Hyper-Calvinism and it's beliefs

I have a few questions which I would like to throw in to this discussion.

1. What is the "gospel call" for ? Is it a call to eternal salvation ? Or is it a call to repentance and gospel, or Godly, living.

2. To what necessity is the "faith" being discussed ? Is it a necessity to eternal salvation ? Or is it a necessity to one's turning from their idols and false religions to the One True God: A result of one's already being "born again" and therefore a professed child of God ?

3. What is "common grace" and how is it defined ?

4. Where is salvation "offered", in the context in which this word "offered" is being used in our age and time ?

Thank you.

 

My suspicion is that you would be misrepresenting people. There are a few

"estimations" are like nostrils, we all have them. Mine is just as valid as yours, and I don't recall "accusing" anyone of anything. I believe points 3 and 5 are common, and I don't have to name names to think that.

 

Not necessarily. All estimations are not equally valid. Some are good and some are bad. Some people just have bad ideas. I am not saying anything about your opinion vs. mine in this case, but merely saying that estimations are not all equal.

You accused people of believing that God does not offer salvation to all men without exception, and you accused people of believing that God does not love the non-elect. Those may be right accusations, but they are accusations.

I think points 3 and 5 are extremely rare, and I think you naming names would demonstrate that.

I think 3 and 5 are indications of hyper-Calvinism, and I don't think it is widespread, particularly among people who call themselves Calvinists.

 

I agree with webdog.
He does not have to name names.
Those who believe certain points of what may be termed "hyper Calvinism" know who they are.
I am one of them, and I am not ashamed to say so, since I know I can pretty much defend what I believe, without expecting anyone to "come over to my side of the fence", and since I know my theology was not the basis for Christ's saving me, neither is the theology of anyone else on this board the basis for Christ's saving them.
What I believe cannot be called heresy since there is no one here that can prove that their position has always been the historically orthodox position of "the church" (whoever this church is).
The one who says his theology is an integral, inseparable part of why Christ saved him is the heretic, if there is such a one on this board, and I don't believe there is such a one.

 

Yes.

Yes.

Common grace is God's grace given to the non-elect.

Salvation is offered to all who will believe in a number of contexts such as John 3:16 for starters, and too many others to be mentioned here.

 

Heresy is not measured against what the church (whoever this church is) has historically believed. It is measured against what God has said.

 

Unfortunately, the dictionary disagrees with you, PL.

 

Also, what "God has said" has always been a matter of discussion, if you will.
Proof ?
There are Arminians and Calvinists on this board who cite the same "thus saith the Lord" and come up with different meanings and interpretations.
And there are Calvinists and Hyper-Calvinists who do the same.

So, by which this is what "God said" are you going to measure heresy ?

 

I'm pretty much the same as Rippon. After describing my thoughts to someone a long time ago, this person said that I am a "Clarkian". I studied up on it and found that he was mostly right. Although I think Clark goes too far with mental assent and scripturalism (not H-C related issues), I agree with him on salvation for the most part.

I disagree with using the word "grace" to describe God's kindness toward the reprobate. The correct word is the one I used - "kindness". He is kind toward His enemies, even though He hates them. And yes, "hate" often means "not favored", and the reprobate are definitely "not favored".

I believe that God "loves" the reprobate only in that He pities them, but not in an affectionate way.

I believe in openly preaching the Gospel. I do not particularly object to referring to the Gospel as an "offer".

I believe that God purposed sin but did not actively "cause" it. It's a technical issue, but it's an important technicality. Arguments over whether God is the "author" of sin hinge upon what is meant by "author".

And I have no problem with the idea of faith as a "duty".

And like Rippon said, the monergism.com list is better than Phil Johnson's list. I have long thought that Phil's zealousness against HCism got in the way of his better judgment.

 

The monergism.com list is very specific and removes the arguments over word definitions.

 

Well there must be some reason that I find one list suitable and the other objectionable. I'll have to think about it and get back to this to see if I can explain the difference. Too tired right now.

 

John from Monergism said that he agreed with all but one of the 5 points that Phil made . However , from an English standpoint the two lists have nothing in common with the other . One would have to read between the lines to discern an affinity . Even though John said he agreed with much of Phil's list ,that has no bearing on the Monergism list . This isn't theological here -- I'm dealing with the English language . I am 60% H-C on one list and a 0% H-C on the other .

 

JD has said that he has no problem with the idea of faith as a duty .So he holds to duty faith as do I . You also hold to it . It is the obligation of sinners to repent and believe -- hence "duty faith" .The Gospel Standard folks deny Duty Faith for instance .