Questions...

[LamorakDesGalis]

I have a number of questions to ask which are related to hyper-Calvinist beliefs and practice, which I hope to do in a kind of running dialogue (I am using the term "Hyper-Calvinist" in a descriptive sense and not in a pejorative sense).

To start with, I am interested in the types of churches hyper-Calvinists attend, or groups/denominations who hold to such theology. I did stumble upon some answers in a locked thread, but it seems not all who replied with their church of choice were hyper-Calvinists. I saw house churches, a number of Reformed churches, and Baptists, I think. Are there any Primitive Baptists who participate on the board? I am interested in acquiring more information concerning Primitives these days. Also I thought I saw a hyper-dispensationalist (or Pauline disp) handle - Stam - so is there really such a thing as a hyper-Calvinist + hyper-dispensationalist? Now I'm assuming there is no such thing as a charismatic hyper-Calvinist - correct?

[GraceAmbassador]

I have a number of questions to ask which are related to hyper-Calvinist beliefs and practice, which I hope to do in a kind of running dialogue (I am using the term "Hyper-Calvinist" in a descriptive sense and not in a pejorative sense).

To start with, I am interested in the types of churches hyper-Calvinists attend, or groups/denominations who hold to such theology. I did stumble upon some answers in a locked thread, but it seems not all who replied with their church of choice were hyper-Calvinists. I saw house churches, a number of Reformed churches, and Baptists, I think. Are there any Primitive Baptists who participate on the board? I am interested in acquiring more information concerning Primitives these days. Also I thought I saw a hyper-dispensationalist (or Pauline disp) handle - Stam - so is there really such a thing as a hyper-Calvinist + hyper-dispensationalist? Now I'm assuming there is no such thing as a charismatic hyper-Calvinist - correct?

You assumed wrong! Well, that is, if my "accusers" are correct! It may not reflect what I am and believe, but because I am on one end of the spectrum, a "hyper" I am also non-cessationist; so, for the "hyper-labelists" I am "too charismatic for the Calvinist and too Calvinist for the charismatic"...

I don't know of any Primitive Baptist here although I have seen and read arguments made that are similar to their beliefs.

I am a Paulinist, but I am not a dispensationalist. I do acknowledge and admonish people to notice that the Bible, Paul, uses terms such as "administration of times, fullness of times" and others and believing that God has progressed His revelation in time is not the same as being a dispensationalist. Also, believing that Paul's revelation crowns and it is the check and balance of other revelations is not being a dispensationalist in the least. Some do think that some of us are because of our position as to Paul's writings as the ultimate Revelation to the Ekklesia.

Also, some call us hypers because we don't believe James should be part of what we call "higher canon" and should not even be canonical at all!

I am considered "hyper" because I am supralapsarian, and because of my position on double predestination, the predestination of all things and that God ordains evil either in the form of calamities or other forms. It is recorded in the Bible within context of God's doings and to deny it is to backslide into what I call the two headed monster of Calvinism and arminianism reconciled theology. Furthermore, I am also considered a hyper because I don't believe in a "bipolar" type of "god" who has two wills.

Another reason why I and most moderators here are considered to be "hypers" is that we don't compromise on the Limited Atonement doctrine. I am speaking for myself, but on this I can speak for others as well.

Interestingly enough, although I am called a hyper because I don't believe in the "free offer of the Gospel" and that "God offers the Gospel to all", and I will not back down from this position, I do offer the Gospel publicly! I say and said a few times that this is totally different from the people, the hypocrites, who believe that God offers the Gospel to all but they themselves offer it to no one. Other hypers say that I am not a hyper because I believe in public proclamation of the Gospel and have no problem in not attempting to identify the elect before I preach... Calvin said, and I agree, and would believe EVEN if Calvin had not said, that "there is no evident mark of election and reprobation on no one that we can see and only God is the judge", thus it is ridiculous for us to go around attempting to select the target audience of the Gospel proclamation in my humble opinion. Proclaiming the Gospel is compared to "fishing" a few times in the N.T. A good fisherman, once he found the place where the fish runs, he throws the net unselectively... he will catch good and bad fish sometimes. Once, at least, they threw the net on a predictable spot and caught nothing; Jesus told them to throw the net elsewhere... Later when they came with their nets full and heavy with fish. Jesus invited them for a meal where he offered them fish that He had caught and that was already cooked or cooking, indicating that He had fished them before the disciples brought their full nets! (Someone ought to preach about that next Sunday...) So, predicting what we will draw in the Gospel net is ludicrous; only God can do it!

I will let others speak for themselves, but I hope I answered your question that, hopefully is not based upon frivolous curiosity but a demonstration of a desire to engage in edifying discussions.

Perhaps I should have asked you first what is your definition of a "hyper-Calvinist" since there are many of such definitions, but I hope this helps!

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

To start with, I am interested in the types of churches hyper-Calvinists attend, or groups/denominations who hold to such theology.

As you probably know by now, there is no such thing as the 'hyper-Calvinist' of the stereotypes invented by Fullerists, Dabneyists, and Spurgeonists. So non-people cannot attend churches!

As to those of us who take our predestinarian theology seriously according to God's revelation, we have various convictions and practices on the matter! But that is not a problem.

[LamorakDesGalis]

because I am on one end of the spectrum, a "hyper" I am also non-cessationist; so, for the "hyper-labelists" I am "too charismatic for the Calvinist and too Calvinist for the charismatic"...

Charismatic and Hyper-Calvinist is definitely a unique combination...

Also, some call us hypers because we don't believe James should be part of what we call "higher canon" and should not even be canonical at all!

Perhaps rejection of the book of James is unique to those at this board? I've never seen it mentioned as a historic Hyper-Calvinist distinctive...

Interestingly enough, although I am called a hyper because I don't believe in the "free offer of the Gospel" and that "God offers the Gospel to all", and I will not back down from this position, I do offer the Gospel publicly! I say and said a few times that this is totally different from the people, the hypocrites, who believe that God offers the Gospel to all but they themselves offer it to no one. Other hypers say that I am not a hyper because I believe in public proclamation of the Gospel and have no problem in not attempting to identify the elect before I preach...

I don't see much difference between what you say here and many Hypers of the past. They also distinguished between a public proclamation of the gospel and a "gospel offer."

Perhaps I should have asked you first what is your definition of a "hyper-Calvinist" since there are many of such definitions, but I hope this helps!

Your descriptions are helpful, they do provide a good starting point. As for my definition, I believe a Hyper-Calvinist is one who began with a Supralapsarian viewpoint/mindset. While there are many issues which Supras and Hyper-Calvinists share in common (limited atonement, double predestination, etc), these issues by themselves do not make a Hyper-Calvinist. I don't regard all Supras as Hyper-Calvinists. But stemming from Supralapsarian, Hyper-Calvinists have drawn a related "umbrella" of conclusions such as eternal justification, a denial/restriction of common grace and a rejection of "gospel offers." I see Hoeksema and the PRC as hyper, as well as the Primitive Baptists and the Gospel Standard Baptists in England.

[LamorakDesGalis]

To start with, I am interested in the types of churches hyper-Calvinists attend, or groups/denominations who hold to such theology.

As you probably know by now, there is no such thing as the 'hyper-Calvinist' of the stereotypes invented by Fullerists, Dabneyists, and Spurgeonists. So non-people cannot attend churches!

I'm not interested in stereotypes, accuracy is important to me. That is why I'm asking questions here and not elsewhere. Now I've never heard of a "Dabneyite." Did Dabney critique Hyper-Calvinists like Fuller and Spurgeon did?

As to those of us who take our predestinarian theology seriously according to God's revelation, we have various convictions and practices on the matter! But that is not a problem.

Well, I'm interested in how you (or anyone else) could explain the Hyper-Calvinist rejection of progressive sanctification. It would seem to also imply the rejection of any spiritual growth in the Christian life...

[GraceAmbassador]

Your descriptions are helpful, they do provide a good starting point. As for my definition, I believe a Hyper-Calvinist is one who began with a Supralapsarian viewpoint/mindset. While there are many issues which Supras and Hyper-Calvinists share in common (limited atonement, double predestination, etc), these issues by themselves do not make a Hyper-Calvinist. I don't regard all Supras as Hyper-Calvinists. But stemming from Supralapsarian, Hyper-Calvinists have drawn a related "umbrella" of conclusions such as eternal justification, a denial/restriction of common grace and a rejection of "gospel offers." I see Hoeksema and the PRC as hyper, as well as the Primitive Baptists and the Gospel Standard Baptists in England.

I believe in eternal justification (on the perspective of God's timelessness), I deny "common grace" and defend that the word Grace (capital G) is not a MERE definition of "unmerited favor" but it is chiefly the definition of a Sacrificial Favor, which is not a privilege of the reprobate. So, if the term "grace" as in "common grace" is incorrect, I label whatever temporal good the reprobate is given to enjoy is the generic God's benevolence at best and at worse, a rub off of the good God bestows upon His chosen ones. I have plenty of scriptures to support this point and have found a lot of weaknesses in the points presented by common grace defenders. I define "sin" by what the Bible says about sin and not the Webster; thus I define Grace for what the Bible says about Grace and not the Webster. That's why I distinguish "grace" from Grace.

I have spoken enough of the Gospel offer, but reason with me here:

1. If you don't believe that the reprobate has free will because God has not given him free will (although you say in your profile that there is "free will") then he is impeded by God's design first and second by his sinful depraved nature from accepting or even understanding the offer. Thus we have a very logical error here: An offer that cannot be accepted nor rejected is NOT an offer. If the "offerer" impedes or programs the "offeree" not to receive the offer, than there is no offer in the first place.
2. If you do believe there is "free will" and the reprobate can indeed accept or reject the Gospel Offer, then we are not discussing Calvinism any longer. Calvinists who think that way are indeed arminians and the worse kind of arminians because they believe in a two headed monster of a Calvinist/arminianist conciliatory doctrine. That's to me is unacceptable and anyone who wishes to debate with me under this background can call me hyper all they want; they are indeed hyper-labelists who have not yet found their theological identity and they are deserving of the Golden Emerod award (click on the button under my signature to know what is the Golden Emerod award).

I can only surmise about your motives in posting these questions basing my assumptions upon your answers in the profile session. I really hope to see your own position in these issues (common Grace, Gospel offer and others) and what is the NEW argument (if any) that you have to present to defend your position.

Also, I will NEVER compromise in the Limited Atonement; that would make all the other points of Calvinism a logical fallacy. I don't believe that 1 John 2:2 (just to whet your appetite) speaks of the the "whole world" meaning "every human being that ever existed" and no one can prove me that this is what it is with arguments that will deviate from their own exegesis of the term "the world" in other texts of the Bible. That means that their interpretation is inconsistent and selective.

Furthermore, I believe that compromising in the Limited Atonement makes God to be a "god" whose will or desire is not satisfied; turns Him into an evil "god" who sends to hell redeemable people; who offers and makes provision for people that "he" does not intend for people to receive, just like dangling a piece of steak in front of a famished man's nose and refusing to let him eat. As such, whereas hypo-Calvinists or semi-arminians charge hyper-Calvinists with having an "evil God", their little "god" is much more evil in that he provides things that he does not want people to have and offers things that he impedes people from receiving.

Well, I gave you a lot of my opinions in courtesy to your question. I would like to know your motivation to ask these questions and give us a bit of your background, where you fellowship and others so I can know how to interpret your questioning.

Cordially,

Milt

[LamorakDesGalis]

I'm not understanding why you (a moderator) are asking me to defend my beliefs when there are certain restrictions concerning that on this board. Also a supralapsarian mindset is virtually a necessity before a person would even consider Hyper-Calvinism. Is it not enough for you to know from the profile that I am not a supralapsarian, nor even consider myself Reformed?

As for my motives - I have no hidden agenda, no animosity or axe to grind. I am interested in learning about Hyper-Calvinist beliefs and practices - beliefs and practices which aren't typically covered in the usual articles. But if no one wants to directly address my questions, then no big deal - I'll just draw my own conclusions and move on to the next group.

Do Hyper-Calvinists reject the concept of indwelling sin in a Christian?

[ray kikkert]

Do Hyper-Calvinists reject the concept of indwelling sin in a Christian?

The apostle in Romans 7 states there is a war of the members. That cannot be denied. Romans 8 does give us who love the Lord, the comfort that there is therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ, the elect. They still have to wrestle with the old man of sin in their lives. That cannot be denied nor should it.

[Saint Nicholas]

When Luther coined the phrase "Simul Justus et Peccator", which means Simultaneously Righteous and Sinful, or Saint and sinner, he meant that the New Man born of the Holy Spirit is Righteous by way of Imputation. Our old man, is born from the posterity of Adam, thus we are totaly depraved creatures in our flesh.

There is no such thing as a "SINLESS PERFECTION" in this life, as long as our new nature and old nature exist together. We will be rid of our old sinful man at Glorification.
Read Romans Chapter 7. The Apostle Paul deals with this very issue of indwelling sin.

As to Hypers, All consistent Calvinist hold to a Double Predestination. But all Calvinist do not hold to Equal Ultimacy.

The Supra's (in which I am one of), contend for Equal Ultimacy.

The Infra's deny Equal Ultimacy.

This web site will be very informative to you, if you will at least try to think a little on your own.

[GraceAmbassador]

I'm not understanding why you (a moderator) are asking me to defend my beliefs when there are certain restrictions concerning that on this board. Also a supralapsarian mindset is virtually a necessity before a person would even consider Hyper-Calvinism. Is it not enough for you to know from the profile that I am not a supralapsarian, nor even consider myself Reformed?

As for my motives - I have no hidden agenda, no animosity or axe to grind. I am interested in learning about Hyper-Calvinist beliefs and practices - beliefs and practices which aren't typically covered in the usual articles. But if no one wants to directly address my questions, then no big deal - I'll just draw my own conclusions and move on to the next group.

Do Hyper-Calvinists reject the concept of indwelling sin in a Christian?

I am not and was not asking you to defend your beliefs. I know very well the arguments used by most people who oppose what they call "hyper-calvinsim" view; it is very predictable and easily rebutted. I just wanted to get to know you beyond the profile questions. Please, make an effort not to misinterpret my REQUEST to get to know you better.

I believe I addressed the questions and am available for more clarification if you so desire. I don't mind frivolous curiosity nor purposeless questioning... I just wanted to find a reason for a serious exchange of ideas.

I was expecting a simple reason such as: "I am running a study on hypers; or I am working on a turn paper", or anything like that... Since I answered courteously, I would expect the same courtesy of you speaking about your own views.

As to the last question, I will be silent and let others answer.

Thanks for replying and ask again if necessary!

Milt