here.


----------



## holyfool33 (Jun 7, 2008)

I have had some run ins with Marc Carpenter the guy that runs Outside The Camp. Not pleasant to say the least I sent him an e-mail and then he labeled me a drug addict and an Alzheimer's patient there's Christian love for ya But that's what happens when you think you can label people unregenerate simply because they don't agree with you.


----------



## Galatians220 (Jun 7, 2008)

holyfool33 said:


> But that's what happens when you think you can label people unregenerate simply because they don't agree with you.


 
I've had exactly that happen to me... I just kinda said, _"Whatever, dude..." _ It was a minister who said it...  

Margaret


----------



## bookslover (Jun 8, 2008)

Neogillist said:


> Pink also teaches "sovereign hardening of the heart", which I think is unscriptural. If God sovereignly hardens the reprobates, He would be breaking his own commandment that they should not harden their hearts (see the book of Hebrews). This would be sheer hypocrisy on God's part.



See Exodus 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:8; Deuteronomy 2:30; John 12:40; Romans 11:7.

Sounds like God hardens hearts to me, when it suits His sovereign purposes to do so.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 8, 2008)

> Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.



God doesn't need to actively harden the heart of man. All he has to do is to remove his divine influence. Man's heart will naturally turn hard against God's will since it is at enmity against God. I believe in Common grace because if it weren't for God's divine influence all men everywhere would just kill each other. 

And God doesn't need double predestination as a doctrine. Mankind is born guilty and bound for Hell if he isn't given to the Son by the Father.



> (Joh 6:37) All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
> 
> (Joh 6:38) For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
> 
> (Joh 6:39) And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.


----------



## bookslover (Jun 8, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> > Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But, Martin, the biblical references listed in #17 show God actively hardening Pharoah's heart, and the hearts of his servants, among others.

Glad to know you're feeling much better, by the way.


----------



## Zenas (Jun 8, 2008)

I hold to double-predestination. *yikes* If God doesn't ordain one to election, then he has naturally ordained them to damnation, even if it is passively, ergo they are predestined all the same. Dunno where that puts me on the Calvinism scale. 

Aaron, you mean you aren't a drug addict? I sure know I am. You have to be to disagree with that feller. Now, where'd a put all my drugs? I keep forgetting because I have Alzheimer's.


----------



## cih1355 (Jun 22, 2008)

Can anyone explain how the manner in which God regenerates someone is different than the manner in which He hardens someone's heart?


----------



## Stephen (Jun 22, 2008)

Zenas said:


> I hold to double-predestination. *yikes* If God doesn't ordain one to election, then he has naturally ordained them to damnation, even if it is passively, ergo they are predestined all the same. Dunno where that puts me on the Calvinism scale.
> 
> Aaron, you mean you aren't a drug addict? I sure know I am. You have to be to disagree with that feller. Now, where'd a put all my drugs? I keep forgetting because I have Alzheimer's.




Yes, I hold to double-predestination as well, but this does not make one a hyper-Calvinist, unless you want to label Jean Calvin as one. I read the site and I am not sure what it is that would make these guys hyper-Calvinists. They are not Presbyterians because they deny infant Baptism but that would not make them hyper-Calvinists. It is my understanding that a hyper-Calvinist would deny the preaching of the gospel, and everyone on PB would certainly reject that. We have several brothers on PB who are members of the Protestant Reformed Churches, but they could not be classified as hyper. I must have missed something on this site, so please enlighten me further.


----------



## Stephen (Jun 22, 2008)

Neogillist said:


> Yea, I put down a description of the consequences they draw from the doctrines, not really a definition of the doctrines themselves. It is possible to be doctrinally hyper-Calvinistic, and yet practically evangelicalistic, but for them, they are both doctrinally and practically hyper, which is destructive and selfish because the gospel is being quenched rather than preached. For them to "preach the gospel" is nothing more than stating doctrinal facts without urging people to believe.
> 
> About A. W. Pink, he does go overboard in his work "The Sovereignty of God," and does appear to teach equal ultimacy. I personally don't believe in equal ultimacy, however, because there appears to be a lot of nominal Christians who are not truly regenerate, and yet have tasted the gospel to various degrees (especially in large liberal evangelical churches). Various passages of Scriptures also teach that some reprobates will naturally attend the means of grace for a while, and then fall away. I think it might even be possible for some unregenerates to go to church all their lives and live an godly life outwardly, and yet remain unsaved, although a passage in John 15 where the Father is said to cut off unfruitful branches seem to suggest that all neophytes will eventually fall out of their profession before they die. Some churches are so carnal that I would bet over 95% of their members are unbelievers, so this would only apply to true Bible-believing churches where discipline is exercised. If equal ultimacy were true, however, I would expect all true bible-believing churches to be filled with true believers, since all reprobates who would hear the gospel would be hardened immediately by God and reject it straight away. The example with Phaoroh is good to prove that God does fatten up certain men for destruction, but it does not follow that he treats all reprobates as such unlike hyper-Calvinists will claim. Pink also teaches "sovereign hardening of the heart", which I think is unscriptural. If God sovereignly hardens the reprobates, He would be breaking his own commandment that they should not harden their hearts (see the book of Hebrews). This would be sheer hypocrisy on God's part. In many ways, I personally find A. W. Pink a lot more hyper-Calvinistic than Gill himself, although he still held to duty-faith.



I have never considered Pink a hyper-Calvinist.


----------



## Stephen (Jun 22, 2008)

bookslover said:


> Neogillist said:
> 
> 
> > Pink also teaches "sovereign hardening of the heart", which I think is unscriptural. If God sovereignly hardens the reprobates, He would be breaking his own commandment that they should not harden their hearts (see the book of Hebrews). This would be sheer hypocrisy on God's part.
> ...



Amen, brother.


----------



## JM (Jun 23, 2008)

Stephen said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > Neogillist said:
> ...


----------

