Was John Calvin A Hyper-Calvinist Or A Moderate Calvinist?

I wouldn't call Calvin a "Calvinist". Calvin was a brilliant theologian who wrote more than just "Institutes". I think it is reasonable to say that he would generally agree with the "5 points", although perhaps in a more nuanced way. Some interesting articles have been written regarding Calvin holding to an unlimited atonement (R.T. Kendall, and somewhat Curt Daniel) but this is tough to discern since he did not specifically answer this question.

 

When I get to heaven I'll ask him.

 

That being said, is there any justification for "Calvinists" diefying John Calvins' writings?

 

John Calvin was not a hyper-calvinist. Hyper-calvinsts are a pretty rare breed, much rarer than hyper-arminians.

 

What is a hyper-Arminian?

 

No.

Calvin believed that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world.

Calvin believed that if one rejected the sacrifice of Christ on the cross one was doubly culpable.

Hyper-Calvinsim, as defined by supralapsariansm is the work of Besa and the English Puritans, if R.T. Kendall is correct in his assessment.

Calvin is ok by me! It is the hyper-Calvinists that blow my stack!

 

Open-theism is to Arminianism pretty much what hypercalvinsim is to calvinism. Open theists flatten out the Arminian system so that what they see as logical tension is gone. Hyper-calvinsts do the same thing with Calvinism.

So open-theists are sort of hyper-arminians, and there are a whole lot more of them than there are hyper-calvinists, at least in this day and age.

 

If R. T. Kendall said that supralapsarianism = hypercalvinism, then he is not correct. All hypercalvinists are supralapsarians, but hypercalvinists make up only a small sliver of all supralapsarians. 99.9% of supralapsarians are not hypercalvinists.

 

I think it's pretty well agreed that Kendall's views have some major problems.

 

Paul33 said:

Calvin believed that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world.

While Calvin explicitly affirms four of the so-called Five Points in his theology, what he believed about the scope of the atonement is at best implicit in his writings. This is why there are scholarly articles arguing both sides.

I'm personally persuaded that he did affirm a particular atonement, rather than a general one. But I don't dogmatize on it as a fact of history, and in any case, "what Calvin taught" isn't the standard of orthodoxy.

 

Isn't it amazing how so many followers of Calvin put words in his mouth which he never wrote? I am sure if Calvin were living he would be shocked by many who claim to follow him simply because they are not following Jesus.

 

Amen, gb

 

Calvinists do not follow Calvin. It's just a label usually used to identify a particular view of soteriology. Please, let's discuss issues that are really issues and leave off the silly stuff.

 

No. There is, however, plenty of justification for Biblical Christians to disagree with Calvin when he was wrong, for example, about infant baptism. But, where John Calvin (or anyone else for that matter) agrees with Scripture, we should all agree with him and say Amen.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Have you not yet figured out that we are not followers of John Calvin? We are called Calvinists because that is the popular name of what we believe. We follow Christ. We think John Calvin did as well, but he was not perfect.

 

Plain Old Bill and others : Have you noticed how very little we have quoted Calvin and yet cited Scripture so very much ?

 

Granted, I don't read every post, but I haven't seen ANYONE quote Calvin on here. On the other hand, I haven't seen anyone (except me) quote Arminius, either. (I've quoted Arminius to show that he believed in total depravity.)

 

BTW , Arminius thought John Calvin was top-notch as a theologian -- the best .

 

Granted, I don't read every post, but I haven't seen ANYONE quote Calvin on here. On the other hand, I haven't seen anyone (except me) quote Arminius, either. (I've quoted Arminius to show that he believed in total depravity.) </font>[/QUOTE]Didn't he believe in prevenient grace also?

Joseph Botwinick