The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Does a denial of the gospel's free offer = Hyper...?

Are any of these TRUE MARKS of HyperCalvinsim???


HYPER-CALVINSIM:

* Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear

* Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner

* Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal)

* Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace"

* Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect

* Denies open communion table (Promotes Closed Communion Table)

This is an interesting subject, AC, and one that I have come across often in many years of ministry. I recently wrote an article titled "Hyper-Calvinist" in which I addressed some of these questions. I don't know if the "Head Honcho" felt it was worthy of inclusion on The Highway as he has some of my writings.I sent it out a couple of months ago to my mail list, and plan to put it on my blog after November 1st. My blog is http://cyberwordoftruth.blogspot.com .

The reason I do not go ahead and put it there today is that I already have an excellent study there in the top spot called "The Truth About Halloween" by our Pastor Emeritus, and I do not want to detract from it until after Halloween.

I will say that I believe all the points you mention are indicative of Hyperism, with possible exception of the free offer. I know some who don't like that term, preferring to call it "a declaration" or "a command", yet they do declare the gospel to all they possibly can and believe the word to be, in the Spirit's hands,the instrument of salvation. I actually like those terms better myself, but am not afraid to call it an offer.

I know that Erroll Hulse in England wrote an excellent booklet on "The Free Offer". No one should doubt that we have the oblgation, i.e., the duty, to declare the gospel to all. Hyper-Calvinists are often antinomian and do not like "duty", "law", or "command". Let me know what you think about the article.

What exactly does the term antinomian mean?


I have heard Hyper-Calvinsim thrown around a great deal.... we have Arminian-types calling Calvinists hypers, we got moderates calling strict Calvinists hypers, etc., etc.

You got your Pipers, your Philpots, and everyting in between.

SOme Calvinists find Calvin to be too liberal in some areas and too legalistic in others.

I even heard people call Spurgeon a hyper-Calvinist???

Graceman,

I think I'm with you regarding the free offer.

Personally, I look at Ephesians 1 and I don't see Paul making a distinction between true believers and pretenders, rather he speaks in general terms to them as predestined according to the purpose....

I find myself getting into ruts sometimes where I think Calvinism - like all other Belief-Systems - over-simplifies the Word. I do believe the Word of God reflects both the duty and the free offer above election & predestination and even over depravity (although these are all necessary concepts if we are to have a full understanding of the whole counsel of God).

I still think Reformed is the most faithful analysis of GOd's WOrd but I get put off by all the categorizations and sub-divisions sometimes.

Sorry I'm rambling - am I making any sense???

i think you should just remember that the purpose of any categorizations or sub-divisions should simply be to better and more fully understand who God is. the purpose is edification... if its just being used to divide people for no other reason then steer clear of the discussion

these articles may provide some insight... i haven't had time to read them in entirety yet, but you may appreciate the links none the less

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=166

"As Spurgeon himself has lamented, hyper-Calvinism is a label gummed to Calvinists like the scarlet letter, regardless of whether they actually were or not. This misrepresentation is to a large extent due to an ignorance of what hyper-Calvinism actually means. What is hyper-Calvinism? Gordon Clark, quoting from Donald Dunkerley’s article, “Hyper-Calvinism Today,” defines the term as follows:

”the view of Calvinism which holds that “there is no world-wide call to Christ sent out to all sinners, neither are all men bidden to take him as their Savior.” Hyper-Calvinists .†.†. maintain that Christ should be held forth or offered as Savior to those only whom God effectually calls.11

The hyper-Calvinist makes the blunder in logic that since faith is a gift of God (Ephesians 2:8) and not of man’s free will (true premises), therefore, there should be no evangelism, calling, and commanding men to believe (false conclusion). The fallacy of the Arminian is that since men are indeed commanded to believe (true premise), therefore, faith cannot be a gift of God but must be from man’s free will (false conclusions). Spurgeon refuted the hyper-Calvinist and said: “They have said, ‘God has a purpose which is certain to be fulfilled, therefore, we will not budge an inch. All power is in the hands of Christ, therefore, we will sit still’; but that is not Christ’s way of reading the passage. It is, ‘All power is given unto me, therefore go ye, and do something.’†”12


A History of Hypo-Calvinism
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=161

The Banner of Truth Versus Calvinism
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=160

Something else to consider,

We have those who believe true Arminians can be saved despite being so. (John Hendryx from Monergism believes this).

We have those who believe Arminians cannot be saved becasue if they were they would essentially forsake Arminianism or not be truely Arminian (Pilgrim believes this)

I tend to side with Pilgrim on this one - however, does this make us Hyper-Calvinists???

If Arminians can be saved what's all the hubub about??? Why such intense discussions?

I do agree that Roman Catholics or Arminians or Semi-Pelagians who are saved either do not really believe what they are taught, are regenerated near the end of their lives despite false convictions prior to, or will eventually forsake free-will doctrines for the truths of the Reformed gospel (without having to give up the duty of repentance and abstaining from sin and inquity - becasue the call to faith and repentance is a sincere call to all).

Which article are you referring to? The Halloween one? Yes, quite good - we do not celebrate or acknowledge Halloween in my house. Were you referring to a different article?

Being saved is a gift from God in which our hearts are renewed and our eyes are opened to the truth that Christ atoned for our sins.

It seems everyone is an Arminian when they first become Christians. From our perspective it is we who make the decision. Someone only becomes a Calvinist after reading and studying the Word, working out their salvation with fear and trembling.

Just because they haven't understood how they became a Christian I don't think means they aren't one.

yes, but the issue is will they remain an Arminian if saved (seems like you are saying no - that they will become Calvinists) and if we believe they won't are we hypers?

IMO, it seems like undue speculation

Well if a true mark of a spiritual rebirth is that the individual rejects Aminianism

and

if the Calvinist who holds this perspective to be true is to be labeled a Hyper-Calvinist

I think it's an issue worth some consideration.

i don't think the true mark of spiritual rebirth is that the individual rejects Arminianism... the true mark of spiritual rebirth is that they recognize Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior

what I meant as undue speculation was contemplating if an Arminian is saved or not... i don't mean we shouldn't seek to properly define terms

Well, that's a start - obviously if we don't recognize Jesus is who He said He is then we don't have a chance, and then if it becomes a personal relationship (which is probably what you are getting at) we are definitely talking a true mark!

You may be right that we should not speculate whether Arminians are saved or not but I guess we have to consider if there are ramifications for those who do not accept the whole counsel of GOd - which only God - can reveal, although we may be the means in which an introduction or impression is made (but we can only reap & sow while GOd gives the increase). I'm sure you agree - peace!

Brandon, just remember Arminians believe they used their own positive volition to decide if they were going to accept Jesus or not. They don't believe they were so dead in tresspasses and sins that they were unable to accept & believe without GOd granting them this ability and desire via the HS...

SO we have to wonder when we are talking about Arminians if we are talking about a counterfeit work of man or a true work of God wrought in the elect.

Just becasue somebody decides to accept Jesus as their 'personal Lord and Saviour' does not mean they are truely converted.

The issue is inescapably whether what a person believes has any bearing upon one's salvation. If it doesn't matter, then everyone is going to be saved since everyone believes something. However, if it is as Paul writes, "I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power unto salvation." (Rom 1:16), then it is essential that the one who preaches/teaches knows what the Gospel of Christ is according to the Bible and that the one who hears actually hears the biblical Gospel. To the degree that either the message is distorted in its presentation or the hearer fails to hear all of the truth, then invariably there are negative consequences.

Now, it is true that God is sovereign and can and does save His elect sometimes despite of the lack of a sound Gospel or the hearing of it. But those instances are by His sovereign choice and exceptions rather than the rule.

Since we here hold that Calvinism is the most accurate representation of the teaching of biblical doctrine and the Gospel, then it only stands that all else are deficient to one degree or another. To go even further, Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism are damnable heresies which have been condemned by historical counsels and all churches of the Protestant Reformation. The main reason is that they all teach synergism; salvation by works or a combination of faith + works. Thus, if a person who verbally affirms Arminianism, they deny: "Sola Gratia, Sola Fide and Solus Christus", without which no one can be saved. To put it very simply, a true Arminian relies upon his/her decision as that which saves (works) and not upon Christ alone (by grace through faith alone).

For more, see these two articles:

1) There are Only Two Religions in the World by Ernest Reisinger.
2) Do You REALLY Believe that Salvation is by Grace Alone?

In His grace,

Do you mind explaining what you mean by that?