# "High" Calvinistic Resources



## valiant4truth (Jan 7, 2011)

What are some of the better presentations of the Reformed Faith from a High Calvinistic, supralapsarian position? I am familiar with the recent work of Robert Reymond on the subject and some of th PRC men but that is about it. 

Thanks.


----------



## valiant4truth (Jan 8, 2011)

Am I to think that there are no others???


----------



## Marrow Man (Jan 8, 2011)

I think that James White would be considered somewhat of a "high" Calvinist (and perhaps more helpful to you since he is Reformed Baptist, whereas Reymond is Presbyterian). I think White claims to follow a modified supra position, however. His website is Alpha and Omega Ministries.


----------



## AThornquist (Jan 8, 2011)

I just asked Dr. White. He's not sure what you intend to mean by a "high" Calvinist, but yes he does hold to a modified supra position.


----------



## Marrow Man (Jan 8, 2011)

I remember a blog interchange a few years ago where someone used the label "high" Calvinist. There was also a reference to the series on Calvinism by Curt Daniel, and I remember him using the term as well. In fact, Daniel was the first person I'd ever heard who made a distinction in this way. I can't remember the blogger who disagreed with Dr. White, but I do remember there essentially being some understanding/agreement that was reached in the end.

This is not the exchange I remember, but here is a blog article from AOMin where Dr. White uses the "high Calvinist" label in reference to a comment made by Phil Johnson (in contrast to the misnomer "hypercalvinist"). Another article where Dr. White uses the term may be found here.

Ah, wait, now I remember part of the distinction in terms being how closely one follows John Owen on his view of the atonement, the extent to which God's love applies to the reprobate, distinctions between the free offer of the gospel v. the well-meant offer of the gospel, that sort of thing.


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 8, 2011)

I am not sure what you're looking for: are you looking for (a) General reformed systematic works written by those who hold a supralapsarian understanding of predestination, or (b) works specifically dedicated to expounding predestination from a supralapsarian view?

If (a), some of the better older works which have been translated into or written in English will be William Ames' _Marrow_, which is a short compendium; for something a bit more comprehensive, Witsius' _Economy of the Covenants_ or his Exposition of the creed are certainly excellent. William Perkins' works, such as his exposition of the creed, or his treatment of predestination or A Golden Chain are helpful I understand that the Westminster Assembly project has someone translating Rutherford's _Examen_ into English - when this is done, sell your car to procure it if necessary.

If (b), one could start with any number of Thomas Goodwin's works, whether in his book on Election, his sermons on Ephesians, or his work on the Knowledge of God. William Twisse was perhaps the most erudite of British Theologians in the Westminster period: his finest works are only in Latin (and they are wonderful, indeed!), but some of his English works (his work on the doctrine of Dort and Arles against Tilenus, his examination of John Cotton's work, and his _Riches_) are certainly more than worth reading to catch glimpses of this great man's understanding of predestination. While it's hard to categorize him as "infralapsarian" or "supralapsarian", Amandus Polanus' wonderful treatise predestination was translated into English, and certainly at least carries overtones of a "supralapsarian" position.

Also, since I see you are a Doctor and therefore assume you have utility in other languages, if you know Latin we can expand the above list greatly.


----------



## jogri17 (Jan 8, 2011)

Anyone more conservative than me is an high-Calvinist.


----------



## JM (Jan 8, 2011)

Not sure if this will help or not:

THE SERMONS OF JOHN BRINE

The Doctrine Of Absolute Predestination by Jerome Zanchius

Absolute Predestination


----------



## valiant4truth (Jan 8, 2011)

Prufrock said:


> I am not sure what you're looking for: are you looking for (a) General reformed systematic works written by those who hold a supralapsarian understanding of predestination, or (b) works specifically dedicated to expounding predestination from a supralapsarian view?
> 
> If (a), some of the better older works which have been translated into or written in English will be William Ames' _Marrow_, which is a short compendium; for something a bit more comprehensive, Witsius' _Economy of the Covenants_ or his Exposition of the creed are certainly excellent. William Perkins' works, such as his exposition of the creed, or his treatment of predestination or A Golden Chain are helpful I understand that the Westminster Assembly project has someone translating Rutherford's _Examen_ into English - when this is done, sell your car to procure it if necessary.
> 
> ...


 
Thank you for this post. I found it quite helpful. As far as Latin goes, I am trying to learn Latin now. It is not one of the languages that I have a good handle on at this point. But I am certainly interested in these other works notwithstanding.


----------



## Michael (Jan 9, 2011)

jogri17 said:


> Anyone more conservative than me is an high-Calvinist.


Ha!


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 9, 2011)

The adjective "high" as a synonym for supralapsarianism is misleading and doesn't have much of a pedigree in Reformed history. All the orthodox, in the Reformed churches, confess the five points of the synod of Dort and the substance of what is confessed in the Westminster Standards. Neither the Standards nor the Canons are surpra. One could hardly think of the majority of the Reformed theologians as "low" Calvinists. I have sometimes seen "high" used to refer to those who actually believe Dort etc over against Amyraldians, who might be called "low" but just as often the adjective "high" has ecclesiological connotations, i.e., those who have a "higher" as distinct from a "lower" view of the church.


----------



## JM (Jan 9, 2011)

Do folks recall the Calvinism Chart?


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 9, 2011)

Scott,

Thanks for your helpful reminder that "high" does not have much of a "pedigree in Reformed history." I also consider the term quite slippery and of limited explanatory value.

What do you make of Curt Daniel's explanation, based on his doctoral studies on Gill? He seems to indicate that the term was well-attested prior to his writing. Is this incorrect?




> A. The first generation of Reformed theologians were in basic agreement on the issues of
> Calvinism. These included Calvin, Bucer, Bullinger, Vermigli and others. Most of these men died
> within a few years of each other, and the leadership fell to their younger assistants.
> 
> ...



In Daniel's analysis, the following positions are associated with "high Calvinism" - 
Hyper-Calvinism 
Calvinistic Antinomianism 
Supralapsarianism 
Strict 5-Point Calvinism 

Daniel sees "moderate" Calvinism as "mainstream Calvinism."

"Low Calvinism" to him entails - 
Amyraldism 
Neonomianism 
4-Point Calvinism 
Late New England Calvininism

Incidentally, reacting to another point in Dr. Daniel's summary, I was surprised to learn that even after Muller's disproof, the "Calvin vs. the Calvinists" polarity is still alive in the academy. A friend of mine recently took a class from a visiting professor at an evangelical seminary in Canada. She supposedly made much of the Calvin vs. the Calvinists distinction, despite having recently received her own doctorate in Calvin studies.


----------



## JM (Jan 9, 2011)

Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Curt Daniel's Thesis: Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 9, 2011)

Jason,

Helpfully on point and thought provoking. Thanks.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 9, 2011)

Very interesting, Dennis.



> She supposedly made much of the Calvin vs. the Calvinists distinction, despite having recently received her own doctorate in Calvin studies.



Can a female theology lecturer be a High Calvinist, or any kind of Calvinist?


----------



## valiant4truth (Jan 10, 2011)

Dr. Clark,
I am not suggesting that what is commonly (perhaps erroneously?!) called "High" Calvinism is the majority position among Reformed thinkers. The argument isn't being presented that infralapsarian Calvinism isn't real Calvinism. To be sure, we are not talking about "High " church and "Low" church Anglicanism. 

The term "High," while perhaps not meeting the standard of antiquity, certainly has come into view in our time as a description of those Calvinist who are not "Hyper" but certainly share much in common with them. The "google" world testifies to this common understanding. 

The post was not meant to delve into the legitimacy of terminonlogy but a request for resources.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jan 10, 2011)

It seems that the OP should have asked specifically for resources supporting Supralapsarianism instead of clouding the issue with the term "High Calvinism."


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 10, 2011)

Louis Berkhof in his Systematic Theology gives a good pro/con discussion on this issue.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 10, 2011)

Any study of the divine decree has to include Richard Muller, _Christ the Decree_.

That was an early work and he's written on it since. See one collection of essays, _After Calvin_.

Hope this helps.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 11, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> Very interesting, Dennis.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
My point was that she evidently trotted out the old notion that the Calvinists ruined Calvin with their rationalistic scholasticism. I was surprised that any recent graduate student would be willing to make such an audacious claim after Muller's rather convincing work to the contrary. Considering the theological temperature of the evangelical school in question, I doubt that confessional orthodoxy was anywhere in view.


----------



## valiant4truth (Jan 11, 2011)

Dr. Clark,
Thank you for your kind assistance. The work by Muller looks like a good one to acquire. Much appreciated!


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 11, 2011)

It's worth looking at what Dabney says in his _Systematic Theology_ on the supra/infra lapsarian debate, if you haven't checked that out, in which he says - if my memory serves me well - that the whole debate is wrongheaded because of God's mind and reasoning being different to ours, although we are analogical to God.

---------- Post added at 01:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:42 PM ----------




DMcFadden said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > Very interesting, Dennis.
> ...


 
Thanks for that Dennis. I haven't read Muller's work. In fact I haven't read anything on the "Calvin and the Calvinists" debate.

I found your material, from Daniel, on "High" and "Low" Calvinism interesting. Thanks.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 11, 2011)

It is interesting that in the intro to the new edition of "Christ and the Decrees" Muller actually tells you to read his other stuff first. It was kind of an odd thing for the author to say.


----------

