earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Could one not see that if one lacks trust he does not assent? In other words, I cannot see how one assents without trust.
Am I a Hyper-Calvinist?
- Thread starter JM
- Start date
- Status
Could one not see that if one lacks trust he does not assent? In other words, I cannot see how one assents without trust.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
All of the magisterial Reformers defined faith as consisting of knowledge, assent, and trust--making clear that this last element meant that the one exercising faith not only believed something propositionally but received and rested upon Christ as He is freely offered in the gospel. There is something, in other words, personal and not merely propositional about saving faith as highlighted by WLC 72:
Q. 72. What is justifying faith?
A. Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.
The answer makes it clear that faith "not only" assents to the truth, "but" also receives and rests upon Christ (thus embracing both the propositional and the personal). This is true justifying faith. Anything less is not. Faith is not merely an assent to the truth but also trusting in Christ. For Rome, faith was defined by assent, albeit such assent yielded "unformed faith." It was "caritas" (love), Aquinas and company asserted, that was added to assent to make it "formed faith." Luther said, and Calvin agreed with him, "where they say 'caritas' we say 'fiducia.'" Luther understood that love was a fruit of faith and not properly part of saving faith, but trust was. This is reflected in WLC 72. Even as the distinction between faith and its accompanying graces (like repentance) and its fruit (good works) is recognized in WLC 73.
Peace,
Alan
Q. 72. What is justifying faith?
A. Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.
The answer makes it clear that faith "not only" assents to the truth, "but" also receives and rests upon Christ (thus embracing both the propositional and the personal). This is true justifying faith. Anything less is not. Faith is not merely an assent to the truth but also trusting in Christ. For Rome, faith was defined by assent, albeit such assent yielded "unformed faith." It was "caritas" (love), Aquinas and company asserted, that was added to assent to make it "formed faith." Luther said, and Calvin agreed with him, "where they say 'caritas' we say 'fiducia.'" Luther understood that love was a fruit of faith and not properly part of saving faith, but trust was. This is reflected in WLC 72. Even as the distinction between faith and its accompanying graces (like repentance) and its fruit (good works) is recognized in WLC 73.
Peace,
Alan
Last edited:
JOwen
Puritan Board Junior
The difference lies in the distinction between historical faith and saving faith. One can believe that Christ rose form the dead, and not have a saving interest by personal persuasion that He rose for him. Historical faith is one element of saving faith, but is not saving faith itself. Clark made the very serious error of modified Sandemanianism. Robert Sandeman taught that the nature of saving faith is the mere intellectual assent to a fact or proposition concerning the person and work of Christ.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Pastor Lewis is, of course, correct and this is a serious error. This is one of several reasons why the taxonomy offered above is deficient and misleading. T. Beza was certainly more scholastic in his theological method than was his mentor, Calvin, and appears to have been supralapsarian (though that's not really at issue in the "hyper-Calvinism" discussion). Beza, however, did not make the Sandemanian error as did Clark, which puts the latter in a different category, brilliant as he was (Dr. Clark was a remarkably brilliant man, testified both by his writings and by those who knew him).
The list is evidently made by someone who out-Calvins Calvin and puts three classes above Calvin. Historically, the number who would fall in those classes that out-Calvin Calvin is small (unless we wish to re-introduce a new Calvin vs. the Calvinists paradigm that Muller, Beeke, Venema and others have successfully exploded). I find it dismaying that these positions can be so cavilierly set forth and embraced. Many of these matters (particularly on the question of the warrant of faith, nature of faith, a gospel call that comes to sinners, justification by faith applied in time by the Spirit, etc.) are clearly confessional positions.
I fear that the adopting of these narrower and more-Calvin-than-Calvin positions tend to sectarianism and a narrow and contracted view of our faith. I lament this tendency that some who consider themselves Calvinists indulge in, all of which tends to paint God in less than the best light. Our God is indeed ineffably holy. He is also more gracious than any of us can begin to imagine. We dare not portray Him as less gracious than He is.
Peace,
Alan
The list is evidently made by someone who out-Calvins Calvin and puts three classes above Calvin. Historically, the number who would fall in those classes that out-Calvin Calvin is small (unless we wish to re-introduce a new Calvin vs. the Calvinists paradigm that Muller, Beeke, Venema and others have successfully exploded). I find it dismaying that these positions can be so cavilierly set forth and embraced. Many of these matters (particularly on the question of the warrant of faith, nature of faith, a gospel call that comes to sinners, justification by faith applied in time by the Spirit, etc.) are clearly confessional positions.
I fear that the adopting of these narrower and more-Calvin-than-Calvin positions tend to sectarianism and a narrow and contracted view of our faith. I lament this tendency that some who consider themselves Calvinists indulge in, all of which tends to paint God in less than the best light. Our God is indeed ineffably holy. He is also more gracious than any of us can begin to imagine. We dare not portray Him as less gracious than He is.
Peace,
Alan
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
So you think one can believe that a man can believe Jesus died and rose from the dead and that He is Lord and not be saved? Now I know the reformers said there are 3 parts of biblical faith and I agree. The point is I do not believe one can have the first two "parts" without possessing the third. What I have found lacking in unbelievers is the assent in the real Jesus and a placement of trust in a false Christ.
Transfer the question from men to angels and the answer is obvious. Elect angels believe and wonder; they have no need of salvation, and therefore exercise no trust in it. Fallen angels believe and tremble; they have no part nor lot in the matter, and therefore exercise no trust in it. Likewise a rational man might assent to all the truths of the gospel, but if he does not believe Jesus Christ is for him, or that he has need of Him, and if he does not come to rely upon and rest in Jesus Christ for salvation, he does not have saving faith in Christ. See John 6:53.
Gesetveemet
Puritan Board Sophomore
It goes like this "a complete Saviour for a complete wretch" may the Lord help us.
JOwen
Puritan Board Junior
On more troubling thought that I remembered last night as I went to bed is this 'confession' in quotes above. It is typical of theoretical antinomianism in the vein of the Gospel Standard, which sets aside the obligation of the moral law as a rule of life for the believer including the abiding nature of the 4th commandment.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
The "transfer" works well for James 2:19 but not so for Romans 10:10. One can assent that God is one and not be saved but one cannot assent to the propasition "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" and not be saved.
In other words, in Romans 10:10 we have trust that always accompanies assent. The "transfer" only works so far between men and demons or angels. The taste we get from Our Lord is good as experienced by angels and bad as experienced by demons.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Another wat to look at this. Were not all that saw the risen Christ saved? They all assented to what their eyes saw and In my most humble opinion all of them trusted. Now if you can show me where any of them did not trust to what they could not deny (assent) you may have a point. 
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Jason:
This is not about personally offending anyone, per Matthew 18. We all understand that these are your genuinely-held beliefs. You are the one who put them all out there for analysis and comment. That we differ and challenge you in terms of Scripture and Confessions does not mean that we are offended; rather, it means that we wish to interact with what you wrote as you requested.
Surely it is not the case that you were putting all your beliefs out there in such detail and claiming immoveability in them, particularly as they might contravene the Scriptures and Confession. I would hope to always say, "This is my confession and remains such unless convinced otherwise by biblical argument." There has been an attempt, albeit limited, on the part of some of us to interact with what you've set before us, seeking to highlight what some of us think are problems.
I don't believe that you meant to offer offense and none was taken. We were simply challenging you to think more about some of your positions.
Peace,
Alan
This is not about personally offending anyone, per Matthew 18. We all understand that these are your genuinely-held beliefs. You are the one who put them all out there for analysis and comment. That we differ and challenge you in terms of Scripture and Confessions does not mean that we are offended; rather, it means that we wish to interact with what you wrote as you requested.
Surely it is not the case that you were putting all your beliefs out there in such detail and claiming immoveability in them, particularly as they might contravene the Scriptures and Confession. I would hope to always say, "This is my confession and remains such unless convinced otherwise by biblical argument." There has been an attempt, albeit limited, on the part of some of us to interact with what you've set before us, seeking to highlight what some of us think are problems.
I don't believe that you meant to offer offense and none was taken. We were simply challenging you to think more about some of your positions.
Peace,
Alan
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
I agree with John. I, too, as I'm sure do many others, appreciate your approachable spirit and your fruitful interaction on this board.
It's just that if I put all my views out there and asked how they were to be categorized, I would expect all the good brothers and sisters here to interact with them and perhaps seek to dissuade me about certain views. All of us get challenged from time to time. That does not mean that those challenging us are hurt or offended. At least I hope not. It's God's truth, not mine, that we are dealing with and all of us have a responsibility to contend for it as we will all answer to Him for how we've handled it.
But, as John intimated, your manner is not unpleasing and none of us are offended with you (or none of us should be).
Peace,
Alan
It's just that if I put all my views out there and asked how they were to be categorized, I would expect all the good brothers and sisters here to interact with them and perhaps seek to dissuade me about certain views. All of us get challenged from time to time. That does not mean that those challenging us are hurt or offended. At least I hope not. It's God's truth, not mine, that we are dealing with and all of us have a responsibility to contend for it as we will all answer to Him for how we've handled it.
But, as John intimated, your manner is not unpleasing and none of us are offended with you (or none of us should be).
Peace,
Alan
Another wat to look at this. Were not all that saw the risen Christ saved? They all assented to what their eyes saw and In my most humble opinion all of them trusted. Now if you can show me where any of them did not trust to what they could not deny (assent) you may have a point.
See Matthew 28:11-15,17.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Another wat to look at this. Were not all that saw the risen Christ saved? They all assented to what their eyes saw and In my most humble opinion all of them trusted. Now if you can show me where any of them did not trust to what they could not deny (assent) you may have a point.
See Matthew 28:11-15,17.
This assumes they believed He had risen. This is not necessarily required to be read into the text. They could have simply wished to squelch what was reported.
JOwen
Puritan Board Junior
Brother, I hope you can see the contradiction in your statement above. The assertion, "The 'transfer' works well for James 2:19 but not so for Romans 10:10" can't both be true, and speak equally about the same thing, else the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic, which we know He is not. This is where the perspicuity of Scripture must come into play, letting the clear passages speak to the ones less clear, or demonstrate that in fact, they are two separate categories altogether. Rev. Winzer has properly pointed out passages that speak directly to the subject. However in your response, one of these passages, as a category, pertains to "historical faith" (James 2), which speaks directly to the subject at hand, whereas the Romans 10 passage is speaking of justifying faith prima facie. If pressed, you will actually find that Romans 10:10 as a derivative, supports the Reformed understanding by the use of the word καρδια, "heart", meaning "feelings or thoughts" and not mind διανοια alone (see Matthew 22:27). What you are arguing for is not a part of the old paths of the Puritan and Reformed tradition. See here for a further opening of the idea of saving faith in distinction form mere historical.
Another wat to look at this. Were not all that saw the risen Christ saved? They all assented to what their eyes saw and In my most humble opinion all of them trusted. Now if you can show me where any of them did not trust to what they could not deny (assent) you may have a point.
See Matthew 28:11-15,17.
This assumes they believed He had risen. This is not necessarily required to be read into the text. They could have simply wished to squelch what was reported.
The doubters of v 17 wished to squelch a report?
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
'And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
'For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
'And if you will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
'He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.'
If I am understanding the discussion correctly, this passage in a very short compass speaks to the issues that are more definitive of hyper-Calvinism? People are not simply passive agents in the kingdom of heaven -- the kingdom is almost spoken of in passive terms ('suffers') because of the pitch of effort in those who 'take' it: and so a genuine (conditional -- 'if you will receive') offer is made to all who listen -- but at the same time there is an acknowledgement that only those who have been given ears to hear will be able to do so.
(This is one of those passages I struggle to understand and it may wind up that I have misunderstood -- and if so, perhaps it should be its own thread?)
'For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
'And if you will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
'He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.'
If I am understanding the discussion correctly, this passage in a very short compass speaks to the issues that are more definitive of hyper-Calvinism? People are not simply passive agents in the kingdom of heaven -- the kingdom is almost spoken of in passive terms ('suffers') because of the pitch of effort in those who 'take' it: and so a genuine (conditional -- 'if you will receive') offer is made to all who listen -- but at the same time there is an acknowledgement that only those who have been given ears to hear will be able to do so.
(This is one of those passages I struggle to understand and it may wind up that I have misunderstood -- and if so, perhaps it should be its own thread?)
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
Jason, dear friend,
I was encouraged by your opening post. You affirmed some doctrinal positions that were clearly outside the bounds of confessional Reformed Faith. However, you seemed to be solicitous of the advice and counsel of others on these matters and appeared willing to reexamine your thinking on them. That impression was apparently wrong. As this thread has continued, you seem almost dismissive of those desiring an honest exchange on the matters you brought up. And these are no small matters.
In course of this thread:
I say all that in the hope that you will take seriously the substantial nature of these doctrinal differences and not carry on as if we were discussing matters of utter indifference.
I was encouraged by your opening post. You affirmed some doctrinal positions that were clearly outside the bounds of confessional Reformed Faith. However, you seemed to be solicitous of the advice and counsel of others on these matters and appeared willing to reexamine your thinking on them. That impression was apparently wrong. As this thread has continued, you seem almost dismissive of those desiring an honest exchange on the matters you brought up. And these are no small matters.
In course of this thread:
- You have Affirmed the doctrine of Eternal Justification
- You have Denied the Free Offer of the Gospel to Unbelievers
- You have Denied the Reformed doctrine of the Christian Sabbath
- And by Extension; you've denied the Normative role of the Law in the life of the believer
I say all that in the hope that you will take seriously the substantial nature of these doctrinal differences and not carry on as if we were discussing matters of utter indifference.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Let us take the verse in Romans. The demons also believe Jesus is Lord and rose from the dead. (historical faith) and demons know that if men believe such they (men) will be saved. Now I must point out I do believe in the 3 aspects of real faith as the reformers point out. My point is if one assents to Romans 10:10 there is no way men cannot have trust. Now this all assumes the person has the biblical Christ, if not they do not have proper assent. Do you believe men can assent to Romans 10:10 and not trust in it?
I shall read the reference you cite though I suspect that I will not find much I disagree with.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Another wat to look at this. Were not all that saw the risen Christ saved? They all assented to what their eyes saw and In my most humble opinion all of them trusted. Now if you can show me where any of them did not trust to what they could not deny (assent) you may have a point.
See Matthew 28:11-15,17.
This assumes they believed He had risen. This is not necessarily required to be read into the text. They could have simply wished to squelch what was reported.
The doubters of v 17 wished to squelch a report?
in my opinion yes. Do you think the Believe Jesus is Lord and rose from the dead? If so they will be saved.
Another wat to look at this. Were not all that saw the risen Christ saved? They all assented to what their eyes saw and In my most humble opinion all of them trusted. Now if you can show me where any of them did not trust to what they could not deny (assent) you may have a point.
See Matthew 28:11-15,17.
This assumes they believed He had risen. This is not necessarily required to be read into the text. They could have simply wished to squelch what was reported.
The doubters of v 17 wished to squelch a report?
in my opinion yes. Do you think the Believe Jesus is Lord and rose from the dead? If so they will be saved.
Let's put your discussion on a separate thread if you wish to continue it.
This one is now closed.
Jason, if I may speak as a board official for a moment, I don't know that we can accomplish more than demonstrating that a particular teaching is unconfessional, as I think has been done here. For myself I would add that though Gill, Pink, Philpot, etc., wrote enough to keep a reasonable person reading for a lifetime, I think the person who does not read beyond them is quite unlikely to have a spiritually balanced diet. Everybody needs some Scottish Presbyterians to balance the English Baptists.
I think it's probably a good thing that we can all see in your demeanor that it is possible to be a hyper-calvinist without being ungracious or even unenthusiastic about bearing witness to others. It's my view that we never understand an error properly until we understand how nice people could embrace it.
You clearly know that any promotion of hyper-calvinism is off limits for this board, inasmuch as it is a contra-confessional position. Given your track record here, I doubt that we'll start having problems now.
I think it's probably a good thing that we can all see in your demeanor that it is possible to be a hyper-calvinist without being ungracious or even unenthusiastic about bearing witness to others. It's my view that we never understand an error properly until we understand how nice people could embrace it.
You clearly know that any promotion of hyper-calvinism is off limits for this board, inasmuch as it is a contra-confessional position. Given your track record here, I doubt that we'll start having problems now.
- Status
