Hyper-Calvinism: A Brief Definition

Rarely does anyone respond to something I say about this issue, one which Tim likes to always bring up; as its is sure to spark a good discussion and lightup the blogrolls…I am altogether unsure if I am generally considered a “troll” here - therefore just ignored - or if my comments are either so scattered and dumb that they are not worth responding to - or - that they might actually be rarely brilliant. If I had to guess, I’m on the dull side, as I admittantly have a tremendous amount to still learn and the more I learn the less I understand - as the song goes; all the things I thought I knew I have to learn again.

I wince everytime I hear somebody make eloquent statements extolling double predestination or saying that they know what a hyper-calvinist is, but that they surely aren’t one themselves. Generally - most such arguments seem to me to be boarderline sophistic and functionally evasive.

Personally - I stop just short of calling John Calvin a heretic, thought I am leaning more and more towards making that a clear distinction, thought it is sure to hastily make any armchair theologian/self-professed calvinism defendor readily ashen faced at the mere mention of the word. As I have said before - I have openly speculated that he may well have taken up the mantle/legacy of Nestorious in the Nestorius/Constantinus debate regarding the nature of Christ - as Tillich posited, except with Calvin - the issue being the Soverignty of God. Tillich said that Nestorious was a heresy hunter himself and went too far and became an inadvertent heretic himself. In logic we know that there is “the law of the exluded middle” - but I believe that there is “the law of the exluded boundaries;” which is to say that you may not be able to define what the center is, but you can define the state of being “beyond the boundaries” of something as clearly being heretical; in other words I cannot allways explain how the center is right, only that beyond the sides of it - is to be wrong. This is my position on the whole soverignty of God/will of man issue. I have spent alot of time listening to calvinian theology - and I am all the more stronger for it - but it also reinforces my conviction that as Dogmatic as I want to be (I hate postmodernisms intrinsic jello-like inablity to believe anything and instead substite “experience” for doctrine) I have to release somethings back into mysteries and out of the clutches of my carnally-tainted reason. You can banter all you want back and forth and argue with one hand that God does not send anybody to hell and talk out of your other that he does, but the truth is that double-predestinationists have an anthromorphologically-influenced sotereologic assumption: that free will impugns or abdicates soverignty. It does not. As Tozer said - IT AFFIRMS IT. Furthermore - God does play favorites; but Calvinists who declair themselves “favorited” or “elected” or whatever term you wish, put themsleves in danger of hellfire to write off those who might just be called to be common laborours in the kingdom. If you are “special” or elected, or called to specific purpose that is fine; and yes, it is not fair to others - but spiritual reality is not fair; others might be able to play spiritual pattycake but you cannot - you have been given alot more and alot more is going to be required of you, but how dare you exalt yourself above others out there and just write them off as hopelessly uninlightenended because they have no “election ” like yours. That is Gnosticism and it’s “exclusivistic enlighment notion”; which Calvism may well be merely a deceptive reinterpretation of: You should be compelled to pray for the lost and dying with all due expediency. The issue is that there is a spiritual war going on; and you’ve got to wrestle with spiritual forces to reach the lost.

The truth is that all of us who have been called to the Supper of the Lamb were beggars on the streets; the “elect” had better things to do (see Luke) and instead the Master sent for the “unelected” the beggars and street urchins to come in and sup.

God is calling those whom he has special purpose for and has given special purpose to others and not those who refused it initially. Luke speaks against “irrististable grace” in these terms; those who were invited made a decision not to come. Period. Peter echoes this -when he says to do these things “so that your election will be sure”

All this theological gymnastics that says that when the scripture speaks of the elect and says that their act of resistance to what they were called to do ‘is not really resisting’; it reminds me of Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses trying to get around the truth. Luke 14:18 “and they all with one consent began to make excuse” I am yet to ever hear a 5 point Calvinist who thinks that those who are Elected cannot resist their Election: resolve how Christ clearly says that none of those who were bid to the supper shall eat of it in Luke. They Refused. You need to theologically deal with this reality and stop making excuses as to why this is not how the kingdom of God really operates; that what it says is not what it really means. Double predesistination says that those who did not come to the supper - on some higher supralapsarian level;that the scripture just seems to ‘inadverntently leave out’ - really had no choice to either go or make excuse. They did. They decided they had better things to do. You can be called to purpose and ignore it. The truth is that all of us who are called into ministry, more then likely - someone else was elected/called and they decided to do otherwise. Limited Atonement/Irristiable Grace makes a mockery of Luke 14 and turns it on it’s head - it essentially presents Christ as ultimately a sophistic teacher: that is to say - he is teaching things that he knows are ultimately wrong and deceptive, and pointing you in the wrong direction theologically. Let God be true and every man a liar - be he an Arminian who does not understand Soverignty or a Calvinst who does not understand Free Will.

I have no doubt that there are individuals who God elected and called, but they are so self absorbed and prideful that they are virtually useless to the kingdom of God. What God wanted to do with those people He rather called those who would have otherwise never had that calling upon them.

Calvinists need to study the imperitive implications of Free Will; just like Arminiams need to continually study God’s Soverignty; and they need to constantly and prayerfully make sure that they don’t go bounding out into the outfields of heretical oblivion. That is the best advice you can get.

I am sorry if this sounds ugly or mean. Sometimes I feel like I am dealing with alot of frustration with this issue as I have been meditating on it for awhile. I feel like I am called to teach and I have a conviction that I am not worthy to teach or persuade anyone of The truth of the Gospel until I have wept over them and, if the case be so, their ignorance and/or deception. I have a thrist for truth. Please pardon me if I do not always chose the softest of words.

I have a very strong conviction that there is a strong need for reformation within the “Reformed” church. The question -what side are you guys going to be on when it hits?

Respectfully Submitted,

-matthew

Dear John K.

Point 1: Innerancy is a scientific term. It is not a spiritual term. You need to do a serious study on Natural Theology. Inerrancy does not save your soul - the Authority of the Word is what does this. I might theorectically locate an innerrant-from-the-original copy of Plato’s Republic but it has absolutely no bearing on where you or I will spend eternity. You weaken the authority of God when you go about the business of building an argument for why we should believe the scripture. If you want to use it as a tool -that is fine. Unfortunately, when we beleive that we have to offer some form of crafty argument so that we can then expect someone to believe, we subvert the natural inherent self-authentication of the scripture. Take some time and mediate on the idea of what Sola Fide/sola scriptura means; faith alone/scripture alone - the proper response to the initiation/election of God is faith - not reason or an argument. This is extreemly basic but extreemly lost in much of modern evangelicalism. I love to argue from the supposed strength of the innerrancy argument -but it is illusory; but I beleive that you would join me if you thought it through. The scripture must assert itself - not us. Preach the Gospel and the authority thereof - let no man draw you into crafty converstation of 100 percent this or 99.98 percent that. It matters to the lost - but not to those who have heard His voice and genuinely responded to Him.

Point Two: For the Umpteenth time, I will repeat the following. It is a heretical Pelagian statement to say that any man can respond to Christ from his own capacity. This is widely known as thus and disavowed by knowledgeable Arminians. Hearing Calvinist endlessly beat this horse reminds me of Seventh Day Adventists who are sent to Sabbath School for years and years and years where they basically are not really taught about the Sabbath; they are just taught how to defend their near heretical views (for the record, I am in the Dr. Walter Martin viewpoint on them —->they are a sect, not a cult) If no one as told you this, or if you have not heard it, or you have not been listening, then please hear me - nearly all Arminians do not believe that. A consistant proclimation that we do is purposeful self-deciet and theological war drum banging. You are rallying the troops, and meanwhile your Arminian breathern look at you with great concern in regards to how you can continue to think we think things we do not. I hear that all the time here and it is gratuitous back slapping.

The Arminian view is that we are fully enabled to make the choice, but we can still rescind it.

Point Three: Your assertion that God must have absolute control to be soverign is a Soteriological Anthromorphism; you are asserting your own mortal power/authorty dynamics upon the Divine. This is a Reverse Condescension; wherein you force God to bend to your apprehension/personal ideological-epistimolgical frameworks, whereas God condescends Himself to be understood by you -but not vice versa.

Respectfully Submitted

-matthew lipscomb

Ken/Joop/others,

No offense taken, and I appreciate the kind words from EG and others; I understand that I have a potentially self-limiting aggressive nature that potentially serves as a hinderance in conversation. I have done alot of thinking about “my tendencies” and have generally felt like this is a part of my “created nature” and like everything else I have to make it a point to assume that while I am a fallen creature; not everything readily apprehendable as being bad might be so when baptised into kingdom purpose in the life of someone called. I have struggled with a contentious nature - but over the last few years have come to see that God might use that part of me to affect some good, if I can allow Him to guide me and use it effectively. It’s the whole “power is nothing without control” idom; and I have lots of ‘power’ and need to learn how to apply it constructively. Over the last year I have begun the process of responding to what I think is a call to teach on my life. I work hard to keep the energy level down; but I don’t always do a good job - and invariable ruffle feathers, but that’s not always exclusively a bad thing either.

Long Posts: I am sure that I am not quite as fast as Tim “lightning fingers” Challies - but I am definitely time constrained most times I respond here. I usually wind up doing it at work, so I try not to spend more then 5 minutes on a response; it’s the whole “sorry, I did not have time to write a short email” thing.

Another point - and this is perhaps the gist of what I want my post to be about: I have written some in some posts here regarding what I consider a worthy theological method, and that is the analysis of any body of doctrinal formulation from within the deconstructive analytic of dereactionism; or an apprehension of a process both apart from and under the influences of Reactionary Forces. 95% of the time we do not consider the overall governing dynamics that proded either forcefully or casually the formulation or engagement of ideas/reactionary tactics. In medicine; within the realm of trauma care, there is the idea of a “coo” and “counter-coo” force; if you hit your head on the dashboard of your car in a high-speed impact that is the “coo” force - but the reactionary force to that “coo” is the “counter-coo” force of your brain slamming into your cranium. This is where blood vessles are torn, brain tissue is turned into scrambled eggs, and nerves shredded. Not to be morbid, but a “coo” trauma is what you see in the movies, the damage from a “counter-coo” force is what real world health professionals fear more, it is the individual who rolls in with absolutely no mark on them but is the process of massively hemoraging internally from externally unseen injuries.

These same principles make their mark in the theological/ideolgical/philosophics playground. You cannot fully understand Calvin unless you know what he was reacting against (Pelagianism) or Luther (Catholicism), Postmodernism (modernism), Modernism (Classicism/Mythology), Feminism (abusive partriacalism), Prohibition (societal alcohol abuse), Warfieldian Cessationism (Abuses of Early Pentecostal Outpourings), so called “postcolonial reconstructionism” (assumed western capitalistic abuses) etc. The list goes on and on and on. So when I am studying Calvinism, I am doing it not just from the standpoint of deconstructing and reevaluting the responses to either postive or negative forces, I am also valuating whether the response was postive/negative.

A great example of this - and it dovetails with issues brought up in the previous conversations is that Calvin did not make an issue of “Innerancy” as most scholars, such as Alister McGrath conclude, based on his notion of the Condescension/Accomodation of God to Man principle, though it is not universally accepted as such - the larger number of theologians do aggree. It is not something that a “Classical Man” like Calvin would have really worried about - as he would not be confronted with Modernism’s rush to statistically/scientifically prove anything worth beleiveing. To bring this issue together with my long rambling statement regarding “Reactionary Forces” - Innerancy is a Counter-Coo or Resultant byproduct of the Reactionary Force of Modernism upon Classical Theology. Modernist feel like we have to be able to prove everything and in effect, we don’t realize that the Gospel is not a Modern Assertion; it is neither a Classical nor Postmodern one either - no matter how much any Cultural Reactionary Epoch denizen would want to control or say that it is entirely theirs - it is not. To me a truly astute theological student must practice transcendence in regards to both Cultural (soceital expectations/behaviors) and Cultral Epochal periods (classicism/mod/post).

So in a Nutshell, when I study Calvinism (and I think that everybody should strive to do this as well) I approach it as a mortally-assembled body of theological thought and I beat it around - not just to see the postive/negative reactionary forces that have influenced/spawned it, but to learn from those postive/negative things about it.

That is why I have a huge problem with starry-eyed theological students who just accept everything about something because everybody else always has. That is why there was a Reformation to begin with - and that is why there is - I beleive - another one soon to come. I think Calvinism has tremendous potential to impact the body of Christ for present and future generations, because of any number of issues that it is intrinsically about, such as The Soverignty of God. But that wil never happen if Students/Teachers/Theologians cannot accept that there may be problems in the way that it has been generationally taught and accepted. I am not so sure that there is not a huge differnce between Calvin and “Calvinism” - this is something that I am continuing to study. This is why repentance and humilty are absolutely postively central and paramount to any theologian/teacher/student. The power that is unleashed in saying “I was wrong” means that you now know that you may well be now right about something and that is a step forward. Theological systems that abstain from concerted theological inflection limit themselves; they just become obtuse shadows that serve only to endlessly reproduce themselves. Maybe I’m a Neo-Calvinist in the regards that I’m taking the “good reactions” of Calvinism and eliminating the Nestorian tendency of over-reactionism or negative reactionary forces; which to me, for “Calvinism” as it is taught today - is a total disregard for Free Will. But you have to ask yourself - all these people in the Calvinian Blogsphere- if suddenly the Pelagian Boogyman of Armianinsism suddenly went away - would there be anything left to talk about? And is that a problem itself? Is Modern day Calvism just a roaming sophistic argument just waiting to happen, one that is meaningless and silly to those who understand Soverignty AND Free Will? And if that is so - then can Calvism really in an authentic sense respond to the postmodernist washout of individuals who have reacted against so much they now know they either have Nihilism or or a resemblance of a Systematic Theology to embrace? If Calvinsim just endlessly presents arguments that are ultimately meaningless to those who can accept mystery, it shoots itself in the foot and merely just takes it’s place among other historically entrenched theological systems that are bankrupt because they never audited themselves, they never reformed themselvse in an ONGOING BASIS. The principle of Reformed Theology should not be that ‘we once did that’ because that this the source point for almost everybodies system - the issue is that we should be Reforming Now.

Those of you who are agast at that idea, I am sure that you do have MEGO at my ramblings here (my eyes glaze over) but I am writing for those who are eager for a reformation. Besides, I have my own book/journal (1300 pages) to satisfy a craving for writing - I don’t do this for that.

And no - I’m not looking for “converts” to my system; if I can be understood to have a system. I am trying to advance the theological conversation and provoke introspection and analyis. The abdication of Pride is an intrinsic part of this; and it is something that any regenerate child of God should rejoice in the honor and pleasure thereof and therein.

Respectfully Submitted,

matthew lipscomb