Hyper-Calvinism and it's beliefs

Right, I agree with this. And the specificity of John's list makes all the difference to me.

For example, if someone asked me if I was an "antinomian", I would replay "it depends on what you mean by antinomian." There are so many different ways of defining antinomianism that there is no way I would say yes or no without some specificity as to what was meant.

 

You should be used to that by now bro. :laugh: j/k

 

I don't really hold to the views of supra or infra.... since I think that theology is rather limiting God to time... IMO.
If I did, I would lean heavily toward supra.

I may be called a hairy tic, but then again.... I'm really not seeking the applause of men. :thumbs:

 

And I'm stuck at work all day! I retire in four years and then I hope to be in ministry full time. I'm sure you're hoping for full time ministry too. God bless.

 

Yes, John Hendrix. He has done a great work for the Lord and the field of theology. As far as I'm concerned, his site has become the go-to place to understand Calvinism and reformed theology in general. I think that while John may label someone a hyper-calvinist, he does not roundly condemn them with a broad brush like Phil Johnson does. Some people are zealous to rekindle a war that is over, like the old Spurgeon vs Hyper-Calvinist dispute.

Some of the greatest Bible teachers and preachers were full Gospel Standard hyper-calvinists. Huntington and Gadsby come to mind. They wrote some great stuff. To this day, Gadsby's catechism is my favorite. Check it out here:

http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/gcat.htm

 

Thanks Allan for putting this information in one place. It is very helpful. I wish the two lists from monergism and from Phil Johnson could be turned into a sticky and put at the top of these threads for easy reference.

Sometimes the C/A debates are a little like the issue of whether kissing a statue in catholicism is equivalent to worshipping the statue. If I ask the priest this question, the answer is always "no" because it is wrong to worship a statue. However, if I ask my next door neighbor about the statue of Mary on her front lawn, I get the distinct impression that she is worshipping the statue and believes that it has unique powers.

In calvinism there is well thought-out doctrine that is carefully stated. However, some people on boards like this who hold to the doctrine are not careful in their statements. My guess is that overstepping statements into hyper calvinism could be found easily on these threads by people who don't recognize the dangers of the hyper view or some of the fine nuances of the doctrine.

These two lists are nice checks so that people don't go too far in their arguments.

 

The dictionary does not define theological words and their uses very well. Historically, a great many have believed that salvation comes by personal merit. That is heresy, even though the dictionary definition would deny that.

By what God actually said. We may debate it because what God said is not entirely clear to us, but that doesn't mean that both are right.

 

Allan, If I were you, I would stick with my list too. :thumbs:

 

Still , if there is such a close correlation between the two lists -- why is there a significant gap between the two with my 0% score on John's list , and my 60% score on Phil's ? Despite JH's explanation , the two lists are as dissimilar as can be . Maybe The Message and the NASBU can be likewise related?!

 

The Protestant Reformed Church has been unfairly tagged as Hyper-Calvinistic . The leading voice in that small denomination is David J.Engelsma . He wrote a book named "Hyper-Calvinism: The Call Of The Gospel" . Phil doesn't think so highly of it . However , here is what Engelsma believes Hper-Calvinism is :

But hyper-Calvinism is the denial that God in the preaching of the gospel calls everyone who hears the preaching to repent and believe . It is the denial that the church should call everyone in the preaching . It is the denial that the unregenerated have a duty to repent and believe . It manifests itself in the practice of the preacher's addressing the call of the gospel,"repent and believe on Christ crucified," only to those in his audience who show signs of regeneration and , thereby , of election , namely , some conviction of sin and some interest in salvation . ( Pages 15,16 )

 

You know that whatever real hyper-calvinism is ( and the definition varies widely ) it marks a departure from true Calvinism . On the same token Arminianism ( of course many Arminians deny that they are -- whereas Calvinists own up to their theological stock ) signifies just as much ( if not more ) of a movement away from Calvinism . Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism are counterparts of one another . Semi-Pelagianism might be classed as hyper-Arminianism . Outright Pelagianism has no counterpart . It's just plain heresy .

 

I went through each example of what you think links one list with the other . And , surprise , there is no correlation .

I'll use 'P' for Phil's short list , and 'M' for Monergism's longer listing .

P#1 regarding the Gospel call doesn't apply to all who hear . You think that's the same thing as "no evangelization" on M. No , they're different .On P it doesn't say no evangelism , but pertains to those who hear it .

P #2 denies duty faith . You think that is related to M which speaks of "having assurance of one's election before election and faith" .Well , that's a no-go . There is absolutely no connection between the two . I figured you were not sure about what duty-faith was since you didn't understand JD when he said he believed in it .

P #3 refers to no offer . You try to connect that with M's not commanding all men everywhere to repent . No Allan . They are not the same thing .Telling men to repent is not the same as "offering" them grace .

P # 4 is referencing no common grace . M's vague statement about God's grace works for the betterment of all men is not necessarily the same thing . I doubt that established Reformed scholars would see any connection there either .

P # 5 speaks of God having no love for the non-elect . But you try and foist a connection with M's "that the number of the elect may be known by you" . There is certainly no linkage here at all .

So far I see no kinship between the respective lists . Nada , none , zilch .

 

Another thing . In your first post you said that you wanted to set the record straight about what really "constitutes a hyper view in contrast to the historic view." That statement puzzled me . Because in that same post you quoted Phil Johnson as saying :"When I employ the term I am using it in its historic sense." Did you have a senior moment , or what ?

 

The Puritan Board does not have unanimity on the subject though . Some posters there think that Phil's list is defective ( my word ) compared to Monergism's list .

 

In your post # 10 you quoted Phil as saying that the five above propositions were in a declining order -- from the worst kind to a less extreme variety ( ultra-high Calvinism ) .

In that case if all three agreements I have with hyper-Calvinism really are the case ( which I doubt under scrutiny ) , then I do not have a 60% score .

In the new configuration :

# 1 = 30%
# 2 = 25%
# 3 = 20%
# 4 = 15%
# 5 = 10%

My adjusted score is now 45% , since my views ( numbers 3,4 &5 )are of the "less extreme variety." According to Phil I tend toward Ultra-High Calvinism .

If numbers 3,4 and 5 are weighted on a more favorable scale ( 15%,10% &5% respectively ) I'd get a score of only 30% . That meqans I would have less in common with H-C than true Calvinism .

This is silly . I am a Calvinist , and not a H-C . As J.D. mentioned before the only authentic H-C's are largely in the UK and members of the Gospel Standard Churches . But lest we look down upon them -- take a look at their honorable history . Amidst their warts are some stalwart and godly men who have served Christ mighily despite some errant theological views .

 

More on #3 on Phil's list supposedly being equivalent to Monergism's "that God does not command all men everywhwere to repent."

John H. told you that he is not comfortable using "the offer" concept . Certainly John H. does not equate his terminological preference to be the same as believing that God does not command all men everywhere to repent ." You are really off-base here .