Replies

In practical terms, the hyper-Calvinist "gospel" often reduces to the message that God simply and single-mindedly hates those whom He has chosen to damn, and there is nothing whatsoever they can do about it.

[1] Is this your definition as well? YES or NO.

[2] If statements of this nature wewre found in Calvin's writings would you label Calvin a hyper Calvinist? YES or NO

[3] Provide quotes in Palmer that clearly express the view stated above.

[1] I think it is fair to say that it accurately discribes some hyper-Calvinists on the extreme end of the spectrum, but as you surely noticed, Johnson does break down hyper-Calvinism into five levels of extremism.

[2] For the most part, I think there are many Calvinist who read more into the writings of Calvin than is actually there. As a practical matter, it would be very difficult to say that Calvin was a hyper-Calvinist since Calvin was who he was. IOW, Calvin was Calvin. That does not mean I would necessarily agree with eveything Calvin wrote, and I would be a bit disappointed if you accepted all his writings as 'Gospel'.

[3] I have offered you the direct quote from Palmer that he foreordained everything, including all sins. I don't see how Calvinism can get really any nore 'hyper' than that.

Is there anything about Johnson's article with which you seriously disagree?

BTW, I would not mind being associated with Johnson's brand of Calvinism. The only problem is that what he claims is 'true Calvinism' is far different than what Calvinism is represented to be by many, many Calvinists. Therefore, I would just prefered to be known as a Christian, and leave it at that.

Phillip Johnson: Virtually every revival of true Calvinism since the Puritan era has been hijacked, crippled, or ultimately killed by hyper-Calvinist influences.

I think this is a very fair statement. What do you think?

Engelsma does some selective quoting and interpretive gymnastics in order to argue that his view is mainstream Reformed theology. But a careful reading of his sources shows that he often quotes out of context, or ends a quote just before a qualifying statement that would totally negate the point he thinks he has made.

I can identify with this statement based on my experience in litigation. Whenever an attorney cites a statute or case, I always read the entire case or citation myself and almost always find they have taken what they claim to be the law out of context and wha the law actually states supports my position, and not theirs.