Defining Hyper-Calvinism

-
Between Two Worlds passes on a definition of Hyper-Calvinism that I wish some of my Calvinist friends on the internet would read. Here’s a part:

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:

Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear,

OR Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner,

OR Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal),

OR Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace,"

OR Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

All five varieties of hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message.

Comments

LPC said…
JK,

So would James White be one?

BTW how is the job situation?

Lito
December 03, 2008
J. K. Jones said…
LP,

Good to hear from you.

I don't know thast much about James White. I have read one of his books in passing, and I saw no reason to think he was hyper. Is there a reason you asked?

I am still out of work, thanks for asking. I do have some promising leads. I'll let you know.

JK
December 03, 2008
LPC said…
Dr. Allen of SBC seems to take him for one based on Phil Johnson's criteria.

LPC
December 03, 2008
J. K. Jones said…
You might find Dr. White’s initial reaction interesting. He’s not known for mincing words. Here’s a taste:

“Isn't it ironic? I am in London, England, preparing to do public debates with Islamic apologists, seeking to present and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ and His Lordship, and the Arminians are all gathered at Johnny Hunt's church to try to convince folks not to listen to the Calvinists. Don't you find something just a bit ironic in that? I'm out on the front lines pressing the claims of Christ and calling Muslims to bow to His lordship while those who will falsely accuse me of being a "hyper-Calvinist" are safely ensconced in the friendly environs of Georgia, sniping at Reformed folks---who, of course, were not invited to participate, debate, or discuss…” – James White

From:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2955
December 04, 2008
LPC said…
JK,

I was a Calvinist for about 4 years.

The flurry of having to modify one's Calvinism is what made me unimpressed with the program.

Most of all I have never been satisfied with the exegesis Calvinists have given for 1 John 2:1-2. This has always bugged me.

I was already at home with the Heidleberg Catechism, until I reviewed again exegesis on the Lutheran view of the Sacraments - specially 1 Cor 10:14-16.

I am actually thankful that Luther did not give in to the Zwinglians on the Supper. Protestant Christianity would have been reduced to the ministry of the Word and no Sacraments - a pseudo Gnostic view of CHristianity.

LPC
LPC
December 05, 2008
J. K. Jones said…
LP,

I will review the verses you mention once again, but would suggest that you review Ephesians 1 and 2, along with Romans 3.

Oh, by the way, my daughter went into the hospital this weekend with a very high fever and an unknown infection (highly elevated white blood cell count). It was quite the experience. She is recuperating at home now after several round of IV anti-biotics (Praise God!).

I am still out of work. My father-in-law and niece are still in poor health.

We have checked the water supply for blood, the cupboards for frogs, our heads for lice, our den for flies, our faces for boils, our driveway for hail, our backyard for locusts, and to see if the sun came up this morning (Exodus 7-10). So far we are clear, but we are beginning to wonder.

JK
December 08, 2008
LPC said…
JK,

I am sorry things have not been that well, I prayed for you the other morning.

God have mercy on your situation.
Do not wonder about God's love for you - look at the Cross. I know it may be easy to say, God is seen in the face of our suffering. He is incognito.

LPC

re: Issue of Calvinism etc, I see here again a collapsing of categories.
December 08, 2008
LPC said…
JK,

BTW, I studied Eph 1 - 2 before when I was trying to resolve the idea of predestination.

Predestination is always positively mentioned for believers, there is no negative mention of it for non-believers.

Hence, it can not be used for logic to arrive at some folk are predestined by God to hell, or meant Jesus did not die for them, etc.

Have a look at my comment to you on the Means of Grace - God's delivery mechanism for delivering what Christ has won for sinners into the sinner's space and time.


That is my finding from Scripture.

LPC
December 08, 2008
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Face of Terror

-
Osama Bin laden is dead. Since the rest of the internet is buzzing with opinions on that death, I thought I would weigh in. First, this is not the end of global terrorism. Like the Hydra of old, when one head is chopped off, two more take its place. We still need diligence in our fight against global terror. U. S. and allied Armed Forces still need our prayers. We still need a strong military and intelligence community. We have not yet cut off the Hydra’s immortal head. Second, the way to get to the ‘heart of the matter’ is with Christian missionary efforts. We must reach the people who make up those societies and population segments that produce terrorists . To tell a story I have told here before : Early in the twentieth century, Baptist evangelists preached through rural Mississippi and Alabama with such effectiveness that moonshiners could no longer sell their whiskey: All their customers were getting converted! In desperation, the whiskey sellers hired two men to murder on...
Read more

The Canons of Dort

-
I believe that the Canons of Dort are true. This is a statement that came out the Synod of Dort, held from 1618-1619. The Canons of Dort outline the system of theology known today as the “five points of Calvinism.” The problem I have with most “five-point Calvinists” is that the Canons of Dort contain much more than five points. Many explanations of the TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints) are gross simplifications of the Canons of Dort. [This is especially true of explanations given by those who oppose Calvinism. It is easier to knock down a straw man than it is to knock down a real man, and so it is easier to criticize an oversimplified Calvinism that the more robust form.] Some of those who teach the “five points” leave out some of the quotes below: This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than ...
Read more

Intelligent Design

-
The Intelligent Design (ID) movement makes much of the argument from irreducible complexity. Dr. Michael Behe has become famous for a simple example, the mousetrap. He points out that the mousetrap will not perform its function without all of its parts. The wooden base, the metal hammer, a spring, a catch and a metal bar to hold back the hammer are all necessary parts. One component by itself will not catch a mouse. Mainstream evolutionary science has a counter-argument. To paraphrase Dr. Kenneth Miller, if you disassemble the mousetrap, each component can serve as something useful on its own. If we take away the catch and metal bar, we have something left that can serve as a paper clip. The spring could make a simple two-section key chain. The wooden base makes a paperweight. Evolutionary processes like random mutation and natural selection can combine and retain the useful parts as the complicated evolves to perform the complex function. The useful parts are combined into the mousetr...
Read more