This is the crux of the issue. How do we find that area that exists between deism on the one hand and determinism on the other?
You may find this interesting: in actual movement of beliefs, Arminianism is very close to hyper-Calvinism. Every single former hyper-Calvinist in my church is now a rather vocal Arminian, to the point of declaring that unless God gives every single person an opportunity to be saved whether they actually ever believe in Jesus or not then He is an unfair God. Notice, that God must be fair by today's American welfare standard. You will not find this standard of fair anywhere except here in America.
I stated :I will however rephrase it. HYPER Calvinists are animals, (my apologies to rational Calvinists, rhesus monkeys, small crawly things and Lorraine B.) I assume you are a "regular" calvinist.
Now you say you are a "hyper" - Geesh - I cant keep up with you, silly goose
I direct you here, to this thread for a reasonable definition
That God works in our lives before salvation is evidenced by God's dealing with Jacob to wrestle him into submission. It is the goodness of God which leads men to repentance in hopes of bringing them to a place of a change of heart. That leading is not regeneration and in many cases that leading is ignored and rejected and salvation never received.
I suppose the question I would have for the author is "What is the significance of the modifier "hyper"? That is, how does his understanding of the 'historic' "Calvinisim" differ from the 'hyper' brand he identifies (and which appears to flourish here)? I suppose one would have to buy his 330-page book to find out.
I checked out his site and he claims to believe in the TULIP, so it sounds like he is smart enough to blur some of the outragiousness of the contentions of the local "Calvinists" without affecting his ability to support the TULIP. Who knows.
Since the thrust of this article is what he does not believe, what do you know about what he does assert?
If one takes the view that man is fallen but basically good, then one comes away with distorted notions of salvation if one has any at all. If one thinks man is sick and can take, by his own volition, the medicine offered, it will affect one’s view of salvation.
What makes Christianity different from any other religion and separates it from other religions is that in Christianity, we do not believe man is evolving into a better state – a promise of what he can be. In fact, we believe, he is a sad caricature of what he once was. He is fallen and needs salvation.
To understand salvation as presented in the Scriptures, one needs to develop the ability to live paradox. Paradox is where Scripture seemingly present 2 contradictory ideas. It does appear that way. Scripture does this constantly. Scripture clearly asserts both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of the individual.
To us in the West, due to culture and education, it has to be one way or the other. God can’t be sovereign and man be responsible.
Examples of God’s Sovereignty:
Proverbs 21:1 – The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: He turneth it whithersoever He will.
Ephesians 1:11 – In Whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will.
Romans 9:21 – Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor.
Examples of Man’s Responsibility
John 3:36 – He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth no the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Matthew 16:27 – For the Son of man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angles; and then He shall reward every man according to his works.
Revelation 22:12 – And behold, I come quickly; and My reward is with Me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
Scriptures that Assert Both:
Matthew 26:24 – The Son of Man goeth as it is written of Him: but woe unto that man by who the Son of Man is betrayed. It had been good for that man if he had not bee born.
Acts 2:23 – Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.
Now Acts 2:23 is the picture of a paradox. If “we” delivered Him up, then we have helped the cause, so how can we be guilty?”
What I have seen on these threads is with theology, one group or another is removing the paradox and trying to establish coherent schemes of thinking that end up being more human reasoning than conveying the divine thought. No scheme can ever be produced (if it seeks to remove paradox) that will perfectly convey divine truth.
God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are taught us side-by-side in the same Bible. Indeed, in the same text. Both are guaranteed to us by the same divine authority. Both, therefore, are true. It follows that they must be held together and not played off each other. Man is a responsible, moral agent though he is divinely controlled. God’s sovereignty is a reality and man’s responsibility is a reality too.
We must live with paradox if we are going to live with theology.
Incidentally I am a Calvinist but I've never heard the term hyper-Calvinist before I started lurking on these religious threads.
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