Ah, how refreshing is the light to expose the dark secrets of the heart? I have finally figured it out. Your misguided attempt to label the Calvinists here as hyper is nothing more than the visible manifestation of the hurt feelings that you have that you were snubbed by the Calvinists here.
You do remember the embarrassment that you caused yourself by second source citations? It would seem to me that it would be better to let go, instead of trying to get the Calvinists. Besides, you aren't even barking up the right tree here. I'll explain.
Philip Johnson's Chart (can I trust you that this is not in error?):
A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
|
Now, what is interesting here is that this thread is about John 3:16 and the sacrificial love of the Father for those who believe in Him. We read: "For God... gave His only begotten Son." But, this is not the definition of common grace at all. Common grace does not address the sacrificial love of God for those whom He redeems. That is special grace.
You really need to learn your definitions. This is what happens when you use as your source of information a guy who has an axe to grind with Calvinists and himself makes use of second source definitions. He has actually been quite discredited over his use of second sources as it has called into question his direct knowledge of the works he cites. You have the same problem, btw, as revealed again by your misunderstand of common and special grace.
Now, if you will put away your axe, you will figure out that assigning special sacrificial grace to John 3:16 no more makes one a hyper-Calvinist any more than thoughtful Arminians who also assign sacrificial grace to John 3:16. The article actually reveals that this is an historic Calvinist interpretation of this verse. Did you actually read that portion of the article? Or did you rush to hoist a bait and stitch game?
So, if I haven't lost you yet, this article reveals nothing about whether David J. Engelsma or any Calvinist is a "hyper-Calvinist." I do know the answer, btw, of whether Engelsma is a hyper-Calvinist. You see, I directly read the doctrine of the men in question. I don't rely on second source hacks.
Now, if that distasteful business is out of the way and you don't have a seething rage at me, I'll actually show you something about this verse which actually can be made to work in your favor against the Calvinists. Hint, it isn't arguing over the proper English translation of kosmos. You will lose every time. There is not a Greek expert that won't concede that kosmos is not always used to mean all men without any exception.
Nobody can dispute that this verse is speaking about the sacrificial love of the Father for His creation. To clear this confusion up, what is the goal of the Father's love in this verse: so that believers should not perish.
This is why DoorGunner's post is amusing. You will actually demonstrate that you really don't know a thing about Greek. All you will do is demonstrate that the Cavinist is right: all doesn't always mean all; the world doesn't always mean every single member of the human race.
But, notice the particular logical order in this verse. God's love to save is extended to believers. This should give you exactly the ammo you are looking for. The Father is making a sacrificial love for people that He already sees to be believers.
I can't make it any more plain than that.
Your brother,
Christian.
I am not going to argue with your doctrinal stand Pilgrim. Englesma may be right. For purposes of this discussion I could care less. But for purposes of this discussion I think it is important to note that Englesma's position is not one of Classical Calvinism, nor is it the position of Calvin himself. Englesma may be 100% correct and Calvin and the Classical Calvinists and the Arminians may all be damnable heretics for thinking that God has any kind of love for those who ultimately go to hell, but the point is that Englesma is the one who is out of the mainstream.
I did not call anyone a hyper calvinist. I just used Philip Johnson's chart to show that at least he thinks some of the positions taken by some of the posters here are out of the mainstream of Calvinism and are approaching what Philip Johnson considers "hyper-Calvinism". Its not a term I made up. Indeed, to an Arminian all Calvinists are hyper-Calvinists. The term was invented by Calvinists to separate themselves from the extremes of their theology. To an Arminian the whole Calvinist theology is hyper and extreme.
Now if you will not agree with the definition of Philip Johnson, then what would you define as a hyper-Calvinist. Is there such a thing. Is it possible to be so extreme in your Calvinism that you would be considered a heretic by even classical Calvinists? Or is it the ones who hold to the Classic definitions of Calvinism that are just too lukewarm for people like you?
BTW do you agree with Englesma, or Calvin on this subject? I don't particularly care, I'd just like to know.