Equivocating Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by jonathanD, Jul 8, 2013.

  1. jonathanD

    jonathanD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,410
    Likes Received:
    328
  3. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,378
    Likes Received:
    790
    And calvinists do not know the difference between arminians and non cals. And it is out if ignorance just the same.
     
  4. jonathanD

    jonathanD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do...but I hardly think the two are to be equated as "non-cal" and Arminianism are both orthodox while hyper-Calvinism is heresy.
     
  5. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,378
    Likes Received:
    790
    hmmm....I never equated it to heresy can you elaborate on that.
     
  6. jonathanD

    jonathanD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
    From the blog:

     
  7. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,378
    Likes Received:
    790
    Isn't that a result of limited atonement and the cals view of election?
     
  8. jonathanD

    jonathanD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't follow you. Surely you're not insinuating that belief in limited atonement is hyper-Calvinism.
     
  9. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,378
    Likes Received:
    790
    Why would one who holds to limited atonement believe that the non elect have any responsibility to believe and repent. If no grace is offered then no responsibility can be required.
     
  10. jonathanD

    jonathanD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Calvinist position:

     
  11. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    I reject Calvinism, Armininism, and Hyper-Calvinism. In my opinion they are all in error, although I consider Hyper-Calvinism to be total heresy.
     
  12. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,258
    Likes Received:
    187
    Just so I know what you mean by "hyper-Calvinism," what do you consider that term encompasses that moves it into heresy were Calvinism and Arminianism are not?
     
  13. Herald

    Herald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    0
    We have the disadvantage of viewing God's dealings with mankind through a temporal lens. If we can look at God's dealings with mankind from an eternal perspective it casts definite atonement in a different light.

    The Calvinist understands that God's method of calling His elect is the preaching of the gospel. God does not reveal to any man who is elect and who is not. The gospel is to be preached to all who will listen; as if all who will listen have an equal chance of being saved. The Calvinist's understanding of election assures him that not everyone will be saved, but that should not temper his enthusiasm that God will save all who call upon Him by faith. So, God endures even the most reprobate of men in order to bring in all of His elect.
     
  14. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,258
    Likes Received:
    187
    "The Southern Baptist Convention has never welcomed either Arminians or hyper-Calvinists within their ranks. It has, however, from its beginning been home to evangelical Calvinists. In fact, though we cannot say there were only Calvinists among the original generation of Southern Baptists, Calvinism was certainly the overwhelming doctrinal consensus among the delegates that met in 1845 to form the convention." (quote from last paragraph of OP link)


    Just wondering how many SBC members are taught this part of the SB history?

    Could it be that if the majority of "First Baptist Church of _____" would dust off their organizing statements and agreements they might find they have strayed extremely far from what the planters intended?


    Like the article pointed out, it isn't a matter of "hyper" it is a matter of a total lack of true knowledge of not only the Calvinistic thinking, but the actual background of the SBC from the foundation.

    If any group should be banded from the convention, it isn't the Calvinistic thinkers.
     
  15. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sometimes there is genuine misunderstanding:
    Other times, it is a criticism that Calvinism leads logically and ultimately (if applied consistently) into hyper-Calvinism.
    Notice in the link Phil Johnson's complaint in the introduction to his essay:
    ...... Virtually every revival of true Calvinism since the Puritan era has been hijacked, crippled, or ultimately killed by hyper-Calvinist influences.

    My question would be:
    Why?
    I (for instance) would maintain that there is no consistent Calvinism which should not lead as the good and logical consequences into some form of hyper-Calvinism. That's part of the reason I am not one.
    But, your complaint is legitimate in that I think any fair-minded individual must admit that the modern resurgence of Calvinism has indeed been coupled with quite STRONG emphasis on Evangelism, missions etc... and indeed a focus upon preaching the gospel to the lost.

    It would not be fair criticism to state that by-and-large the self-proclaimed Calvinist is anti-missions etc..
    But it is always a fair criticism to say (whether true or not) that a consistent Calvinism is a hyper-Calvinism, or that any consistent Calvinist should be a hyper-Calvinist.

    Therein is where confusion sets in. Most modern present-day Calvinists are certainly not hypers, but, I would be willing to bet that within 2 generations the bulk of extant Calvinism would again have devolved back into hyper-Calvinism. Just as, apparently Johnson has observed in his article.
     
  16. jonathanD

    jonathanD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
    And couldn't the same thing be said that the consistent arminian should be an open theist or pelagian (not equating the terms, just two different ditches the arminian must avoid)?

    For that matter, couldn't you "logically" say that anyone who believes in justification by faith alone SHOULD be an antinomian?

    What these "logical" conclusions neglect is the view of Scripture held by each of the orthodox positions. In other words, it may not make sense to you why I hold to limited atonement and unconditional election AND I believe in robust evangelism. In your view, that may even be illogical. Never the less, it is my view. Why? Because that's what I see when I look at the Scripture. I believe that God not only appoints ends, but also means. Any system that leads to disobedience should be abandoned.

    By the same token, I may not understand your position that atonement is unlimited and yet, God rightly condemns those who don't accept the offered gift. In my view, that's an illogical view, but that doesn't impugn your view of Scripture or the orthodoxy of your view.

    I guess what I'm saying is that we must accept that some people will not come to the same conclusions that we do when they read the Scripture. That doesn't mean that we're soft when a view is in clear violation to Scripture, but it does mean that we offer liberty and charity when the view does not clearly violate Scripture.

    The SBC was built on the ability to disagree about minor things while we agree and work together for things we all agree upon. With that as a back-drop, the need for Ascol to write what he wrote is incredibly sad. A man who can't even articulate his views, much less his opposition's is holding out a theological litmus test that flies in the face of baptist history as well as the governing documents of the institution he was left in charge of.
     
  17. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't have time nor inclination to waste my morning typing a paper so I will give you one of the main reasons: double-predestination.
     
  18. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
     
    #18 Inspector Javert, Jul 9, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 9, 2013
  19. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,378
    Likes Received:
    790

    It is a claim without substantiation. It is common among cals but it is nothing more than a cheap appeal to try to claim ownership of the convention.
     
  20. MB

    MB
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    2,557
    Likes Received:
    13
    Nothing in the quote above is biblical. This is the doctrine of men.
    MB
     

Share This Page

Loading...