The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Hyper-Calvinism & the Netherlands

I thought of asking this question on the other Netherlands thread; however I thought it might be a little off topic.

I have been told by a few people that much of what is known as 'Dutch Reformed' is hyper-Calvinism.
I also know a few Arminians of Dutch descent, who speak as though the Dutch Reformed denomination is poison.

I have a few questions related to this.
1. Is the Dutch Reformed denomination hyper-Calvinist?
2. Could the reaction by the people I know of Dutch descent be a by-product of hyper-Calvinism?
I got the feeling that I had better not bring up the fact that I was a Calvinist to these people.

Tom

Which Dutch Reformed denomination are you referring to? FYI, there are quite a number of them. And yes, some are hyper-Calvinists, some are neo-Orthodox and some are even apostate.

Oh... and it would be more than helpful if your "friends" could define the term 'hyper-Calvinism'. Often, historic Calvinism is labeled "hyper" by semi-Pelagians/Arminians/the world, etc.

I have no idea of what Dutch Reformed denomination; the way I was told it Dutch Reformed is a denomination; but I see this isn't the case.

My friend's (more like acquaintances) understanding of hyper-Calvinism is correct, seeing as they are Calvinists themselves. But the way they used the hyper-Calvinist was that some Arminians were reacting the way they were because of their bad experience with hyper-Calvinism; thinking that all Calvinists believe this way.
I am however very much aware that historic Calvinism is often labeled as hyper-Calvinism.
One example of this is Dave Hunt calling James White a hyper-Calvinist and CH Spurgeon not a Calvinist at all.

I mention these because of the silliness of people like Dave Hunt and others of his ilk.

Tom

Which [hyper-Calvinism] according to their understanding is what?

Jeff,

Although it has skipped my mind, I have seen a list of tenets and practices that separates hyper-calvinism from the classical Reformed.

Also, I have heard of 7-point and 10-point calvinists which I do not know if they are hyper-calvinists or not. Probably they at least are trending toward that way.

Hi Pilgrim

I realize there is a lot more to hyper-Calvinism (and its various forms) than what I am about to say, but I think when someone uses the term “hyper-Calvinism” they usually mean someone who denies the free offer of the Gospel.
Those with hyper-Calvinist leanings generally speaking do not believe in evangelism.

Here is a quote from an article I found on the Highway, that I believe is quite helpful in distinguishing between a hyper-Calvinist and the historic Calvinist faith.

“In this work it has been our desire to set forth the basic theological position that all Reformed believers hold, emphasizing both the sovereignty of God aspect of salvation, and also the universal offer of the Gospel. We have tried to face some of the problems that arise out of holding both of these doctrines in tension. We have tried also to set forth what we believe to be a better form of evangelism than is so commonly held by evangelical Christians of our day. It is the prayer of this writer that this article may be helpful in guiding Christians into the most consistent type of Biblical and Reformed evangelism.”
To understand the full context of this quote I believe the whole article should be read. http://www.the-highway.com/Reformed_Evangelism.html
I also found another quote from another article, that I think is helpful.

“Conclusions
1. In persuading souls we ought to be Biblically consistent. The doctrines of grace are logical inasmuch as they are argued carefully from the Scriptures as a whole. There are, however, points that are not easily harmonised and must be left to lie side by side. We must not be supralogical and impose human rationalism where the Scriptures give no warrant for this. Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism can be charged as guilty of imposing rationalism. Both reason that ability limits obligation. 'Man,' says the hyper, 'is unable to believe and therefore cannot be required to do so.' 'Man is commanded to believe,' says the Arminian, 'and therefore he must be able to do so.' The Puritans were consistent Calvinists stressing Responsibility and Divine Sovereignty without attempting to rationalise at every point. Biblical consistency includes a clear grasp of the fact that regeneration precedes faith. We can well understand why these men knew nothing of appeals for sinners to make a recorded decision. The whole of their preaching was one protracted and powerful appeal to the whole man, that the sinner being born again might be persuaded once and for all to turn and close with Christ. If that failed other expedients could only achieve, as they so often do today, a temporary willingness to be a disciple, at the same time running the fearful risk that the person in question thinks himself saved when his heart is still in the mire. In a paper at this conference entitled Arminianisms, the assertion was made that the Bible forbids us to go one step along the road of Arminianism. That is right. It is also true that the Bible forbids us to go one step along the road of 'restrictionism'! Ought we not to exercise great caution not to proceed one inch along the road of hyper-Calvinism? This will mean that we will be on guard when we read polemical works against Arminianism. Is there not, even with John Owen's valuable polemic on Particular redemption, a tendency to neglect the urgency of the Gospel?25 It is essential that we contend for truth but in defending one aspect it is possible to neglect another of equal importance. The quotation with which we began is in no way inconsistent with the careful exegesis of Owen's above mentioned treatise.” http://www.the-highway.com/Puritans_Hulse.html
All that said I have no idea whether this is the aspect that seems to get some Arminians of Dutch descent dander up. Perhaps I will never know seeing that it would be a very unpleasant and unfruitful conversation if I brought the topic up with them.
Perhaps hyper-Calvinism isn’t the real problem; it might be something like the Calvinist doctrine Limited Atonement that upsets them?

Tom

Hi Tom,

These folks of whom you are speaking to may very well be refering to the Netherlands Reformed COngregations (they exist in Netherlands, US & Canada).

I have married into this congregation and have become a professing member. I believe William is also a professing member.

I've had may serious discussions with Pilgrim regarding our beliefs.

After some doubts I have come to fully embrace my denomination. Much of the teachings are very intellectual,

* essence of faith vs exercise of faith

* experiential/experimental preaching & faith vs. a mere intellectual or temporary faith

* the importance of true repentance that comes about with regeneration in which the holy spirit makes us humble sinners before God and sin becomes our burden - we experience misery on account of our spiritual eyes being opened and we flea to Jesus for mediation. Without actualy experiencing our misery/total depravity we are missing the most important life giving aspect of the (TRUE) New Birth. Many of your friends who may be hostile to this may very well never have experienced their misery on account of sin and become true sinners before God, (i.e. those whom are drowning in their sins and need Jesus to rescue them).

* the need to refrain from world conformity which ventures into Christian Liberty territory (it is my belief that we use the idea of Christian Liberty to embrace vein pursuits that at best distract us from spiritual matters both before and after true conversion and at worst is God dishonoring, i.e. sports teams become idols, becoming addicted to reality shows, etc. - cannot serve the world/man and GOd but will be conformed into the image of Christ and increase in Holiness).

* I would say the NRC does have a narrow view of salvation or at least full assurance of salvation but they are not hyper-calvinistic.

If you have any further questions let me know!

AC

And a few critical questions are: "Do you ever wonder, worry, have serious doubts of your salvation because you fear you haven't been convicted enough? Aren't miserable with yourself enough? Have you actually drowned in your sins or are you just floundering in them? Another question is, "Do you have great joy knowing you have been justified in the all-sufficent atoning work of Christ?" And, "Do you love serving God and work to further His kingdom as His adopted son/daughter?"

And WHO determines, "which ventures into Christian Liberty territory" and "Holiness"... Scripture or some denomination, church or pastor/elder? Is drinking a glass of wine with dinner "conformity with the world"? Is owning a TV a sin which needs to be repented of lest you risk eternal damnation? If a husband and wife engage in ballroom dancing, are they "conforming to this world"? Are there certain foods which one must abstain from eating because they are "worldly"? If a congregation doesn't hear the 10 Commandments read from the pulpit every Lord's Day, is that congregation less "holy" than one who does read them? Is a church less holy if they don't preach through the Heidelberg Catechism each and every evening worship service?

I think these are serious and necessary questions to ask. For to answer one way it indicates at best a tendency to Pharisaism or worse Legalism. (Lk 18:10-14)

Hi Jeff,

I know this is sensitive territory since you personally interfaced with some who were mired in doubt and conflictions. I'll try to tread very carefully here since I have many, many thoughts on these matters.

Let's start with John Calvin via Joel Beeke:



I used to have doubts especically when I was trying to have my cake and eat it in balancing the world with God's favor. It wasn't until I hit bottom and all my righteousness became as filthy rags did Jesus become truly beloved and I lost my taste for this world and all it's offerings. Is my faith always in exercise? no but I do believe the promises of God are for me, He is my guide.


Where does our heart lie? as Beeke says (I'm just gonna reference him becasue I know you have respect for him) http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/tv_really_bad.html


TV at it's best has some neutral content (i.e. History Channel) at it's worst the content is GOd-dishonoring and features secular ideas/world-shaping views - do we really need a minister to tell us this http://www.amazon.com/Saving-Leonardo-Secular-Assault-Meaning/dp/1433669277.



Jeff,

I do believe we are to pick up our cross and give our whole selves to God. God is the same and as yesterday.

How does God feel about ballroom dancing? I don't know, how do you think He feels about it?, I guess it's indifferent....

a glass of wine with dinner, indifferent as well -

but I do believe there are certain acitivies we can and should rule out, activities that we can speak out against, I think we should remain seperated from the world in these matters, no?

Natural man wants to go to the taverns and watch the sporting events and go to the clubs and surround ourselves with all kinds of temptations. It is becoming more and more difficult because as a society we are becoming less and less modest, no matter where we go we are witnesses to godlessness. Things that used to be shameful to be commited in private are now done out in the open. I do believe we should shield ourselves and it is the duty of the churches to speak out against it. I think even in Reformed circles we want to hold GOd and the world hand in hand. I do believe when we give into that we are proving that we don't truly have the fruits of repentance but can just go along with the sin and vanity of this world.

As one who used to welcome the world with open arms and have been adversly affected by it, I am envious of those who have been shielded from the evils and vanities of this world.

Jeff,

Don't use Christian Liberty as an excuse to embrace the world and vein pursuits - that is not what the WC is about when it speaks of such matters.

I hope I am not coming off as disrespectful!

AC

What was true in the church and/or Geneva where John Calvin labored cannot be used as a paradigm for every church or place. It may be similar, worse or dissimilar depending upon the working of God according to His divine counsel. This applies even in our day where there may be churches or places where a much greater number of people have been given grace or where it has been withheld.
The questions I had asked were not directed toward you personally, but rather to the general audience so that all may consider the caveats of going beyond Scripture and creating lists of "do's & don'ts" in regard to what is worldly and/or holy. (cf. Acts 15:10; Col 2:4ff) Those of us in Reformed circles often make the mistake of associating such man-made restrictions to Bob Jones University or Fundamentalism in general when in fact there are "Reformed" denominations and individual churches which do likewise. Since you deemed it profitable to provide a quote from John Calvin, I shall do the same in regard to this matter of Christian Liberty which some are want to restrict in such a narrow way as to prohibit all but a very small amount according to their own scruples:



Agreed. However, this begs the question as to the meaning of "pick up our cross and give our whole selves to God."

Agreed. But again, what one deems "the world" can differ considerably from what another deems "the world." This is NOT to say that one can be correct in that assessment and the other wrong. But again, Scripture must determine this as the sole and final authority in all matters of faith and practice. In the matter of adiaphora, where things are deemed BY GOD to be good in and of themselves, one may choose to abstain but another to partake. For those weaker brethren who choose to abstain, the warning is very clear to not judge the stronger brethren who have been given the freedom to enjoy all the freedom that Christ has merited for them.

Again, I agree but with another qualification. This all sounds good on the surface UNTIL one digs under the surface to find out what one is to separate themselves from. There is a Pharisee resident in every heart and it unfortunately comes out in these type of topics where the "lists" are published as to what is godly and what is worldly. Some may be biblically warranted but others are nothing more than one's personal scruples which cannot be imposed on everyone and even more serious to judge those who don't follow the "list".

Are you implying that I am using Christian Liberty as an excuse to embrace the world and vain pursuits? If so, could you please give specific examples where you believe I do this.

I haven't taken anything you have written as disrespectful. But your last statement and my question I believe needs to be addressed and/or clarified.

I don't want to make mountains out of mole hills dare I make myself a hypocrite.

But the weaker brother arguement is tiresome, reread Beeke's article becasue I am with him in every point.

I love what you quoted on Calvin and I remember what you said about the black suit or the gray suit, etc. I hear you on all that!

BUT (and I encountered this on the Puritan board too). I'm talking about today's secular cesspool of a world we are living in. Not Calvin's day and the abstaining of certain meats and honoring certain feast days - I know he's targeting the RCC.

I'm talking about the world, the devil is the prince of this world and as in pilgrims progress we are fleaing from the city of destruction and vanity fair. And there are the unsaved who sit under the proper catechism and calvinistic beliefs but use 'Christian liberty' as an excuse to live for the world today and worry about their soul tommorrow.

I was also thinking about the ballroom dancing, I'm not sure how that was looked at during the Puritan era, but fallen man can take the most seemingly innocent thing and turn it into something sordid over time.

Again Pilgrim, we are talking about fallen man.

Let's bring it back to the NRC or the FRC or the HRC for that matter, more conservative denominations. One reason there is a promotion of abstaining from worldy entertainments is not as a precondition to salvation becasue avoiding these things will not open up the heart but to prevent an infiltration of secular norms and worldviews into our Reformed circles.

Doesn't the Bible warn against mixing with the world throughout?

How about liberal chruches that make a mockery out of chritianity with hokey theme parks and all types of lame forms of musical worship and praise without any real substance

SO I'm not talking about the temptation of weaker brethern - I'm talking about reveling in sinful man-made God-dishonoring vein, idolistic wordly pursuits - the kind we can all agree on.

How can you frown about such an endorsed seperation.


Now, why you had to counsel those in the NRC who should have been told to flea to Christ I don't undertand???

PS - I do think you are sincere, I don't think you are
trying to have God and the world. The fact that you would devote yourself to these dialogues is quite telling. ANd I do understand where you are coming from with Christian Liberty and I know the NRC is pretty militant, but I give them credit that they are fairly insulated from this evil world - and that's really how I view the world. Sure GOd's creation is beautiful but as Calvinists we can see the depravity all around us in society.

How much are you on board with Beeke's little blurb.

ANd I just want to apologize if I'm coming off as having any authority or having any kind of righteous standing. I'm constantly getting in my own way.

PSS - As Christians would you say our faith is in exercise a majority of the time? or maybe simply during CHristian exercises? or is it a small percentage? Is this case by case or something we can even quantify? because I think that also comes into play when counseling the elect and the dispositions of such. It seems like the Bible and those who were saved were meek, needy, downtrodden, downcast, charitable, humble, etc. like described in the Beatitudes

GOd Bless!

AC

Just a quick add....

don't forget that Calvin upheld strict moral reforms in Geneva(including restictions on theaters, plays, dancing, taverns,etc.)

.....so I guess the question would be... was he suppressing Christian liberty or promoting Godly living?

Oh, I'd say about 90%+. But to condemn the TV, in and of itself, you should be consistent and also condemn the PC/MAC because the Internet is FAR worse than anything you can watch on TV. Sooo, if you are going to deem the television as wicked or evil and no God-fearing person would own one, then you must be consistent and at least never go online with your computer or receive e-mail nor anything that has contact with the "outside world".

You previously wrote:

The problem I find in your arguments, though not with your concerns for I share them with you re: worldliness in the church, is that you are using a very broad brush to paint your case with which Scripture simply does not allow. Christian Liberty is foundational to the Christian life and something which Christ shed His precious blood for so that His sheep would be delivered from the bondage of vain philosophy and ecclesiastical/self-willed asceticism. A "gem" to be found in Paul's writings concerning this Liberty is that there is no "neutrality" when it comes to things. Things are either good, i.e., looked upon with favor by God or they are evil, i.e., rejected by God thus they are deemed sinful. Another "gem" found in the biblical doctrine of Christian Liberty, which the WCF addresses rightly, I believe (cf. Chapter XX) is that fallen man, particularly redeemed man has an unfortunate predisposition to take the good things of God and make them evil. I am not speaking about using the good things of this world for evil purposes... What I'm referring to is professing Christians deeming what God has declared to be good and calling them evil, worldly, sinful, etc. They even go so far as to assign wickedness to physical items, e.g., the infamous "deck of playing cards". Thus, to sit around the kitchen table with your children and play the game of "Fish" or "Old Maid" or "Cribbage", you are at best endangering the spiritual life of all or worse liable to hell fire. There is another "gem" which I really need to mention that is found in the biblical doctrine of Christian Liberty. And that is that those who take what God has deemed good and categorize them as sinful are the "weaker brother", i.e., the one who has not come to understand the glory and freedom of having been delivered from not only the bondage of sin, albeit incomplete in this life practically speaking, but also from their own sinful ways of thinking, aka: worldly philosophies (cf. Col 2).

So, the "weaker brother" has scruples about this or that or some other thing which he/she deems to be worldly but which God in His Word has not forbidden. For that individual to engage in that which these scruples exist would be indeed to sin against God. But the sin isn't in the actual partaking of that which the person finds a problem but rather in the partaking against his/her conscience. This Paul warns the "stronger brother" not to do, i.e., to entice a weaker brother to do that which he deems to be sinful, worldly, evil, etc.

Next, Paul addresses these weaker brethren and strongly counsels (forbids) them to JUDGE the stronger brethren in their Christ-bought freedom to enjoy those things which God has deemed good in and of themselves. For to do so is to usurp God and Christ in their perfect judgment as to where these stronger brothers stand before God.

Lastly, yet another "gem" to be found in that treasure store of Christian Liberty is the guideline for the Church in regard to what position it is to take: either that of the weaker brother or the stronger brother. What Scripture says is that the Church is to NEVER formulate ecclesiastical polity based upon the scruples of the weaker brother but rather it is to teach the TRUTH concerning the freedom which all believers have been granted in Christ Jesus along with the instruction as to how to exercise that liberty.

Another example is you speak against the "theater" with another broad stroke of this arbitrary brush. Can I then assume that it is worldliness for anyone who professes to follow Christ to attend a concert to hear the New York Symphony play Mozart, Bach, Mendelssohn, et al? Is this "worldly entertainment" which will poison one's soul?

Scripture gives us the answer from one of the teachings of Christ Himself:

Have you plucked out your right eye or cut off your right hand yet? Well surely you MUST do this for can you honestly say that neither your eye(s) nor hand has ever sinned? You surely KNOW what Christ Jesus is teaching here, right? Let me give a very practical illustration so that others can follow along. If one has a propensity to gluttony it may be sin for that individual to take a job working in a bakery. There is absolutely nothing "worldly, sinful or evil" about a bakery in and of itself. So, one would be remiss to deem bakeries as "worldly" just because that person is tempted to eat pastries. The INDIVIDUAL has the problem and thus the INDIVIDUAL needs to address HIS/HER problem by abstaining in this case. But it is against Christ and dishonoring to God to throw bakeries into the realm of the Devil's domain.

The bottom line is most always, those who take this approach to the world end up promoting some form of Asceticism which cannot be found in Scripture. Unfortunately, this self-willed asceticism usually blossoms into Pharisaism where the individuals see themselves as "holy" and others as less so or even unregenerate (cf. Luke 18:10ff). And finally, if left unchallenged, one can find themselves as a bitter, judgmental recluse which is NOT to be equated with one who wants to be separate from the world according to the revealed will of God.

Is it more holy to abstain from the Lord's Table because it is accepted to believe that it is presumptuous to think you have faith? If a congregation doesn't hear the 10 Commandments read from the pulpit every Lord's Day, is that congregation less "holy" than one who does read them? Is a church less holy if they don't preach through the Heidelberg Catechism each and every evening worship service?

FYI, we don't watch TV... we don't frequent bars, we don't go to rock concerts nor so-called Christian music concerts, we don't listen to 'Christian radio', we aren't given to gluttony, ... oh well, the list could go on and on and on, eh? And we don't look with disdain upon those who judge us for drinking an occasional glass of wine with dinner. In fact, we abstain from doing so when they are present. And, we do NOT esteem ourselves more "holy" or less "worldly" in regard to our lives.

Bottom line is this my friend since you have publicly stated: "After some doubts I have come to fully embrace my denomination. Much of the teachings are very intellectual."

IF you are consistent with your church's views on worldliness and you also believe, "Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:", then there is a serious danger that those who do not follow your views concerning what is "worldly" are not going to be saved. A serious warning to avoid worldliness is biblically sound. But to start making lists of every little thing that is worldly and what is not worldly will without doubt get you into serious trouble... not simply with men but with God Who alone is the Judge of men's hearts.

real quick, do you believe Calvin's moral reforms (social restrictions) in Geneva were legalistic?

I would make a distinction between internet and tv. I believe you have much control with the internet with the filters. And there are many links to Biblical and Reformed materials as well as work and educational research. You have much greater control and are not at the mercy of the programming. Plus you have greater communication possibilities with distant family and friends - if it makes you feel any better the conservative denominations feel with the necessary filters the internet is acceptable in the home. The internet is much less an entertainment tool compared to the tv and is much more informational and research oriented (as well as a social medium - we are social creatures of course)


a deck of cards is not the problem, not sure the origin there, but card playing (i.e. poker) I think is a form of godlessness as with most games of chance and lotteries, etc.

It's not simply a list of do's and don't. I do believe the saved will naturally lose their taste for such activities and if they don't know it's god dishonoring we should warn our brethren correctly. Ignorance is not an excuse to sin or particpate in sinful activities or something that resembles sins. I don't believe this type of abstinance is a pre-condition for salvation and I don't believe any of these conservative denominations would say so. But I do believe a fruit of conversion is losing our taste for worldly pursuits overall, even though the old man is still present he will be overcome.