# Hyper Calvinism Defined?



## JM (Jul 31, 2009)

Can I get a definition, not Phil Johnson's definition, but a good historical _and_ modern definition of what a Hyper is? If both the historical and modern definition is the same could someone please help me out by telling me?

Thank you.

jm


----------



## Repre5entYHWH (Jul 31, 2009)

good question i've heard differing opinions. 

check out this chart http://unchainedradio.com/freedownload/Conference-Chart.pdf I'm not sure if i'd agree with gill and reymond being hypers


----------



## JM (Jul 31, 2009)

or Pink...

Beza AND Piper in the same section? I don't buy it.

Thank you for the chart. It seems everyone who a definition has an axe to grind. It's very confusing.

j


----------



## Gord (Jul 31, 2009)

The historical definition as taught by Curt Daniel, in his chart he puts Hyper Calvinism at the top of High Calvinism, or ‘High’ Calvinists tended to over-emphasize divine sovereignty.

*1. What is ‘High Calvinism?*

*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.
*B.* This ‘Second Generation Calvinism began to expand on the doctrines of their predecessors. Scholars are divided whether they legitimately built on the foundation or not. In the areas where some of the ‘Second Generation Calvinists went where their predecessors had not and would not go, variations took place. Scholars often refer to the 2 main variations as *‘High’ and “Low** Calvinism.
*C.* The variations were on a variety of subjects, but they generally revolved around the questions of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. The first Calvinists rediscovered this balance, which had been lost for many years. Medieval theology was basically Semi-Pelagian and therefore laid greater stress on human responsibility. Calvinism simply reset the proper balance. But then the later Calvinists argued among themselves over the balance.
*D.* Basically the situation was this: the ‘High’ Calvinists tended to over-emphasize divine sovereignty and the ‘Low’ Calvinists tended to over-emphasize human responsibility. But this needs further clarification. For example, none of the ‘Lows’ taught a view of human responsibility as low as the Arminians or even the Lutherans.
*E. * Similarly, the differences between these two tendencies were minor when compared with their mutual agreement on doctrines where they disagreed with Romanism, Socinianism, Arminianism and Lutheranism. These were in-house debates. They were the ebbs and flows and tides in the River of Calvinism.
*F. * ‘High’ Calvinism was different from ‘Low’ Calvinism, however, in one important aspect: it went in a direction where no man had gone before. The Lows tended to move in the direction of Lutheranism, and so this was territory between two existing theologies. But the Highs went into brand new territory, for no theologian had so stressed divine sovereignty as to weaken human responsibility.
*G. * One other point merits mention. The proper balance of sovereignty and responsibility is not that Calvinism has the right view of sovereignty and Arminianism has the right view of human responsibility. Even the lowest of the lows did not suggest that. However, many of the Highs thought that the Lows were semi-Arminian. Epithets of ‘Pseudo-Calvinist!’ were hurled. The debates were primarily theological; but theologians being human, personality conflicts often entered the arena.
*H.* In a related way, this typifies all controversies. The Highs came first. The Lows arose as a reaction against them, calling for a return to the original balance. Then the Highs reacted against the Lows and some of them went even higher. And naturally some of the Lows reacted against that and went even lower. It became a chain of over-reactions. Many of the following chapters show how these later reactions went far beyond not only the original Calvinists, but even the original Highs and Lows.
*I. * This analysis is important to the correct understanding of the development of Reformed theology. We have often pointed out that though there is a common unifying thread among all Calvinists, there are many varieties and sub-varieties. These did not all arise at once. Most arose as reactions’ and counter-reactions and over-reactions against previous varieties.


----------



## JM (Jul 31, 2009)

Gord, that section you quoted is good, but I've read other quotes from Daniel and get the impression he is a very low Calvinist. 

Does this affect his understanding of what a hyper is? I'm a high Calvinist and admit this affects my view of what a hyper is.

j


----------



## Gord (Jul 31, 2009)

To over-emphasize divine sovereignty is the key. Where you stand on that issue slides you up or down the scale.


----------



## TeachingTulip (Aug 1, 2009)

Gord said:


> To over-emphasize divine sovereignty is the key. Where you stand on that issue slides you up or down the scale.



How can the divine sovereignty of God be over-emphasized?


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 1, 2009)

God has decreed to justify us from all eternity, but some hypers say that God actually has given us eternal justification (instead of decreeing to do so from eternity past but actually doing so in time). This appears to be a key mark of hyperism.


----------



## TeachingTulip (Aug 1, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> God has decreed to justify us from all eternity, but some hypers say that God actually has given us eternal justification (instead of decreeing to do so from eternity past but actually doing so in time). This appears to be a key mark of hyperism.



Which? The sovereign decree to justify or the accomplishment of justification by Christ? Which is the key mark of a "hyper" view? I do not understand.

God _did_ indeed sovereignly decree to justify His elect before creation, and it is by His sovereign grace that all the elect are justified by the cross work of His Son.

Is that not the gospel message?

So I question why faith placed in either the decree (covenant promise) or the cross (covenant performance) would ever be considered "hyper."

???


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 1, 2009)

God has decreed from all eternity to justify us - but this justification occurs in time. Some hypers place this justification actually from all eternity, thus denying that we were ever children of wrath, even as others.


----------



## cih1355 (Aug 1, 2009)

TeachingTulip said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > God has decreed to justify us from all eternity, but some hypers say that God actually has given us eternal justification (instead of decreeing to do so from eternity past but actually doing so in time). This appears to be a key mark of hyperism.
> ...



I think he is talking about how hyper Calvinists believe that the elect were justified before they were born.


----------



## TeachingTulip (Aug 1, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> God has decreed from all eternity to justify us - but this justification occurs in time.



Right.





> Some hypers place this justification actually from all eternity, thus denying that we were ever children of wrath, even as others.



The eternal decree of God to justify sinners, and the incarnation and sacrifice of Jesus Christ would not have been necessary if the elect were not descendents of Adam and therefore "by nature children of wrath, just as the others." Ephesians 2:3

To declare otherwise would be a denial of the Total Depravity of all men.

I have never met a Calvinist who has denied the doctrine of Total Depravity or taught that the elect were sinless before regeneration. Have you?

However, myself and many other Calvinists believe that the elect were predestined by God, before the foundation of the world, to receive all heavenly blessings in Christ (Eph. 1:4-6) and to share in His inheritance and glory (Romans 9:23). God never purposed any of His elect for destruction, as will be the end fate of all reprobate souls. (Romans 9:22)

Is this the view that is considered to be "hyper?"

-----Added 8/1/2009 at 01:16:15 EST-----



cih1355 said:


> TeachingTulip said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



When do you think the elect were justified?

There are three choices:

1. When the Father decreed to elect souls in Christ unto justification.
2. When the Son died on the cross to justify the elect.
3. When the Holy Spirit regenerated the elect, gifting them with faith and knowledge of their forgiveness (justification) before God.

Frankly, I believe one must accept all three truths in order to appreciate God's sovereign forgiveness and grace. Since two of these Godly works of grace done on my behalf, occurred before I was born, does believing so make me a hyper-Calvinist?


----------



## Hungus (Aug 1, 2009)

I think being where we are I would be remiss not pointing to Dr. C. Matthew McMahon's Critique Of Hyper-Calvinism. That being said, Phil Johnson's definition (which you have already mentioned) is a solid one, the denial of the well meant offer.

I think that if you look historically you will see that all "hyper calvinists" are high-calvinists/supra-lapserian, but certainly not all (or even a strong minority) of high/supra are hyper-calvinists.

Of course my old mentor (for a very short time and only because he assigned himself as such) Emir Caner, would tell us that more than 1 point makes one a hyper-calvinist, but then he says a lot of


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 1, 2009)

Often, when people use this term, they mean "Calvinism" (the "five points" TULIP) and simply do not understand it.

They do not understand how each point is necessarily dependent on each other for logical and biblical consistency, amounting to a deep biblical truth.

The "hyper" part would be where one does no evangelism, does not engage in it, justifying that by some notion that "God will do it, so we have no part." 

That, of course, is not biblical. God does command us to share, teach and preach the gospel, even to center our lives upon it. Though in a sense one is "passive" in receiving salvation, we are commanded to be pro-active in sharing it (ordinarily through the local church) because while God has ordained the ends (whether someone gets saved or not), he has also ordained the means (ordinarily, through preaching the gospel).

Not doing so is not Calvinism, nor related to it.


----------



## Gord (Aug 1, 2009)

TeachingTulip said:


> Gord said:
> 
> 
> > To over-emphasize divine sovereignty is the key. Where you stand on that issue slides you up or down the scale.
> ...


Of course it can not. That is not what Daniels is saying. It is the Hyper Calvinists *personal view* that Divine Sovereignty holds a *'higher'* position of importance then 'Human Responsibility', which would then classify him as a 'Low Calvinist' by comparison.

It's that 'old sin nature' that always has to pridefully come up with a better way than what God intended, of which I for one am constantly at war with.


----------



## Repre5entYHWH (Aug 1, 2009)

according to Norman Geisler we are all hypers and he's a moderate


----------



## Bookmeister (Aug 1, 2009)

According to the chart I am a Hyper-Calvinist.


----------



## ExGentibus (Aug 1, 2009)

For the Pelagians, Arminians are Hyper Calvinists; for the Arminians, all consistent, 5-point Calvinists are hypers; for low Calvinists, those who have a high view of God's grace are hypers; for the Hyper Calvinists, all other reformed are Amyraldians. 

Seriously, I agree with Dr. McMahon's definition of Hyper Calvinism, using Turretin's categories, as the tendency to explain everything from the "compound sense" of the Bible, i.e. the perspective of God, while downplaying the "divided sense", the human perspective.


----------



## JM (Aug 1, 2009)

I believe the chart is a great help in understanding the different beliefs held by Calvinists. Johnson's definition would label most of us Hypers.


----------



## steven-nemes (Aug 1, 2009)

I believe a lot of the hyper-Calvinist doctrines, then. Haha, my friends called me a hyper-Calvinist when I suggested that God doesn't love the reprobate, but maybe it's...true!!!


----------



## TeachingTulip (Aug 1, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> The "hyper" part would be where one does no evangelism, does not engage in it, justifying that by some notion that "God will do it, so we have no part."



Scott1 has provided the most accurate and historical definition of "Hyper-Calvinism," (far more accurate than Tony Byrne's chart) that rightfully defines the radicalism of the Anabaptists during the early Reformation years.

Those people separated so totally from the world system, that no evangelism was done, and the gospel was taught only in closed worship systems to those who were deemed to already be of the elect.

It is a very rare thing, these days, to meet up with a true Hyper-Calvinist who refuses to publically proclaim the gospel message of Jesus Christ. 

These types practice fatalism, which philosophy and lifestyle, as Scott1 posted, does not represent Calvinism or even Christianity at all.

Thus, calling a fellow Christian a "Hyper-Calvinist" is very demeaning in my opinion, and constitutes a slur when mistakenly applied to Christians who faithfully and indiscriminately proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, and desire with all their hearts to see God save souls through the hearing of His word.


----------



## AThornquist (Aug 1, 2009)

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who is more Calvinist than I am. Next question?


----------



## Bookmeister (Aug 1, 2009)

I thought a Hyper-Calvinist was a reformed Christian with ADHD


----------



## lynnie (Aug 1, 2009)

Good post Scott1.

My working definition is that all the people who sneered at the late Jack Miller and said New Life wasn't really a church were hypers. If that makes no sense, never mind, you had to be there


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Aug 1, 2009)

Hyper-Calvinism, basically, is all of those things that Arminians falsely accuse plain old Calvinism of being.


----------



## jogri17 (Aug 1, 2009)

Dr. Curt Daniel did his doctoral discertation on this. He essentially defined it as a twisted a form of reformed theology that is always superlasperian in nature, usually credo baptist (though some have been padeo), an over emphesis on the sovereignity of God verses the responsibility and freedom of man, and the key deffining point is a refusal to offer Christ freely to anyone and tell them that''if they repent God will save them and He wants them to repent'' or something to that effect. This is an academic and theological posistion not just a slur used to label someone as. He would say John Gill is a hyper-calvinist at its best and someone like the phelps gang is hypercalvinism at its worst.


----------



## JM (Aug 1, 2009)

Didn't Daniel deny in his PhD thesis that Calvin did not hold to limited atonement? I thought I read that on this forum somewhere.

j


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 1, 2009)

My definition of a hyper-Calvinist is my son. He simply cannot sit still and is constantly scratching himself and fidgeting during worship.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 1, 2009)

Listen, hyper-calvinism is a real threat and it is much more than just what Arminians call true calvinists.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 1, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Listen, hyper-calvinism is a real threat and it is much more than just what Arminians call true calvinists.



I'm not certain defining _what_ a hyper-Calvinist is. It's a term thrown around as if it exists according to an easy set of criteria.

In my estimation, Confessional subscription turns out to be a better barometer for whether a man or woman has a healthy apprehension of the broad theological concepts because people can get into trouble in any number of areas. It would be too easy to label somebody a hyper-Calvinist and not try to figure out where the real issues lie.

If we take the term "Calvinist" to mean someone who is hitting on all cylinders with respect to Reformed orthodoxy then then wouldn't the person who is not simply "lukewarm" about those issues be a hyper-Calvinist? But then we would go on to discover that what we're really trying to put our finger on falls under a specific issue within the spectrum of theology.

From a moderating standpoint, we've never suspended a person for being a "hyper-Calvinist" because we're usually dealing with something specific and defining them as a hyper-Calvinist is really too broad to define.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 1, 2009)

I think some would deny even that there is such a thing as hyper-calvinism, but I would defend the notion that hyper-calvinism exists and is a danger. That is the reason for my post above. All accusations of hyper-calvinism, therefore, are not just Arminians calling us all Hyper...but there are actual hyperists and their doctrines must be fought.

There are signs and symptoms of hypercalvinism, which Phil Johnson has done a good job describing. The holders of hyper-calvinism teach false doctrine and are not merely another acceptable variety of calvinism.


All house and no doors: A Brief Critique of Hypercalvinism

A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism

-----Added 8/1/2009 at 05:34:07 EST-----

p.s. of course, a good follow-up question would be whether one can be a real hyper-calvinist and still be confessional.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 1, 2009)

My problem with a quick definition is that it is reductionistic. If we reduce "Calvinism" to a few simple ideas then it leaves other problem areas off the table that can be very problematic. Can a person even be considered a Calvinist and be un-Confessional on key points?


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 1, 2009)

There are plenty of "un-confessional" calvinistic baptists. That is why some try to hold the copyright to the usage of the term "Reformed" -- to keep out those Calvy Baptists.


----------



## jogri17 (Aug 1, 2009)

He has made that statement in his history and theology of calvinism series. If you were to ask him today he would say not that he DENIED it (never said that) rather he spoke in the matter in such a way that either a 4 pointer or 5 pointer could be satisfied. Because this was not a major theological concern at the time he never had the time to develop a doctrine of the atonement as specific as was done in generation to come.

-----Added 8/1/2009 at 06:10:27 EST-----



Joshua said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > He would say John Gill is a hyper-calvinist at its best and someone like the phelps gang is hypercalvinism at its worst.
> ...


Both are credo baptists and reformed baptists. I am a presbyterian so I have no dog in this fight about Gill. One can affirm God's using of Gill and his great works while at the same time acknowledging he had a theological inballance. I can do the same with Theodore Beza, Spurgeon, Calvin, Bavinck, Kuyper, no theologian is perfect. It is jsut that Gill's particular theology affirmed both in theory and practice the historical deffinition of hyper calvinism.


----------



## the particular baptist (Aug 1, 2009)

Joshua said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > He would say John Gill is a hyper-calvinist at its best and someone like the phelps gang is hypercalvinism at its worst.
> ...



I agree. 

Curt Daniel just comes across like he has it out for and makes a point in going after Gill and that raised the yellow flags for me. 

Tom Nettles is far more balanced and fair with respect to Gill.


----------



## pm (Aug 2, 2009)

*Hyper-Calvinist of Late*



Joshua said:


> . . . . . Unfortunately, as of late, one is purportedly a Hyper-Calvinist if they don't believe that God _sincerely desire_ the salvation of the very ones whom He has decreed to damnation.  Ba-Lone-y.



In talking to some non-reformed, and even some reformed, Joshua's quote is indeed correct.


----------



## pm (Aug 2, 2009)

*Sovereignty of God*



TeachingTulip said:


> Gord said:
> 
> 
> > To over-emphasize divine sovereignty is the key. Where you stand on that issue slides you up or down the scale.
> ...



You cannot over-emphasized the sovereignty of God.

His sovereignty knows no limits.

Where I think some have gotten into trouble, is they say God's sovereignty overrides what the Bible commands us to do. This say, since God is sovereign, we don't need to evangelize, or be obedient, etc, etc, etc.

Why, if God is sovereign, do we need to do anything? 
I don't know, but the Bible commands it.

Here we have two Biblical principles that seem to contradict each other, 
we trust that in God they are resolved in a higher principle we cannot understand.


----------



## TeachingTulip (Aug 2, 2009)

pmkadow said:


> TeachingTulip said:
> 
> 
> > Gord said:
> ...



Yes, this is resorting to a fatalistic attitude and lifestyle, and often the practice of antinomianism, as well. A philosophical cop-out, if you will.





> I don't know, but the Bible commands it.
> 
> Here we have two Biblical principles that seem to contradict each other,
> we trust that in God they are resolved in a higher principle we cannot understand.




The duty of man is to faithfully submit his will to the sovereign will of God, and turn from sin, according to God's good and holy law, by the power of God's grace and mercies. There shouldn't be anything more mysterious to resolve. 

Jesus Christ manifested and exemplified this "higher principle" of perfected human accountability during His sinless incarnation, when He submitted His human will to the Father in all things. And the righteousness achieved by His perfect demonstration of human accountability has been imputed to all the sons of God.

So, unless I am just being overly simplistic, I do not see any unsurmountable contradictions between the teachings of the sovereignty of God and the teachings of duty-faith (human responsibility.)

As far as a believer practices faith in Christ's example, accomplishments, and mediation, through the enabling power of the indwelling Holy Spirit of Christ, by submitting his will to the Father while repenting from besetting sins . . . spiritual harmony and blessings are known.


----------



## charliejunfan (Aug 2, 2009)

A hyper-Calvinist is simply a Calvinist who is lazy, I think it's silly to define them other than that, because many could have the beliefs that are mentioned here and yet still evangelize and so on.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 2, 2009)

There are theological distinctions of hyper-calvinism. They may be lazy, but they are also theologically in error.


----------



## Spinningplates2 (Aug 2, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> There are theological distinctions of hyper-calvinism. They may be lazy, but they are also theologically in error.



Who are some people who are modern hyper-calvinist? Where can we see leaders today saying, "I never witness, it's not my duty." No one is would say that in the Church today.(not that I have heard anyway)

I have heard of one group somewhere on the upper east coast that think that only Calvinist are saved, is that who we are talking about? Because surly most people do not consider Gill and other in error.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 3, 2009)

PRISTINE GRACE WEB SITE

http://www.theopedia.com/Eternal_justification

The doctrine of eternal justification is no small error and is advocated by some today.


----------



## Spinningplates2 (Aug 3, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> PRISTINE GRACE WEB SITE
> 
> http://www.theopedia.com/Eternal_justification
> 
> The doctrine of eternal justification is no small error and is advocated by some today.



On the page linked to above, on Eternal Justification, what do you find wrong with the people being quoted?

I really like; Pink, Kuyper,Calvin, and Turretin.


----------



## pm (Aug 3, 2009)

*A.W. Pink*



Spinningplates2 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > PRISTINE GRACE WEB SITE
> ...



Pink's thinking matured over his years. Toward the end of his life he did not want his earlier writings published. But after his death he become more popular and most if not all of his writing were published, even his earlier ones. In Iain Murry's biography he suggests only reading his writings after 1929.


----------



## jogri17 (Aug 3, 2009)

PactumServa72 said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> > jogri17 said:
> ...


I really don't think that is a fair statement. Curt Daniel's phd was in this subject specifically on the connection between Gill and Hypercalvinism. He owns and has read every book written by Gill (many 1st editions picked up) and has discussed this matter with several big name theologians and there is a general concenus by historical theologians that Gill was indeed the prototype hyper-calvinist.

-----Added 8/3/2009 at 07:18:08 EST-----



Spinningplates2 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > PRISTINE GRACE WEB SITE
> ...



The problem with eternal justification by faith alone is that: 1. its not taught in scripture. Also just note that PInk changed his mind on this issue.

-----Added 8/3/2009 at 07:22:10 EST-----

To paraphrase an arminian in this case: ''God is commanding you to repent and desires you to be saved this day. Choose this day whom you shall serve. Repent and believe the Gospel''. If you can't say this to anyone you meet then you are in some sense a hyper-Calvinist.


----------



## jogri17 (Aug 3, 2009)

Joshua said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > To paraphrase an arminian in this case: ''God is commanding you to repent and desires you to be saved this day. Choose this day whom you shall serve. Repent and believe the Gospel''. If you can't say this to anyone you meet then you are in some sense a hyper-Calvinist.
> ...



With all due respect here I believe 100% you are wrong here. Just because God desires in one sense that ALL HUMANITY to be saved that doesn't mean that he is obligated to save all and plan to save all in election. A special desire and love to save his elect (foreknowledge) for reasons unknown and not dependent upon us. God love all of humanity in a very real and amazing sense! Common grace is not common; Dog's don't have it! It's a special gift God has given to a sinful hummanity just for being image bearers of God (something he did to us in creation through the Federal Headship of Adam).


----------



## Prufrock (Aug 3, 2009)

I want to second Josh's statements. God's general _philanthropia_ should not be mistaken for some (actual, earnest) desire unto salvation of all men. The former ought certainly to be affirmed; while the latter is rightly denied. He stands willing and ready to save all and any who turn to him; he commands this of all men; he externally calls all who hear to him; he commends his salvation as good for man; but these do not add up to an actual, "internal desire" on God's part for all men to be saved.


----------



## jogri17 (Aug 3, 2009)

Joshua said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > With all due respect here I believe 100% you are wrong here. Just because God desires in one sense that ALL HUMANITY to be saved that doesn't mean that he is obligated to save all and plan to save all in election. A special desire and love to save his elect (foreknowledge) for reasons unknown and not dependent upon us. God love all of humanity in a very real and amazing sense! Common grace is not common; Dog's don't have it! It's a special gift God has given to a sinful hummanity just for being image bearers of God (something he did to us in creation through the Federal Headship of Adam).
> ...



With all due respect sir, I never called anyone a hyper-Calvinist ever except for John Gill (and the crazy Phelps god hates ___X____ group). If I have have called anyone else that I would ask that you show me. My comments on Gill are based on my limited reading of Him (I freely confess that) but also upon my friend's Doctoral discertation Dr. Curt Daniel. Given its the only discertation that I know of (I checked) in either the english and french languages on this subject and it was approved by the University of Edinburgh and he has had conversations with men like Rev. Iain H. Murry, Dr. J.I. Packer, Dr. James M. Boice, Phil Johnson ect... and they were in agreement with his thesis I suggest interacting with that disertation. But I do not know how to be faithful to passages such as: 

25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. 27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. 28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. Matthew 11

Clearly God has choosen to reveal tem not ''unto the wise and prudent'' but has ''unto babes'' yet at the same time Jesus calls ALL to rest in Him.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 3, 2009)

Jogri, the problem here is that a simple saying "God wants all to come to a saving knowledge of Him" is not clear. Reformed folk make a distinction between the revealed will of God (or "preceptive") and the decretal will of God. One has to be clear about this distinction. It is quite correct to say that the Gospel should be offered to all without exception, and that it is a genuine offer of the Gospel. But that is not equivalent to an unqualified "God wants to save you" type of statement. This is where the confusion is coming in, if I am not mistaken. God does not take delight in the death of the wicked, but reveals in His word the offer of the Gospel to all. But this is not the same as saying God's decretal will desires all to be saved. This kind of care is important. Otherwise, we have a God who can't even bring about what He wants to have happen. The whole problem can easily be resolved by attaching a rider on such statements: "For all who believe, Christ died for them. Don't you want to be someone for whom Christ died?"


----------



## jogri17 (Aug 3, 2009)

greenbaggins said:


> Jogri, the problem here is that a simple saying "God wants all to come to a saving knowledge of Him" is not clear. Reformed folk make a distinction between the revealed will of God (or "preceptive") and the decretal will of God. One has to be clear about this distinction. It is quite correct to say that the Gospel should be offered to all without exception, and that it is a genuine offer of the Gospel. But that is not equivalent to an unqualified "God wants to save you" type of statement. This is where the confusion is coming in, if I am not mistaken. God does not take delight in the death of the wicked, but reveals in His word the offer of the Gospel to all. But this is not the same as saying God's decretal will desires all to be saved. This kind of care is important. Otherwise, we have a God who can't even bring about what He wants to have happen. The whole problem can easily be resolved by attaching a rider on such statements: "For all who believe, Christ died for them. Don't you want to be someone for whom Christ died?"


a fair point but I would say that 
1. If the Gospel is to be offered to all and the Gospel has an objective content including the Work of Christ
2. and Then if Christ died for all sufficiently for all those who would believe
3. then logically we can tell sinners That Christ died ''so that sinners like you could be reconsilled to God and all you have to do is repent and believe the Gospel''. 

Your point is taken about wording however.


----------



## Prufrock (Aug 3, 2009)

jogri17 said:


> a fair point but I would say that
> 1. If the Gospel is to be offered to all and the Gospel has an objective content including the Work of Christ
> 2. and Then if Christ died for all sufficiently for all those who would believe
> 3. then logically we can tell sinners That Christ died ''so that sinners like you could be reconsilled to God and all you have to do is repent and believe the Gospel''.



In the following, I am elaborating upon an example presented by Charles Hodge, and modifying it to the current situation. Picture, if you will, a man who sets out in a rescue boat to save his family, which is drowning after their cruise ship sank. There are 4 members of his family; but the boat can hold 50. His _purpose_ in setting out with the rescue boat is _only_ to rescue his family (everyone else is already dead). The _means by which_ he attempts to find his family and draw them unto him is by crying out through the water, "If you can hear my voice, come!" The fact that no one other than his family comes has nothing to do with the sufficiency of his boat (it has enough room for all). His purpose was to save his family; the objective soteric object was sufficient for all; and the means by which he carries out his purpose is by calling to all. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that the purpose of the rescue boat was in anyway to save all.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 3, 2009)

jogri17 said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > Jogri, the problem here is that a simple saying "God wants all to come to a saving knowledge of Him" is not clear. Reformed folk make a distinction between the revealed will of God (or "preceptive") and the decretal will of God. One has to be clear about this distinction. It is quite correct to say that the Gospel should be offered to all without exception, and that it is a genuine offer of the Gospel. But that is not equivalent to an unqualified "God wants to save you" type of statement. This is where the confusion is coming in, if I am not mistaken. God does not take delight in the death of the wicked, but reveals in His word the offer of the Gospel to all. But this is not the same as saying God's decretal will desires all to be saved. This kind of care is important. Otherwise, we have a God who can't even bring about what He wants to have happen. The whole problem can easily be resolved by attaching a rider on such statements: "For all who believe, Christ died for them. Don't you want to be someone for whom Christ died?"
> ...



I don't have any problem with your wording it this way. It is the "God desires you to be saved" that seems a bit iffy on the wording, and open to misunderstanding. Cheers


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 3, 2009)

greenbaggins said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > greenbaggins said:
> ...



As Lane notes, your 3-point presentation above is not what you were saying before (i.e. "God wants to save you", said indiscriminately to every person you meet). What you've done above is present in those 3 points a reasonable statement which is consistent with the view that God does NOT desire to save every human being.


----------



## jogri17 (Aug 3, 2009)

greenbaggins said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > greenbaggins said:
> ...



Fair enough but I do not think we have to be theologially precise in all aspects of our lives (accurate and faithful is another matter... I once saw a tract that talked about the covenant of redemption... a bit unnecessary to give to the average person on the street). I do think it is helpful to use the language of ''different senses'' in talking about God's desires. I desire Cheese cake every day but I'm not going to buy it even though I could. I know the analogy falls apart but if we can have mutiple desires and levels and types I think that is being apart of being in the image of God. Surely God did not want National Israel to reject the messiah (the individuals involved in the covenant community) but clearly God ordained that to happen by the promise of the new covenant.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 3, 2009)

I believe that we should have a growing precision in how we speak no matter where we are. Being precise is pretty much the same thing as being clear (unless one is going over someone else's head: wisdom will help discern this one). Besides, if you are speaking on this discussion board and wish to avoid problems, precision is certainly advantageous.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 3, 2009)

jogri17 said:


> Fair enough but I do not think we have to be theologially precise in all aspects of our lives (accurate and faithful is another matter... I once saw a tract that talked about the covenant of redemption... a bit unnecessary to give to the average person on the street). I do think it is helpful to use the language of ''different senses'' in talking about God's desires. I desire Cheese cake every day but I'm not going to buy it even though I could. I know the analogy falls apart but if we can have mutiple desires and levels and types I think that is being apart of being in the image of God. Surely God did not want National Israel to reject the messiah (the individuals involved in the covenant community) but clearly God ordained that to happen by the promise of the new covenant.



Your desire for cheesecake analogy is a false one - you are making God in your own image, quite frankly, by positing conflicting desires within the Godhead. God ordained that National Israel would reject the Messiah, and it came to pass. He desired that this be the way to the next step in the fulfillment of history. To talk about God "not wanting" something to happen but that in fact does is to make God out to have a problem in fulfilling his desires. This is to make him impotent.

One of the problems with positing some sort of different levels of desire is that we don't talk that way on the street. Desire is desire - you want something or you don't. If you want it, you make your best effort to get it, and sometimes you fail (though not through a lack of wanting it). 

This isn't how God acts, AT ALL. Further, when you speak of desiring to save in an evangelistic situation, you are presenting desire in terms of "full willingness" - you aren't presenting that God loves you, but only, well, maybe he loves you sort of generally, or maybe he loves you specifically. No, you are presenting "love" and "desire" in a full sense - a sense you do not have the right to employ.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 3, 2009)

Here we go again. God is conflicted with his desires. Someone please direct this man to Ruben's posts on this topic.

Okay.. Here it is. http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/figurative-descriptions-god-48694/


----------



## Spinningplates2 (Aug 3, 2009)

Hyper-Calvinist are this modern ages Bigfoot. Everyone talks about them but no one shows me one.


----------



## sealdaSupralapsarian (Aug 3, 2009)

Yo,

*My name alone should let you know what type of Calvinist I am. There is a lot of hyper-Calvinist in the High and Low Calvinist congregations. When is the last time any of them actually witnessed to the ungodly? I bet many Calvinist haven't witnessed or engaged a person evangelistically all week. Month. Year. Since they been saved. Remember I said many and not all.

Therefore, many of them are Hyper-Calvinist in Practice not in confession. Their surrounding community, local gov't, and etc are left totally unaffected and reached with the Standards and precepts of God.

But, on the other note. I'm a RETARDED High Calvinist. *

Grace and Peace,
seal


----------



## jogri17 (Aug 3, 2009)

Spinningplates2 said:


> Hyper-Calvinist are this modern ages Bigfoot. Everyone talks about them but no one shows me one.


I could show you several, but those persons would get offended and insist they are not.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 3, 2009)

jogri17 said:


> Spinningplates2 said:
> 
> 
> > Hyper-Calvinist are this modern ages Bigfoot. Everyone talks about them but no one shows me one.
> ...



Be VERY careful making such statements, Joseph. It would be best if you were a little more circumspect in your claims. I suspect from what you've posted here many of those you accuse of this would be correct in their self-defense.


----------



## jogri17 (Aug 3, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > Spinningplates2 said:
> ...



Well if my deffinition is right I would be right. But I have only meet one hyper-Calvinist in real life (I don't include internet) and he would be one of those types of persons who called the OPC no different than the PCUSA, most psalters song books of satan and and insisted that If God truely wants someone to be saved through the preaching of the world through providence He or she would be brought to the church, hear expository sermons (defined as almost like a commentary) and the Holy Spirit would jsut do His stuff at His own pleasure. Also just a side note: there is also a strong connection between antinomianism and and hyper calvinism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 3, 2009)

jogri17 said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > jogri17 said:
> ...



This is odd. You don't want to be theologically precise regarding the nature of God's emotions and yet, on the basis of the imprecision, you are precise in defining who a hyper-Calvinist is. In other words, someone who disagrees with your imprecise understanding of God's emotions is, by definition, precisely unorthodox with respect to God's emotions and thus a hyper-Calvinist?

This gets to the point I made earlier about nailing jello to a wall. If you don't want to be theologically precise then that's fine but that also means that, at the bar of rendering judgment about the motives of others and their Evangelical zeal, the best you can offer is an imprecise critique of where they err.

Even those that fall of the deep end theologically often do so out of ignorance or being led astray. If we, who are Spiritual, have any hope of restoring them then we need to sometimes be surgical in the application of God's Word to restore a Brother.


----------



## jogri17 (Aug 3, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > greenbaggins said:
> ...



So are you saying you would talk about election, reprobation, the economies of the covenants with a person with whom God has in His providence has opened up the ability to have a conversation? We ought to feel free to use every day non-technical language when it comes to the peaching of the Gopel.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 3, 2009)

jogri17 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > jogri17 said:
> ...



I'm confused yet again. Where did I ever talk about how I share the Gospel?

You stated that we need not be theologically precise about the nature of God's emotions and that you believe that the lack of precision is commendatory but you are very precise about defining who is/isn't a hyper-Calvinist based upon your own view of how a person ought to be imprecise.

I'm trying to understand the basis by which you render a certain judgment of unorthodoxy upon others in this area when orthodoxy is simply your "spder sense" of how you want to describe God.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 3, 2009)

jogri17 said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > jogri17 said:
> ...



I don't think you're going to get out of your overblown rhetoric this easily.

So where are the "several" you talked about?

And why did you waste time talking about your insistence that if one refuses to say "God desires your salvation" to everyone you meet on the street, one is a hyper-calvinist? 

I refuse to say that, as do many in this board. Are we all hyper-calvinists? Are we the "several" you talked about?


----------



## jogri17 (Aug 3, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > Semper Fidelis said:
> ...


I do not have any sort of spidy sense (I just look for the batsignal in the air of my mind). Yet all my comments about tbeing theologically precise was in the context not of discussion amoung christians but in evangelism which gets to the heart of what hypercalvinism is.

-----Added 8/3/2009 at 01:56:26 EST-----



toddpedlar said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > toddpedlar said:
> ...



I never said that and I will not give names unless there is a general concensus amoung mainstream reformed theologians who are able to do good historical theology. "God desires your salvation" I thought we were way past that misunderstanding.  I clearly later on in the conversation what I meant by that.  I will defend to the death that any sort of calvinism or reformed theology that refuses to say that God's revealed will in the Scriptures is that ANYONE WHO REPENTS AND EXERCISES SAVING FAITH will be saved.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Aug 3, 2009)

I wrote a paper on Hyper-Calvinism some time back. It deals with the problems of many so-called "definitions" and closes on a concise historical definition. I also interacted with Curt Daniel's definition from his PhD thesis. See here if you are interested: What is Hyper-Calvinism?

Some of the discussion above tends to stray from the defining points of historic Hyper-Calvinism in my estimation. Variations in High Calvinism addressing God's desire, the objective provisions of the atonement, or common grace do not make one a hyper-Calvinist (technically speaking).

All too often Hyper-Calvinism is used in a non-technical sense as a pejorative for anyone to the right of one's own understanding.


----------



## jogri17 (Aug 3, 2009)

Joshua said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > I thought we were way past that misunderstanding.  I clearly later on in the conversation what I meant by that.
> ...



Then I would not call you a hyper-Calvinist. Hyper calvinists is to calvinism what Baxterianism is to Calvism on the other extreme. Both are wrong and both don't necessarily damn someone in and of themselves but theologically both are inbalanced.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 3, 2009)

jogri17 said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> > jogri17 said:
> ...



Good, then we're agreed. We all agree that any who repents and exercises saving faith will be saved. We all agree that the elect only are those who will come to Christ, and that upon meeting someone on the street we cannot know whether God intends to that person's salvation or not. We can only be faithful to the Gospel. Further, we then should agree that one should never say "God desires your salvation" in an evangelistic situation, because we cannot know that, only God can. Rather, we should say that "Christ died to save sinners, and it is only through faith in Him that one can be saved." Mucking up the works by telling people things that we cannot know is a mistake and little more than "salesmanship". 

This was a lot of virtual ink spilled over what seems to be a very elementary point.


----------



## charliejunfan (Aug 3, 2009)

"Charlie, I understand why you're saying this, but I disagree that it's silly to try and peg down a definition. I think it's very important, because true Hyper-Calvinism is a problem, just as hypo-Calvinism (i.e. semi-Pelagianism, Pelagianism, and Arminianism) is. Thus, we need to understand the errors in their teaching so as to not fall prey to the rationalism that comes with such pernicious doctrine. Any one holding denial of the following beliefs:

1. Regeneration is necessary for salvation,
2. Ministers have the obligation to preach the good news to all men indiscriminately
3. All men without exception have a duty and obligation to repent and believe the good news

... has problems with biblical revelation. As Calvinists, we believe the Bible. So Hyper-Calvinism is no Calvinism at all, since all three of the above tenants are true and Biblical."


You're absolutely right Josh


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 3, 2009)

jogri17 said:


> So are you saying you would talk about election, reprobation, the economies of the covenants with a person with whom God has in His providence has opened up the ability to have a conversation? We ought to feel free to use every day non-technical language when it comes to the peaching of the Gopel.




I know you are discussing this with Semper, but yes I would. And I have. In fact I just led someone to Christ recently with the help of a few others on this board. I did mention the Covenants and that God only gives eyes to see and ears to hear the gospel. I used everday language along with Biblical language. We discussed the Covenants and I had to do some explaining because our society is ignorant of the word but I bet you would be a bit impressed how some people do grasp the nomenclature of theology when it is explained. 

In fact when I became a Christian I wasn't born again with an arminian understanding. I became a Christian by reading the scriptures. And when I read John 15:16 I believed it. I was chosen by him and ordained to go and bear fruit. It isn't that hard.


----------



## Laudante (Aug 4, 2009)

Spinningplates2 said:


> Hyper-Calvinist are this modern ages Bigfoot. Everyone talks about them but no one shows me one.



I agree with this. Hyper-calvinism, as defined very ably by Pergamum and Joshua is certainly a major heresy, but not because it is Hyper-Calvinistic, but simply because it´s another form of antinomianism, provided there are real adherents to it. If one makes of Divine sovereignty something that annihilates any human responsibility (and it seems that the key of Hyper Calvinism lies here), he is just another antinomianist of the pile. A person who says that he doesn´t have to do anything because he is an elect, and because everything is foreordained by God (which is true, by the way), is not more calvinist than Calvin, but much less so. It is an hypo-Calivinist. And besides, you can tell 99% that he is not an elect one, indeed, or at least that his time of regeneration hasn´t come yet.

In my humble opinion, the key of the issue lies in the so-called "two wills of God". Arminianism and that that we are calling Hyper-Calvinism seem to have a common root: a marked inability to understand these "two wills". The former generates an impotent god that wills the salvation of all, but is unable to produce it, while the latter makes God the author of sin, and represent Him as delighting in the damnation of some men, as if this was an end in itself. I wrote a 12-page article in which I endeavor to solve the problems of both infra and supra schemes, but I´ll subject it to review before presenting it here. It´s not that difficult, I believe, to make a new satisfactory scheme taking the best of both sides. But what is basic, I think, is to avoid any attempt to "justify" God of His decrees, as the infralapsarian scheme usually tries to do, incurring in lots of inconsistencies, In my humble opinion. 

I´ve found that there is a very lax use of the term hyper-Calvinist by all the parties. hyper-Calvinist is something no one wants to be labelled as, but that everyone feels free to apply to those He considers the ultra right-wing party in Theology. Usually, in reformed circles, it is applied to any supralapsarian, indiscriminately, but this is completely wrong. The vast majority of supralapsarians believe that:

1. Regeneration is necessary for salvation,
2. Ministers have the obligation to preach the good news to all men indiscriminately
3. All men without exception have a duty and obligation to repent and believe the good news
4. God is not the author of sin.
5. Everything that God commands should be done.
6. God has a preceptive as well as decretive will. 
7. The damnation of the wicked is not a pleasure for God, nor is it an end in itself, but a means to accomplish His ultimate goal. 

Outside of Reformed circles, the term is used ofter to describe anyone who dares to believe that God is something more than a mere spectator of the events. I´ve find in many websites (especially in those created by Campbellites and other sensationalists) the abusive use of Hyper-Calvinism as anything that implies even to a minimum degree that God is sovereign. Just see this example, out of many possible, taken from an article called "Hyper-Calvinism in the Church exposed":



> "Sovereign", to Engedi and the PCA means that God controls each and every event. However, this is NOT a Biblical concept (!). God created humanity with a free will and no one is ever predestinated to heaven or hell. No one who sinned blamed God.



This is hyper-Calvinism for them (I wonder what simple "Calvinism" could be!)

Now, regarding the cheeskake issue and the conflict of desires in God, maybe I wouldn´t put in in those terms, but it is still important to distinguish between the preceptive and the decretive (I hope this word is correct in English) "wills". Obviously, in an ultimate sense, the decretive will is the absolute, and God has one final goal, namely, summing all things in Christ (Eph.1:10), and to accomplish this will he has decreed anything that was and is to happen in His creation, including the reprobation of some (Prov. 16:4). But it would be incorrect to say that he wants men to sin. No one here would say, I think, that it is false to tell an homosexual: "God WANTS you to stop practicing your sin", and still, in another sense, the sin of this person was decreed by God Himself, because otherwise it would have never happened. The homosexuality of this person was not an accident that occurred in the universe of God. But nevertheless God wants this person to repent and stop sinning, in His preceptive will, no matter if he is an elect or not. Now, sin is not only trangression of the law, but also lack of conformity, and in this sense it can be fair to say that since the law commands to love God, and believe in His word, you can also say to any person: "God WANTS you to love Him and believe in Christ", even if he is not an elect (a thing which none of us can know). The fact that this person fails to obey is not a failure on the part of God, of course, nor is it that the command wasn´t sincere, but simply that there is a higher end for which God decrees something different, in the case of this person, from what His preceptive will commands him to do. 

WGT Shedd states about 15 reasons for which we have to preach the Gospel, and explaining why the offer is sincere, which he expunds immediately after defending the limited atonement doctrine. So one thing doesn´t hinder the other. (see Dogm. Theol. II "Vicarious Atonement")

Sorry for the long post, I´m a compulsive writer.

In Christ


----------



## JM (Aug 4, 2009)

Joshua said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > With all due respect here I believe 100% you are wrong here. Just because God desires in one sense that ALL HUMANITY to be saved that doesn't mean that he is obligated to save all and plan to save all in election. A special desire and love to save his elect (foreknowledge) for reasons unknown and not dependent upon us. God love all of humanity in a very real and amazing sense! Common grace is not common; Dog's don't have it! It's a special gift God has given to a sinful hummanity just for being image bearers of God (something he did to us in creation through the Federal Headship of Adam).
> ...



Well written.


----------

