# Herman Hoeksema's Whosoever Will and hyper-calvinism



## sastark

I was reading through [color=blue:234e5dc39d]Phil Johnson's links to &quot;Bad Theology&quot;[/color:234e5dc39d] sites and saw that he had put &quot;Whosoever Will&quot; by Herman Hoeksema under bad theology and claimed it taught hyper-calvinsim. I have never read the book, but I have linked to it from my [color=blue:234e5dc39d]webpage[/color:234e5dc39d].

I know Hoeksema was invloved in the &quot;common grace&quot; controversy in the CRC in the 1920s and that he ended up leaving the CRC and founding the Protestant Reformed Church, but does anyone know if Hoeksema was a hyper-calvinist? Should I remove this link from my webpage? uzzled:


----------



## Bladestunner316

check out Matt's review of pro. Englsma book on hyper calvinism he9matt) I blieve has stated that the http://prca.org has 'hyper' tendecies that I do not know Matt would know it better,there site is good nonethe less. 

Also matt has an article on hyper calvinism also check out http://www.monergism.com Im sure John has a wealth of articles dealing on these subjects.

bladestunner316:wr6:


----------



## Rev. G

On his webpage, in regard to the PRC, Phil Johnson writes:

There are some helpful, even excellent, resources linked here. I deliberated long and hard about whether to put this in the &quot;Helpful Resources&quot; category. The problem is that the PRC holds to an extreme Calvinism that denies God's common grace and the free offer of the gospel. This is a form of hyper-Calvinism, and is fraught with many dangerous ramifications. I could not with good conscience give it a thumbs up. Not a few people have written to ask how I could class a denomination that adheres to the Three Forms of Unity in this category. But the PRC's denial of the gospel's free offer is, after all, bad theology.


----------



## JWJ

If after one thoroughly reads and studies both sides of the whole controversy of common grace and the "free offer" and rightly defines hyper-Calvinism, they will conclude that Herman Hoeksema and the PRC are not hyper-Calvinist. As a matter of fact, the absurdity of the notion to claim Hoeksema was a hyper-Calvinist is on par with the absurd notion that Calvin was an Arminian! 

JWJ


----------



## ChristianScientist

JWJ,
Whether the PRC position is hyper-calvinist, or (as I have heard them describe it) &quot;high&quot; calvinist depends on your definition of hypercalvinism.
A few years ago, I was thrashing out some sort of a position on the issue, and in the course of my reading, I came across a list- I think it was written by Johnson- giving 5 flavours of hypercalvinist.
According to this list, hyper-calvinism does one or more of the following...
1. Denies that the gospel call is to be given indiscriminately.
2. Denies duty-faith and/or duty-repentance
3. Denies the free offer of the gospel.
4. Denies that there is such a thing as &quot;common grace&quot;.
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

The PRC would restrict this list probably to numbers 1 and 2, possibly only to number 1.
I listened to tapes of a debate between Ron Hanko (a PRC pastor of some standing) and another man on the doctrine of common grace. In this debate, Hanko denies common grace, and clearly states that God only and always has love for the elect, and only and always has hatred for the non-elect. The logic of his position leads him to conclude that
a) God is giving the non-elect good gifts in order to increase their damnation, because God hates them.
b) The rich young ruler who went away sad and (presumably therefore) unrepentant must definitely have been elect because Jesus loved him.
c) The phrase children of Jerusalem must refer only to the elect within Jerusalem's walls.

-basically any passage where God appears to view anyone in a benevolent fashion must be refering to the elect.
Whether or not this defines him as a hypercalvinist, it is certainly interpreting scripture through a prejudicial filter, which almost always leads to false conclusions.

James.


----------



## Gregg

I believe todays reformed churches could use more dedicated men like Pastor Hoeksema, who's dedication and strong unwavering stance toward what he believed, and love for the doctrines of the reformed faith are truly commendable.

I wish there were more pastors and theologians like him today.


----------



## terry72

I have just read through the article, I did not find it to be hyper-calvinist, as matter of fact, the following quote from the article in regards to the responsibility of man seems to be right in line with historic reformed calvinism.

[quote:ce064f3048]What is responsibility? It is the state in which I am under obligation to God. And man is for ever under obligation to love the Lord his God with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his strength. It is the state in which man stands in judgment before God, and is answerable to Him for his deeds. And that answerability God never destroys. Whether He hardens a man or irresistibly draws him by His grace and saves him, God always deals with man as a rational moral being. When he stands in judgment before God, and is called to account for his sin, the most hardened sinner will have to admit that he sinned because he loved iniquity and hated God and His righteousness, and that, therefore, he is worthy of damnation. [b:ce064f3048]When through the gospel he was called to repentance, he refused. When through the same gospel he was brought into contact with Christ, he would have none of Him and crucified Him afresh[/b:ce064f3048]. And yet, with all his sin and rebellion against God he can only be subservient to God's sovereign counsel. God is the Lord, not man. Nor is it thus that the sinner is not conscious of this absolute Lordship of God. On the contrary, his own responsibility and the absolute sovereignty of God are indelibly written in his consciousness. And even in hell all the devils and the ungodly will forever have to admit, that they never prevailed against His will, that He is absolute Lord and does all His good pleasure, and that He is righteous when He judgeth! The voice of rebellion will then forever be silenced.[/quote:ce064f3048]

Blessings,
Terry 

[Edited on 7/13/2003 by terry72]


----------



## Puritan Sailor

*Hoeksema*

Alot of stones are cast at Hoeksema and if the accusations were true of him then they may be justified. But I think much of the objections to him are more semantics than anything. He did not oppose the &quot;free offer&quot; in the sense that the gospel should be preached to all and that all who hear are responsible to obey. He rejected the Arminian use of the term &quot;free offer.&quot; In the controversy in which he was booted from the CRC they were teaching in the &quot;free offer&quot; that God is somehow striving to save those He has reprobated. It is this interpretation that he rejects. I would encourage you to read his arguments in his Reformed Dogmatics. 
It is the same with his opposition to common grace. The CRC was teaching that God somehow has a lesser love to the reprobate and gives them good things in accordance with that love. Hoeksema rejected that interpretation because grace is not common, it is particular to the elect in their salvation. He said that God is good, kind, and longsuffering toward the reprobate but he does not give grace to them, only to the elect. 
This does not mean he is perfectly orthodox because he does have I think an incorrect view on the covenant but read his arguments a little closer before you cast him aside to the Hyper camp. 

As a side note it seems to me that hyperCalvinism is a combination of two things. 1) A belief that you are to only preach the gospel to the elect and 2) Antinomianism in the form of fatalism regarding conversion (God will convert me when he's ready too, until then I'll do whatever I want) or in the form of liscence (I'm elect, I can do whatever I want).

[Edited on 7-13-2003 by puritansailor]


----------



## Learner

*I am not with a PR church but...*

I do think they are very helpful in a number of areas.I just
want to give some quotes by Herman Hoeksema.

...so not misunderstand me,the particular gospel must be proclaimed within the hearing of all...it is the will of God that even the reprobate shall hear the gospel of salvation...the
gospel in its preaching must be general.

The above is from &quot;The Gospel&quot;page 15

The following are from his book called &quot;God's Eternal Good Pleasure&quot;.

The gospel,therefore,must be preached to all nations without distinction;and the promise of the gospel is for all that believe on Him and call upon His name.

That is from page 166,chapter 12, regarding Romans 10:11-13:&quot;The Universality of Salvation&quot;.


The following two quotes are from chapter 13 entitled &quot;The Mission of the Preacher&quot;which regards Romans
10:14-15A.They are found on pages 177&amp;178.

So the gospel of God concerning His Son must be universally disseminated,must be preached to all nations.

The preaching of the gospel is extended to all the nations of the world.


----------



## dswatts

[b:4b7c04fdea]Amen Greg![/b:4b7c04fdea]

The church needs more men like H. Hoeksema today! May God be pleased to raise them up to His glory!

Grace,
Dwayne


----------



## mjbee

What in the world is a hyper-Calvinist? I think I know of one--R.C. Sproul Jr. See [i:9b4e84017d]Almighty Over All[/i:9b4e84017d] He boldly goes where no theologian has dared to go. Probably over his dad's objections, but he's just carryihg things to their logical conclusion.

[Edited on 4-17-2004 by mjbee]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Melissa,

Try this:

http://apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/McMahonABriefCritiqueOfHyper-Calvinism.htm


----------



## luvroftheWord

[quote:0ade119726][i:0ade119726]Originally posted by mjbee[/i:0ade119726]
What in the world is a hyper-Calvinist? I think I know of one--R.C. Sproul Jr. See [i:0ade119726]Almighty Over All[/i:0ade119726] He boldly goes where no theologian has dared to go. Probably over his dad's objections, but he's just carryihg things to their logical conclusion.

[Edited on 4-17-2004 by mjbee] [/quote:0ade119726]

Melissa, can you provide some quotes that demonstrate the above?


----------



## Bladestunner316

I believe mellissa is refering to rc sprouls writtings on double predestination(which is hardly hyper calvinistic)

blade


----------



## A_Wild_Boar

[quote:7cbe626aa0][i:7cbe626aa0]Originally posted by mjbee[/i:7cbe626aa0]
What in the world is a hyper-Calvinist? I think I know of one--R.C. Sproul Jr. See [i:7cbe626aa0]Almighty Over All[/i:7cbe626aa0] He boldly goes where no theologian has dared to go. Probably over his dad's objections, but he's just carryihg things to their logical conclusion.

[Edited on 4-17-2004 by mjbee] [/quote:7cbe626aa0]

I probaly misunderstood read you, But are inferring that hyper-calvinism is a logical conclusion?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Nathan,
No, Melissa was referring to R.C.'s son, &quot;Jr&quot;.


----------



## Bladestunner316

Ahh my bad


----------



## yeutter

*hypercalvinism and the free offer*

I have read the webmasters review of the work and know he does not think Englesma escaped the charge that he and Hoeksema and the Protestant Reformed Churches are hypercalvinist. I was impressed by the forward that John H. Gerstner wrote to Prof. David Engelsma work on the free offer. Is the position Dr. Gerstner held hypercalvinist?

[Edited on 10-16-2006 by yeutter]


----------



## mjbee

Webmaster, thanks for the link. I'm not in the mood, nor do I have the time to read it. When I referred to Sproul Jr., I was wondering about his theory (?) that if God created mankind, as in Adam and Eve, and pronounced His creation &quot;good&quot;, but man subsequently fell, then God must have changed man's inclination from good to evil, just as He now changes man's inclination from evil to good at regeneration. Otherwise how could man have fallen? Unless the Arminians are right.... Would it be wrong for God to do that, I mean change man's inclination from good to evil, if He had before ordained that man would fall and He would redeem some of the fallen and condemn the rest? In order to show His wrath and make His power known? Why can't God do what He wants with what is His own? Our ideas of what is right for God to do might not match His.(Isaiah 55:8,9) Actually, theology isn't as hard as y'all want to make it. Supralapsarians and infralapsarians and hyper-Calvinists and lions and tigers and bears...oh, my!

Melissa


----------



## Scott Bushey

[quote:cd60cded04][i:cd60cded04]Originally posted by mjbee[/i:cd60cded04]
Webmaster, thanks for the link. I'm not in the mood, nor do I have the time to read it. When I referred to Sproul Jr., I was wondering about his theory (?) that if God created mankind, as in Adam and Eve, and pronounced His creation &quot;good&quot;, but man subsequently fell, then God must have changed man's inclination from good to evil, just as He now changes man's inclination from evil to good at regeneration. Otherwise how could man have fallen? Unless the Arminians are right.... Would it be wrong for God to do that, I mean change man's inclination from good to evil, if He had before ordained that man would fall and He would redeem some of the fallen and condemn the rest? In order to show His wrath and make His power known? Why can't God do what He wants with what is His own? Our ideas of what is right for God to do might not match His.(Isaiah 55:8,9) Actually, theology isn't as hard as y'all want to make it. Supralapsarians and infralapsarians and hyper-Calvinists and lions and tigers and bears...oh, my!

Melissa [/quote:cd60cded04]

Melissa writes&quot;
&quot;When I referred to Sproul Jr., I was wondering about his theory (?)&quot;

One's theory about theology, is one's theology!

Melissa adds:
&quot;.....then God must have changed man's inclination from good to evil, just as He now changes man's inclination from evil to good at regeneration.&quot;

Based upon this, God would then be the catalyst and the responsible party for sin. Not so:

1Jo 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Melissa adds:
&quot;.......if He had before ordained that man would fall &quot;

Ordaining something/allowing something to happen, does not make one responsible for that which happens. God just allowed for the fall.

Melissa writes:
&quot;just as He now changes man's inclination from evil to good at regeneration. Otherwise how could man have fallen? &quot;

Men still fall. Believers daily rebel and sin. The scripture shows the choice to sin.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, [i:cd60cded04]she took [/i:cd60cded04]of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 

Melissa, even now, my inclination is bent towards righteousness, yet, I still rebel at times.

And finally:
&quot;Would it be wrong for God to do that, I mean change man's inclination from good to evil, if He had before ordained that man would fall and He would redeem some of the fallen and condemn the rest? In order to show His wrath and make His power known?&quot;

Nothing God does is wrong. Everything He does is good and right. However, your outcome is correct, but the idea that God was involved _actively_ in the fall is erred.

In regards to what the Arminian believes. They have confused &quot;choice&quot;. Their god is not the God of the scriptures, he is the god of their futile minds. Men indeed have choice. Adam had choice, Eve had choice, I have choice. But, in regards to salvation, God chooses. There is a big difference to what occurs before salvation and after salvation in regards to the choices we make. But wheb it comes to the salvific miracle, God chooses.

Jon 2:9 But I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay that that I have vowed. Salvation is of the LORD. 

Joh 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. 

Joh 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. 


[Edited on 4-19-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Puritan Sailor

WSC
Q13: Did our first parents continue in the estate wherein they were created? 
A13: Our first parents, being left to the freedom of their own will, fell from the estate wherein they were created, by sinning against God.

WLC
Q21: Did man continue in that estate wherein God at first created him?
A21: Our first parents being left to the freedom of their own will, through the temptation of Satan, transgressed the commandment of God in eating the forbidden fruit; and thereby fell from the estate of innocency wherein they were created.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

[quote:a94c022440]
I'm not in the mood, nor do I have the time to read it.
[/quote:a94c022440]

When you are in the mood to learn something, read it.


----------



## Learner

*I read your critique Matthew*

I read the entire article.I have done so several times in the past also.I still do not believe that the PR church is
hyper-calvinistic based on what you wrote.Near the end of your article you list 9 points which indicates hyper-calvinism
or a tendency in that direction.At most only two of them apply to the PRC;points 7&amp;9.That is hardly condemning.But
the main charge put to h-c's by many is that they do not preach to all and have no heart for missions.That simply won't stick to the PRC.Did you note my Hoeksema quotes?
Regarding John Gill:you didn't make a case there either.
Citing Murray on the issue is not a relable guide. Gill's &quot;The
Cause of God and Truth&quot;was one of hyper-calvinism's greater works you say.Do you also believe it is one of Christianity's greater works?It contained &quot;unbridled hyper-calvinism&quot;?That is quite a statement.Can you give some specifics?James Hervey and A.Toplady had a lot of praise for
Gill's works.Those were stalwart figures of the faith.Charles Spurgeon gave each of his twin sons copies of TCofGodand
Truth.Sounds like recommended reading to me.
Take a look at Gill's 1729 Particular Baptist Confession and
see if that is hypercalvinistic.If Dr. Gill was so saturated with that ill theological distortion it should show up in his confession.
I'm all for a discussion on these things.But please be careful in labeling some with an undesirable theological name without a fair examination first.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Before I cite Gill, Engelsma and the Standard Bearer on their HyperCalvinism, what did YOU think when you read Gill's, &quot;Cause of God and Truth?&quot; And have you followed the Standard Bearer (the official PRC newsletter)? Have you read Iain Murray's &quot;Sprugeon vs. Hyper Calvinism&quot; which documents some of Gill's mishaps in this way?

As to the points at the end of the article, you do not have to hold to all of them to be HC. Like with the PRC you just have to hold to one or two of them, and then base everything you say about the Gospel around those points (which is they do all through their Standard Bearer.)

Let me know, first, what you thought of those works when you read them....


----------



## Learner

*Well...*

....Thanks for the quick reply Matthew.When I read Gill I am
blessed.The entire Christian world would be edified to read him.Though I do think he is very wordy(the earlier Puritans
were also).He had a giant intellect and ardent love for the Lord.
I am a regular reader of the Standard Bearer on the web.I
think the articles are excellent.They are clear,reverent,and most of all biblical.However I am baptistic by conviction so I
do not follow them blindly in all particulars.
Mr.Murray did not establish his case in his book &quot;Spurgeon
vs.H-C&quot;.Check out George M.Ella's website http://www.evangelicade Look at his open letters to the Founders.
You tell your members to get the Baker version of Pink's book.Mr.Murray was the main Banner man responsible for
removing one third of A.W.'s material.He employed the same tactics in S.vs.H-C.He uses quotes in a unique manner to support his theme.I know Mr.Murray personally.I think he is a gracious Christian gentleman.I admire him in many ways.But I can not agree with him in certain things.


----------



## yeutter

*Richard J. Mouw and Englelsma*

In Sept of 2003 Richard J. Mouw, President of Fuller, and David Engelsma, Professor of theProtestant Reformed Theological School, debated issues related to Common Grace. I found it note worthy that Mouw did not even hint that the Engelsma/Hanko/Hoeksema position was hypercalvinistic.


----------



## yeutter

*Evangelical not hypercalvinist*

Perhaps the easiest way to see that the position held by Hoeksema and the Protestant Reformed is evangelical and not hypercalvinist is to go to their website and click on phamphlet listing:
http://www.prca.org/

[Edited on 4-20-2004 by yeutter]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Learner - 

Have you read &quot;the Cause of God and Truth?&quot;

I agree with you that there is much in Gill that is helpful, especially his hebrew work in his OT commentaries.


----------



## Learner

*Dr.Gill*

I have not read it in its entirety,no.But,earlier I asked you
if you are familiar with his 1729 Confession.Does it smack of
hyper-calvinism?Gordon Clark quotes Gill in positive ways in his books.I am a fan of Clark too,not Van Till.

~Learner,
You have a u2u.
Scott

[Edited on 4-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## JWJ

Yes. Clark destroys Van Tillian epistemology and logic :gunfire:

I too believe the PRC cannot be labeled as hyper-Calvinism. Granted they often focus and emphasize the compound sense, but this is not hyper-Calvinism. I can play the same game with many of today's Reformed churches (especially those who teach a double will in God and the doctrine of common grace) that focus and emphasize the divided sense by labeling them as hypo-Calvinist. 

JWJ


----------



## yeutter

*Clark, Hoeksema and the OPC*

I agree. Is the position you hold consistant with the position of the OPC congregation you attend?


----------



## Learner

*I don't know where this posting should go*

Wow!We are covering Hoeksema (and the PRC),Gill,Clark
etc.Now I'll add John Murray and Robert Reymond to the mix.
In Reymond's Systematic Theology he disagrees with
Dr.Murray's &quot;The Free Offer of the Gospel&quot;(as I do also).He
says on page 693...&quot;All such reasoning imputes irrationality
to God,and the passages upon which Murray relies for his conclusions can all be legitimately interpreted in such a way
that the Christian is not forced to impute such irrationality to
God.&quot;
He then refers readers to a better interpretation...John
Gill's &quot;The Cause Of God And Truth&quot;.He gives no hyper-calvin-
istic waning concerning Gill.
In A.W.Pink's works he quotes Gill quite a lot but never to my knowledge indicates a hyper-calvinistic bent to that man
of God.
I said that because Pink denounces hyper-calvinism ,especially among the Gospel Standard folks.He does this in several of his works but primarily in &quot;Man's Total
Depravity&quot;.


----------



## JWJ

[quote:adaedfcb18][i:adaedfcb18]Originally posted by yeutter[/i:adaedfcb18]
I agree. Is the position you hold consistant with the position of the OPC congregation you attend? [/quote:adaedfcb18]

I am not sure. The congregation is rather small (a 2 year old church plant) and I have been only attending since Jan of this year. The pastor and I have not had time to discuss this issue. Though in our breif discussion of epsistemology he admits he is Van Tilian.

JWJ


----------



## Learner

*I'm bringing this back up again*

I thought I might as well keep it on this same thread.I wanted to make some comments on John Gill and the constant drumbeat of his supposed hyper-calvinism. Matt's article on hyper-calvinism wrongly claims that Gill and the PRC are in theological error in this regard.But for now I want to stick with Gill.At the end of his article he names a "John" Hussey.It is Joseph.Hussey was indeed a H-C.But for most of his ministry he was not.He lived from 1659-1726.Gill lived from 1697-1771.It wasn't until 1707 that Hussey released :"God's Operations of Grace:But no ofers of Grace".He was 48 then, only 19 years before his death.Gill never met him.Hussey's friend John Skepp (1670-1721) was hypercalvinistic but sparated from Hussey 1n 1709.Gill only liked some writings of his that had nothing to do with H-C.
I have to go now.More soon.


----------



## Ianterrell

I highly recommend Herman Hanko's informative defense of the biblical method of Gospel presentation. His book/tract The History of the Free Offer tracks the history of the free offer language through the Christian tradition. Very interesting piece, no matter what side you end up on.

I personally would probably be labeled a Hyper-Calvinist by some of the broader definitions.


----------



## Learner

*Herman Hanko*

Right you are Ian.I think the PRC are sounder on a number of biblical doctrines than many reformed denominations.Hanko has a good book on the parables of our Lord also.
And,because of your reading,you have discovered that much of what the Marrowmen taught was hollow.Hanko has some good articles on the theology of the Marrowmen on the PRC website.


----------



## Learner

*Now,back to what I was discussing before...*

In a book review of "The Life and times of John Gill"George Ella says that :"Gill's interest in Skeep was chiefly because of his receiving a Particular Baptist Fund grant to buy up the deceased Skeep's Hebrew grammars and commentaries."
In Dr.Tom Nettles book:"By His Grace and For His Glory"he contends that Hussey's views and methods were "completely alien to the method and spirit of Gill."(page 104).
Nettles quotes Ivimey quoting Gill around 1750:"...the harvest is great and the faithful and painful ministers are few.There are scarcely any that care for the estate and souls of men,and who are heartily concerned for their spiritual welfare:all comparatively seek their own things,their honor and applause from men,their ease,reputation,and riches;and none or few the things that are Jesus Christ's,or which relate to his honor,glory,kingdom,and interest in the world."(page 99)
Does that sound hyper-calvinistic?Far from it!
Regarding Matthew 11:28:Come unto Me.Gill says in 1746:..."By which is meant,not a local coming,or a coming to hear him preach;...nor is it a bare coming under the ordinances of Christ,the going out of the soul to him,in the exercise of grace on him,of desire after him,love to him,faith and hope in him:believing in Christ,and coming to him,are terms synonymous john 6:35.Those who come to Christ aright,come as sinners,to a full,suitable,able,and willing Saviour;venture their souls upon him,and trust in him for righteousness,life,and salvation,which they are encouraged to do,by this kind of invitation;which shews his willingness to save,and his readiness to give relief to distressed minds."(pages 101and 102).
Hypercalvinistic?No way!
Nettles says on pages 106 and 107 the following:"The nomenclature of hyper-Calvinist in speaking of Gill must be questioned seriously in light of his clear,perceptive zeal for the gospel,his earnestness of desire for the salvation of his hearers,his statements regarding the perpetuity of the law as exhibited in the gospel,and his belief concerning the blameworthiness of rejecting the gospel message and all it contains.And perhaps,rather than imputing blame upon Gill for the leanness of the times,he should be credited with preserving gospel purity,which eventuated in the efforts to use means for the conversion of the heathen."


----------



## Ianterrell

Yes my friend Eric Sigward made me aware of the Marrow Controversy. Basically its all about Limited Atonement at the end of the day. The Marrow Men like all men are fallible men. It's unfortunate their problems have seeped into so many authors ideas of preaching. 

I'm thankful to God for his gifts to the church, men that are willing to stand against the tide of inconsistent Calvinism. It's very common that Calvinists will groan when they see an Arminian say "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life". Its also common for a Calvinist to preach the same thing to a sinner in so many words. We say in our systematics that "Christ died for the elect alone", and then we turn to our unregenerate neighbor and tell him that "Christ died for him".


----------



## jacobiloved

I think this is the best place to post this link ....... this is an interesting page listing all the friends and all the "foes" and the dirt keeps flying over Hyper Calvinism ......... It's interesting to see who the writer ? doesn't pick on and who he does....... this may need reading several times 

http://www.evangelica.de/Hyper_Calvinism_and_the_Gospel_Call.htm


----------



## yeutter

J. C. Philpot and the Gospel Standard types seem to object to the idea that the Church has a duty to preach the Gospel to all man kind.

Am I misreading them at this point?

If I am not, then that would seem to make them hypercalvinists.


----------



## jacobiloved

> _Originally posted by yeutter_
> J. C. Philpot and the Gospel Standard types seem to object to the idea that the Church has a duty to preach the Gospel to all man kind.
> 
> Am I misreading them at this point?
> 
> If I am not, then that would seem to make them hypercalvinists.



It is true , and they have 3 articles that need an overhaul , they are perhaps the only Doctrinally hyper-Calvinist Church left , though many can be Hyper Calvinist in spirit regardless of denomination.


----------



## Ianterrell

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Learner -
> 
> Have you read "the Cause of God and Truth?"
> 
> I agree with you that there is much in Gill that is helpful, especially his hebrew work in his OT commentaries.



Gill is my favorite Baptist preacher/theologian.


----------



## polemic_turtle

Well, I've always wondered what this would do. Light it up, throw it in, and watch what happens! ;-)

Has anyone ever read Gill's chapter on God's love in his Body of Divinity? In it, he says:



> 1b. All that God has made is the object of his love; all the works of creation, when he had made them, he looked over them, and saw that they were good, "very good", (Gen. 1:31) he was well pleased, and delighted with them; yea, he is said to "rejoice in his works", (Ps. 104:31) he upholds all creatures in their beings, and is the Preserver of all, both men and beasts; and is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works, (Ps. 36:6, 145:9) and particularly, rational creatures are the objects of his care, love, and delight: he loves the holy angels, and has shown his love to them in choosing them to happiness; hence they are called "elect angels", (1 Tim. 5:21) by making Christ the head of them, by whom they are confirmed in the estate in which they were created, (Col. 2:10) and by admitting them into his presence, allowing them to stand before him, and behold his face, (Matthew 18:10) yea, even the devils, as they are the creatures of God, are not hated by him, but as they are apostate spirits from him: and so he bears a general love to all men, as they are his creatures, his offspring, and the work of his hands; he supports them, preserves them, and bestows the bounties of his providence in common upon them, (Acts 17:28, 14:17; Matthew 5:45) but he bears a special love to elect men in Christ; which is called his "great love", (Eph. 2:4) whom he has chosen and blessed with all spiritual blessings in him, (Eph. 1:3, 4) and which love is distinguishing and discriminating (Mal 1:1, 2; Rom. 9:11, 12).



Surely no-one will say that he's in Hoeksema's camp on this, right? They really couldn't be further from each other on this issue, as far as I can see. From what I know, I believe Gill represents a othodox reformed view on this, at least as far as men are concerned. Read the old systematics and tell me what you find. I believe they will all admit that God has a love of benevolence toward all creatures in general, especially to rational creatures.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by polemic_turtle_
> ...
> Has anyone ever read Gill's chapter on God's love in his Body of Divinity? In it, he says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1b. All that God has made is the object of his love; all the works of creation, when he had made them, he looked over them, and saw that they were good, "very good", (Gen. 1:31) he was well pleased, and delighted with them; yea, he is said to "rejoice in his works", (Ps. 104:31) he upholds all creatures in their beings, and is the Preserver of all, both men and beasts; and is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works, (Ps. 36:6, 145:9)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .... I believe they will all admit that God has a love of benevolence toward all creatures in general, especially to rational creatures.
Click to expand...


I've got that section from Gill's Doctrinal Divinity - Chapter 12 "Of The Love Of God" and was looking up the verses. When I got to Ps 145:9 I read on and found Ps 145:20

Psalm
145:9 The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
145:20 The Lord preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy.

Interesting that.

I'll have to see if Gill adresses that verse.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by polemic_turtle_
> ...
> Has anyone ever read Gill's chapter on God's love in his Body of Divinity? In it, he says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and is the Preserver of all, both men and beasts; and is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works, (Ps. 36:6, 145:9)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .... I believe they will all admit that God has a love of benevolence toward all creatures in general, especially to rational creatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've got that section from Gill's Doctrinal Divinity - Chapter 12 "Of The Love Of God" and was looking up the verses. When I got to Ps 145:9 I read on and found Ps 145:20
> 
> Psalm
> 145:9 The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
> 145:20 The Lord preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy.
> 
> Interesting that.
> 
> I'll have to see if Gill adresses that verse.
Click to expand...


Here's Gill's commentary on verse 9:


> *Psa 145:9 - The Lord is good to all,*.... Which is to be understood not of the general and providential goodness of God to all men, to all his creatures, and the works of his hands; but of the special goodness of Christ before mentioned, Psa_145:7; which extends to all the chosen people of God; who are all loved by Christ, redeemed by him, justified and glorified by him; and to Gentiles as well as Jews; for whom he tasted death, laid down his life a ransom for them, and became the propitiation for their sins. Hence his Gospel has been sent to both; and some of each have been effectually called by his grace, and more will. This shows this psalm belongs to Gospel times, in which the grace of Christ appears more large and extensive:
> 
> *and his tender mercies are over all his works;* meaning not all the creatures his hands have made; though he has a tender regard to them, and is kind and merciful to them all; but such as are made new creatures in him and by him, who are eminently called his workmanship, the work of his hands; these, all of them, share in his special mercy and goodness; see Eph_2:10.



So it seems Gill says this verse is not about God's love to all his creation, but to his creation made anew in Christ - God's _choosen._

And for verse 20


> *Psa 145:20 - The Lord preserveth all them that love him,*.... All do not love Christ, none but those that are born again, and believe in him: love to Christ is a fruit of the Spirit, and accompanies faith in him; it flows from the love of Christ shed into the heart, and from a view of his loveliness, and a sense of his benefits; and, where it is true and genuine, it is superlative and sincere, and shows itself by a regard to its truths and ordinances, to his people, ways, and worship: and such the Lord preserves often in times of public calamity; and from the evil of sin, the dominion of it; from Satan's temptations, from being devoured and destroyed by him; and from a final and total falling away; he preserves them to his kingdom and glory, which is promised to them that love him;
> 
> *but all the wicked will he destroy*; he will consume them from off the earth, so that the wicked shall be no more; he will destroy the man of sin, and all his adherents; all the enemies of Christ, those that do not love him, but oppose him, his Gospel, kingdom, and interest; the beast and false prophet, with all that attend them, shall be cut off; the day of the Lord, like an oven, shall burn up all that do wickedly, and shall leave them neither root nor branch: this will especially be true at the day of judgment, when the wicked shall be ordered to everlasting fire; and they shall go into eternal punishment, when they shall be turned into hell; and all the nations that forget God. Kimchi interprets this of future time, when there shall not be a wicked man left in the world, and compares it with Mal_4:1.


----------



## Civbert

Ironically, the Wikipedia article on Hyper-Calvinism lists John Gill as one ("to some extent"). It doesn't mention Hoeksema.


----------



## Magma2

> Arminianism denies the Biblical picture of God’s complete sovereignty and stresses the “free-will” of man. Hyper-Calvinism stresses the complete sovereignty of God at the expense of the “free-will” man. Thus, instead of remedying the problem, they deny the doctrine instead. Though the Bible is emphatic on the responsibility of men in their duty towards God, Hyper-Calvinism would deny this out rightly.



At the risk of having another of my postings censored by the Puritan Board police (I found out the hard way that any criticism of Pastor Morecraft and his willingness to publish FV men like Richard Gaffin Jr. in his little magazine, The Counsel of Chalcedon, will not pass the censors), I have a couple of problems with Dr. McMahon’s short explanation of H-C in his piece; _All house and no doors: A Brief Critique of the False Teachings of Hyper-Calvinism._ 

While McMahon makes a number of solid points, the piece is mixed with some, well, sloppiness, like the paragraph above. Calvinism has never defined “free-will” in the same way as the Arminian, nor is “free-will” in any sense necessary to the definition of responsibility (see Reymond’s discussion of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility in his S/T and Clark’s discussion of the same in Religion, Reason and Revelation). However, the above leaves the impression that unless one accepts the Arminian view of free-will they’re H-C and this most certainly not the case nor does it follow.




> His decrees, from the foundation of world, are to damn some men and save others by His good pleasure alone. Calvinism believes this, but the “this” is qualified. Hyper-Calvinism believes this without a qualification. The qualification is this – men cannot be saved or damned without being fallen. The Hyper-Calvinist teaches that God saves and damns as a result of God’s pleasure, without consideration of man’s fallen state. This is to hold creatures responsible for sin they have not committed, or have not had imputed to them.
> 
> . . . Thus, Hyper-Calvinism teaches that men do not come to Christ because he is lost, but because He is saved. This is not the Gospel at all.
> 
> . . . The Hyper-Calvinist says that preaching to lost men is a denial of Total Depravity and the Sovereignty of God.



The above all may be true of H-Cs, but since the piece starts out accusing both Gill and the entire PRC of being H-C it would have been helpful, as well the responsible thing to do, to have shown, at least briefly, exactly where these men have taught these doctrines? A footnote or two would have been nice. I’ve read a considerable amount of PRC literature, including HH’s Dogmatics, plus quite a bit of Gill and have never read anything close to any of the above mentioned doctrines in any of their works. Now, did Gill, Hoeksema and the entire PRC teach all of the above mentioned doctrines and others mentioned in the McMahon piece? Perhaps, but not in anything I recall ever reading. 

For what it's worth I’ve seen Gordon Clark and even Dr. Reymond slathered with that same tar brush. Phil Johnson was out and about some years ago trying to paint Clark’s face black as well. So, without more evidence (and, no, I’m not going to by his book), I think Dr. McMahon’s piece is more than a little irresponsible and not all that helpful (which is unusual given most of what I've read by him). I realize McMahon was just trying to just frame the issue of HC, however in my opinion that when painting trim it's better to use a trim brush rather than a roller.


----------



## MW

Good points. Arminians do not teach free-will, they teach the indifference of the will. I would only add that hyper-Calvinists believe in preaching the gospel to all men. They deny that the grace of God should be offered to the unrenewed sinner in preaching.


----------



## JM

Johnson’s definition is too broad.

[Edited on 10-17-2006 by JM]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> Good points. Arminians do not teach free-will, they teach the indifference of the will. I would only add that hyper-Calvinists believe in preaching the gospel to all men. They deny that the grace of God should be offered to the unrenewed sinner in preaching.



Is "unrenewed" the same as "not regenerate"?


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by JM_
> Johnson’s definition is too broad.




Indeed it is. Johnson is about the worst with the possible exception of the Amyraldian David Ponter who posts here. in my opinion there is arguably more danger coming from the anti-H-C folks then those few who may genuinely have fallen into some of the errors of H-C. Sometimes too I think there is some traditionalist and Presbyterian bigotry that goes along with some of this as well. I think it is too often just a convenient label that enemies of a consistent and coherent faith can use as a club against those they disagree. It's a lot easier than having to come up with a biblically sound argument against an opponent. 

I've seen the label attached to those who teach that Arminianism is another gospel (in that regard I have to think Dr. McMahon has been the target of that tar brush). Rev. Winzer above has been accused of being H-C because he refused to bow to the anti-Christian doctrine of the so-called "Well Meant Offer" and even took John Murray to task on this score and in print. I've mentioned Gordon Clark too for refusing to bow to Van Til and associates on this same doctrinal point during the height of the Clark/VT controversy. If these men are H-C then doesn’t H-C lose all its meaning? Basically for most a denial of the WMO, with or without the additional denial of the doctrine of common grace, is tantamount to H-C. It's pure knee jerk and generally with about as much thought attached.


----------



## JM

I've been called a hyper-Calvinist because I believe in justification from eternity...these same folks that call me a hyper will not walk the streets and hand out tracts or confront people with the Gospel with me...and I'm the hyper?



[Edited on 10-17-2006 by JM]


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by JM_
> I've been called a hyper-Calvinist because I believe in justification from eternity...



Which would make the originator of the modern doctrine of common grace, Abraham Kuyper, a H-C.


----------



## PresReformed

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> Good points. Arminians do not teach free-will, they teach the indifference of the will. I would only add that hyper-Calvinists believe in preaching the gospel to all men. They deny that the grace of God should be offered to the unrenewed sinner in preaching.


----------



## PresReformed

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> Good points. Arminians do not teach free-will, they teach the indifference of the will. I would only add that hyper-Calvinists believe in preaching the gospel to all men. They deny that the grace of God should be offered to the unrenewed sinner in preaching.




oops! Still new to this.

Matthew,
Isn't it more like people are labelled hypers that don't believe that grace is offered to the reprobate? That there is no offer of grace from the preacher, only an outward call? That only the inward call of the Holy Spirit is grace offered, and that only to the elect?


----------



## PresReformed

> _Originally posted by jacobiloved_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by yeutter_
> J. C. Philpot and the Gospel Standard types seem to object to the idea that the Church has a duty to preach the Gospel to all man kind.
> 
> Am I misreading them at this point?
> 
> If I am not, then that would seem to make them hypercalvinists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is true , and they have 3 articles that need an overhaul , they are perhaps the only Doctrinally hyper-Calvinist Church left , though many can be Hyper Calvinist in spirit regardless of denomination.
Click to expand...



JC Philpot? I've heard him labelled a hyper before, but I've never read anything of his that would lead me to believe that that is true. Do you have any examples of his hyper-calvinism?


----------



## JM

does God see the elect as not elect until they believe?


----------



## AV1611

sastark said:


> ...does anyone know if Hoeksema was a hyper-calvinist?



Herman Hoeksema was in no way a hyper-Calvinist. What there has been in recent years is a redefinition of hypercalvinism as can be seen in Phil Johnson's _Primer_. Could HH have better phrased himself at times? Most probably. Was he a hypercalvinism? No! This is self evident when one reads this: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_40.html


----------



## AV1611

armourbearer said:


> I would only add that hyper-Calvinists believe in preaching the gospel to all men. They deny that the grace of God should be offered to the unrenewed sinner in preaching.



Not at all! They deny that it is the duty of all to believe and so refuse to call out "repent" or "believe". As for the term offer one must define what one means by that...does it mean present and show forth as the latin means or are you pouring Arminianism into the term offer? The Banner of Truth do the latter.


----------



## AV1611

JM said:


> Johnson’s definition is too broad.
> 
> [Edited on 10-17-2006 by JM]



Not only that it is wholly incorrect. Historicall hyperism has only been understood as the first two points i.e. refusing to preach to all and denying duty-faith.


----------



## AV1611

Bladestunner316 said:


> Englsma book on hyper calvinism



This is excellent! Can be bought here. I would also recommend:

1. http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_35.html
2. http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_94.htm


----------

