# Hyper-Calvinism



## Scott Shahan (Dec 21, 2006)

How do I know if I have turned into a hyper-calvinist? What does a hyper-calvinist look like? Is it easy to become a hyper-calvinist? I read a book back in the 90's titled "Spurgeon V. Hyper-Calvinism", I went and found it on my bookshelf and plan to reread it over Christmas break.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Dec 21, 2006)

Here is a brief treatment of the subject by Phil Johnson.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Dec 21, 2006)

You are a Hyper-Calvinist if upon discovering and embracing the doctrines of grace you immediately make it your life ambition to convert every Christian you know to your newly discovered world view.

When you calm down you are a Presbyterian.


----------



## BertMulder (Dec 21, 2006)

I believe you would be better of reading this pamphlet:

http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_94.htm#II.1



> .1. What is ‘ hyper-Calvinism ‘? ‘ Hyper-Calvinism ‘ is a term that has been bandied about a great deal` especially in recent years. ‘ Hyper-Calvinism ‘ is sometimes applied to those` strangely enough` who hold firmly and uncompromisingly` to the five points of Calvinism: total depravity` unconditional election` limited atonement` irresistible grace` perseverance of the saints: those who hold firmly to these are sometimes branded as ‘ hyper-Calvinists ‘. Then again sometimes the term ‘ hyper-Calvinism’ is applied to those who hold to double predestination: that is` not only election` but also sovereign` unconditional reprobation. Such are also branded as ‘ hyper-Calvinists ‘ ; in which case` of course` Calvin himself would have been the leading proponent of ‘ hyper-Calvinism ‘. If you read his pamphlet “ A Treatise on the Predestination of God “` you will find the doctrine of reprobation outlined carefully` and sharply` in all of its biblical truth. Sometimes supralapsarians are branded as ‘ hyper-Calvinists ‘. The term is used in many instances.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Scott Shahan (Dec 21, 2006)

ChristopherPaul said:


> You are a Hyper-Calvinist if upon discovering and embracing the doctrines of grace you immediately make it your life ambition to convert every Christian you know to your newly discovered world view.
> 
> When you calm down you are a Presbyterian.
> 
> ...


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 21, 2006)

If your Calvinism makes you content with people going to hell or if it takes away your zeal to evangelize, then you are a HyperCalvinist.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Average Joey (Dec 21, 2006)

ChristopherPaul said:


> You are a Hyper-Calvinist if upon discovering and embracing the doctrines of grace you immediately make it your life ambition to convert every Christian you know to your newly discovered world view.
> 
> When you calm down you are a Presbyterian.



I myself am a Baptisterian.


----------



## yeutter (Dec 21, 2006)

BertMulder said:


> I believe you would be better of reading this pamphlet:
> 
> http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_94.htm#II.1



Thanks for the link Burt


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 21, 2006)

MrMerlin777 said:


> Here is a brief treatment of the subject by Phil Johnson.
> 
> http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Dec 21, 2006)

Scott Shahan said:


> ChristopherPaul said:
> 
> 
> > You are a Hyper-Calvinist if upon discovering and embracing the doctrines of grace you immediately make it your life ambition to convert every Christian you know to your newly discovered world view.
> ...


----------



## Scott Shahan (Dec 21, 2006)

ChristopherPaul said:


> Scott Shahan said:
> 
> 
> > Well, when I lost all my friends of course.
> ...


----------



## PresReformed (Dec 22, 2006)

Scott Shahan said:


> I read a book back in the 90's titled "Spurgeon V. Hyper-Calvinism", I went and found it on my bookshelf and plan to reread it over Christmas break.



I was just thinking about listing this book in the "Worst Books" thread. This book doesn't address hyper-calvinism, just Iain Murray's version of hyper-calvinism. I wouldn't suggest reading this or Phil Johnson's article. Both come from a hypo-calvinist, semi-amyrauldian viewpoint. I think David Engelsma's book _HyperCalvinism & the Call of the Gospel_ http://www.rfpa.org/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=1 is an excellent rersource on the subject myself.


----------



## Scott Shahan (Dec 22, 2006)

PresReformed said:


> I was just thinking about listing this book in the "Worst Books" thread. This book doesn't address hyper-calvinism, just Iain Murray's version of hyper-calvinism. I wouldn't suggest reading this or Phil Johnson's article. Both come from a hypo-calvinist, semi-amyrauldian viewpoint. I think David Engelsma's book _HyperCalvinism & the Call of the Gospel_ http://www.rfpa.org/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=1 is an excellent rersource on the subject myself.




Your right it is Iain Murray's viewpoint...............You think Iain Murray is a poor author? I tended to think that the chap wasn't that bad of a guy I will check out the article that you suggested, thanks, Scott


----------



## PresReformed (Dec 22, 2006)

Scott Shahan said:


> Your right it is Iain Murray's viewpoint...............You think Iain Murray is a poor author? I tended to think that the chap wasn't that bad of a guy I will check out the article that you suggested, thanks, Scott



Iain Murray tends to rewrite history and doctrine to his viewpoint so that others get the titles of unorthodox and hyper. His scholarship is questionable at best. He butchered A.W. Pink's _Sovereignty of God_ because he thought Pink was a hyper-calvinist in sections of the book. His attack on EP and his book praising John Wesley are quite disturbing too.


----------



## AV1611 (Dec 22, 2006)

Puritan Sailor said:


> If your Calvinism makes you content with people going to hell or if it takes away your zeal to evangelize, then you are a HyperCalvinist.



A good theological definition


----------



## AV1611 (Dec 22, 2006)

PresReformed said:


> Iain Murray tends to rewrite history and doctrine to his viewpoint so that others get the titles of unorthodox and hyper. His scholarship is questionable at best. He butchered A.W. Pink's _Sovereignty of God_ because he thought Pink was a hyper-calvinist in sections of the book. His attack on EP and his book praising John Wesley are quite disturbing too.


----------



## Arch2k (Dec 22, 2006)

PresReformed said:


> He butchered A.W. Pink's _Sovereignty of God_ because he thought Pink was a hyper-calvinist in sections of the book.


 
All too true. In this case, the Baker edition is far superior.


----------



## Bandguy (Dec 31, 2006)

Scott Shahan said:


> What does a hyper-calvinist look like?



Fred Phelps.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Jan 16, 2007)

Bandguy said:


> Fred Phelps.


Why does that man even waste his breath? What a perverse ego trip he derives from his tasteless and infuriating practices.

If he is as hyper as claimed why doesn't he sit pat and watch it happen without rubbing it in and being eternally hateful to this sinful world as if he is not a member of it himself and a sinner that has harmed others?

He's a donkey rectum.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Jan 16, 2007)

I would personally recommend Iain Murray's book. I don't see why the Protestant Reformed would be against it, since its primary subject is Spurgeon's interaction with the "Strict Baptists" referred to by Prof. Hanko.

I do believe in the free offer of the gospel. The Marrow-Men (and the Covenanters with them) were good Calvinists; they were not "Semi-Amyraldians" or "Hypo-Calvinists" -- and I regard most who use such phrases against regular ol' Calvinists as "Hyper-Calvinists."


----------



## Blue Tick (Jan 16, 2007)

No Longer A Libertine said:


> Why does that man even waste his breath? What a perverse ego trip he derives from his tasteless and infuriating practices.
> 
> If he is as hyper as claimed why doesn't he sit pat and watch it happen without rubbing it in and being eternally hateful to this sinful world as if he is not a member of it himself and a sinner that has harmed others?
> 
> He's a donkey rectum.



 That's funny!


----------



## PresReformed (Jan 17, 2007)

Kaalvenist said:


> I do believe in the free offer of the gospel. The Marrow-Men (and the Covenanters with them) were good Calvinists; they were not "Semi-Amyraldians" or "Hypo-Calvinists" -- and I regard most who use such phrases against regular ol' Calvinists as "Hyper-Calvinists."



That's all the Reformed Church needs...another incorrect definition of Hyper-Calvinism to bring further confusion to the issue. I did not mention The Marrow Men or the Covenanters, only Iain Murray and Phil Johnson. The Bible does not teach that God desires, wishes, or tries to do anything. God does whatever He wills. To say that God desires the salvation of everyone (including the reprobate), but doesn't save them, is not biblical or Calvinistic.


----------



## JOwen (Jan 17, 2007)

Kaalvenist said:


> I would personally recommend Iain Murray's book. I don't see why the Protestant Reformed would be against it, since its primary subject is Spurgeon's interaction with the "Strict Baptists" referred to by Prof. Hanko.
> 
> I do believe in the free offer of the gospel. The Marrow-Men (and the Covenanters with them) were good Calvinists; they were not "Semi-Amyraldians" or "Hypo-Calvinists" -- and I regard most who use such phrases against regular ol' Calvinists as "Hyper-Calvinists."


----------



## Magma2 (Jan 17, 2007)

PresReformed said:


> That's all the Reformed Church needs...another incorrect definition of Hyper-Calvinism to bring further confusion to the issue. I did not mention The Marrow Men or the Covenanters, only Iain Murray and Phil Johnson. The Bible does not teach that God desires, wishes, or tries to do anything. God does whatever He wills. To say that God desires the salvation of everyone (including the reprobate), but doesn't save them, is not biblical or Calvinistic.


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 17, 2007)

Kaalvenist said:


> I would personally recommend Iain Murray's book. I don't see why the Protestant Reformed would be against it, since its primary subject is Spurgeon's interaction with the "Strict Baptists" referred to by Prof. Hanko.
> 
> I do believe in the free offer of the gospel. The Marrow-Men (and the Covenanters with them) were good Calvinists; they were not "Semi-Amyraldians" or "Hypo-Calvinists" -- and I regard most who use such phrases against regular ol' Calvinists as "Hyper-Calvinists."



I found this interesting. I have been doing some work experience at a library within a university which meant I could access it at lunchtimes and read the whole thing


----------



## Reformingstudent (Jan 17, 2007)

*Hypo-Calvinist?*



Kaalvenist said:


> I would personally recommend Iain Murray's book. I don't see why the Protestant Reformed would be against it, since its primary subject is Spurgeon's interaction with the "Strict Baptists" referred to by Prof. Hanko.
> 
> I do believe in the free offer of the gospel. The Marrow-Men (and the Covenanters with them) were good Calvinists; they were not "Semi-Amyraldians" or "Hypo-Calvinists" -- and I regard most who use such phrases against regular ol' Calvinists as "Hyper-Calvinists."



Can you eplain to me what a "Hypo-Calvinist" is as I have heard the term before but am not sure what it means. Thanks


----------



## Kaalvenist (Jan 18, 2007)

Reformingstudent said:


> Can you eplain to me what a "Hypo-Calvinist" is as I have heard the term before but am not sure what it means. Thanks


You'll have to ask those who have coined the phrase -- it has no basis in history whatsoever.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Jan 18, 2007)

Magma2 said:


> PresReformed said:
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted by PresReformed
> > That's all the Reformed Church needs...another incorrect definition of Hyper-Calvinism to bring further confusion to the issue. I did not mention The Marrow Men or the Covenanters, only Iain Murray and Phil Johnson. The Bible does not teach that God desires, wishes, or tries to do anything. God does whatever He wills. To say that God desires the salvation of everyone (including the reprobate), but doesn't save them, is not biblical or Calvinistic.


Greg, Sean (great name by the way!), you're both Presbyterians. Have you never read _The Sum of Saving Knowledge?_ Will you deny it to be either biblical or Calvinistic, in the following passage (_The Westminster Confession of Faith,_ FPP edition, 2001 reprint, p. 332):


> The first whereof is _God's hearty invitation,_ holden forth, _Isa._ lv. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
> 
> _Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money: come ye, buy and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money, and without price._ Ver. 2. _Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? Hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness._ Ver. 3. _Inclince your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David._ Ver. 4. _Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people,_ etc.
> 
> ...


This document is admittedly not one of the Westminster Standards, and had no official sanction by the Church of Scotland or any descending churches. But, (1.) It was written by two known, recognized, orthodox ministers and theologians of the Church of Scotland, James Durham and David Dickson. (2.) It has been, for several hundred years, printed together with the Westminster Standards, with no apparent incongruity between the Standards and _The Sum of Saving Knowledge_ ever demonstrated. This demonstrates that, (1.) The free offer of the gospel is, at least, consistent with historic, orthodox Calvinism. (2.) The free offer of the gospel, as set forth in _The Sum of Saving Knowledge,_ comes just shy of creedal sanction by historic Presbyterian churches, which contain that document together with their creedal documents.


----------



## PresReformed (Jan 18, 2007)

Kaalvenist said:


> Greg, Sean (great name by the way!), you're both Presbyterians. Have you never read _The Sum of Saving Knowledge?_ Will you deny it to be either biblical or Calvinistic, in the following passage



Yes Sean, I am a Presbyterian. In fact, I've been one longer than you've been alive. Nowhere in your quote from _The Sum of Saving Knowledge_ does it say that God desires or wishes the salvation of all mankind. I believe that the Gospel is to be preached to all mankind, but that the outward call in no way reflects a desire on God's part to save everyone. The outward call is the means by which the Holy Spirit quickens the elect accompanied by the inward, effectual call. If there is no inward call the outward call falls on deaf ears. If you believe that the outward call is grace offered to all, then you must believe in resistible grace which is the fourth point of Arminianism. If you believe that salvation is offered to the reprobate then you must believe in universal atonement which is the third point of Arminianism. There is no hope of salvation for the reprobate because Christ did not die for them, there is no atonement made on their behalf. The Isaiah passage qualifies those who shall come...those who thirst (the elect). If you have read and understand Iain Murray's position then you could clearly see that what he is preaching is another gospel and not Calvinism.


----------



## JOwen (Jan 18, 2007)

PresReformed said:


> Yes Sean, I am a Presbyterian. In fact, I've been one longer than you've been alive. Nowhere in your quote from _The Sum of Saving Knowledge_ does it say that God desires or wishes the salvation of all mankind. I believe that the Gospel is to be preached to all mankind, but that the outward call in no way reflects a desire on God's part to save everyone. The outward call is the means by which the Holy Spirit quickens the elect accompanied by the inward, effectual call. If there is no inward call the outward call falls on deaf ears. If you believe that the outward call is grace offered to all, then you must believe in resistible grace which is the fourth point of Arminianism. If you believe that salvation is offered to the reprobate then you must believe in universal atonement which is the third point of Arminianism. There is no hope of salvation for the reprobate because Christ did not die for them, there is no atonement made on their behalf. The Isaiah passage qualifies those who shall come...those who thirst (the elect). If you have read and understand Iain Murray's position then you could clearly see that what he is preaching is another gospel and not Calvinism.



It might be helpful to the debate if you were to find s few quotes from Murray to prove your assertions. Oh, and by the way, every redeemed soul is reprobate when the gospel call comes, so salvation _is_ offered to sinners as sinners.


----------



## JOwen (Jan 18, 2007)

Her is one section of Calvin (out of dozens I have discovered) that sets forth his view of the free offer. 

"If any man hear my words". John 12:47

"After having spoken concerning his grace, and exhorted his disciples to steady faith, he now begins to strike the rebellious, though even here he mitigates the severity due to the wickedness of those who deliberately — as it were — reject God; *for he delays to pronounce judgment on them, because, on the contrary, he has come for the salvation of all*. In the first place, we ought to understand that he does not speak here of all unbelievers without distinction, but of those who, knowingly and willingly, reject the doctrine of the Gospel which has been exhibited to them. Why then does Christ not choose to condemn them? *It is because he lays aside for a time the office of a judge, and offers salvation to all without reserve, and stretches out his arms to embrace all, that all may be the more encouraged to repent.* And yet there is a circumstance of no small moment, by which he points out the aggravation of the crime, *if they reject an invitation so kind and gracious*, for it is as if he had said, *“Lo, I am here to invite all, and, forgetting the character of a judge, I have this as my single object, to persuade all, and to rescue from destruction those who are already twice ruined.”* No man, therefore, is condemned on account of having despised the Gospel, except he who, disdaining the lovely message of salvation, has chosen of his own accord to draw down destruction on himself (Commentary on John 12:47. p. 451. Ages Digital Lib).


----------



## Magma2 (Jan 18, 2007)

Kaalvenist said:


> This document is admittedly not one of the Westminster Standards, and had no official sanction by the Church of Scotland or any descending churches. But, (1.) It was written by two known, recognized, orthodox ministers and theologians of the Church of Scotland, James Durham and David Dickson. (2.) It has been, for several hundred years, printed together with the Westminster Standards, with no apparent incongruity between the Standards and _The Sum of Saving Knowledge_ ever demonstrated. This demonstrates that, (1.) The free offer of the gospel is, at least, consistent with historic, orthodox Calvinism. (2.) The free offer of the gospel, as set forth in _The Sum of Saving Knowledge,_ comes just shy of creedal sanction by historic Presbyterian churches, which contain that document together with their creedal documents.



First, you're exactly right, Sean is a great name! Second, you're also right and I can find nothing wrong with the above statement and see nothing that would controvert the Confession at any point. That said, your point #1 doesn't follow and perhaps the problem lies in the different senses in which the word offer is used and as it has been developed in the theology of the so-called "Well Meant Offer." To highlight what I mean, there are two ideas I cannot infer from "The Sum" above:

1. That God has a will, or sincere desire, for the salvation of every man who hears the gospel. 

2. That God is gracious in the preaching to all hearers.

I don't see either of these ideas advanced in the citation you provided. If you think these can be validly inferred, please provide the argument.

In my view, the WMO, as has been explained by its most able and well known defenders, such as John Murray (who advanced his doctrine of the Free Offer in response to Gordon Clark on the heels of the Clark/Van Til controversy), rests on the fallacious idea that you can infer something in the indicative from something written in the imperative. Ironically, this is impossible and is something Luther pointed out long ago in his response to Erasmus:



> "Even grammarians and schoolboys on street corners know that nothing more is signified by verbs in the imperative mood than what ought to be done, and that what is done or can be done should be expressed by words in the indicative. How is it that you theologians are twice as stupid as schoolboys, in that as soon as you get hold of a single imperative verb you infer an indicative meaning, as though the moment a thing is commanded it is done, or can be done?" BoW pg 159



I guess some Reformed men, even those as respected and revered as John Murray, forgot this lesson and to their shame. For example, one defender of the WMO wrote: "Implicit within the concept of a 'precept' or 'command' is will, desire, delight or pleasure." This is false, you can't infer anything of the sort from a precept or command. Just as you can't infer an ability to do as we ought from a command, neither can you infer "will, desire, delight or pleasure." Frankly, you can't infer anything at all. 

Consequently, because God commands all to believe in His Son even through the promiscuous offer or presentation of the gospel message, it doesn't follow that God desires the salvation of all who hear. Nor does it follow that God's mercy extends to all in the preaching of the Gospel. After all, Paul tells us that the offer of the Gospel comes to some as the sweet smell of Christ in those who are saved, and the stench of "death unto death" to those that perish. Both in complete accord with the "will, desire, delight or pleasure" of God.

Yet, in response to all this, what was Murray's refuge when confronted by the logical incoherence of his position, something he most certainly recognized and acknowledged? That proverbial and unbiblical "mystery" of course. Murray wrote; 



> While, on the one hand, he has not decretively willed that all be saved, yet he declares unequivocally that it is his will and, impliedly, his pleasure that all turn and be saved. We are again faced with the mystery and adorable richness of the divine will. It might seem to us that the one rules out the other. But it is not so. There is a multiformity to the divine will that is consonant with the fulness and richness of his divine character, and it is no wonder that we are constrained to bow in humble yet exultant amazement before his ineffable greatness and unsearchable judgments. To deny the reality of the divine pleasure directed to the repentance and salvation of all is to fail to accept the witness borne by such a text as this to the manifoldness of God's will and the riches of his grace.



Echoes of Van Til. What stultifying and complete nonsense. Feigned Christian piety used to justify submission to contradictory notions that are imputed to God and His Word. Not Murray at his best.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Jan 18, 2007)

PresReformed said:


> Yes Sean, I am a Presbyterian. In fact, I've been one longer than you've been alive. Nowhere in your quote from _The Sum of Saving Knowledge_ does it say that God desires or wishes the salvation of all mankind. I believe that the Gospel is to be preached to all mankind, but that the outward call in no way reflects a desire on God's part to save everyone. The outward call is the means by which the Holy Spirit quickens the elect accompanied by the inward, effectual call. If there is no inward call the outward call falls on deaf ears. If you believe that the outward call is grace offered to all, then you must believe in resistible grace which is the fourth point of Arminianism. If you believe that salvation is offered to the reprobate then you must believe in universal atonement which is the third point of Arminianism. There is no hope of salvation for the reprobate because Christ did not die for them, there is no atonement made on their behalf. The Isaiah passage qualifies those who shall come...those who thirst (the elect). If you have read and understand Iain Murray's position then you could clearly see that what he is preaching is another gospel and not Calvinism.


Greg, you failed to interact with my post in any substantial fashion.

In the quote offered, it says, "2. He inviteth *all sinners, that for any reason stand at a distance from God,* to *come and take from him riches of grace,* running in Christ as a river... 4. He *craveth* (might I say "desireth"?) no more of his merchant, but that he be pleased with the wares offered, which are *grace, and more grace.*"

Without the inward call of the gospel, the outward call falls on deaf ears. But that is their own fault; it in no way indicates that God is at fault, or is insincere in His call and offer to "sinners of mankind" in general.

As James Durham, David Dickson, and various and sundry others who have agreed with the "Sum" before me, I believe in particular redemption and irresistible grace. But I do not believe that belief in those doctrines precludes a belief that the gospel is offered to men without distinction.

My church, in its older "Testimony," maintained exactly this position since (at least) 1806 (_The Constitution of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America,_ 1950, pp. 167-169:


> CHAPTER XI
> OF THE GOSPEL OFFER
> 
> 1. The Gospel is the Revelation, which God has given to man, of the plan of salvation by a Redeemer; this is glad tidings worthy of all acceptation by sinners.
> ...


And even your own denomination, as I understand it, was formed through the work of John Murray, whose views on this subject are well known.

I am well aware of that interpretation of Isaiah 55 (Dr. Gill, that eminent Hyper-Calvinist, took that position on that text); but my point is, that interpretation cannot be squared with the interpretation taken in the "Sum" by Durham and Dickson -- and by extension, all Presbyterian churches that have consented to having that document printed along with their doctrinal standards.


----------



## PresReformed (Jan 18, 2007)

Kaalvenist said:


> Greg, you failed to interact with my post in any substantial fashion.



As have you, you attribute to me things I did not say in every post you make.



Kaalvenist said:


> In the quote offered, it says, "2. He inviteth *all sinners, that for any reason stand at a distance from God,* to *come and take from him riches of grace,* running in Christ as a river... 4. He *craveth* (might I say "desireth"?) no more of his merchant, but that he be pleased with the wares offered, which are *grace, and more grace.*"



If you're saying that God has unfulfilled desires or passions then you are not biblical or confessional. WCF Chapter 2:1 There is but one only living, and true God who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or *passions*, *immutable*...



Kaalvenist said:


> Without the inward call of the gospel, the outward call falls on deaf ears. But that is their own fault; it in no way indicates that God is at fault, or is insincere in His call and offer to "sinners of mankind" in general.



I never said God was at fault. God is not insincere because the outward call is a proclamation not an offer. Otherwise, like I said above, grace would be resistible. The only purpose of the outward call is to gather in the elect. Matthew 24:31



Kaalvenist said:


> As James Durham, David Dickson, and various and sundry others who have agreed with the "Sum" before me, I believe in particular redemption and irresistible grace. But I do not believe that belief in those doctrines precludes a belief that the gospel is offered to men without distinction.



The gospel is preached to all men without distinction. I'm glad that you hold to the above beliefs, but you hold beliefs that are contradictory to those doctrines if you believe that God desires and offers salvation to everyone. You spoke of God being insincere above. It would be insincere on God's part to offer salvation to those that have no atonement made for them.



Kaalvenist said:


> And even your own denomination, as I understand it, was formed through the work of John Murray, whose views on this subject are well known.



John Murray just penned _The Form of Union_ between the original two churches of the PRC. His opinion on the WMO is not the position of the PRC.



Kaalvenist said:


> I am well aware of that interpretation of Isaiah 55 (Dr. Gill, that eminent Hyper-Calvinist, took that position on that text); but my point is, that interpretation cannot be squared with the interpretation taken in the "Sum" by Durham and Dickson -- and by extension, all Presbyterian churches that have consented to having that document printed along with their doctrinal standards.



I think Gill would agree with _The Sum..._ without the interpretation that you are trying to apply to it.


----------



## jacobiloved (Feb 2, 2007)

Kaalvenist said:


> I would personally recommend Iain Murray's book. I don't see why the Protestant Reformed would be against it, since its primary subject is Spurgeon's interaction with the "Strict Baptists" referred to by Prof. Hanko.
> 
> I do believe in the free offer of the gospel. The Marrow-Men (and the Covenanters with them) were good Calvinists; they were not "Semi-Amyraldians" or "Hypo-Calvinists" -- and I regard most who use such phrases against regular ol' Calvinists as "Hyper-Calvinists."


----------



## Gesetveemet (Feb 2, 2007)

Scott Shahan said:


> How do I know if I have turned into a hyper-calvinist? What does a hyper-calvinist look like? . . . .





Usually they jitter alot and talk fast 






.


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 3, 2007)

PresReformed said:


> I believe that the Gospel is to be preached to all mankind, but that the outward call in no way reflects a desire on God's part to save everyone. The outward call is the means by which the Holy Spirit quickens the elect accompanied by the inward, effectual call. If there is no inward call the outward call falls on deaf ears. If you believe that the outward call is grace offered to all, then you must believe in resistible grace which is the fourth point of Arminianism. If you believe that salvation is offered to the reprobate then you must believe in universal atonement which is the third point of Arminianism. There is no hope of salvation for the reprobate because Christ did not die for them, there is no atonement made on their behalf. The Isaiah passage qualifies those who shall come...those who thirst (the elect). If you have read and understand Iain Murray's position then you could clearly see that what he is preaching is another gospel and not Calvinism.





I think Gill makes my position clear:

"_6thly_, This doctrine is said to agree very ill with the truth and sincerity of God, in a thousand declarations, such as these, Ezekiel 18:23, 32:32; Deuteronomy 5:29; Psalm 81:12; Acts 17:30; Mark 16:15 (Predestination Calmly Considered, pp. 31, 33). To which I reply, that some of those declarations, concern the Jews only, and not all mankind; and are only compassionate inquiries and vehement desires after their civil and temporal welfare: and at most only shew what is grateful to God, and approved of by him, and what was wanting in them; with which they are upbraided, notwithstanding their vain boasts to the contrary. Others only shew what is God’s will of command, or what he has made the duty of man; not what are his purposes man shall do, or what he will bestow upon him; and neither of them suggests any insincerity in God, supposing the doctrine of reprobation. *The gospel is indeed ordered to be preached to every creature to whom it is sent and comes; but as yet, it has never been brought to all the individuals of human nature; there have been multitudes in all ages that have not heard it. And that there are universal offers of grace and salvation made to all men I utterly deny; nay, I deny they are made to any; no, not to God’s elect; grace and salvation are provided for them in the everlasting covenant, procured for them by Christ, published and revealed in the gospel, and applied by the Spirit; much less are they made to others wherefore this doctrine is not chargeable with insincerity on that account.* Let the patrons of universal offers defend themselves from this objection; I have nothing to do with it; till it is proved there are such universal offers, then Dr. Watts’s reasoning on that head, will require some attention; but not till then." (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_07.htm)


----------

