# Am I a Hyper-Calvinist?



## JM (Mar 31, 2014)

Normally I avoid controversy and I hope to continue on PB without it. I post the following not to argue but for clarity. Am I a hyper? 
Theological positions: Independent Particular Baptist, Predestinarian.

Soteriological Position: What theologians call “Calvinistic” (Supralapsarian)

Eschatological Position: Amillennial Historicist

Covenantal Position: 1689 Federalism

Creeds and Confessions: London Baptist Confession of 1644 & 1689, Goat Yard Confession of Faith (1729) and most of the Gospel Standard Articles of Faith

_*Some questions I had to fill out on a forum that I thought I would include._

Are some men elected to salvation? Yes.

Are some men elected to damnation? Yes.

Is salvation by works? No.

Jesus died for all men? No.

God loves all men? No.

Christ experienced sin in His person? No.

Was sin imputed or imparted to Christ? Imputed.

Is righteousness imputed or imparted to believers? Imputed.

God predestines all things, including sin? Yes.

God wanted Adam to fall into sin? Yes, it was decreed.

God has how many wills? One. (His decretive will of purpose is His will of pleasure)

Do you believe in Justification from Eternity? Yes.

What point in time is righteousness imputed to the elect based upon? The entire life of
Christ culminating in His death.

Baptism is required for salvation? No.

Baptism is the sign of the new covenant? No.

My view of the sabbath can be summed up as follows, “one that is strong in faith, and has a greater degree of the knowledge of the Gospel, and of evangelical liberty, knows that the distinction of days, as well as of meats, is taken away … Christ the true sabbath and rest is come; and therefore, being firmly persuaded there is no more holiness in days than there is in places, has the same regard for one day as another.” [John Gill]

Thanks folks,

j


----------



## NB3K (Mar 31, 2014)

I don't know, but I would like to know what others on the forum think because that's pretty much where I stand too. I often wonder if i'm a hyper-calvinist too.


----------



## JML (Mar 31, 2014)

Do you think it necessary to preach the gospel to all men without exception?


----------



## LeeD (Mar 31, 2014)

John's question is an important one. Are you regularly praying for conversions (family members, church attenders, friends, co-workers, etc)? Do you engage in any kind of evangelistic activity?

Also, your answer to "Does God love all men?" was "no". I do not see that God loves all men equally, but I do see in Scripture that God has some love for all men. As J.I. Packer stated in _Knowing God_, "God is good to all in some ways and he is good to some in all ways."

*Mark 10:21-22* And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will havetreasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

*Luke 19:41* "And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it..."

*Luke 13:34* "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing."

*Ezekiel 18:32 *For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live.


----------



## Justified (Mar 31, 2014)

I hold many similar beliefs. I do differ on, if I understand what you mean by saying is baptism the sign of the new covenant, your view on baptism and the Sabbath. I would like to hear more on the 'multiple' wills of God (I don't quite understand it, nor have I a concrete position). Justification from eternity is an interesting one as well. Paul does say that we were children of wrath before we were converted. What does being justified from the beginning entail? Would like to see more regarding the OP, as well as some of my questions. On another note, I wouldn't regard you as a hyper, otherwise I myself would be a hyper. As stated before, you become a hyper when you begin espousing a belief of fatalism and refuse to share the gospel with all


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Mar 31, 2014)

JM:

I would say, brother, in answer to the question that you pose, "yes:" Several of the positions that you take would suggest what is classically called hyper-Calvinism. There are other questions that could be posed, as John suggests in #3 above, that would further indicate such. But there is evidence from what you say in your original answer that tends in that direction. 

I am curious as to why you make such an inquiry--does it concern you in some way to be considered or "labelled" as hyper-Calvinist? 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## JOwen (Mar 31, 2014)

As one who is doing a Th.M on Theoretical Antinomianism, which is prominently one degree off of hyper-calvinism, and who has been studying the Gospel Standard theology for some time, I would say that many of your beliefs intersect with theirs. I'm waiting to hear what you have to say on the free or well meant offer. My initial thoughts are, yes.


----------



## JM (Mar 31, 2014)

Thanks folks for your responses. 

My years spend reading and learning from the knowledgeable brothers and sisters on PB has served to strengthen my beliefs. 

In answer to the question, _"Do you think it necessary to preach the gospel to all men without exception?" _

Yes, I do believe we are to preach to all. 

As Gill wrote, "It is reported of the dove, that it will allure wild doves by its familiar converses into the dove-house with it: those who are called by grace, will use all proper ways and methods to allure and gain others to Christ, and to compliance with his ways and ordinances, as the church does the daughters of Jerusalem in this Song." 

_"Are you regularly praying for conversions (family members, church attenders, friends, co-workers, etc)?"_

Yes.

_"Do you engage in any kind of evangelistic activity?"_

What would that include? Parachurch groups like AWANA or the Calvinist Cadets? Not anymore. I dislike most of what passes for evangelism today. I do seek to proclaim the Gospel to all willing to listen, to talk with people even at work and meet with my brothers who are seeking to understand scripture and to apply it to their lives for the betterment of their families. I hope that would be included as evangelistic. 

Yours in the Lord,

jm


----------



## JM (Mar 31, 2014)

JOwen said:


> As one who is doing a Th.M on Theoretical Antinomianism, which is prominently one degree off of hyper-calvinism, and who has been studying the Gospel Standard theology for some time, I would say that many of your beliefs intersect with theirs. I'm waiting to hear what you have to say on the free or well meant offer. My initial thoughts are, yes.



Sorry Pastor, I posted and found your comment after. 

Just so I understand, "The well-meant offer teaches that God goes out in the preaching to many sinners in love and grace, desiring to save them and trying to save them, but failing to save them..." I believe in the free proclamation of the Gospel but deny it is an offer. I believe this harkens back to the two wills of God? 

I'm not trying to be argumentative but seeking to understand where I'm at theologically.

jm


----------



## NB3K (Mar 31, 2014)

Just food for thought though guys, we're all considered hyper-calvinist's to the world though for believing that the extent of the atonement of Christ is limited to the elect and not to every one.


----------



## JML (Mar 31, 2014)

JM said:


> In answer to the question, "Do you think it necessary to preach the gospel to all men without exception?"
> 
> Yes, I do believe we are to preach to all.





JM said:


> I believe in the free proclamation of the Gospel but deny it is an offer. I believe this harkens back to the two wills of God?



I have the same beliefs on the free offer. I believe we are to preach the gospel to all men without exception but I would deny it is a "well meant offer" as commonly understood but is more of a command to repent and believe. In a sense I guess it could be said that God "offers" salvation to those who believe but I don't believe God "offers salvation" to the non-elect. However, we have no idea who the elect are so we preach the gospel to all.

My question was actually not to determine if you believed in the well meant offer. My view of "hyper-calvinism" is those who deny the necessity to preach the gospel to all men indiscriminately.


----------



## JOwen (Mar 31, 2014)

JM said:


> JOwen said:
> 
> 
> > As one who is doing a Th.M on Theoretical Antinomianism, which is prominently one degree off of hyper-calvinism, and who has been studying the Gospel Standard theology for some time, I would say that many of your beliefs intersect with theirs. I'm waiting to hear what you have to say on the free or well meant offer. My initial thoughts are, yes.
> ...



Actually, the free, or well-meant offer is the offer of grace, as it is in Christ Jesus, to sinners,_ as sinners_. This is preached to all that sit under the lively oracles of the Word, without discrimination (both elect and reprobate). We let the Holy Spirit sort out effectual calling, but the outward call to repentance and faith is the duty of every hearer. We do not say "Jesus died for you/loves you", or any such language. We simply preach a rich Christ for poor sinners, in both the imperatives and indicatives of the Word's richness and simplicity of language. It speaks nothing of their strength to do so, or of their willingness.

The phrase "free offer" or the word "offer" in connection to the gospel is used in the Westminster Confession of Faith at 5:3, Larger Cat. 32, 63, 68 as well as the Shorter Cat.31 and 86.
Larger Catechism answer 68 uses the language of the free offer even to non-elect persons; "...who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ" (Larger Catechism Ans. 68).

The Canons of Dort, (Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine), likewise, 

Article 8. As many as are called by the gospel, are unfeignedly called. For God hath most earnestly and truly shown in his Word, what is pleasing to him, namely, that those who are called should come to him. He, moreover, seriously promises eternal life, and rest, to as many as shall come to him, and believe on him.

Article 9. It is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ, offered therein, nor of God, who calls men by the gospel, and confers upon them various gifts, that those who are called by the ministry of the word, refuse to come, and be converted: the fault lies in themselves; some of whom when called, regardless of their danger, reject the word of life; others, though they receive it, suffer it not to make a lasting impression on their heart; therefore, their joy, arising only from a temporary faith, soon vanishes, and they fall away; while others choke the seed of the word by perplexing cares, and the pleasures of this world, and produce no fruit. - This our Savior teaches in the parable of the sower. Matthew 13.


----------



## JML (Mar 31, 2014)

JOwen said:


> Actually, the free, or well-meant offer is the offer of grace, as it is in Christ Jesus, to sinners, as sinners. This is preached to all that sit under the lively oracles of the Word, without discrimination (both elect and reprobate). We let the Holy Spirit sort out effectual calling, but the outward call to repentance and faith is the duty of every hearer. We do not say "Jesus died for you/loves you", or any such language.



This is different from what I have heard the free offer defined as. I, as JM, have always heard it tied to the will(s) & desires of God. I wholeheartedly agree with the free offer as you define it.


----------



## MW (Mar 31, 2014)

Hyper-Calvinism, historically, is identified by its denial of duty-faith, or that the gospel calls all men to believe in Christ for salvation. Other tenets (e.g., actual eternal justification) are related in some way or other to this denial. It effectively leaves sinners without any ordinary way of being personally instated in the covenant of grace.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 31, 2014)

This can be a difficult point. As Professor Strange pointed out recently in a different context, people don't usually accept the label of hyper-calvinist. In an attempt then to come to a consistent view, I think one can begin with the confessions. If the Westminster Standards or the 3FU are hyper-calvinist documents, it's not clear where ordinary calvinism could exist. On the complex of issues related to God's decree and its execution in time, a failure to affirm everything the confessions say would be sub-calvinism, and a going beyond them in a way that ignores their qualifications would be hyper-calvinism. But it is also important to bear in mind that a necessary condition may not be a sufficient condition.

So as I understand it, denial of the following points from Westminster would tend in a hyper-calvinist direction; denial of them all would get your picture in the dictionary, _sub voce_:

WLC 32


> *Q. 32. How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?*
> A. The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a mediator, and life and salvation by him; and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.



A denial of the offer of life and salvation is hyper-calvinistic. A denial of faith as the condition to interest them in him is also hyper-calvinistic. These points are confirmed again in WLC 63:



> *Q. 63. What are the special privileges of the visible church?*
> A. The visible church hath the privilege of being under God's special care and government; of being protected and preserved in all ages, notwithstanding the opposition of all enemies; and of enjoying the communion of saints, the ordinary means of salvation, and offers of grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel, testifying, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved, and excluding none that will come unto him.



There are offers of grace in the ministry of the gospel to all in the visible church, and the gospel is there presented conditionally. Compare also WLC 67 and especially WSC 31. WLC 159 requires of preachers that they preach aiming at conversion; while I haven't come across it myself, I have heard that some hyper-calvinists deny that ministers ought to desire conversion for their hearers, and others certainly do deny that it should be presented conditionally, and others would add that the gospel is not to be preached indiscriminately, and that it in no way extends an offer. The more of those points get denied, I suppose, the more extreme the hyper-calvinism.

WCF XV.5,6 teach that repentance is required of every man; whereas some hyper-calvinists deny this (as well as that they are required to believe, which the Sum of Saving Knowledge explicitly teaches in Warrant 3).

WCF 11.4


> God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.



Since justification from eternity is held by antinomians, I don't know if it is technically a hyper-calvinist _distinctive_, but certainly many of them seem to hold it. Of course there is an orthodox way to hold to justification from eternity (maintained by Goodwin and explained clearly by John Colquhoun), but the vital point is if actual justification takes place upon believing, or if believing is simply recognizing that we are already justified.

In general, _The Sum of Saving Knowledge_ sets out a solidly calvinistic view of gospel preaching. When the "free" offer is distinguished from the "well-meant" offer, it is clear that the Sum upholds the former but does not necessitate the latter (which the authors did not accept); but "freely offered" is the language of Westminster, so denial of that is clearly a departure from standard calvinism.


----------



## yeutter (Mar 31, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Hyper-Calvinism, historically, is identified by its denial of duty-faith, or that the gospel calls all men to believe in Christ for salvation. Other tenets (e.g., actual eternal justification) are related in some way or other to this denial. It effectively leaves sinners without any ordinary way of being personally instated in the covenant of grace.


Two worthwhile studies of this topic have been done which tend to agree with Pastor Winzer's definition. The late Anglican Church historian Peter Toon wrote a work entitled *The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity 1689 - 1769 *. David Engelsma authored * Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel *. The late Dr. John H Gerstner also agreed with this definition. 
Based on your statement that you believe the Gospel should be preached indiscriminately to all men and that you pray for the conversion of the lost it does not sound to me like you are a hyper-Calvinist.


----------



## Free Christian (Mar 31, 2014)

Im Christian. I agree with Calvin and many others concerning Gods Truth.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Mar 31, 2014)

This has been, I think, a fairly thoughtful and fruitful discussion.

One thing that I would like to highlight that touches on this question is the question of warrant for faith (Jerrold touched on it in addressing the free offer of the gospel as involving a call that comes to sinners as sinners). Sinners are called to come to Christ and may come to Him because His call establishes a warrant to come. As Spurgeon notes in his sermon on I John 3:23 (no.531 in the MT series), the warrant to come is not that one is prepared properly, convinced of his election, or is a sensible sinner, but merely that Christ bids us come. Because He does, we have all the warrant we need: "if we tarry till we're better, we will never come at all." 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 1, 2014)

While the free or well-meant offer of the gospel is often a main topic of discussion surrounding the issue of Hyper-Calvinism, I believe the doctrine of _Eternal Justification_ (and by extension Gill's [mis]understanding of the Covenant of Grace) is what essentially leads one into the Hyper-Calvinist category. When one comes to the place of denying that faith is in _any sense_ an _antecedent condition_ of justification, it invariably leads to Hyper-Calvinism and Antinomianism. 

Jason, I would humbly and lovingly challenge your claim that you hold to the Baptist Confession of 1689 if you affirm the doctrine of Eternal Justification. Eternal Justification is contrary to the teaching of the 1689 and more importantly, it is contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture. The Word of God teaches and the historic confessions maintain that while the decrees of election and the Covenant of Redemption were made in eternity, they were accomplished in history, and applied at the time the sinner is regenerated by the operation of the Holy Spirit. And while faith is not the basis or grounds of our justification (that is the finished work of Christ), it is indeed the instrumental cause which effects our justification in time. And that faith is in no way meritorious; being itself the sovereign gift of God.

I would strongly encourage you to reexamine your doctrine in the light of Scripture and warn you of the malignancy of the doctrine of eternal justification and the subtle influence it exerts on the whole of one's thinking.

*BCF VII.2, Of God's Covenant* -- "Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe."

*BCF XI.4, Of Justification* -- "God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification; nevertheless, they are not justified personally, until the Holy Spirit doth in time due actually apply Christ unto them."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 1, 2014)

Jason, 

Given that we are not of the same tradition (you are Baptist and I am Presbyterian), I did not exhort you as has Pastor Sheffield, who is a Baptist like you. Now that he has done so, let me encourage you, and all who are like-minded, to heed his exhortation, particularly with respect to your own confessional commitments. 

Pastor Sheffield, and C.H. Spurgeon (whom I've cited above), are, in my view, properly biblical and confessional with respect to these matters. And these are no small matters, but have the effect of influencing you (as Pastor Sheffield intimated) in ways that are theologically unhealthy. I know as one who used to be snared in the net of hyper-Calvinism: it tends to induce a kind of spiritual passivity that can serve as a root for many problems. I'll just leave it there for now, but I believe that Pastor Sheffield has exhorted us all well and we should heed his wise words.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## JimmyH (Apr 1, 2014)

I am theologically challenged on the concept of hyper Calvinism and reading this thread with interest. Jason is my friend and I have read many of his contributions to this board which quote John Gill. Knowing there is a controversy as to whether of not John Gill was a hyper-Calvinist, and it seems that he (Gill) has had great influence on Jason, I wonder if that may be a source of confusion ? The closed thread linked below gives some details on the controversy ;

http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/john-gill-hypercalvinist-62768/


----------



## JM (Apr 1, 2014)

Thanks folks. 

I would say I came to read Gill only after being confronted with some Reformed ideas I could not reconcile with scripture and starting reading some of the old Baptist works. Gill has been a tremendous help in giving me a theological structure and grounding. I wouldn't say I'm confused about what I believe scripture to teach and I would not claim to hold to the 1689 without exceptions. I've read both sides of the argument and have considered both. 

I started the thread because I see more than a few posters will similar, often called "hyper-Calvinist," beliefs and I wanted to see where I was at. 

Personally, I think I am ultra high on the Calvinism chart but not a hyper. I voted in a poll posted on PB back in 2007 and remain in the same category today.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/where-you-calvinism-chart-20840/

Hyper-Calvinism: Beliefs: God is the author of sin and man has no responsibility before God. The Gospel should only preached to the elect. i.e. duty faith. and anti-missionary Belief in the five points is a prerequisite for true salvation, also known as Neo-Gnostic Calvinism. Proponents: Joseph Hussey John Skepp and some English primitive Baptists.

* Ultra High Calvinism: Beliefs: That the elect are in some sense eternally justified. A denial of: The Well– Meant Offer; Common Grace; and God having any love for the non-elect. Proponents: John Gill, some ministers in the Protestant Reformed Church of America
*
High Calvinism: Beliefs: That God in no sense desires to save the reprobate, Most deny the Well-Meant Offer. Supralapsarian viewing God’s decrees. All hold to limited atonement. Most believe in particular grace and see the atonement as sufficient only for the elect. Proponents: Theodore Beza, Gordon Clark, Arthur Pink

Moderate Calvinism: Beliefs: That God does in some sense desires to save the reprobate, Infralapsarian in viewing God’s decrees. Affirms Common Grace. Proponents: John Calvin (some argue that he was a High-Calvinist), John Murray, RL Dabney

Low Calvinism: Beliefs: That Christ died for all in a legal sense, so one can speak of Christ dying for the non-elect. That God has two distinct wills. Affirms the Well-Meant Offer and Common Grace, Proponents: Amyraldrians , RT Kendal

Lutheranism: Beliefs: That Calvinist over emphasize God Sovereignty over man’s responsibility. That Christ died for all in legal sense, that some are predestined on to life but none are predestined onto death. That the sacraments are means of grace regardless of one’s faith. Proponents: Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, Rod Rosenbladt

American Baptist: Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. Once a persons believes the gospel, he is eternally secure. Rejects Calvinism, some would even call it heretical. Proponents: Jerry Falwell, Adrian Rogers

Arminianism Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is solely based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. A person can fall from the state of grace i.e. lose ones salvation, since it is our free will that chooses Christ at conversion. Proponents: Jacob Arminius, John Wesley some Methodists

http://www.exegiaaudio.org/exegiacalvinsimweb.mht


----------



## JML (Apr 1, 2014)

Based on that I would say that I am somewhere between High and Moderate.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 1, 2014)

That categorization seems a bit inadequate to me. It doesn't address the issue, for instance, of a conditional presentation to the gospel or the warrant to believe. If believing that God is the author of sin is the sine qua non for hyper-calvinism it essentially ceases to be a useful term.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 1, 2014)

Quite right, Ruben (at #24, above).

The categorization is not only inadequate but inaccurate (and not at all historically representative of matters, making extreme positions to appear as mainstream or as merely minor variations). The chart is rather self-serving and skewed in a hyper direction. Two matters: all Calvinists affirm limited atonement and supralapsarian vs. infralapsarian (having to do with the order of the decrees) is not especially in view here. There are also rather important matters, as Ruben noted, omitted. 

I think that no one should take comfort in complacently placing himself somewhere on this chart and imagining that "all is well," particularly if he is a "high Calvinist" or above. I reject these classifications as misguided and as misleading. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## JM (Apr 1, 2014)

I do in fact find comfort with men like _Pink and Gill_ with time strengthening those aspect that would place me in those categories. But it's time I return to non-controversial banjo related subjects. 

Thanks for the discussion folks. I appreciate your comments. 

Yours in the Lord, 

jm


----------



## Mushroom (Apr 1, 2014)

JM said:


> I do in fact find comfort with men like _Pink and Gill_ with time strengthening those aspect that would place me in those categories. But it's time I return to non-controversial banjo related subjects.
> 
> Thanks for the discussion folks. I appreciate your comments.
> 
> ...


That's cool with me, Jason - I really appreciate your banjo posts. Glad you've got things worked out. We've been interacting online for nearly 10 years now, and I find great comfort in knowing you're still pickin' and grinnin'. Peace, dear brother.  ♪♫♪♫♪♪♫.....


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 1, 2014)

A taxonomy that puts Beza, G. Clark, and A. Pink all in the same "category" is seriously flawed as these men have serious differences among themselves, especially insofar as the first and last would not evacuate saving faith of _fiducia_, as did Professor Clark. While good men may debate supra v. infra, and the precise nature of common grace and the free offer of the gospel, there are other issues here, like the question of the warrant and definition of faith, that I believe to be soteriologically fundamental. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## JM (Apr 1, 2014)

Mushroom said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> > I do in fact find comfort with men like _Pink and Gill_ with time strengthening those aspect that would place me in those categories. But it's time I return to non-controversial banjo related subjects.
> ...



Thanks.


----------



## MW (Apr 1, 2014)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I believe the doctrine of _Eternal Justification_ (and by extension Gill's [mis]understanding of the Covenant of Grace) is what essentially leads one into the Hyper-Calvinist category.



There are variations of the doctrine and some of them fall within orthodox boundaries because they still maintain the necessity of faith as the instrument of receiving and applying Christ and His righteousness. Whether or not the doctrine is orthodox therefore comes back to whether or not faith in Christ and salvation by Him is offered to all men in the gospel.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 1, 2014)

Alan D. Strange said:


> A taxonomy that puts Beza, G. Clark, and A. Pink all in the same "category" is seriously flawed as these men have serious differences among themselves, especially insofar as the first and last would not evacuate saving faith of _fiducia_, as did Professor Clark. While good men may debate supra v. infra, and the precise nature of common grace and the free offer of the gospel, there are other issues here, like the question of the warrant and definition of faith, that I believe to be soteriologically fundamental.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan




Could one not see that if one lacks trust he does not assent? In other words, I cannot see how one assents without trust.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 1, 2014)

All of the magisterial Reformers defined faith as consisting of knowledge, assent, and trust--making clear that this last element meant that the one exercising faith not only believed something propositionally but received and rested upon Christ as He is freely offered in the gospel. There is something, in other words, personal and not merely propositional about saving faith as highlighted by WLC 72:

Q. 72. What is justifying faith?
A. Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.

The answer makes it clear that faith "not only" assents to the truth, "but" also receives and rests upon Christ (thus embracing both the propositional and the personal). This is true justifying faith. Anything less is not. Faith is not merely an assent to the truth but also trusting in Christ. For Rome, faith was defined by assent, albeit such assent yielded "unformed faith." It was "caritas" (love), Aquinas and company asserted, that was added to assent to make it "formed faith." Luther said, and Calvin agreed with him, "where they say 'caritas' we say 'fiducia.'" Luther understood that love was a fruit of faith and not properly part of saving faith, but trust was. This is reflected in WLC 72. Even as the distinction between faith and its accompanying graces (like repentance) and its fruit (good works) is recognized in WLC 73. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## JOwen (Apr 1, 2014)

earl40 said:


> Alan D. Strange said:
> 
> 
> > A taxonomy that puts Beza, G. Clark, and A. Pink all in the same "category" is seriously flawed as these men have serious differences among themselves, especially insofar as the first and last would not evacuate saving faith of _fiducia_, as did Professor Clark. While good men may debate supra v. infra, and the precise nature of common grace and the free offer of the gospel, there are other issues here, like the question of the warrant and definition of faith, that I believe to be soteriologically fundamental.
> ...



The difference lies in the distinction between historical faith and saving faith. One can believe that Christ rose form the dead, and not have a saving interest by personal persuasion that He rose for him. Historical faith is one element of saving faith, but is not saving faith itself. Clark made the very serious error of modified Sandemanianism. Robert Sandeman taught that the nature of saving faith is the mere intellectual _assent_ to a fact or proposition concerning the person and work of Christ.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 1, 2014)

Pastor Lewis is, of course, correct and this is a serious error. This is one of several reasons why the taxonomy offered above is deficient and misleading. T. Beza was certainly more scholastic in his theological method than was his mentor, Calvin, and appears to have been supralapsarian (though that's not really at issue in the "hyper-Calvinism" discussion). Beza, however, did not make the Sandemanian error as did Clark, which puts the latter in a different category, brilliant as he was (Dr. Clark was a remarkably brilliant man, testified both by his writings and by those who knew him). 

The list is evidently made by someone who out-Calvins Calvin and puts three classes above Calvin. Historically, the number who would fall in those classes that out-Calvin Calvin is small (unless we wish to re-introduce a new Calvin vs. the Calvinists paradigm that Muller, Beeke, Venema and others have successfully exploded). I find it dismaying that these positions can be so cavilierly set forth and embraced. Many of these matters (particularly on the question of the warrant of faith, nature of faith, a gospel call that comes to sinners, justification by faith applied in time by the Spirit, etc.) are clearly confessional positions.

I fear that the adopting of these narrower and more-Calvin-than-Calvin positions tend to sectarianism and a narrow and contracted view of our faith. I lament this tendency that some who consider themselves Calvinists indulge in, all of which tends to paint God in less than the best light. Our God is indeed ineffably holy. He is also more gracious than any of us can begin to imagine. We dare not portray Him as less gracious than He is. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## earl40 (Apr 1, 2014)

JOwen said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Alan D. Strange said:
> ...



So you think one can believe that a man can believe Jesus died and rose from the dead and that He is Lord and not be saved? Now I know the reformers said there are 3 parts of biblical faith and I agree. The point is I do not believe one can have the first two "parts" without possessing the third. What I have found lacking in unbelievers is the assent in the real Jesus and a placement of trust in a false Christ.


----------



## MW (Apr 1, 2014)

earl40 said:


> So you think one can believe that a man can believe Jesus died and rose from the dead and that He is Lord and not be saved? Now I know the reformers said there are 3 parts of biblical faith and I agree. The point is I do not believe one can have the first two "parts" without possessing the third. What I have found lacking in unbelievers is the assent in the real Jesus and a placement of trust in a false Christ.



Transfer the question from men to angels and the answer is obvious. Elect angels believe and wonder; they have no need of salvation, and therefore exercise no trust in it. Fallen angels believe and tremble; they have no part nor lot in the matter, and therefore exercise no trust in it. Likewise a rational man might assent to all the truths of the gospel, but if he does not believe Jesus Christ is for him, or that he has need of Him, and if he does not come to rely upon and rest in Jesus Christ for salvation, he does not have saving faith in Christ. See John 6:53.


----------



## Gesetveemet (Apr 2, 2014)

earl40 said:


> So you think one can believe that a man can believe Jesus died and rose from the dead and that He is Lord and not be saved? Now I know the reformers said there are 3 parts of biblical faith and I agree. The point is I do not believe one can have the first two "parts" without possessing the third. What I have found lacking in unbelievers is the assent in the real Jesus and a placement of trust in a false Christ.



It goes like this "a complete Saviour for a complete wretch" may the Lord help us.


----------



## JOwen (Apr 2, 2014)

JM said:


> My view of the sabbath can be summed up as follows, “one that is strong in faith, and has a greater degree of the knowledge of the Gospel, and of evangelical liberty, knows that the distinction of days, as well as of meats, is taken away … Christ the true sabbath and rest is come; and therefore, being firmly persuaded there is no more holiness in days than there is in places, has the same regard for one day as another.” [John Gill]



On more troubling thought that I remembered last night as I went to bed is this 'confession' in quotes above. It is typical of theoretical antinomianism in the vein of the Gospel Standard, which sets aside the obligation of the moral law as a rule of life for the believer including the abiding nature of the 4th commandment.


----------



## JM (Apr 2, 2014)

I apologies Pastor Lewis and to others, if I have upset you. 


These are my beliefs and I cannot _not_ believe what I believe..."so help me God."


----------



## earl40 (Apr 2, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > So you think one can believe that a man can believe Jesus died and rose from the dead and that He is Lord and not be saved? Now I know the reformers said there are 3 parts of biblical faith and I agree. The point is I do not believe one can have the first two "parts" without possessing the third. What I have found lacking in unbelievers is the assent in the real Jesus and a placement of trust in a false Christ.
> ...



The "transfer" works well for James 2:19 but not so for Romans 10:10. One can assent that God is one and not be saved but one cannot assent to the propasition "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" and not be saved.

In other words, in Romans 10:10 we have trust that _always_ accompanies assent. The "transfer" only works so far between men and demons or angels. The taste we get from Our Lord is good as experienced by angels and bad as experienced by demons.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 2, 2014)

Another wat to look at this. Were not all that saw the risen Christ saved? They all assented to what their eyes saw and In my most humble opinion all of them trusted. Now if you can show me where any of them did not trust to what they could not deny (assent) you may have a point.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 2, 2014)

Jason:

This is not about personally offending anyone, per Matthew 18. We all understand that these are your genuinely-held beliefs. You are the one who put them all out there for analysis and comment. That we differ and challenge you in terms of Scripture and Confessions does not mean that we are offended; rather, it means that we wish to interact with what you wrote as you requested. 

Surely it is not the case that you were putting all your beliefs out there in such detail and claiming immoveability in them, particularly as they might contravene the Scriptures and Confession. I would hope to always say, "This is my confession and remains such unless convinced otherwise by biblical argument." There has been an attempt, albeit limited, on the part of some of us to interact with what you've set before us, seeking to highlight what some of us think are problems. 

I don't believe that you meant to offer offense and none was taken. We were simply challenging you to think more about some of your positions. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## JML (Apr 2, 2014)

Jason,

I don't share your views on the Sabbath or some of the other views that you and Gill share but I appreciate your posts and interaction on the board. May God bless you brother.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 2, 2014)

I agree with John. I, too, as I'm sure do many others, appreciate your approachable spirit and your fruitful interaction on this board. 

It's just that if I put all my views out there and asked how they were to be categorized, I would expect all the good brothers and sisters here to interact with them and perhaps seek to dissuade me about certain views. All of us get challenged from time to time. That does not mean that those challenging us are hurt or offended. At least I hope not. It's God's truth, not mine, that we are dealing with and all of us have a responsibility to contend for it as we will all answer to Him for how we've handled it. 

But, as John intimated, your manner is not unpleasing and none of us are offended with you (or none of us should be).

Peace,
Alan


----------



## py3ak (Apr 2, 2014)

earl40 said:


> Another wat to look at this. Were not all that saw the risen Christ saved? They all assented to what their eyes saw and In my most humble opinion all of them trusted. Now if you can show me where any of them did not trust to what they could not deny (assent) you may have a point.



See Matthew 28:11-15,17.


----------



## JM (Apr 2, 2014)

Thanks folks. I don't feel challenged so much, but I do feel loved. Thank you.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 2, 2014)

py3ak said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Another wat to look at this. Were not all that saw the risen Christ saved? They all assented to what their eyes saw and In my most humble opinion all of them trusted. Now if you can show me where any of them did not trust to what they could not deny (assent) you may have a point.
> ...



This assumes they believed He had risen. This is not necessarily required to be read into the text. They could have simply wished to squelch what was reported.


----------



## JOwen (Apr 2, 2014)

earl40 said:


> The "transfer" works well for James 2:19 but not so for Romans 10:10. One can assent that God is one and not be saved but one cannot assent to the propasition "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" and not be saved.
> 
> In other words, in Romans 10:10 we have trust that _always_ accompanies assent. The "transfer" only works so far between men and demons or angels. The taste we get from Our Lord is good as experienced by angels and bad as experienced by demons.



Brother, I hope you can see the contradiction in your statement above. The assertion, "The 'transfer' works well for James 2:19 but not so for Romans 10:10" can't both be true, and speak equally about the same thing, else the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic, which we know He is not. This is where the perspicuity of Scripture must come into play, letting the clear passages speak to the ones less clear, or demonstrate that in fact, they are two separate categories altogether. Rev. Winzer has properly pointed out passages that speak directly to the subject. However in your response, one of these passages, as a category, pertains to "historical faith" (James 2), which speaks directly to the subject at hand, whereas the Romans 10 passage is speaking of justifying faith _prima facie_. If pressed, you will actually find that Romans 10:10 as a derivative, supports the Reformed understanding by the use of the word _καρδια_, "heart", meaning _"feelings or thoughts_" and not mind _διανοια_ alone (see Matthew 22:27). What you are arguing for is not a part of the old paths of the Puritan and Reformed tradition. See here for a further opening of the idea of saving faith in distinction form mere historical.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 2, 2014)

earl40 said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...



The doubters of v 17 wished to squelch a report?


----------



## a mere housewife (Apr 2, 2014)

'And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
'For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
'And if you will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
'He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.'

If I am understanding the discussion correctly, this passage in a very short compass speaks to the issues that are more definitive of hyper-Calvinism? People are not simply passive agents in the kingdom of heaven -- the kingdom is almost spoken of in passive terms ('suffers') because of the pitch of effort in those who 'take' it: and so a genuine (conditional -- 'if you will receive') offer is made to all who listen -- but at the same time there is an acknowledgement that only those who have been given ears to hear will be able to do so.

(This is one of those passages I struggle to understand and it may wind up that I have misunderstood -- and if so, perhaps it should be its own thread?)


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 2, 2014)

Jason, dear friend,

I was encouraged by your opening post. You affirmed some doctrinal positions that were clearly outside the bounds of confessional Reformed Faith. However, you seemed to be solicitous of the advice and counsel of others on these matters and appeared willing to reexamine your thinking on them. That impression was apparently wrong. As this thread has continued, you seem almost dismissive of those desiring an honest exchange on the matters you brought up. And these are no small matters. 

In course of this thread:


You have Affirmed the doctrine of Eternal Justification 
You have Denied the Free Offer of the Gospel to Unbelievers 
You have Denied the Reformed doctrine of the Christian Sabbath 
And by Extension; you've denied the Normative role of the Law in the life of the believer
It would appear to me that you have fully embraced the Hyper-Calvinist and Antinomian doctrine of the Primitive/Strict Baptists in rejection of those formulations articulated in the Baptist Confession of 1689 (and every other Reformed Confession). Which would appear to have implications even for your membership on Puritan Board.

I say all that in the hope that you will take seriously the substantial nature of these doctrinal differences and not carry on as if we were discussing matters of utter indifference.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 2, 2014)

JOwen said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > The "transfer" works well for James 2:19 but not so for Romans 10:10. One can assent that God is one and not be saved but one cannot assent to the propasition "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" and not be saved.
> ...



Let us take the verse in Romans. The demons also believe Jesus is Lord and rose from the dead. (historical faith) and demons know that if men believe such they (men) will be saved. Now I must point out _I do believe_ in the 3 aspects of real faith as the reformers point out. My point is if one assents to Romans 10:10 there is no way men cannot have trust. Now this all assumes the person has the biblical Christ, if not they do not have proper assent. Do you believe men can assent to Romans 10:10 and not trust in it? 

I shall read the reference you cite though I suspect that I will not find much I disagree with.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 2, 2014)

py3ak said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > py3ak said:
> ...



in my opinion yes. Do you think the Believe Jesus is Lord and rose from the dead? If so they will be saved.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 2, 2014)

earl40 said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...



Let's put your discussion on a separate thread if you wish to continue it.

This one is now closed.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 2, 2014)

Jason, if I may speak as a board official for a moment, I don't know that we can accomplish more than demonstrating that a particular teaching is unconfessional, as I think has been done here. For myself I would add that though Gill, Pink, Philpot, etc., wrote enough to keep a reasonable person reading for a lifetime, I think the person who does not read beyond them is quite unlikely to have a spiritually balanced diet. Everybody needs some Scottish Presbyterians to balance the English Baptists.

I think it's probably a good thing that we can all see in your demeanor that it is possible to be a hyper-calvinist without being ungracious or even unenthusiastic about bearing witness to others. It's my view that we never understand an error properly until we understand how nice people could embrace it.

You clearly know that any promotion of hyper-calvinism is off limits for this board, inasmuch as it is a contra-confessional position. Given your track record here, I doubt that we'll start having problems now.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 2, 2014)

Jason wanted to post a clarification:



JM said:


> Hey folks,
> 
> I'm not being dismissive of what has been offered I'm just not interested in arguing over it (as I stated very clearly in the op) and I'm not in a position to even do so if I did want to make a fuss. It was not my intention to argue or promote what is contrary to this forum. My theology hasn't really changed much in 5 years but has deepened from exposure to PB posters and I appreciate that. I've been a member here since 2005, gotten along with everyone pretty well and avoided getting into dust ups. I'd like to think I made folks feel welcomed as well. Through my YouTube channels (over 100,000 views) and blog (over 65,000 reads) I have contact with believers from all over the world. Only on PB have Reformed Christians said my view about Sunday was antinomian, Lutherans say I'm too Reformed and legalistic with Gospel Standards agree with the Lutherans. I've been called a legalistic more times than I can count by believers for defending the moral Law (like Gill). So I hope you can see my confusion. The thread was started with a genuine interest in gauging where I was at confessionally and not to defend what I believe or promote what I believe.
> 
> ...


----------

