Identifying Hyper-Calvinism

JD, that's the major problem I have with labels.

We tend to misunderstand each other, whether on purpose or not.

Frankly speaking, I'm tired of being called a Calvinist on BB.

 

You nailed it JD . Those who deliberately misconstrue have an agenda .

 

First JD, you seem to be forgetting something very important thing. I did not just paste Phil's list up and say it is the end all of the argument.

Secondly, Phil Johnson's list is not as 'disputed' as you seem to think. I haven't found much out there against it at all.

Thirdly, I didn't give Phil Johnson's list without getting others to set their endorsment to it as well. It is an aide to help. Therefore I went to the 'go to place' where Calvinistic information was considered reliable. And John Hedrix gave his endorsement stating that what Monergism sees as HC views and what Phil sets forth in his outlining of 5 basic HC are the same things.

I would like some clarification on something though, if I may? I realize you didn't say they were the 'goto guys' specifically (and I appologize for the misquote) but my intent in the phrasing was about them as a reliable information on Calvinism - thus the 'goto guys'. But if they are a 'goto place' for reliable information on Calvinism but they are wrong on what constitutes HC, then how can anyone trust them on basic Calvinism if they don't understand the extremes of it?

I'm not saying Monergism (John Hendrix) is infalable nor am I saying he is the most knowagable person alive regarding Calvinism. But I am saying he is very well respected in his views and understanding, so for him to agree with 'disputed' listing of Phil makes one wonder, why? For one Monergism in their listing did not give an exhaustive listing but listed 'some' HC beliefs and destructive veiws that most Calvinists reject as deplorable. This is where you guys are missing the boat concerning his opinion of Phils listing being the same as his.

Another quick note - Phil's list is not to label a person an HC but to respectively show where some Cal's vary from the Historical view into non-historical (HC) views.

I gave examples as to what I think the views share but Monergism is one who can best answer it. For me- the #1 in Phils list corrisponds to the other on no evangelism.
Monergism states:
"- that it is wrong to evangelize"
Phils #1 The denial of the gospel call which states (in brief):

Monergism's "- that assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith"
Correlates to Phils #2 . The denial of faith as a duty which states (in brief):

Monergism's "- that God does not command everyone to repent";
Correlates to Phil's #3 The denial of the gospel offer which states (in brief)

Though on the surface this does not appear the same due to the commanding all to repent and offering the gospel. My point is more in line with the intent of God. Does He truly desire for sinners to repent, and "does the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect. " So in this one I can agree it might need a little more fleshing out, and is most likely why Mongerism stated "I agree with all of the points Phil Johnson makes that you have listed with the possible exception that we believe the gospel is a universal command, not simply an offer.".

Monergism's "- that the grace of God does not work for the betterment of all men";
Correlates to Phil's #4 The denial of common grace.

These 5 types (or 4 if you don't think the offer aspect is a solid one) given by Phil Johnsom are outlining 5 different types of HC views. Just because a person holds to one or two doesn't make them a Hyper, as he even states regarding A. W. Pink. It merely shows views or tendencies toward those views. Even Rippon acknowledges his tendencies toward those views and that is what the list was placed here by me to do. To allow the non-cals something to be able to look at and see what an actaul HC view is instead of just declaring a Calvinist a Hyper, but also to allow a person who's view has those tendencies to be able to look and do a double check. Is that really a bad thing? To make sure you where your view is, where you claim it to be.



.

 

I'm not going to go to much beyond this because I have already said my peace.

However I will agree with TCG, and that labels on the BB are more given as negitives and pejoratives and not rightly give credence to one actual views.

 

Spoken like a true Pelagianist (just kidding).

Back to the content of the two lists -- 'M' -- and 'P'.There still isn't any correlation between the two.It's amazing that I'm a zero Hyper-Calvinist on one and a fractional H-C on the other.If the two lists really had anything in common -- I should rank about the same by both ways of reckoning. M doesn't = P. Two doesn't equal 3 either (in case you would claim otherwise).

 

All calvinists are hyper calvinists to me. It's a stupid relative title. Anyone that is more calvinist than you are is a hyper calvinist.

Just like anyone that is more dispensational than I am is a hyper dispensationalist. Most people call me a hyper dispensationalist because I believe God's salvation works differently in diff dispensations. But there are people that divide even more than I do, and disregard baptism and repentance altogether in this age (we call them dry cleaners)

It's a dumb relative title that can't be defined.

 

Here are some "labels" I would used to describe myself

Independent Baptist
Bible Believer
Dispensational
PreMillennial
PreTribulational
KJBOnly

Here are some labels others have used to describe me

Ruckmanite (I need to get this one made into a badge, so people will just see it and shut up, instead of pointing out the obvious)
Cloudite
Hylesite
Man-Follower (I don't actually care much for hyles or cloud, but they are both baptists as well, and KJB proponents, so we all kinda get lumped together).
Hyper Dispensationalist
Heretic
Arminian (by a calvinist, because I don't believe in the TULIP)
Calvinist (by an arminian, because I believe in Eternal Security)
And my favourite so far is "Science Fiction Eschatologist" - after I made reference to a golden city 1500 miles high wide and deep.

 

Buh, probably misunderstood...

 

There is a good conference coming to FBC, Woodstock, GA in the early part of November

I believe its called The John 3:16 conference hosted by Dr. Jerry Vines and it addresses the issues of Calvinism

Check it out on his website

www.jerryvines.com

 

So his conference is called "What Love Is This!".That smacks of a Dave Hunt kind of an approach to the text and general subject matter.

There should be a John Owen conference at the same time across the street.The title of the conference would be :"How John 3:16 Has Been Distorted By Mainstream Fundamentalism/Evangelicism".

 

So-------without even attending the conference(because said conference isn't scheduled until November)-----you have concluded that the conference and its speakers will move to "distort" the truth of John 3:16

Interesting!!!!

 

Would you mind being asked to counter each point in the TULIP logically and scripturally ?

 

I said I wasn't going to debate anymore, so I won't.

There is no point me writing up a one page refutation of the TULIP when many men have done so before me, and you haven't listened to them. If I refute it using Bible verses, you will just come back with verses to support your theology. It will go in circles, and spiritually drain both of us. I would need to go through every single scripture that you use to support calvinism, and quite honestly, I don't have the time brother, and in the end, it likely wouldn't change your mind, becuase you are only seeking to root out any inconsistancies I might have.

Instead, if you are interested in an exhaustive refutation of Calvinism, may I suggest you read Lawrence Vance' 2nd Edition of "The Other Side of Calvinism". You can skip the first few chapters if you want and go straight to the TULIP, and skip over the historical stuff about Calvin and Arminius and so on.

99% of the quotes in the book are from Calvinists, both modern and historic, so as not to misrepresent them. At times, he often presents opposing views from the calvinists, being aware that they don't all agree amongst themselves, and shows different viewpoints on certain issues (such as sublap, infralap and supralap, as well as limited atonement).

God bless as you seek the truth,
Luke

P.S Just for kicks, I'll give you a verse that counters each letter.

T - Basically any verse where man is told to believe the Gospel - Acts 16:31
U - John 3:16, Rev 22:17
L - 1 John 2:2
I - Acts 7:51
P - 1 Cor 1:8 (God shall confirm us, not our perseverance - I believe in Eternal Security)

 

I am so glad a dropped out of Luther Rice...

 

hahaha! On their conference page it says, "This conference is not going to be a "Let's bash the Calvinists" conference."

Yeah right...that's like saying Obama won't bash Palin anymore. :laugh:

Seems like some folks at founders are more optimistic than I am. http://www.founders.org/blog/2008/03/john-316-conference.html

 

Absolutely great book from a KJV onliest.
Also, this is how chapter five begins:

Let me think of a couple more words that have five letters. How about J-E-S-U-S.

 

That has to be one of the goofiest things I've ever read.