I was looking at the following article "A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism" by Phil Johnson which defines hyper-calvinism as:
And that's fine. I'm all for letting a person define his terms when there is no consensus on the definition. But what I'm curious about is if hyper-calvinism is really essentially one of "stressing" certain truths over others.
If I accept Phil Johnson's "five fold definition - then I'm practically a hyper-Calvinist. But I believe his definition really depends on how one defines the terms "gospel call" and "faith" which is the "duty" of all sinners, and "offer" and "common-grace" etc. I've seen these defined in such a way that I have no problem with them, and I've seen them defined in ways that contradict certain truths of Scripture. I think these terms tend to confuse some doctrines and mislead people about the whole nature of God. I argue against some of these ideas because I think the tend to "stress" aspects of God that can cause people to assume a Arminian view of God.
God brings rain to the elect and the reprobate. There is a general sort of love God has for his creation. But God still hates sin, and the reprobate are going to hell because this is God's will. I don't care how you package it, there are aspects of God that don't make us comfortable. We'd like a lovable huggible God but that's not what Scripture presents. God is going to send the reprobate to burn in hell for eternity. I think we need to be honest about that and not try to make excuses for God doing things that make us uncomfortable - like punishing the guilty, and electing those whom he is going to save.
Anyway, I'm interested in what others think. Is Johnson's problem with hyper-calvinists mainly one of what he considers undue stressing of certain truths over others, or are hyper-calvinist actually contradicting Scripture. It sounds to me that his main argument is hyper-calvinist emphasis things he doesn't want to hear or talk about.
It would be great to get some hyper-calvinist's quotes. I'd like to see if I can spot a hyper-calvinist actually contradicting Scripture rather than over emphasizing certain characteristics of God.
A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
- Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
- Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
- Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
- Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
- Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.
And that's fine. I'm all for letting a person define his terms when there is no consensus on the definition. But what I'm curious about is if hyper-calvinism is really essentially one of "stressing" certain truths over others.
- "...hyper-Calvinists tend to stress the secret (or decretive) will of God over His revealed (or preceptive) will."
- "hyper-Calvinism "encourages introspection in the search to know whether or not one is elect." "
- "the "gospel" they proclaim is a truncated soteriology with an undue emphasis on God's decree as it pertains to the reprobate. "
- " the good news about Christ's death and resurrection is supplanted by a message about election and reprobation—usually with an inordinate stress on reprobation."
If I accept Phil Johnson's "five fold definition - then I'm practically a hyper-Calvinist. But I believe his definition really depends on how one defines the terms "gospel call" and "faith" which is the "duty" of all sinners, and "offer" and "common-grace" etc. I've seen these defined in such a way that I have no problem with them, and I've seen them defined in ways that contradict certain truths of Scripture. I think these terms tend to confuse some doctrines and mislead people about the whole nature of God. I argue against some of these ideas because I think the tend to "stress" aspects of God that can cause people to assume a Arminian view of God.
God brings rain to the elect and the reprobate. There is a general sort of love God has for his creation. But God still hates sin, and the reprobate are going to hell because this is God's will. I don't care how you package it, there are aspects of God that don't make us comfortable. We'd like a lovable huggible God but that's not what Scripture presents. God is going to send the reprobate to burn in hell for eternity. I think we need to be honest about that and not try to make excuses for God doing things that make us uncomfortable - like punishing the guilty, and electing those whom he is going to save.
Anyway, I'm interested in what others think. Is Johnson's problem with hyper-calvinists mainly one of what he considers undue stressing of certain truths over others, or are hyper-calvinist actually contradicting Scripture. It sounds to me that his main argument is hyper-calvinist emphasis things he doesn't want to hear or talk about.
It would be great to get some hyper-calvinist's quotes. I'd like to see if I can spot a hyper-calvinist actually contradicting Scripture rather than over emphasizing certain characteristics of God.