# Help! Should the PRCA attend the next NAPARC meeting?



## SolaGratia

Apparently Protestant Reformed Churches in America (PRCA or PRC) have been invited by NAPARC reps. to attend the next NAPARC meeting.

I personally don't think that is a good idea.

1.) According to PRCA folks, the PRCA is the only "pure" reformed denomination. Not the only church, but the only "purest" church.

2.) PRCA believe that all NAPARC denominations have abandoned the Truth of the Reformed Faith by holding on to common grace, according to PRC folks. 

3.) All reformed denominations most reformed themselves by what happen in 1923 and 1953. 


For example, one PRC member has written:

"In North America, the PRC stand alone as a denomination. This is unquestionable. And to say that between them and other Reformed denomination there is an issue, is not a sweeping statement. I even put it in a mild form, actually. There is a barrier, there is division, and there will not be unity until those other denominations will solve their problem with the issues related to 1923 and 1953. Until then, the PRC cannot and will not be part of NAPARC, for example. And correctly so, for the reasons briefly explained above." 


Why then should the PRCA attend a NAPARC meeting? They don't desire to become part of NAPARC unless NAPARC churches reject common grace? 

What do you guys think?

I would like to personally hear from those who know PRCA members.


----------



## tcalbrecht

I don't know any PRCA guys, but I cannot think there is anything wrong with reps from that denom attending a NAPARC meeting. Dialogue is a good thing. Positions can be clarified and, perhaps, reconciliation may begin.


----------



## Soonerborn

SolaGratia said:


> 2.) PRCA believe that all NAPARC denominations have abandoned the Truth of the reformed faith by holding on to common grace, according to PRC folks.



Can you further explain what exactly what this means? What is the PRC's point of contention with "common grace".


----------



## SolaGratia

Mike,

Here are some articles with the PRC contention against "common grace".

Pamphlets and Articles

And here is a specific blog from Prof. Herman Hanko dealing with common grace. 

"Common Grace Considered"

* Maybe you want to start a new discussion post with regards to "common grace" since this is more about NAPARC.

---------- Post added at 08:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:04 AM ----------




tcalbrecht said:


> I don't know any PRCA guys, but I cannot think there is anything wrong with reps from that denom attending a NAPARC meeting. Dialogue is a good thing. Positions can be clarified and, perhaps, reconciliation may begin.


 
Agreed, "dialogue is good"

Here is a good article from church history: 

EPC Australia


----------



## Semper Fidelis

The Evil, Nature and Danger of Schism | Naphtali Press
Rutherfurd Against Separatism: Part One | Naphtali Press
Rutherfurd Against Separatism: Part Two | Naphtali Press
Rutherfurd Against Separatism: Part Three | Naphtali Press
Rutherfurd Against Separatism: Part Four | Naphtali Press
John MacPherson – Unity of the Church: The Sin of Schism | Naphtali Press


----------



## Willem van Oranje

SolaGratia said:


> Apparently Protestant Reformed Churches in America (PRCA or PRC) have been invited by NAPARC reps. to attend the next NAPARC meeting.
> 
> I personally don't think that is a good idea.
> 
> 1.) According to PRCA folks, the PRCA is the only "pure" reformed denomination. Not the only church, but the only "purest" church.
> 
> 2.) PRCA believe that all NAPARC denominations have abandoned the Truth of the reformed faith by holding on to common grace, according to PRC folks.
> 
> 3.) All reformed denominations most reformed themselves by what happen in 1923 and 1953.
> 
> 
> For example, one PRC member has written:
> 
> In North America, the PRC stand alone as a denomination. This is unquestionable. And to say that between them and other Reformed denomination there is an issue, is not a sweeping statement. I even put it in a mild form, actually. There is a barrier, there is division, and there will not be unity until those other denominations will solve their problem with the issues related to 1923 and 1953. Until then, the PRC cannot and will not be part of NAPARC, for example. And correctly so, for the reasons briefly explained above.
> 
> Also,
> 
> The issue between the PRC and all other Reformed denominations has always been and will continue to be this: by God's grace there has been further reformation and development of the Truth of God in the PRC, over against the rise and development of heresy in 1923 and 1953. For that matter, everyone else is bound to listen to that Truth and reform according to it. Nothing less will do!
> 
> Why then should the PRCA attend a NAPARC meeting. They don't desire to become part of NAPARC unless NAPARC churches reject common grace?
> 
> What do you guys think?
> 
> I would like to personally hear from those who know PRCA members.


 
I will have to admit first off that I am not the most knowledgeable about the PRCA. I have little to no direct experience with them. But my first reaction is that their desire to attend a NAPARC meeting is a good sign. If their biggest offense is being "schismatic", i. e. denouncing true churches as not being true churches, as your 3 points would seem to indicate, then my thought would be that they would be more than welcome to the table. It could be an opportunity to build relationships and tend to soften the PRC's outlook toward other reformed churches.


----------



## yeutter

A little historical perspective might be in order. The ministers, Rev. Danhof, Rev. Ophoff and Rev. Hoeksma, that founded the Protestant Reformed Churches were expelled from the Christian Reformed Church over the Common Grace question. The Christian Reformed Church adopted an extreme version of Common Grace at their Synod of 1924 and made their 3 points on Common Grace mandatory. 
I think one would have a difficult time showing that the Three Forms of Unity teach the Christian Reformed 3 points of 1924 on common grace. 
It would seem that the Christian Reformed Church is at least as culpable as the Protestant Reformed Churches for bringing about a schism over this issue.
In the 1950s and 1960s the Christian Reformed Church partially backed away from her hardline stance on the 3 points of 1924 on common grace. About that time a schism occurred in the Protestant Reformed Churches over the view of the covenant and the free well meant offer of the Gospel. The Christian Reformed Church partial openess on the question allowed those Protestant Reformed men who broke with Hoeksema to return to the CRC.
If one reads K. Schilder, [the Canadian Reformed Churches stand in his theological tradition], you will find someone that is also at odds with the Christian Reformed 3 points of 1924 on Common Grace. 
The Protestant Reformed Churches stance on the offer of the Gospel is largely echoed by men like Gill, John H. Gerstner, and Gordon Clark. 
The Protestant Reformed are not as far out of the mainstream of orthodox Reformed thought as we are often led to believe.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I certainly don't believe that the PRC is out of the stream of Reformed orthodoxy. In the last article I cited, the author leads with this paragraph:



> Our Scottish divines of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries had a singularly high and clear conception of the unity of the church. The visible church was with them the church catholic. _Melville, Rutherfurd, Brown, Gillespie, Durham,_ and all the rest, though their whole lives were spent in protests against ceremonial impositions and doctrinal defections, re-iterate and emphasize the statement that the whole visible church is one. They were scrupulous enough and watchful against any sort of connivance in acts of worship which they thought idolatrous, or in expressions of doctrine which they regarded as false; but in no case could they tolerate the idea of breaking away from the communion of the Catholic Church. They had a way of distinguishing between separation _in_ and separation _from_ the church....


The challenge we all face is how to maintain a scrupulous separation in the liberty of our conscience without sacrificing a catholic spirit.


----------



## yeutter

*The CRC vs PRC on Common Crace*



Soonerborn said:


> SolaGratia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.) PRCA believe that all NAPARC denominations have abandoned the Truth of the reformed faith by holding on to common grace, according to PRC folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you further explain what exactly what this means? What is the PRC's point of contention with "common grace".
Click to expand...

The historical background of the PRC position is outlined in Common Grace and the C.R. Synod of Kalamazoo (1924)


----------



## Guido's Brother

I would be surprised if a delegation from the PRCA would attend a NAPARC meeting. You can invite them all you want, but I doubt they would come. For instance, the Canadian Reformed federation is now a member of NAPARC and there have been some strong words from the PRCA regarding us.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

Scott1 said:


> I don't have much familiarity with the PRC.
> 
> It would appear they are reformed, adhere to the original Westminster Standards with the Magistrate involved in resolving doctrinal disputes, exclusive Psalms, etc.



Are you confusing Protestant Reformed w/ Presbyterian Reformed? The former are continental (three forms of unity), and the latter are Presbyterian (big P) and are in process of joining NAPARC.


----------



## SolaGratia

According to the 2010 Protestant Reformed Churches Synod, the PRC has approved two delegates to be sent as observers to the 2010 NAPARC meeting.

PRC synod info. found here: Thursday

For clarification, NAPARC, being committed to the unity of the church as found in the Holy Scriptures, invited the PRC to attend.


----------



## yeutter

I am surprised and pleased that the PRC will send observers. I would think the NAPARC invitation would give Reformed men an opportunity to talk with the PRC men and clear the air rather then just snipe back and forth in the Standard Bearer and Clarion.


----------



## Guido's Brother

SolaGratia said:


> According to the 2010 Protestant Reformed Churches Synod, the PRC has approved two delegates to be sent as observers to the 2010 NAPARC meeting.
> 
> PRC synod info. found here: Thursday


 
Well, I *am* surprised. Maybe there's some change afoot in the PRCA.


----------



## Nate

As a member of the PRCA, I am pleased that our recent synod accepted the invitation to send observers to the 2010 NAPARC meeting. Our denomination does seem to have a reputation of exclusivity... and I do understand where that reputation comes from. However, in the 29 years that I have been part of the denomination, most of my interactions with fellow PRCA members has taught me that the majority of us don't deserve that label, nor is it fair to force all PRCA members into this tight little box: 



> 1.) According to PRCA folks, the PRCA is the only "pure" reformed denomination. Not the only church, but the only "purest" church.
> 
> 2.) PRCA believe that all NAPARC denominations have abandoned the Truth of the reformed faith by holding on to common grace, according to PRC folks.
> 
> 3.) All reformed denominations most reformed themselves by what happen in 1923 and 1953.



That is simply not true. In fact, just a few days ago, I was talking with a former professor of the PRCA seminary about all of the beneficial interactions that I have had with friends from the OPC and with members of the PuritanBoard. He then expressed to me how grateful he is for the other reformed denominations all around us that continue to hold to the principles of the Reformation and how important the church catholic is to our everyday life. 

It is true that "common grace" remains a dividing line between the official relations between the PRCA and other denominations. Although, it is my personal opinion that at least some of these barriers are due primarily to the various definitions of "common grace" (for the various definitions and how they compare and contrast with the definition of 1923, see this thread:http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/definitions-common-grace-please-59535/
Perhaps the inclusion of the PRCA at the NAPARC meetings will help to resolve some of these types of issues.


----------



## Scott1

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have much familiarity with the PRC.
> 
> It would appear they are reformed, adhere to the original Westminster Standards with the Magistrate involved in resolving doctrinal disputes, exclusive Psalms, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you confusing Protestant Reformed w/ Presbyterian Reformed? The former are continental (three forms of unity), and the latter are Presbyterian (big P) and are in process of joining NAPARC.
Click to expand...

 
Yes, you are correct. PRCA is three forms of unity.


----------



## torstar

I will have to admit first off that I am not the most knowledgeable about the PRCA. I have little to no direct experience with them. But my first reaction is that their desire to attend a NAPARC meeting is a good sign. If their biggest offense is being "schismatic", i. e. denouncing true churches as not being true churches, as your 3 points would seem to indicate, then my thought would be that they would be more than welcome to the table. It could be an opportunity to build relationships and tend to soften the PRC's outlook toward other reformed churches.[/QUOTE]


Per the grid I refer to quite often...

Presbyterian and Reformed Churches

A very conservative breakaway from the CRC (1926) that denies the doctrine of common grace and any love of God for nonbelievers (Hyper-Calvinist Hoeksemites); also require members to attend their own Christian schools and forbid homeschooling when one is available.

Creeds: TFU

Worship: Exclusive Psalmody, KJV-preferred


----------



## Nate

torstar said:


> I will have to admit first off that I am not the most knowledgeable about the PRCA. I have little to no direct experience with them. But my first reaction is that their desire to attend a NAPARC meeting is a good sign. If their biggest offense is being "schismatic", i. e. denouncing true churches as not being true churches, as your 3 points would seem to indicate, then my thought would be that they would be more than welcome to the table. It could be an opportunity to build relationships and tend to soften the PRC's outlook toward other reformed churches.
> 
> 
> Per the grid I refer to quite often...
> 
> Presbyterian and Reformed Churches
> 
> A very conservative breakaway from the CRC (1926) that denies the doctrine of common grace and any love of God for nonbelievers (Hyper-Calvinist Hoeksemites); also require members to attend their own Christian schools and forbid homeschooling when one is available.
> 
> Creeds: TFU
> 
> Worship: Exclusive Psalmody, KJV-preferred


 
The statements in red are false.


----------



## Scott1

If this is accurate and helpful (I'm not familiar with this denomination), here is what appears to be the official church web site:

The Protestant Reformed Churches
(linked to by the Protestant Reformed Fellowship of Pittsburgh:
http://www.prcpittsburgh.org/fall-2008-flyer/

It appears this is a source for the Tateville summary (emphasis added):



> Among the practical implications of this covenant view, in the thinking of the PRC, is the calling of the church to promote and defend marriage, the earthly symbol of the covenant between Christ and the Church (cf. Ephesians 5:22ff.), as a *life-long unbreakable bond.* On this basis, the church should, and can, oppose the evil of divorce and remarriage in her communion -- an evil that devastates Protestant churches today, angers God and disgusts godly men and women. Thus also, the family is safeguarded for the sake of the godly rearing of the children, who are included in the covenant (Malachi 2:14-16; Matthew 19:3-15).
> 
> Members of the PRC believe that *good, Christian schools are a demand of the covenant.* They, therefore, have established a number of Christian grade schools and high schools, maintaining them with no small amount of sacrifice. In areas where their own schools are not possible, parents use the existing Christian schools. Young people are encouraged to attend Christian colleges.
> 
> In their public worship on the Sabbath, these churches *sing only the Psalms* (with organ accompaniment) in keeping with article 69 of the Church Order adopted for the Reformed Churches by the Synod of Dordt (1618-1619). They *use the King James Version of Holy Scripture*, judging it to be the best English translation available, especially *as regards the crucial matter of faithfulness to the inspired original.*



This would appear to say:
1) no biblical divorce ever (even adultery)
2) their own school system is a very high priority and expectation of members
3) Psalms only
4) King James version officially

Is this correct? Is it overstatement?


----------



## yeutter

Scott1 said:


> This would appear to say:
> 1) no biblical divorce ever (even adultery)
> 2) their own school system is a very high priority and expectation of members
> 3) Psalms only
> 4) King James version officially
> 
> Is this correct? Is it overstatement?


 I am not Protestant Reformed. I was however part of a Protestant Reformed Church mission in Lansing, Michigan, in the late 1970s. 

Divorce. The PRCA recognize biblical grounds for divorce but do not permit remarriage. This position is related to their understanding of the unbreakable nature of the covenant.

Christian Schools. The PRCA place emphasis on covenant education and believe this best occurrs in parental controlled Christian Day Schools that place an emphasis on the antithesis. Church Officers, pastors, elders and deacons, must send their children to their Christian day schools if available.

Psalm Singing. Liturgically they use the old 1912 United Presbyterian Psalter. It was the Psalter that the CRC used at the time they tossed the Protestant Reformed out. The Netherland Reformed use the same Psalter. They follow the Church order of Dordt so they theoretically permit the singing of a limited number of Biblical Canticles beyond the Psalms. They use instrumental accompaniment in their worship services. I have never heard anything but the Psalms sung in their services.

King James Version. They Use the KJV liturgically. Their ministers are well trained in the origianl languages and frequently offer their own preferred translation of the text from which they are preaching.


----------



## Nate

Thomas summarized the PRCA positions nicely. 
We do, in fact, sing the various non-psalms in our song book from time to time, and therefore, I suppose we should not label ourselves as singing only the psalms.


----------



## SolaGratia

"Leaders of the Protestant Reformed Church in America agreed clergy and those serving on congregations' governing bodies must send their children to denomination-affiliated schools."

PRCA synod votes to require clergy to send their children to denomination's schools | MLive.com


----------



## Scott1

From all the information given here, as to the original post- it seems it would be mutually beneficial for the denomination and NAPARC to send observers, looking toward association.


----------



## BertMulder

SolaGratia said:


> Apparently Protestant Reformed Churches in America (PRCA or PRC) have been invited by NAPARC reps. to attend the next NAPARC meeting.
> 
> I personally don't think that is a good idea. ...
> 
> .


 
I find your position quite out of line. You are (erroneously) chastising the PRCA for thinking they are the only church on earth maintaining the truth, which is just not so, and at the same time you do not even wish to find out about their doctrinal position, as you are so stuck on the 'welmeant offer' and socalled 'common grace'. 

I am a member and elder in First PRC in Edmonton Alberta.

By the way, the PRCA have been invited by the HRC. Also, and this appears strange to me, the HRC is seeking corresponding relations with the PRCA. I call this strange, as we are at opposite ends of the sprectrum on the 'welmeant offer', as well as on 'experiental preaching'....

---------- Post added at 08:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:33 PM ----------




Guido's Brother said:


> I would be surprised if a delegation from the PRCA would attend a NAPARC meeting. You can invite them all you want, but I doubt they would come. For instance, the Canadian Reformed federation is now a member of NAPARC and there have been some strong words from the PRCA regarding us.


 
Well, we are planning to attend...

As to strong words.... those are also spoken from the CanRC side...

---------- Post added at 08:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 PM ----------




NateLanning said:


> torstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will have to admit first off that I am not the most knowledgeable about the PRCA. I have little to no direct experience with them. But my first reaction is that their desire to attend a NAPARC meeting is a good sign. If their biggest offense is being "schismatic", i. e. denouncing true churches as not being true churches, as your 3 points would seem to indicate, then my thought would be that they would be more than welcome to the table. It could be an opportunity to build relationships and tend to soften the PRC's outlook toward other reformed churches.
> 
> 
> Per the grid I refer to quite often...
> 
> Presbyterian and Reformed Churches
> 
> A very conservative breakaway from the CRC (1926) that denies the doctrine of common grace and any love of God for nonbelievers (Hyper-Calvinist Hoeksemites); also require members to attend their own Christian schools and forbid homeschooling when one is available.
> 
> Creeds: TFU
> 
> Worship: Exclusive Psalmody, KJV-preferred
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The statements in red are false.
Click to expand...

 
In additon, the statement 'hypercalvinist Hoeksemites' is false, inflamatory, and senseless namecalling...

I myself prefer to be called a christian. I do not believe in Hoeksema, but do believe in Christ. Although the late Rev. Hoeksema was an eminent theologian, and upheld the truth of sovereign free grace more than any other 20th century theologian, in my opinion.

---------- Post added at 08:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------




Scott1 said:


> If this is accurate and helpful (I'm not familiar with this denomination), here is what appears to be the official church web site:
> 
> The Protestant Reformed Churches
> (linked to by the Protestant Reformed Fellowship of Pittsburgh:
> Protestant Reformed Fellowship of Pittsburgh » About The PRCA
> 
> It appears this is a source for the Tateville summary (emphasis added):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Among the practical implications of this covenant view, in the thinking of the PRC, is the calling of the church to promote and defend marriage, the earthly symbol of the covenant between Christ and the Church (cf. Ephesians 5:22ff.), as a *life-long unbreakable bond.* On this basis, the church should, and can, oppose the evil of divorce and remarriage in her communion -- an evil that devastates Protestant churches today, angers God and disgusts godly men and women. Thus also, the family is safeguarded for the sake of the godly rearing of the children, who are included in the covenant (Malachi 2:14-16; Matthew 19:3-15).
> 
> Members of the PRC believe that *good, Christian schools are a demand of the covenant.* They, therefore, have established a number of Christian grade schools and high schools, maintaining them with no small amount of sacrifice. In areas where their own schools are not possible, parents use the existing Christian schools. Young people are encouraged to attend Christian colleges.
> 
> In their public worship on the Sabbath, these churches *sing only the Psalms* (with organ accompaniment) in keeping with article 69 of the Church Order adopted for the Reformed Churches by the Synod of Dordt (1618-1619). They *use the King James Version of Holy Scripture*, judging it to be the best English translation available, especially *as regards the crucial matter of faithfulness to the inspired original.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This would appear to say:
> 1) no biblical divorce ever (even adultery)
> 2) their own school system is a very high priority and expectation of members
> 3) Psalms only
> 4) King James version officially
> 
> Is this correct? Is it overstatement?
Click to expand...

 
The first and last point are correct. The one about christian day schools being a demand of the covenant, however, is incorrect. See PRCA acts of Synod 2009, where it was specifically ruled that it is NOT a demand of the covenant.


----------



## torstar

having been raised to believe that 110% of Calvinists were hyper, I'm finding the number of actual ones to be almost infinitesimal and even those who are called it by their own deny it.

are there really any out there?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SolaGratia

BertMulder;795440
I find your position quite asinine. Clear case of the pot calling the kettle black. You are (erroneously) chastising the PRCA for thinking they are the only church on earth maintaining the truth said:


> Bert,
> 
> As a member of the PRCA and a church elder, thank you very much for helping us see the reasons why the PRCA should or should not attend fellowship with other Reformed denominations.
> 
> I guess I am "stuck" with "welmeant offer' and socalled 'common grace' like the PRCA: Herman Hoeksema, David Engelsma, Herman Hanko, etc.
> 
> Doesn't PRC Prof. Hanko have a bi-monthly blog dedicated to "common grace" ?
> 
> 
> Pamphlets and Articles


----------



## BertMulder

SolaGratia said:


> Doesn't Prof. Hank have a bi-monthly blog dedicated to "common grace"
> 
> 
> Pamphlets and Articles


 
Might enlighten you to read his writings on common grace...


----------



## yeutter

torstar said:


> having been raised to believe that 110% of Calvinists were hyper, I'm finding the number of actual ones to be almost infinitesimal and even those who are called it by their own deny it.
> 
> are there really any out there?


Their are hyper Calvinists among some Primitive Baptists.


----------



## SolaGratia

BertMulder said:


> SolaGratia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't Prof. Hank have a bi-monthly blog dedicated to "common grace"
> 
> 
> Pamphlets and Articles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Might enlighten you to read his writings on common grace...
Click to expand...

 


"Enlighten" to read that according to PRCA Prof. Herman Hanko, Dr. Abraham Kuyper practically invented common grace:

"I am aware of the fact that Dr. Kuyper originally invented this idea of common grace..." (From Prof. Herman Hanko blog). 

If you are surprise that the HRC were the ones that invited the PRC to attend the next NAPARC meeting than you should understand me.

Do you think it is a good idea for the PRC to attend NAPARC, perhaps even join NAPARC?


----------



## torstar

yeutter said:


> torstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> having been raised to believe that 110% of Calvinists were hyper, I'm finding the number of actual ones to be almost infinitesimal and even those who are called it by their own deny it.
> 
> are there really any out there?
> 
> 
> 
> Their are hyper Calvinists among some Primitive Baptists.
Click to expand...

 

okay, that NAPARC site only listed two streams of Hyper.in Ref/Pres. 

do they call themselves Primitive?


----------



## yeutter

torstar said:


> yeutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> torstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> having been raised to believe that 110% of Calvinists were hyper, I'm finding the number of actual ones to be almost infinitesimal and even those who are called it by their own deny it.
> 
> are there really any out there?
> 
> 
> 
> Their are hyper Calvinists among some Primitive Baptists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> okay, that NAPARC site only listed two streams of Hyper.in Ref/Pres.
> 
> do they call themselves Primitive?
Click to expand...

We are off topic here but let me briefly say that their are many definitions of Hyper-Calvinism. Under some of these definitions the Eureka Classis of the Reformed Church U. S. is called Hyper-Calvinists because H. F. Kohlbruegge was influential among the founding pastors in the denomination. Kohlbruegge is alledged to be antinomian. The Protestant Reformed are accused of being Hyper-Calvinists because of their denial of common grace and the free well meant offer of the Gospel. 
The definition of Hyper-Calvinism most often used by academics, like Peter Toon and T. H. L. Parker, is a system of theology that emphasizes God's soveriegn grace to such an extent that their appears to be no real need to evangelize. The preaching of the Gospel in this school of thought is only to hold Christ out to the elect. William Gadsby, and the Gospel Standard Strict Baptists would be an example of Hyper-Calvinists. Some Primitive Baptists are also Hyper-Calvinist in the technical definition of the word. Many other Primitive Baptists, like Elder Lassere Bradley Jr. are clearly not hyper-Calvinist. I do not know of any that call themselves Hyper-Calvinist.


----------



## torstar

yeutter said:


> torstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> torstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> having been raised to believe that 110% of Calvinists were hyper, I'm finding the number of actual ones to be almost infinitesimal and even those who are called it by their own deny it.
> 
> are there really any out there?
> 
> 
> 
> Their are hyper Calvinists among some Primitive Baptists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> okay, that NAPARC site only listed two streams of Hyper.in Ref/Pres.
> 
> do they call themselves Primitive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are off topic here but let me briefly say that their are many definitions of Hyper-Calvinism. Under some of these definitions the Eureka Classis of the Reformed Church U. S. is called Hyper-Calvinists because H. F. Kohlbruegge was influential among the founding pastors in the denomination. Kohlbruegge is alledged to be antinomian. The Protestant Reformed are accused of being Hyper-Calvinists because of their denial of common grace and the free well meant offer of the Gospel.
> The definition of Hyper-Calvinism most often used by academics, like Peter Toon and T. H. L. Parker, is a system of theology that emphasizes God's soveriegn grace to such an extent that their appears to be no real need to evangelize. The preaching of the Gospel in this school of thought is only to hold Christ out to the elect. William Gadsby, and the Gospel Standard Strict Baptists would be an example of Hyper-Calvinists. Some Primitive Baptists are also Hyper-Calvinist in the technical definition of the word. Many other Primitive Baptists, like Elder Lassere Bradley Jr. are clearly not hyper-Calvinist. I do not know of any that call themselves Hyper-Calvinist.
Click to expand...

 

the topic was shot to a nether region long ago.

so again it's not a good idea to take your definition of a grouping from their detractors.


----------

