Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Calvinism/Arminianism Debate' started by Yeshua1, Oct 7, 2013.
As most calvinists do not see that viewpoint as being within 'orthodox" calvinism!
The problem with the term "Hyper Calvinism" is that its definition is up for debate. There are those who oppose Calvinism who see any form of Calvinism as Hyper Calvinism. Most Calvinists would use Hyper Calvinism to describe those who believe the Gospel should only be preached to the elect. So, it is s partisan term that makes discussion difficult between differing theological camps.
LOL...see I thought a hyper Calvinist was a Presbyterian who drank too much coffee. Was I wrong!:laugh:
In another thread I had quoted Justin Taylor who said :"Some critics persist in referring to the doctrines of grace as 'hyper-Calvinism.' Hyper-Calvinism undermines the gospel and should be opposed. But it should also not be used as a label against those who explicitly repudiate it."
Some goofs even think that a hyper-Calvinist is one who follows the doctrines of Scripture as taught by John Calvin. John R. Rice and others from the past and David Cloud and many more (largely from IFB circles)claim the same today. They would even say that the Canons of Dort are hyper-Calvinistic. Such ignorance! But a lot of it stems from their biased viewpoint and arrogance --noy to mention the fact that Historical Theology is something they despise.
Phil Johnson cast too broad a new when he defined what hyper-Calvinism consists of. That's why his friend James White was called a hyper-Calvinists by David Allen based on Johnson's criteria.
Jim Ellis is helpful here. He relates that hyper-Calvinism "consists of two fundamental errors:A denial of duty-faith and a resultant denial of the universal call of the gospel."
Well yes, particularly if he/she is PCUSA as opposed to PCA.
Typically the term 'hyper-calvinism' is used in reference to those who don't believe evangelism is really necessary due to the inevitability of the elect being saved.
As Herald rightly explained, some do throw this label around against anyone more 'Calvinistic' than they are. But, a strong argument could be made that many of the modern reformed believers are "out-calvining John Calvin" thus earning the label 'hyper.'
No, Scan, your reasoning is weak. If many present-day Calvinists are "out-Calvining John Calvin" --then why aren't we Calvinists outdoing him in evangelizing, sending and supporting missionaries, having even stronger preaching, setting up more academies,encouraging union between various denominations which share the core fundamentals of the faith once delivered,etc. etc.? John Calvin did an immense amount of work which is still valued these days and will do so long after we have passed from our earthly existence. I seriously doubt we are out-Calvining John Calvin!
John R Rice and the "Sword Crowd" (ifbX and often X-rated preachers like Hyles, Gray, etc) have no clue of what Calvinism is. They call ANYONE who believes for than eternal security a "hyper". Thus the well is poisoned among that small segment of Baptists.
But even in larger groups (like the SBC) the "founders" of the SBC were all strong Calvinists and NOT "hyper". But the Arminian/Pelagian branch of the SBC that often treats doctrine as "anathema" tries to discredit the SBC churches that are in the Founders Ministries as "hyper".
Guess it is easy to discredit this way. Note how I did it to our Arminian brethren in the previous sentence. Link in those embracing that view of grace with the hell-bound heresies of Pelagius. Easy (and fun) to do! :thumbsup:
Skan, question for you. Are you equating Reformed with Calvinist? Do you see the two as the same thing?
Hyper-Calvinism is simply consistent Calvinism, taking the doctrine where it logically goes.
Moderate Calvinism is inconsistent Calvinism. Spurgeon recognized this;
Spurgeon recognized here that to be consistent with scripture was to be inconsistent with Calvinism. That is the difference, Hyper-Calvinists are simply those who are bold enough to go where the doctrine logically leads, whereas moderate Calvinists are embarrassed by their own doctrine and compromise.
Very few Calvinists are bold enough to admit this truth. Almost none.
You are consistently wrong.
C.H.S.'s sermon on the particular passage has long been considered one of his poorest messages. He didn't unfold the text as John Gill or others of the Calvinistic stamp having more exegetical skill. I've been saying that for years here on the BB.
Here is a snip from John Calvin's treatment :"But the present discourse relates to all classes of men,and not to individual persons; for his sole object is to include in this number princes and foreign nations."
So all kinds,classes,stations of life folks were in view by Paul here.
You have only mentioned moderate Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists. I admit that here, dealing with this passage Spurgeon was being a mild or moderate Calvinist --leaning to the Arminian side actually, as John Piper does also when it comes to this portion of Scripture. So I would call myself a real Calvinist! Smack dab between a moderate Calvinist and a hyper-Calvinist --more of a higher Calvinist.
One doesn't need to be a hyper-Calvinist to take the route I've taken with respect to 1 Timothy 2:3,4.
A hyper Calvinist is someone who tells you that your dead child is in hell and you put him there because you were not a hyper Calvinist believer at the time so you and your offspring don't get a pass....ie, you and yours are in effect reprobates....so we as the hyper Calvinists are the chosen ones & your the crape we kick to the curb. Trust me, you will know them when you speak to them.....most are Presbyterians or reformed types who believe they are superior to everyone else & I HATE THEIR GUTS!
I'm glad you asked. Actually I don't. I know its a common label so I used it here just to avoid using the word Calvinism repeatedly in the same sentence. But actually I agree with Roger Olsen's argument about how 'reformed' is a larger more encompassing label that would include non-cals.
Doesnt Reformed imply that you are also a Covenant Theology believer?
Olsen is an honest Arminian. I have one of his books. I disagree with much of what he says;so you can add the above to the list. Non-Calvinists would in no conceivable way be considered Reformed. I can see John Wesley spinning in his grave after hearing that one!
In your anger you are getting things messed up. Conservative Presbyterians are Reformed. It's not a case of "Presbyterian or Reformed types."
I have yet to encounter a single Presbyterian who is a hyper-Calvinist. You need to clear your head and get your definitions straightened out.
Calm down there, or lurkers will think this is a non-Christian site!
So what would John Wesley consider himself & his movement which has morphed into (Wesley-ism & The United Methodist Church)? Wasn't he a devout Arminian Anglican?
Yes, but he denied some cardinal teachings of the 39 Articles --especially the 17th.
I can give you 3 names right at the top of my head, all within 25 miles of me who are. If nothing else, New Jersey is still a hangout for old style Dutch Reformed & some Scottish Free Church Presbyterian sympathies. And if they cant find them domestically, they import them in order to keep it going. And that is a sure fire way to quench the Spirit.
PS: And in a nut shell, thats how I would describe Hyper-Calvinism (THAT WHICH QUENCHES THE HOLY SPIRIT) .....1 Thessalonians 5:19-21
New King James Version (NKJV)
19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies. 21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
Olsen argues, "Arminian theology does not deny justification by grace through faith alone. The chapter subtitle is 'Classical Arminian theology is a Reformation theology.' It embraces divine imputation of righteousness by God's grace through faith alone and preserves the distinction between justification and sanctification. And I give quote after quote after quote from Arminian theologians-the main voices of Arminianism have all said as much. Now, it's possible for someone to argue that they're inconsistent in that, and that they're not logically allowed to say the things they say, but of course we Arminians feel the same way about Reformed theology, that there are inconsistencies there. So what I'm arguing in the chapter is not so much that they were entirely logically consistent in everything, but that they did at least affirm that salvation is totally by God's grace through faith alone."
When I think of the Reformation, I think of the "Protestant" distinctives, not the more detailed soteriological Calvinistic distinctives. I can understand, having once been a Calvinist myself, why one would rather carry to broader more encompassing label of 'Reformed,' but historically (and even theologically) it just isn't the case. We too affirm the key distinctives of what drove the reformation, which is why we are all under the label "protestant"...or are you going to hog that label too? :laugh: