Hyper-calvinism

"A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism"

www.gty.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm

 

The strain of Calvinism that they tried to get me to swallow at Reformed Episcopal Seminary was hyper-Calvinism. Very basicly what the Systematic Theology teacher taught and believed was that God ordains some to Heaven and some to Hell. These professors were all graduates of Westminister Theological Seminary in Philadelphia.

{my view of their view} The dye is cast and no one can change His predestination, no matter how serious one prays for salvation.

 

Shilo:

I agree with Belcher, Murray and Engelsma. I especially agree with Murray. His work, SPURGEON VS. HYPER-CALVINISM, is excellent!

Rev. G

 

{my view of their view} The dye is cast and no one can change His predestination, no matter how serious one prays for salvation.

But would they not say that only the elect would pray for salvation?

 

Grasshopper,

You are right again.

Knowing their error they probably would say they pray to Him because He already regenerated their lives. It is an unusal kind of god who does things to people without consulting them. I thought the Bible says, 'Seek and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you.' Apparently, God still believes in the free will of the human agent. Is this still part of the Scriptural canon or have our brothers and sisters expunged it from His Word.

 

Mark,

You are either lying or speaking in ignorance.

Ken

 

Where's the great gulf between Calvinism and Arminianism? It's my understanding that both believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures, the virgin birth, that Jesus is the Son of God, that repentance and faith are necessary to salvation, etc., etc., etc.

So, Shilo, using your reasoning, is there really any difference between Calvinism and Arminianism? If you answer yes, then you should understand there is a difference between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism.

 

It seems that even in this "moderate" version of Calvinism, the "call" and "duty" only serve to leave the non-elect "without excuse", and the "offer" they rejected further proves they "did it to themselves". "Common grace" and "love for the non-elect" won't mean much either (except further judgment) once they're in Hell, which was still their inevitable destiny in both positions. In light of this, how is this version of Calvinism really better than the other? It is only trying to fit in more biblical points that the more extreme version ignores, but the outcome is still the same. This side just tries to make it sound a bit nicer.
Likewise, people vehemently deny double predestination (supralapsarianism), yet I have seen statements quoted from Edwards and others pointing out that people going to Hell is necessary to "glorify God" by showing His "wrath" without which His glory would not be complete. It is then pointed out How God's glory is the main goal of everything. But if people's punishment is just a vehicle to glorify God, then that would mean then that the Fall that got those people in that position was just a means to that end, and this is by definition double predestinarian supralapsarianism.
It seems what people are now calling "hyper-Calvinism" is the pure form of Calvinism, and people have modified it to do away with the elements distasteful to them (while criticizing those who go further in eliminating distasteful doctrines, as this article actually tries to lump Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism together in one aspect!)

[ October 23, 2002, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

I did answer the question as my fellow Calvinists have answered time and again the false charges and accusations by the Axis of Anti-Calvinism( ) that exists in this forum. Ya'll just ignore what we say and then say we haven't answered the question. Fortunately, in the coming weeks my time in this forum will be reduced due to other duties so I will have less time to read the stuff you anti-Calvinists are posting. Maybe by the time I can get back to spending more time here there will a more reasonable group on the other side to debate these issues with who are more amenable to understanding Biblical truth.

May God bless ya'll as you study His Word.

 

I think you anti-Calvinists would do well to spend some time studying in a class or in a book on Historical Theology. Ya'll seem to be woefully uninformed on the Reformation and the centuries since then. Ya'll grab a snippet here and a snippet there and then construct outright falsehoods about Calvinism. Aren't Christians supposed to be
honest? I am simply not seeing that from the anti-Calvinist side, not even in your attempts to reach logical conclusions on Calvinism.

At least the Calvinist side simply tries to prove your theology is wrong without trying to make the non-Calvinists sound like children of the devil. You anti-Calvinists sound like, if you had your way, you would send Calvinists to the deepest, darkest pit of hell.

[ October 23, 2002, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

John Calvin believed in double predestination, as did the group that answered the Remonstrants and came up with what we call the TULIP analogy. "Pure" Calvinism, it would seem, is the Calvinism that was believed in by Calvin and his direct followers. This kind of Calvinism is what people today call "hyper-Calvinism." I believe this is the point he was trying to make.

 

Whoa! Being a double predestinarian does not a hyper-calvinist make. Although all hypercalvinists are double predestinarians, most double predestinarians are not hypercalvinists.

And the Synod of Dordt is explicitely infralapsarian....

Here is a link that explains things more....

[ October 23, 2002, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

More proof that ya'll don't know the theological difference between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism. What ya'll want to do is lump the two systems together, batter on Hyper-Calvinist(which I would agree with on certain items) while calling it Calvinism. And that is intellectually and theologically dishonest and ya'll ought to be ashamed of yourselves. It would be like Calvinists lumping non-Calvinists with Pelagians and calling all non-Calvinists Pelagians.

Frankly, until the Axis of Anti-Calvinism(I love that phrase ) does some studying and learns what Calvinism is and what Hyper-Calvinism is ya'll ought to retire from this debate on Hyper-Calvinism and come back when ya'll can deal honestly and forthrightly with the differences between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism.

Then again, ya'll can continue on your present path and continue to appear thelogically silly.

[ October 23, 2002, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

That is certainly not true, and Calvinists have said worse things about our position. Even now someone is repeating the charge that we oppose Calvinism because we just want God's autonomy. I don't even see how I made you sound so bad. I acknowledge that you reject the extreme views.
We can say that you need to learn pre-Augustinian theology and the difference between arminianism and Pelagianisn (which many say is the same thing, or at least treat them as such)

[ October 23, 2002, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

Eric B,

You are not among the Axis of anti-Calvinists( ). You are a reasonable debater. My remarks are directed at certain people who take the extreme view of Hyper-Calvinists and want to lump all Calvinists in with them, and refuse to differentiate between the two.

 

No, I said if Calvinists acted as certain people do concerning Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism that we could lump all non-Calvinists in with Pelagians. But that would not be valid anymore than it is for certain people to refuse to differentiate between Calvinists and Hyper-Calvinists.

I was a Pelagian when I was in the Church of Christ(actually approaching what is now called Open Theism), but I was not an Arminian as I did not believe at the time that humans are born with a sin nature.