A Discussion Amongst Calvinists

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by saturneptune, Mar 2, 2011.

  1. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Over the last few years, I have come to believe in the five points of Calvinism (for lack of a better term, another thread). Besides reading the Bible, A fellow BB member, Tom Butler has had a great influence in my life over this issue. I was thrown a loop the other day when I heard an unnamed person say to our pastor, "I will go on visitation if you want me to, but people are going to be saved anyhow if they are elect, so I do not put a high priority on it."

    I grew up in a conservative Presbyterian church (PCA), which approaches 100% belief in "Calvinism" and its 5 points. The local church has a very aggressive visitation program, and the presbytery and general assembly spend millions of dollars each year supporting missionaries.

    My question is this. Where did the notion come from that Calvinism and not being interested in visitation, missions, or evangelism are linked? One has nothing to do with the other. The Presbyterian church certainly does not believe that, and God's sovereignty is one of their bedrock beliefs. It is our job to tell others about the Gospel. It is God's business how He uses it and who He uses it on. To me, it seems the height of laziness or a lack of understanding the Scriptures to think everything is in autopilot, while we waste away in a pew.

    Thanks for your input, and this is NOT a free will-Calvinist debate.
     
  2. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. From hearing a "Calvinist" say something similar to what you mentioned.
    2. Reading it in anti-calvinism books, magazines and papers. (Sword of the Lord) aka straw man.

    It's one thing to disagree with a doctrine and another to say things untrue. It would be like someone linking baptists with those nuts from Kansas that picked funerals just because they are "baptists."

    Good luck with that :rolleyes:
     
  3. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    It started among hyper-Calvinists in England during the early 18th century.

    Certain American non-Fundamentalists in the mid-20 century linked Calvinists (proper) to hyper-Calvinism. They did this to the extent that they seldom referenced hyper-calvinism as such but Calvinism as not believing in evangelism,missions etc. Certain branches of Fundamentalism still propagate this myth today.

    Then, among mainstream Evangelicals men such as Ergun Caner, Peter Lumpkins,Timothy Rogers and others of likemind have carried the same ball.
     
    #3 Rippon, Mar 2, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 2, 2011
  4. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for the answer, and I mean that. I did not know the problem went back that far, but to me, this is one of the problems today that give a false picture of the Doctrine of God's Sovereignty.
     
  5. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Thanks. But take my observations with a grain of salt. Someone recently told me that I seldom know what I am talking about.

    David Cloud who has the OTimothy website is a main culprit these days in causing prevasive lies about Calvinism.
     
  6. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you would, please look at the other thread you just posted in.
     
  7. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,377
    Likes Received:
    728
    Someone can learn of the teaching without a Spirit taught understanding.
    A saved person is excited about evangelism knowing that God is directing his steps.As far as we know God might save each person we come in contact with so we can preach and pray for all.
    God's plan is certain.We are called to be faithful to all men,rich,poor,old ,young all types of persons. The results belong to God.
    To fail to pray and be ready to be used as a means by God is sin.To suggest God has not ordained the means and the people to be used as the instruments is sinful presumption.
    Thr arminian sins by putting man on the throne. The hyper-calvinist sins by replacing God and His eternal decree with a false fatalistic philosophy that denies God's purpose for calling His elect in the first place.
    We are chosen to salvation to be partakers in the work of redemption that God is doing in this fallen world.
    Any professed "calvinist" that shrinks back from this is a distortion of the truth
     
  8. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rippon mentioned hyper-Calvinists. They believe that God elects sovereignly, but also saves whom he elects whether they ever hear the gospel or not. If that's true, there's no point in missions and evangelism.

    When someone confuses Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists, you can imagine how such ignorance gets played out.
     
  9. Ron Wood

    Ron Wood
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was brought up as a true Hyper-Calvinist Primitive Baptist. I never had to struggle with the doctrine of free-will because I had it drilled into me that there was no such thing. I heard election every time I heard a man preach. But I never heard the Gospel. They believed and taught very plainly that election is salvation. The elect are saved without ever hearing the Gospel because they are elect. I can't tell you how many times I heard it said that the most remote person in the farthest reaches of the earth who has never heard of Christ is saved if he is elect. They were vehemently anti-missionary and anti-call. If you called on men to believe on Christ you were Arminain.

    But when I started preaching many years ago I had to question what the Gospel was that I was supposed to preach. The gospel I had heard all of my life was a message of hope in election but not in Christ. I struggled a great deal with this. But thanks be to God that He opened the Book up to me and showed me that election isn't salvation. So I started preaching the doctrines of grace. I thought that I was preaching the true Gospel because I mentioned Christ and limited atonement and election in Him and all that the doctrines are. I was preaching the doctrines as salvation though and not Christ.

    Then He put me under a faithful pastor who truly preaches the Gospel and I learned by sitting in the pew what it was to preach the Gospel. It is to preach Christ in His glorious person and work. I still preach the doctrines but now I preach them as they are in Christ. The passage that I remember which totally destroyed all my previous thoughts on preaching the Gospel was Rom. 10:13-17. So now the Primitives call me an Arminian and the Reformed call me a hyper and an Antinomian. I disagree with the statement of Spurgeon that Calvinism is the Gospel. Calvinism isn't the Gospel Christ is. But you can't preach Christ without preaching the 5 points.
     
    #9 Ron Wood, Mar 3, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 3, 2011
  10. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    And think of how many individual posts, and indeed, whole threads, would not have appeared on the BB if there was no confusion between Calvinism and hypercalvinism!
     
  11. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, according to Reformed works on Calvinism History state it goes back to the late 16th century (around 1690ish) where it is noted to have it's root (the Crispian Controversy) and developed till the last decade or so of the 17th century where heated controversy was now in the forefront. At least that is what those of the Reformed view state.

    Richard Davis (1700), Joseph Hussy especially stands as one who was the vocal mouth pieces for Hyper-Calvinism (per Reformed works)... and then Skepp who was basically the first 'Baptist" Hyper-Calvinists. - on through to John Gill and on from there as well.

    You will find Reformed pastors and such even BEFORE mid 20th century who spoke out against what was even then known as Hyper-Calvinism.. men like Spurgeon and others.

    Hyper-Calvinism came out of High Calvinism, being an offshoot of the Supra view.

    Here is one from APuritansmind.com
     
    #11 Allan, Mar 3, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 3, 2011
  12. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Topias Crisp was accused of fanning what later became known as hyper-Calvinism. But not all Calvinist scholars agree. Spurgeon thought Crisp was one of the greatest of Christian divines.

    Yes.Late in life for both of them. Not during the majority of their ministries if my memory is correct on this one.

    I don't regard John Gill as a hyper-Calvinist.Dr.Tom Nettles doesn't either. Although a number of hypers looked to Gill (especially after his death) as a guru of sorts for their cause.

    I never said otherwise,did I? Their were solid Calvinists of the late 18th and during the 19th century who spoke out against true hyper-Calvinism.

    Spurgeon dealt with the assults of James Wells in particular. He nicknamed him King James (privately).

    Christmas Evans was one who fell into a kind of hyper-Calvinism --Sandemanism. He recovered his old gospel passion after a number of cold lifeless years.

    Yes,it used to be called high Calvinism,unltra-Calvinism or other terms.

    But just because one is a Supra doesn't = hyper-Calvinism.
     
  13. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    The vast majority of reformed historians and scholars, I know of or can find, all state John Gill was definitively hyper in his views. I am simply going by what the majority of Reformed writers are saying with respect to their theological view in contrast to that of Hyper-Calvinism (and those who held them)

    Whether or not he really was or was not.. I leave to the majorityof the Reformed view on this one.
    You stated "Certain American non-Fundamentalists in the mid-20 century linked Calvinists (proper) to hyper-Calvinism."

    I was showing it was much earlier than mid 20th century, not beginning in America, and that it was the Reformed group who linked Calvinists (proper) to Hyper-Calinvism.. in the sense it sprang forth from Calvinism

    I agree.
     
    #13 Allan, Mar 3, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 3, 2011
  14. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Are you sure you aren't just citing theologians in general --not specifically Calvinist scholars?

    Timothy George doesn't regard John Gill as a h-C. Neither does Robert Reymond to my knowledge. A.W.Pink didn't. Abraham Booth didn't. My namesake,John Rippon didn't. The list could go on for a while.


    Yes,I did.

    No,that's not the case. There is a clear line of demarcation. You know very well that certain Fundamentalists starting in the mid-20th century-- and it continues today --deliberately distort the truth. They mix hyper-Calvinism togther with Calvinism proper.

    Of course originally hyper-Calvinism sprang out of Calvinism. But the two are different entities. No Calvinist of the 19th or 20th century linked the two together in the manner of certain mid-20th century preachers and teachers of Fundamentalism.
     
  15. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    These are all excellent responses, from Allen and Rippon especially on the historical background. Anyone who has read this thread has got to see the huge gap between Calvinists and hypers. I wonder how the hypers explained the last few verses of Matthew and verses like "Faith comes by hearing......."
     
  16. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    No.. Monergism, Purtians Mind, even some Presbitary sources. Different scholars and historian works they cite for readers reference materials.

    A.W Pink bounced back and forth between the two (specifically with regard to the gospel being offered) John Rippon is noted also as being hyperist in some of his views as well (some say full).. these again, are from Reformed sources, not non-reformed.

    I agre that there is a clear demarcation. The reformers show attest to this even prior to 19th and 20th century, and it was 'they' who linked the two views since Hyper springs 'from' the reformed view of Calvinism. That was my point. Since you are stating that you mean 'some' try to claim that Hyper IS Calvinism.. that is distinctly different than the term 'linking' implies, since the two are in fact, linked.
     
    #16 Allan, Mar 3, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 3, 2011
  17. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    When I find the time I will cite Calvinists scholars/authors/preachers who deny that John Gill was a h-C.


    Again,we are not talking about A.W.Pink and his alleged hyperism (which I think is bogus). I simply stated that he,to my knowledge never indicted that Gill was a hyper. If I am wrong on that cite the contrary.

    You are straying from the subject again. John Rippon strenously denied that John Gill was a h-C.

    You agree,but object in the following.

    The reformers? The Reformers were in the 16th century.

    Who,exactly are the "they"? I don't understand why you even think that "point" is so relevant to this discussion.

    I still don't get what you are trying to say.

    The mid-20th century to present day Fundamentalists who conflate H-C with Calvinism are a different breed altogether than 19th and 20th century Calvinist scholars. The 19th and 20th century Calvinist scholars were and aren't into obscuring the differences between H-C and Calvinism.
     
    #17 Rippon, Mar 3, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 3, 2011
  18. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    The point of missions or evangelism is to preach Christ a victorious savior and the sinner a redeemed soul, not to preach Christ a possible savior if the sinner acquiesces to the wooing of the Spirit.
     
  19. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    And I wouldn't have reached 6418 posts....:laugh:
     
  20. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,915
    Likes Received:
    94
    your always substantiating how your NOT Hyper-Calvinist, correct?
     

Share This Page

Loading...