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
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 find it incredibly interesting that in one breath you imply that the Wesleyan-Arminians don't understand Calvinism and in the next breath you clearly demonstrate the depth of your ignorance of Wesleyan-Arminianism. But you can't see it.
I have no reason to doubt that you are correct in your assessment of Hyper-Calvinism, but you are way off base with regard to Wesleyan-Arminianism when you say we are lax in our attitute towards missions.
I just got home from working at our church in preparation for a yard sale tomorrow that will raise between $15,000 to $20,000 to just partially cover the supplies for the 200-300 people our church will send on short term missions projects in 2002. Those people pay their own way. But let's look elsewhere.
Surely you've heard of John and Charles Wesley. While they may rightly be termed evangelists and not necessarily "missionaries" the purpose of their visits to America were clear - to reach people for the cause of Christ.
And what about Francis Asbury who came to America in 1771 never to return to England? He preached more than 18,000 sermons and traveled more than a quarter million miles on horseback to do so. He was such an influence on America that in 1924 a statue was erected in Washington, D.C. President Warren Harding said of Asbury, "He is entitled to rank as one of the builders of our Nation".
What about the other early Methodist Circuit Riders?
Peter Cartwright (1785-1872) described the life of the circuit- rider. He wrote in his Autobiography: "A Methodist preacher, when he felt that God had called him to preach, instead of hunting up a college or Biblical Institute, hunted up a hardy pony, and some traveling apparatus, and with his library always at hand, namely, a Bible, Hymn book, and Discipline, he started, and with a text that never wore out nor grew stale, he cried, 'Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world.' In this way he went through storms of wind, hail, snow, and rain; climbed hills and mountains, traversed valleys, plunged through swamps, swollen streams, lay out all night, wet, weary, and hungry, held his horse by the bridle all night, or tied him to a limb, slept with his saddle blanket for a bed, his saddle-bags for a pillow. Often he slept in dirty cabins, ate roasting ears for bread, drank butter-milk for coffee; took deer or bear meat, or wild turkey, for breakfast, dinner, and supper. This was old-fashioned Methodist preacher fare and fortune."
What about men like E. Stanley Jones? "For more than half a century, Dr. E. Stanley Jones proclaimed the Gospel of Christ and applied it to men’s personal, social, national, and international problems as they arose on every continent and among all cultures. He was probably the world’s best-known and longest-tested Christian missionary and evangelist. He moved among statesmen and among leaders without portfolios as counselor, friend and worker for peace and goodwill. He helped hundreds of thousands, from village outcasts in India to molders of public opinion in America, Japan, Europe and India."
What about people like Christine and Meredith Helsby who were missionaries to China with the Oriental Missions Society (now OMS International. Personal family friends (now deceased) the Helsbys were imprisoned in China during the Japanese occupation. They were acquainances of and spoke highly of Scottish Missionary Eric Liddle. After the war the Helsbys returned to the Orient and spent the rest of their careers as missionaries in Taiwan.
What about the Asbury College revival of 1970? What began as a regular college chapel service which lasted about an hour, instead lasted 185 hours non-stop, 24 hours a day. Intermittently, it continued for weeks. Ultimately, it spread across the United States and into foreign countries. By the summer of 1970, the revival had reached more than 130 other colleges, seminaries and Bible schools, and scores of churches, according to published accounts. It spread from New York to California, and even to South America.
And what about people like Jeannine Brabon, a missionary kid and a student at Asbury in 1970. Jeannine organized a campus prayer time before each chapel service that met quitely in the basement below the chapel for months before the revival broke out. Today Jeannine continues as a missionary with OMS International in Columbia where she faces daily death threats due to her work in the prisons.
I could go on, but hopefully you're getting the point that you are way off base when you say Wesleyan-Arminians are "lax" in our commitment to missions. If you're not convinced yet, follow some of these links:
The Salvation Army
World Gospel Mission
Nazarene Missions International
The Christian and Missionary Alliance
Assemblies of God Missions
Church of God (Anderson) Ministries: Outreach
Free Methodist World Missions
Again, I could go on, but hopefully you're getting the point. So, while you may visit those pages and find much with which you would disagree on a theological basis you will find no indication that these organizations (and there are many more like them), all with Wesleyan-Arminian roots, are lax in their commitment to missions.
One more thing. I've seen several references from the Calvinists that they believe the Wesleyan-Arminians exhibit a lack of zeal or desire to share the gospel here on FreeRepublic. My question would be, with all of the "witnessing" and "evangelizing" that the Calvinists "do" here on FreeRepublic...
How many sinners have been brought to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ through the FreeRepublic ministry of the Calvinists? Not how many Christians of other persuasions have "converted" to Calvinism. How many totally depraved sinners have been won for the Lord? And, what means would you use to accept or reject their testimony?