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

Dan Corner is a hyper-Arminian

www.evangelicaloutreach.org

BTW: John Calvin was not even a Calvinist--he was a Reformer--also known as the "Protestant Pope" of Geneva

 

He was known as a Protestant Pope by his enemies . And Luther wasn't a Luthern . Especially thses days he wouldn't recognize it . And he said not to name anything after himself -- that he was nothing but a miserable bagof dust or words to that effect .

 

I have helped many in ministry who were stifled and shackled by following Calvin and not Jesus. Many adhered to what Calvin wrote and not what Jesus taught or what scripture teaches in light of its historical context.

 

Really ? What was the name of the novel ?

 

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. </font>[/QUOTE]If Calvin was not perfect then why spend your time being tainted with his teachings when you can study scripture and learn what God has to say?

If you are a Christian then why call yourself a Calvinist? It is impossible to be both and serve two masters.

Paul spoke about that in 1 Cor. Are you of Jesus or are you of Calvin? There is only one master and one Lord.

You would be surprised at how many have been steered away from Christ by Calvin's teachings. Even he wrote that would happen if his teachings were carried too far.

I have yet to meet one Calvinist who correctly interprets Eph 1:3,4. But one who studies that passage in context knows what the Calvinist claims is not there at all. One who studies that passage learns what the message Pauls is teaching there.

 

Infant baptism too. He was a pedobaptist. Calvin taught that baptism in the NT was in effect an extension of the OT circumcision. Calvin taught a lot of right things just like Presbyterians do too.

 

He started Presbyterianism .

 

Infant baptism too. He was a pedobaptist. Calvin taught that baptism in the NT was in effect an extension of the OT circumcision. Calvin taught a lot of right things just like Presbyterians do too. </font>[/QUOTE]I was talking about Arminius, not Calvin. Both men believed in infant baptism, but Calvin most certainly did not believe in prevenient grace. Do you know what prevenient grace is?

Joseph Botwinick

 

The arminians, for some reason I don't understand, are always trying to get Spurgeon to agree with them. Now they're trying to get Calvin on their side.

Why oh why do some of you arminians (sorry, "biblicists") keep making preposterous comments about calvinism when you obviously have never studied ANY of the important works of the system. Some of you don't even understand your own arminian system, much less the calvinist system.

There are so many misrepresentations in this thread I don't how we'll ever get them all answered.

Let me just start with this one: I am proud to be a Calvinist. I care nothing about the man John Calvin, and I've never read the Institutes nor any other book by him. But I am a Calvinist - but not a CALVINITE.

Calvinism is understood in theology to be a doctrine of salavation (soteriology). Calvin's views on church government and baptism, as well as many of his other views, are folded into what's called "reformed" theology.

So, soteriologically speaking, I am, and am proud to be (now standfirm will accuse me of being proud, sinner that I am) a CALVINIST!

 

Hello kiriath_jearim.

I would have thought that since Calvin believed in double predestination the idea that Christ died for everyone would be a false belief to him.

Aside: I think it ok to quote Calvin on the thread as the question is about him. As a follower of man I too am proud that God has seen fit to approve of me by giving me the truth that Calvin expounded, great man that he was.

Since Calvin believed that each man's destiny was fixed from eternity why should he also believe Christ died for those who are not receiving adoption?

john.

 

Getting back to the original question, logically, the answer is neither, since the "theological system" we call 'Calvinism' was named for him, some years after his death. The same is true for Arminius, and 'Arminianism'. I would offer that the beliefs and teachings of both John Calvin and Jacob Arminius have suffered more at the hands of their friends than they ever did at the hands of their 'enemies'.
Ed

 

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 </font>[/QUOTE]Dis' man done said a mouthful!
Ed

 

My answer should have been addressed to Charles Meadows and not kiriath_jearim.

Hello Charles Meadows.

john.

 

Yes, I think so. But his explanation of prevenient grace is very unsatisfactory and confusing (IMO because it doesn't make sense in the larger context of what he believed).

 

Ransom,

You may be right. But his commentary on John 3:16 is certainly instructive. It seems that his commentaries favor a general atonement and his Institutes a particular atonement.

 

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. </font>[/QUOTE]Russel,

To be fair to Kendall, I don't think he said that. I said that.

In my thinking, isn't supralapsarianism the foundation for hyper-calvinism?

What is the difference you see between supralapsarianism and hyper-calvinsim?

Thanks in advance for the reply.

 

Well, it's probably necessary to be supralapsarian to be a hypercalvinist, but the vast majority of supralapsarians are not hypercalvinists.

Hypercalvinists deny that the gospel offers mercy to all people, and that it is the duty of every sinner to believe. They deny that there is any general call of the gospel to all people.

The vast majority of supralapsarians do not deny those thing. Hypercalvinism is a very small subset of supralapsarianism.

Wikipedia's article on hypercalvinism is not half-bad, and even the in their description of the nontechnical usage of the word, very few supralapsarianss would be hypercalvinist.

 

Paul33 said:

You may be right. But his commentary on John 3:16 is certainly instructive.

What Calvin affirms in his commentary on John 3:16 is simply that the atonement is grounded in God's love for the human race. It's a non sequitur to conclude that the atonement was therefore intended to atone for the whole human race.

Furthermore, I do find it interesting that while Calvin does say:

It is common for Arminians to claim that the term whosoever implies a general atonement, but Calvin stops short of affirming this: he says only that the invitation is universal, "but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith."

Moreover, contra the general redemptionists who claim Christ expiated all sin and the only thing condemning unbelievers is their unbelief, Calvin argues: "by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons."

Nothing in Calvin's commentary on John 3:16 truly supports the claim that he believed in a general atonement.

 

Ransom,

But Calvin also spoke of being "doubly culpable" for rejecting the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

I checked every footnote on the chapter on Calvin from R. T. Kendall's book "Calvinism and English Calvinism to 1648" and have come to agree with his conclusions that Calvin believed that Jesus died for everyone, not just the elect.

 

Russell,

Thanks, I looked up the definition. Truly, not all supralapsarians would be hyper-calvinists. I have to say, though, that supralapsarianism, in itself, seems to be an extreme position and misrepresentation of the Biblical record.