- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (6/28)
- Next Post »A La Carte (6/29)
Hyper-Calvinism: A Brief Definition
- 06/28/07
- 114
The term hyper-Calvinist is often used as a pejorative. Almost any Calvinist who adheres to the doctrines of grace is likely to be considered a hyper-Calvinist by at least someone. Frankly speaking, a hyper-Calvinist can be any Calvinist to a person who doesn’t understand Calvinism. So today, just briefly, and because the term has come up a few times in recent weeks, I want to narrow in on a more accurate definition of it. First we’ll look at a few examples of what does not constitute hyper-Calvinism. Then we’ll actually define the term.
While most Calvinists hold to the five points of Calvinism as summarized by the acronym TULIP, there are some who refer to themselves as six or seven-point Calvinists. One person who is known to identify himself as a seven-point Calvinist is John Piper. He does so half-jokingly but does so to communicate a truth that the five points of Calvinism are not exhaustive in a consideration of God’s sovereign saving grace. The Desiring God web site says, “Piper isn’t seeking to add two more points, but is simply calling attention to his belief in the traditional five points (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints) in a way that also points toward two additional ‘Calvinistic’ truths that follow from them: double predestination and the best-of-all-possible worlds.” Double predestination is widely considered the sixth-point. It is simply the other side to predestination, that just as God sovereignly chooses those whom He will save, in the same way he chooses those whom He will not save. There are some Calvinists who reject this idea, saying that God chooses His elect while everyone else makes their own choice to be condemned. A six-point Calvinist though, believes that God chooses some for salvation and some for perdition and that He does so not on the basis that some people are better or worse than others, but simply through His sovereign choice.
The seventh-point of Calvinism, at least according to John Piper (and I’m uncertain whether others regard this as the seventh point) is the best-of-all-possible worlds, which “means that God governs the course of history so that, in the long run, His glory will be more fully displayed and His people more fully satisfied than would have been the case in any other world.” Yet even someone who is willing to extend Calvinism beyond the five points is not “hyper.” A seven-point Calvinist is not a hyper-Calvinist.
An Enthusiastic Calvinist, or a person who really, really likes to talk about these doctrines, is also not a hyper-Calvinist. Someone who is an ardent Calvinist, who believes in these doctrines and talks about nothing else is still not “hyper” according to the historic use of the word.
So what, then, is a hyper-Calvinist?
Part of the confusion about this term no doubt arises from the use of the prefix “hyper.” “Hyper” does not refer, as many might think, to enthusiasm or excitement. Rather its basic meaning is along the lines of “excessive or excessively.” You might think of the word hyperactive which means “excessively active.” Hyper- comes from the Greek prefix huper-, which comes from the preposition huper, meaning “over, beyond.” So a hyper-Calvinist is one who goes beyond and over the bounds of what Calvinism teaches (and thus over the bounds of what the Bible teaches). He is excessive in his application of the doctrines. This manifests itself in an over-emphasis of one aspect of God’s character at the expense of another. Hyper-Calvinists emphasize God’s sovereignty but de-emphasize God’s love. They tend to set God’s sovereignty at odds with the clear biblical call to human responsibility. We can see how these are worked out as we look at a concise definition of the term. Phil Johnson, who has done extensive research on this subject very helpfully defines hyper-Calvinists using a five-fold definition. A hyper-Calvinist is one who:
- 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.
As Phil says, “All five varieties of hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message.” So this is the key to understanding hyper-Calvinism: it undermines evangelism and/or somehow distorts the gospel message.
Probably the most distinguishing characteristic of a Hyper-Calvinist is an unwillingness to evangelize at all, or to evangelize without extending a call to accept and believe the gospel. An example of a hyper-Calvinistic confession makes this clear. Article 33 of Articles of Faith of the Gospel Standard Aid and Poor Relief Societies says, “Therefore, that for ministers in the present day to address unconverted persons, or indiscriminately all in a mixed congregation, calling upon them to savingly repent, believe, and receive Christ, or perform any other acts dependent upon the new creative power of the Holy Ghost, is, on the one hand, to imply creature power, and on the other, to deny the doctrine of special redemption.” In other words, they say, to command people to turn from their sin and to repent is to command them to do something they are unable to do for this would deny the doctrine of particular redemption. Yet this teaching is clearly at odds with the Bible’s call for all men to believe. The offer of the gospel is universal and God truly does command all men to heed it. Faith is a duty for all men. God’s common grace extends to all men and, while God does not love elect and non-elect in the same way, the Bible is clear that He does love all that He has created.
Keep that five-fold definition in mind and you’ll have a good idea of what it truly means to be a hyper-Calvinist. Of course I have little confidence that articles like this one will make any real difference. The term hyper-Calvinist is a convenient and baggage-filled one to lob into an argument or discussion. But at least now we know whether or not we truly fit that mold!
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (114)
Good post, Tim. Thanks for trying to clear the name of Calvinists…I don’t think I’ve seen a historical figure so misunderstood and maligned through ignorance as Calvin (but don’t quote me on that… I could be wrong).
I’m not to sure about Phil Johnson’s identification of a hyper-Calvinist as one who denies common grace. That notion is one that has been heavily debated, at least in Dutch church history. It’s a Kuyperian teaching, objected to (in name, not necessarily in definition) by Schilder and others in the early 20th century. Schilder took issue with Kuyper calling this ‘grace’ since to Schilder grace is God’s salvation work (if I’m remembering correctly), not his providence in the world.
Another characteristic of hyper-calvinism seems to be the anathema of anyone who doesn’t hold to EXACTLY the same views as they do. In other words - I think this is accurate - they require perfect knowledge (according their own standard) in order to be saved.
I have read of those who were at odds with hyper-calvinists over some minor issue being labeled as a heretic and reprobate.
Oh yeah, and John Piper’s comments, although I have not studied them in detail, sound very like Leibniz, whose philosophy, although interesting, was theologically weak.
Rather than saying that this is the ‘best of all possible worlds’ I think it would be better to say that this is the world as it is, and God, because of his sovereignty and omnipotence, because of who he is, will make sure that he is glorified more fully in the end, no matter what the world could be like. I have always found discussion about ‘best of all possible worlds’ to be besides the point, since there is only one, and this is the one we have to deal with.
And ‘best of all possible’ limits God’s omnipotence and omniscience, since if there is such a thing as ‘all possible worlds,’ then God was limited in what he could create—there was a standard outside of himself that limited his creativity.
Our student pastor preached this past Sunday, and quoted Piper’s well-known mantra “God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him.” He didn’t even attribute the quote to Piper, and his sermon was not about anything Calvinistic.
The amusing thing is that afterwards, a lady in the congregation, came up to him and “notified” him that she knew that he had cited a “hyper-Calvinist” in his sermon. Sheesh.
Tim, thanks for this post. For those who would like to learn about historical hyper-calvinism in the context that Daniel Fuller dealt with, Piper gave a biographical sketch on it here (text or audio):
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Biographies/
“Andrew Fuller’s Broadsides Against Sandemanianism, Hyper-Calvinism, and Global Unbelief”
Alan
I asked Brian this personally and maybe this is way off topic but I have a personal concern with this especially in what Brian posted.
I agree completely with what Brian wrote. My heart is heavy because although I believe what hewrote, I can’t help but feel scared for my family who hates Calvinism with a passion. It has even caused them to treat my wife I and I poorly and I don’t know…I guess it is getting more difficult to believe they are Christians when they hate the truth so bad, and treat those who believe it so poorly. Any insight anyone can give would be helpful.
One of the best treatments I’ve ever seen on this subject is one written by Pastor William Payne found here
How enlightening this post is - I always thought the term “hyper-Calvinist” referred to Tim Challies after he drank some strong coffee.
Doesn’t Sproul say in Chosen By God that hyper-Calvinism also sees reprobation as a positive thing? Normal Calvinism sees it as something that is negative. I bet you got that book laying around somewhere in your vast library there, Challies. :)
“Probably the most distinguishing characteristic of a Hyper-Calvinist is an unwillingness to evangelize at all, or to evangelize without extending a call to accept and believe the gospel.”
To be truthful, I haven’t met any hyper, or ultra-Calvinists.Though I know they’re out there.
I have been said to be a “flaming” Calvinist, and yet I hardly ever refer to myself as a Calvinist, unless the term helps in a good way.
Thanks for the good post.
I have know some Calvinists who get a little puffed up in their theology. I know this happens, because it has happened to me. The Lord usually sends a godly Arminian friend to humble me.
The Lord knows how to make us humble.
Tim,
I think any Christian—of any doctrinal stance—who fails to lead with love is a hyper-“whatever the doctrinal stance.”
People wield their theology like a cudgel sometimes and it destroys others, others the cudgel-wielder failed to even get to know before he or she started swinging that weapon around.
In today’s culture, the true Christian is the one who is willing to show patience with people who aren’t where he is. We were all once somewhere else. Whether it be coming to knowledge of Christ in the first place or simply growing deeper in the Faith, we need to show godly patience. The Lord shows patience with us, doesn’t He?
But the “hyper” person has no love or patience for anyone who’s not perfectly in line with his belief system. And that destroys rather than builds. It’s cheap, asks nothing of the hyper, and shows a massive disinterest in the lives of his neighbors. Because he has more holy things to attend to, he becomes the one who willfully passes by the man robbed and left for dead at the side of the road.
And we know how the Lord feels about that.
Tim, great post. Precision in language would end a multitude of disagreements.
Another thought hit me. When a Calvinist says the Lord doesn’t love all people the same, and He died for His children, and not for everyone, then is he not thought of at least bordering on hyper?
Thank you for that explanation! I just read Mark Dever’s article on young Calvinists yesterday and was confused by the term “hyper-Calvinists,” so this definition is much appreciated.
OK, so if the definition of “hyper” is that it undermines evangelism, then why isn’t double predestination “hyper”, in that it leads, quite logically, to the idea that there is no need to attempt to evangelize the damned if they really have no hope.
Thanks Tim for this post - you have cleared up my definition of Hyper Calvinist. Thanks also for the links in the comments, I will be sure to check them out.
The only thing that surprised me about this article is that maybe I am a 6-pointer *cue squirrel video*. I did not realise that God electing some to perdition was not the natural result of God electing those whom He would save. I will have to go and do some reading & praying about this. If anyone has any resources on ‘double predestination’ then that would be helpful.
“why isn’t double predestination “hyper”, in that it leads, quite logically, to the idea that there is no need to attempt to evangelize the damned if they really have no hope.”
It may seem logical to some people but it is not Biblical, and there by not a belief of us plain old not Hyper Calvinists.
EG: As Spurgeon observed, show me the elect and I shall preach only to them.
God knows—and has not revealed to us in their full extent—his people. He has appointed the preaching of the gospel as his ordinary means by which he brings his people to a saving knowledge of him (Romans 10, right?). And he has commanded evangelism. That alone is sufficient reason for the Calvinist to evangelize.
I continue to be amazed at the obvious incompatibility of these two statements:
”Double predestination is widely considered the sixth-point. It is simply the other side to predestination, that just as God sovereignly chooses those whom He will save, in the same way he chooses those whom He will not save.
and
“The offer of the gospel is universal and God truly does command all men to heed it.”
The two are plainly contradictory. Someone said that the non-necessity of evangelism may seem logical but it is not Biblical. I agree it is not Biblical, but that non-evangelizing attitude follows directly and unequivocally from the concept of unconditional individual election. I believe it is the ‘U’ in TULIP that is unbiblical.Take Care
a godly Arminian
Is that possible? :)
I believe it is the ‘U’ in TULIP that is unbiblical.Take Care
That’s called a drive-by blog comment, John K.
“Jacob I have loved, but Esau I hated.”
“those who were long ago marked out for condemnation”
“son of perdition”
“for this reason I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you”
Just a few quick examples of vessels of wrath prepared beforehand for destruction.
“Probably the most distinguishing characteristic of a Hyper-Calvinist is an unwillingness to evangelize at all, or to evangelize without extending a call to accept and believe the gospel.”
I don’t believe that the modern “Invitation System” should be understood as being equal to or synonymous with “extending a call to accept and believe the gospel.”
I know many men who have been labeled as Hyper-Calvinists because they refused to pressure people into walking down an isle to make a decision for Christ but their sermons were not void of extending a call to accept and believe the gospel.
a godly Arminian
Is that possible? :)
Rhetorical questions always say it better.
It may seem logical to some people but it is not Biblical, and there by not a belief of us plain old not Hyper Calvinists.
This is the weirdest part of Calvinism in general (at least to me). It is all about being very systematic and, indeed, logical… until the logic seems to go too far, whereby logic is tossed by the wayside.
My understanding is that the Scriptures plainly teach BOTH God’s sovereignty and man’s free choice. If God, in His sovereignty, provided man with free choice, then that is His sovereign prerogative (sort of Wesley’s idea of preveniant grace, I guess).
If, somehow, the circle is squared in another way that we don’t understand, then fine as well.
Since the scriptures teach both, I am willing to believe both, even if they seem to contradict. I know that this is not the majority opinion on this blog, and that’s fine. I’m not “hyper” anything and I don’t suppose most here are either - and one way or another, we’re all brothers and sisters in Christ.
“Just a few quick examples of vessels of wrath prepared beforehand for destruction.”
Yes, a few examples, but not proof of universality. Just because God hardened Pharoah’s heart, (and yes, I believe He has the sovereign right to harden anyone He pleases) doesn’t mean He hardens everyone’s who will not be saved. Just because He can, doesn’t mean He must.
I’m not sure what a “drive by blog comment is” but if it is inappropriate, I apologize. I thought my comment followed from the rest of my post.
I have mentioned this here before that my belief is (and I think it is entirely Biblical) that the elect is the Body of Christ. All who come to faith in him are elect, chosen or predestined “in him” (Ephesians 1)
Take CAre
My drive-by remark was in response to what appeared to me to be a quick declaration against unconditional election, followed by a “Take care”, as if that was the end of it. It was meant to be a light-hearted remark.
the elect is the Body of Christ
I have heard this somewhere else, but can’t remember where. Wherever it was, the person who promoted this idea (of a collective elect rather than individual election - that is what you are suggesting, isn’t it?) described being elect and predestined like being on a ship heading to a particular port (in this case, salvation), and anyone on that ship was of the elect…but they could choose to get off that ship and get back on whenever they so chose.
Does this represent what you believe, John K?
You say my examples do not prove universality with respect to God’s election and hardening. How about these:
-two groups: children with God as their Father and children with satan as their father
-two groups: those vessels of honor prepared for glory, and those vessels of wrath prepared for destruction
-two groups: those who were chosen, and those who were hardened
-two groups: the sheep and the goats
-two groups: those who inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world, and those who go into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;
-two groups: those who have been given to Christ and those who have not
-two groups: those who are drawn (the greek word literally means brought) to Christ and are saved, and those who cannot come to Him because it has not been granted them by the Father (not won’t, but cannot…they do not have the ability).
Finally,
And He was saying to them, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN.” - Mark 4:11-12
Hyper-Calvinists
I believe my brother would be a member of a hyper-Calvinist group, though the term cult might be more appropriate. I don’t mean that to include Calvinist in general, only that his group is…well, odd.
I find much to appriciate in Calivinism, though I do not find scripture supports most of its idea’s. That’s not germain to this post, but it is still a good definition of hyper-Calvinism.
An important point to note with understanding double predestination is whether God initiates a positive act in determining to save the elect. He actually intercedes in securring their salvation. They are as Sproul would say, “made willing to believe”. On the other hand, the reprobate continue in their unbelief….willingly. Without the regeneration of the heart taking place, the unregenerate willing pursue their sin, they are at enmity with God.
Also, the Call that goes out is the preaching of the word. God calls his elect to faith through the preaching of the word. It’s like the old illustration of being at a conference and the speaker says that there is 1999 Toyota Corolla in the parking lot with the license plate number of 123TWTY. If that was your car then you heard the call to go check your lights. Everybody in ear shot of the speaker’s microphone heard the “Call” but it was only meant for you to hear and respond. Such is the preaching of the Gospel, all hear and only those “Called” recognize that God has called them to believe…. thus saved.
An important point to note with understanding double predestination is whether God initiates a positive act in determining to save the elect. He actually intercedes in securring their salvation. They are as Sproul would say, “made willing to believe”. On the other hand, the reprobate continue in their unbelief….willingly. Without the regeneration of the heart taking place, the unregenerate willing pursue their sin, they are at enmity with God.
Also, the Call that goes out is the preaching of the word. God calls his elect to faith through the preaching of the word. It’s like the old illustration of being at a conference and the speaker says that there is 1999 Toyota Corolla in the parking lot with the license plate number of 123TWTY. If that was your car then you heard the call to go check your lights. Everybody in ear shot of the speaker’s microphone heard the “Call” but it was only meant for you to hear and respond. Such is the preaching of the Gospel, all hear and only those “Called” recognize that God has called them to believe…. thus saved.
Jesus did not say “you are not my sheep because you don’t believe”. He said “you don’t believe, because you are not part of my flock” (John 10:26).So, you are either a sheep or a goat. No interbreeding allowed.
“…but they could choose to get off that ship and get back on whenever they so chose. Does this represent what you believe, John K?”
No. I don’t believe people can, “get on the ship” by themselves. God Himself must lift us on to it. Once on it, I think Scripture is clear that He will never let us off it.
As for the rest of your examples, I don’t think they are inconsistent with the view I espoused. God decided before the foundation of the world that all who trust in Him would be saved, and all who don’t, won’t. Those in the Body of Christ understand, those outside, can’t. Those who seek will find, those who prefer darkness to light are condemned.
Take Care
Whenever the term “double predestination” is broached, the term begs to be clarified.
If you mean by the term that it is God’s positive action of saving sinners for an elect people, and passing over other sinners by leaving them in their sin and thereby judgement, then that is the classical Calvinist sense of the term.
If you mean by the term that all people are morally neutral and God condemns innocent people to hell, but saves others, then that is not what Calvinists believe. Although, people sure like to caricature Calvinists in this latter sense of the term.
Alan
So a hyper-Calvinist is one who goes beyond and over the bounds of what Calvinism teaches (and thus over the bounds of what the Bible teaches).
Many would say Piper’s 6th and 7th points are just that as the Bible doesn’t talk about God electing people to hell and etc. I think as Phil says, most of the time hyper-Calvinistic name-calling is usually an overreaction of those who think Calvinists don’t proclaim the gospel and call people to repentance.
Though I believe in unconditional election as one brother above doesn’t and affirm God’s grace in salvation and etc., I don’t understand why it is the hobby horse for so many? We should be focused on preaching the WHOLE counsel of God. I don’t see the Apostle Paul making TULIP the primary thrust of his preaching ministry. He preached the truth and through that these doctrines were taught. They didn’t dominate his conversation and ministry as so many blogs and preachers today do.
There appears to be a good deal of confusion as to what Double Predestination is. Alan’s definition in comment 33 of God’s postive action in saving some while passing over others is actually the definition of Single Predestination. The whole point of Double Predestination is that God both activley saves one group and actively damns the other.
In practice Double Predestination belongs to Supralapsarianianism, in which God decides first to save some (the elect) and damn others (the reprobate) , before permitting the Fall which leads to the damning of the reprobate.
Single Predestination belongs to Sublapsarianism in which Election is God’s rescue plan after the fall has happened. The Elect are saved by God’s decree. There is simply no equivalent decree for those not so elected, they are simply judged for their sins.
For the record I am a Sublapsarian believer in ‘the best of all worlds’. I believe that Salvation is God’s great post Fall rescue plan to save the maximum number of people possible.
Adding to the fray: Some posters here seem to assume that double predestination (DP) is the “positive-positive” scheme that is also called equal ultimacy and has been associated with some forms of hyper-calvinism. Dr. Sproul (among others) has been careful to distinguish what he means by DP is the “positive-negative” scheme that typically goes by the designation election and preterition. According to this idea, God actively chooses/elects/predestines his people out of the entire mass of fallen humanity; the remainder he passes by.
The other point that seems to elude some is that God is just to command sinners to come to Christ to be saved even though they are spiritually unable to respond; the fault for their inability lies within themselves.
“Probably the most distinguishing characteristic of a Hyper-Calvinist is an unwillingness to evangelize at all, or to evangelize without extending a call to accept and believe the gospel.”
Nice post. It goes without saying we are commanded by our Lord to share the gospel of Christ’s atoning sacrifice for Sin. But, nice to see I am not alone in the gentle frustration regarding the popular “Making a ‘Decision’ for Jesus” as if it was man’s work and not God’s work(as scripture teaches).
As a Lutheran ‘cousin’ to my Calvinist friends; I wanted to say Amen. We disagree on some items, but we share this.
I guess that makes me a ‘hyper’ Lutheran!?
-Pete
To Brian (#26)
You gave some biblical examples as to how certain classes of people can be put in two different groups.Like the sheep and the goates.
However, somehow something is missing to form the whole picture.At least the following three points:
First:What about this:two groups: the angels and the fallen angels.Did God predestined ‘lucifer’ to be (become) satan?What has Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism to say about this, I wonder.
Second: did God create us as either sheep or goats?Or rather: are we people born as either sheep or goats?
Third: I believe we all had once the satan as our (spiritual) father. However, that doesn’t apply to us anymore, right?
God bless,Joop
I’m fairly ignorant of most of the arguments on either side, but I’ve learned some things along the way. Perhaps the following is a good addition to your definition of hyper-calvinist:”Any person who uses their doctrine, in this case Calvinism, as a reason to hold back special effort in evangelism.”
An example of this would be something like:”Why would you go to all that trouble? If God wants them to be saved, they’ll get saved. No need to do [insert creative evangelistic practice]. Do you really think God needs your help to get someone saved?”
Would I be accurate in classifying someone of this mindset as a hyper-Calvinist?
Spurgeon’s comment on “vessels prepared for destruction” in Romans 9…
Are there not some of you, here present, who are being fitted for destruction? God is not fitting you, you are fitting yourselves, by daily developing and indulging the depravity of your heart. You are seeking out every new pleasure and every new sin and though often warned to turn from your course of evil, are there not some of you who are rushing headlong to destruction? Are not many of you by a course of sin and folly, ripening yourselves for the great harvest of the Lord? Are you not making yourselves ready to be as stubble fully dried, cast into the oven of His wrath? - Charles Spurgeon
Interesting…
Spurgeon’s comment on “vessels prepared for destruction” in Romans 9…
Are there not some of you, here present, who are being fitted for destruction? God is not fitting you, you are fitting yourselves, by daily developing and indulging the depravity of your heart. You are seeking out every new pleasure and every new sin and though often warned to turn from your course of evil, are there not some of you who are rushing headlong to destruction? Are not many of you by a course of sin and folly, ripening yourselves for the great harvest of the Lord? Are you not making yourselves ready to be as stubble fully dried, cast into the oven of His wrath? - Charles Spurgeon
Interesting…
Before I read any one else’s comments, I just want to say thank you, thank you, thank you. I am still working out my thinkin about the five points of Calvinism, but I see that I could very easily be thinking along the hyper-calvinist lines, if not careful. It really is all about God’s grace, isn’t it? He is so gracious to send something along to correct my broken thinking, just when I need it. Thank you for being His instrument to do just that.
“Would I be accurate in classifying someone of this mindset as a hyper-Calvinist?” -Nathan
Absolutely.
The bottom line is that God will have mercy upon whom He is pleased to have mercy upon. He owes no one His mercy.We who have been shown this most great mercy long for others to embrace, and receive this same mercy, and so we cry out to our loved ones who don’t know Christ to call out to God for His mercy. “Repent and trust Christ!”, we cry to others with hearts desiring to see God show His mercy, so that others will come to worship the Father in Spirit and truth, and so that the name of Jesus Christ is glorified.It’s God’s choice to whom He will give His mercy. It’s our duty to proclaim the truth with thankful hearts, which have come to love this great mercy, which we in no way shall ever merit.
“This is the weirdest part of Calvinism in general (at least to me). It is all about being very systematic and, indeed, logical… until the logic seems to go too far, whereby logic is tossed by the wayside.”
You’ll notice I did not say it was logical. I said it may seem logical to some people. Logic is only useful if it is Biblical, where logic seems to contradict clear Biblical truths it then should be tossed aside. One example might be God’s Sovereignty and Human responsibility. Both proclaimed in scripture, yet does not seem logical to some people and not believed. At this point they should toss their logic and trust the Bible. Paul certainly did this in Romans 9
“19You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? ”
Notice how Paul does not try to logically defend God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility in salvation here. He just says “it’s true, God says it’s true, who are you to say otherwise”.
So that is the question. Who is man to believe otherwise if God’s word clearly teaches it?
Nathan:”Would I be accurate in classifying someone of this mindset as a hyper-Calvinist?”
I think most definitely.
To Joop, #38:
First:Bringing in the distinction between fallen and not-fallen angels is not useful in a discussion about elect and not-elect. We don’t know very much at all about the fall of the angels, and so can’t say anything about it with any certainty. The fact that the Bible says very little about angels at all (except mentioning them at times) shows that we ourselves ought not say anything that the Bible doesn’t.
People and angels are different, and therefore when speaking about God’s sovereign act of predestination, we have to stick with what is in the Bible, and stick to talking about human beings. The angels are, so to speak, non of our business right now.
Second:God created us as ‘sheep,’ but in our father Adam we became ‘goats’ and in his sovereign free grace, God chose some to be ‘sheep’ again. If you want to talk about in our life now, read Psalm 51: “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” God did not make us ‘goats’ in the sense that he decides that we are all going to be sinners as we are born. But we are born of imperfect material—our parents. What is imperfect cannot produce what is perfect, except for divine intervention, and I only know of one case of that happening.
Third:How was Satan our spiritual father? Unless you mean that we, as sinners, where his children. Then yes, we were all his children, slaves to sin, but God chose some to be his own children.
Tim or anybody,Could someone answer #19? I have been thinking that it is because foreknowledge precedes predestination in Romans 8. God knows who will respond to the universal call and so He chooses them and lays out a plan for their salvation. “Those He foreknew, He also predestined…”Is this an un-Calvinest view?Thanks,Scott
Scott: When interpreting Romans 8:29 it is important to avoid importing a mistaken definition of foreknowledge. The concept being communicated in that verse is not that God intellectually knows all things including all future events and hence the future choices of all people. It is already well established that God is omniscient. Rather, it is knowledge in the sense communicated in passages such as Psalm 1:6 where “know” communicates intimacy and love. “Foreknew” in Romans 8:29 really means “foreloved,” indicating those whom God loved and chose from the foundations of the earth.
Scott (#46),
That would be an “unCalvinistic view”. Foreknowledge does precede predestination in Romans 8:28, but foreknowledge is not the same as foresight. The verse doesn’t say that he knew what people would do. It says he foreknew people. If foreknew simply means “knew about before hand”, then everyone should be predestined, and thus glorified, as the progression goes in 8:29.
When it says foreknew, it means “loved beforehand” (sort of like Adam “knowing” Eve). Reading Ephesians 1:4-5 might be helpful. It clearly teaches that because of his love for us, God predestined us (the church at Ephesus) for adoption. Also, think about the word foreknown in 1 Peter 1:20. This is not speaking of Jesus’ actions, it is speaking of God’s love for Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world.
Hope this helps.
My thoughts on #19:
that non-evangelizing attitude follows directly and unequivocally from the concept of unconditional individual election
No, that attitude follows directly from following the non-Biblical idea that we should follow what we believe to be God’s secret decree and ignore what is clearly revealed as God’s revealed decree. Just because I, as a Calvinist, honestly think that I know what God’s secret decree is (election and reprobation), it would be foolish as well as sinful to follow what we think falls out of that understanding and ignore God’s direct commands.
When it comes down to it, we evangelize for two major reasons: God told us to, and God told us that only through hearing the Gospel are people regenerated. It’s primarily a matter of obedience, but we also understand that people come to Christ through the preaching of the Gospel. That I 100% understand how that works out in God’s perfect understanding is not so important.
I meant to write “that I *don’t* 100% understand …” Sorry about that. I don’t even 100% understand my own job, let alone God’s job … :-)