| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Posted on 05/02/2002 10:27:43 PM PDT by P-Marlowe
Except that the sinner is dead in his sin and not asleep in his sin.
Calvin's answer would be that God has once for all determined both whom he would admit to salvation and whom he would condemn to destruction.
Rephrase:
God has once for all determined whom he would grace with salvation out of the mass of those condemned to destruction.Notice the verb tense. We have already been condemned to destruction. Some us will be under shed grace and the Lion will pass over us.
That's where hyper-Calvinists get their belief that regeneration precedes belief in Christ. That determinism working with total inability.
Hmmm!, actually, you have really not explained how somebody believes in a saving kind of way at all. If God wakes up the slumbering sinner (Perhaps with a call like: "Go to the ant Cross you sluggard") then it is still entirely the sinner who creates the saving belief. How is this done?
I would think that a "hyper-Ariminian" would be a good thing to define, especially since it does appear that there are those here who are carrying Arminianism to the same extent that some Calvinist carry Calvinism into hyper-Calvinism.
Any of the following would make one a "hyper-Arminian":
There is plenty for us to address without having to define "Hyper-Arminianism". In fact, when you think about it, all positions fail when compared to Calvinism, that is why you see me using "non-Calvinist" as much as possible.
From my vantage point, there is the truth of the Gospel (Calvinism), and everything else, whether it be Heathanism, Paganism, Hyper-Calvinism, Arminianism, etc., etc. etc.
I think it is a danger in classifying Calvinists as either Hyper or nonHyper. The only difference between the two theologically is how they order the decrees. The Hyper ('super' Lapsarian) makes Election and Reprobation first and then has God creating, the infalapsarian has God creating first, and then decreeing the Fall etc.
Practically, the Hyper is accused of not witnessing, using the Decree as an excuse.
That is however, not the essential issue in what makes a Calvinist a Calvinist, conditional vs unconditonal 'election' is.
The gospel is the news that God intends for everyone to avail themselves through faith of their blood-bought salvation in Jesus Christ. The awakening and convicting works are the responsibility of the Holy Spirit.
Amen!
That, of course, is a Wesley-Arminian perspective.
And the Scriptural teaching on the subject. The hyper-Calvinist view is that being "born again" takes place before one becomes a believer.
You are entitled to your personal opinion, however I don't believe that you will find many who will agree with you.
I, for one, find that "lapsarian" speculation is pointless, and don't stay up at night pondering these things.
This doesn't have any relation to your earlier words about "lapsarian" positions, so I wonder what your point is.
As I told xzins, all Calvinists believe that being borh again (regeneration) is a precursor to belief, so if that makes us Hyper-Calvinists we will respond by concluding that all non-Calvinists must be universalists due to the fact that they believe in unlimited atonement. (Of course, that doesn't make our conclusions any more correct than yours are.)
Man, theology is filled with big words. (and it impresses the daylight out of me that not only do you know them, but you seem to use them correctly in sentences, too)
I think the 1st century church had it easier... then the only issue was Christ. I say, let's return to those days.
It was patently clear to me the differences between Cavlinists and Hyper-Cavlinists. Is this because I understand the Calvinist postion and recognize the distinction from the Hyper-Calvinist? Yes.
In reading the comments of several of the Arminians, it does not suprise me they see no difference between the Hyper-Cavlist and the Calvinist. After all, it is the Arminian who denies the Calvinists believe what they profess to believe in and thus insist that Calvinists actually believe as the Arminian tells him he believes.
Since the Arminian cannot accept the tension of God's sovereignty and Man's responsibility (as the author declares), the Arminian thus (to be consistent with their own theology) must insist that the Calvinist is 'illogical' to accept the paradox. Therefore, the Arminian declares the Calvinist to be Hyper-Calvinist by default.
This is why xzins cannot see the difference between the Calvinist position of regeneration preceeds faith and the Hyper-Calvinist position the author articulated.
Xzins declaration: ". One mark mentioned above is the belief that regeneration precedes faith and repentance (or words to that effect.)"
The authors actual statement: "This, then, leads us into the next problem of Hyper-Calvinism which is their denial that man is responsible to have faith as their duty before they are converted....The Hyper-Calvinist Objects: Hyper-Calvinism says this [that man has a responsibility to God even before he is converted] is logically inconsistent. How can fallen men be called to exercise faith without regeneration?"
It is no wonder that xzins cannot understand the statement by the author because he assumes that Calvinists are not Calvinists (i.e. they cannot actually believe what they profess they believe), but rather, are actually Hyper-Calvinists. This is why the arminians see nothing in the FR Calvinists but Hyper-Calvinists.
On the other hand, as I was reading this, I was thinking in my head, "How can any of the FR Calvinists be considered to by 'hyper-Calvinists'?" It is because I understand and accept the apparent paradox as stated in scripture, and wholly reject the attempt by both the Arminian and the Hyper-Calvinists to declare null and void our Calvinist position because it is illogical. Yes, it is illogical, but wholly biblical at the same time -just as we see in the Trinity (God is three/God is one) and in the Doctrine of Creation (creation out of nothing).
Ultimately, the Arminian and the Hyper-Calvinist have the same objection to Calvinism. They both insist that we cannot believe what it is we profess we believe. The Hyper-Calvinist thus would claim Calvinists cannot actually believe in what we believe (what they patently reject) and ultimately, that we would be 'Arminian' in our theology. The Arminian, too, would claim that Calvinists cannot actually believe in what we believe (what they patently reject) and ultimately, that we would be 'Hyper-Calvinist' in our theology.
As an aside, I have very close connections to the Protestant Reformed Church mentioned in this article. The PRC split off of the Christian Reformed Church (which I was born and raised in) and is centered in the Grand Rapids area where I live. I also know many PR people. The PR church split from the CRC church for two reasons. The CRC became a 'Hymn singing' church, but more importantly the CRC believed in 'Common Grace'. The CRC had always believed in 'Common Grace', but there rose a faction in the CRC led by Herman Hoeksema which came to believe that 'Common Grace' was inconsistent with Scripture.
I recall two interesting stories which attest to the attitude of the PRC. One, a minister declared that he had didn't like the 'good' theif on the cross. Why? Because that theif didn't have to 'do' anything (Hyper's tend to be very works-righteousness oriented) for his salvation (i.e. a deathbed conversion). Second, a PR person I know of stated, in response to general preaching of the Gospel, that the 'unregenerate' have no business with the gospel because they are deparaved and unworthy (forgetting that she, herself, was/is in that very same condition).
We see two things in common with the Arminian and Hyper-Calvinist -the tendancy towards 'works righteousness'. The Arminian's need to 'make a decision' (something which 'is very hard and requires alot of work' -according to one Arminian pastor I've heard), and the Hyper-Calvinist's need to 'make their election sure' (i.e. if you don't do good things enough, you must not be elected). Both positions lack the comfort of the Gospel as summed up in Q&A 1 of the Heidelberg Catechism (see my home page). Second, both the Arminian and Hyper-Calvinist tend towards lax attitude towards missions. The Arminian logically doesn't want to give responisiblity to those who haven't heard of Christ (the tendency to view condemnation as a result of 'rejecting the gospel' rather than a result of the sin in each of our lives) and the Hyper-Calvinist logically believe that the the gospel message is only for the 'regenerate' (see above article).
So, again, it's no suprise that the Arminians don't understand the distinction between Calvinists and Hyper-Calvinists, because they don't understand and don't allow Calvinists to believe as they profess.
Jean
Actually, he died in 1968.
"...therefore both theologies stemmed from the same philosophy that God is so distant from man as to be indiscernable."
Barth's theology attributed this to the fact that God was 'Wholly Other' and shared nothing with the respect to the 'realm of being' with the created creature man. Because of this 'wholly other'ness, man (regardless of his sinful nature or prior sinless nature) was unable to reach God. It was required that God reach Man and that was centrally done with the person work of Jesus Christ.
Jean
That is exactly my point! The entire Hyper vs Moderate is built around how each places their Lapsarian Decrees. The Moderates attempt to remove the stigma of Reprobation from God by having the Decree to create and allow the fall come before the Decree to Elect and Reprobate . This they feel somehow, gets God off the hook for unconditional election and everything happening due to his directive will.
The issue of HyperCalvinism is a non-essential issue in the debate between Calvinists and nonCalvinists.
Should have read early 1900's. Thanks for the correction.
Although I disagree with Barth's general assessment, I think his work with paradox can be helpful, even if his conclusion is wrong.
Now that opens some doors.
To be slightly more specific, they both use the essentially Jesuit objection to Calvinism. The Jesuits presuppose that absolute foreordination and human responsibility are incompatible.
The "Jesuit" hyper-Calvinist notices that the Bible teaches an absolute predestination. So, he throws out the doctrine of human responsibility.
The "Jesuit" Arminian is more like the classic Jesuit. He notices that the Bible teaches human responsibility, so he refuses to accept any real doctrine of real predestination.
***
This is like the folks who deny the Trinity and still try to call themselves Christians. We have unitarians who say "God is One, so He cannot be Three." These folks are just plain lost.
Then we have the polytheists who say "God is Three (or more!), so He can't be One--not really, anyway." These folks are like the Mormons.
So, Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism are both heresy.
***
This is why we Calvinists find it so aggravating that some preachers will not attack these heresies. They need to notice that they are deadly lies. Doctrinal error is never completely innocuous, and the errors of Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism actually insinuate themselves into the very core of the gospel message--turning the gospel into a lie!
I have also known Arminian Baptists who have attended Calvinistic Baptist churches and immediately embraced Calvinism--because they notice that the message is an order of magnitude more energetic, more earnest, more powerful.
(In a single year of the Calvinistic Great Awakening, more than 50,000 people were converted to Christ! This tells me that as much as I like Billy Graham, we don't really need more men like him. Gosh, when Dr. Graham gives his invitations, he always quotes John 6:37b--never mentioning 6:37a. Something is wrong here!)
I take it you have some thoughts on Barth? How about Kierkegaard? Opps! Maybe that's a different thread?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.