Chris Arnzen of WNYG in New York has invited me to be on his "Iron Sharpens Iron" radio talk show this Thursday from 3-4 PM Eastern time, to discusss Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism. It can be heard live via their website. Archived copies of the programs are also available.
On Friday, September 21, from 3-PM I will participate in a "Pastors' Roundtable" on the same program. It is also available on the links above.
5 comments:
Hi Tom,
I am curious about how you would define hyper-Calvinism. I know that you personally believe that God desires the salvation of all mankind, but has decreed to save the elect alone. I imagine that you also affirm God's universal love, common grace and well-meant offers. What I am wondering is if you would consider one a hyper-Calvinist if:
1) One denies God's universal saving will, or that God in some sense wills the salvation of all in the revealed will of God.
2) One denies that God salvifically loves all mankind. This is related to the first point, i.e., that he loves all in the sense that he is willing to save all. I am not referring to a redemptive love whereby some think that God gives the Son to die for all, but a general saving kind of love.
3) One denies common grace. I am not talking about terminology quibbles, but the concept itself. This, again, seems related to the first two points since God's kindness and longsuffering are meant to lead men to repentance according to Rom. 2:4.
4) One denies that the gospel is a well-meant offer. This all seems interrelated, since a well-meant offer presupposes that God a) wills the salvation of all b) loves all with a view to saving and c) acts graciously toward all with a view to saving.
I didn't mention duty-faith or human responsibility because I think all agree that the denial of that doctrine amounts to hyperism.
So, would you say that denying one or more of the above four points qualifies one as a hyper-Calvinist?
I must confess that I am weary of the Protestant Reformed Church caricatured definition, as articulated by David Engelsma; that is, hyperism is 1) the denial of the need to evangelize/preach/or do missions and 2) the denial of duty-faith. I believe that SOME hypers held to that, but it was actually a minority view among them. As Dr. Curt Daniel said:
"With the exception of a few extreme Primitive Baptists, all Hyper-Calvinists have believed that we are to "preach" the Gospel to all, but "offer" it to none. Preach, explain, command -yes. Offer - no. Some have also quibbled over the word "invite", arguing that we can only invite "sensible [convicted] sinners", not sinners in general. All this is related to anti-missionism."
Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism (Springfield: Good Books, 2003), p. 89.
Phil J. makes the same point in his Primer, as you know. I think the PRC types are arbitrarily raising the definitional bar so they aren't seen as hyper themselves.
Anyway, what are your definitional thoughts on the topic as it relates to #1, #2, #3 and #4 above?
Thanks,
Tony
Tony:
I must beg your indulgence not to get involved in an extended debate on this issue. I believe that hyper-Calvinism is rooted in an error related to biblical anthropology. It does not allow for the unregenerate being responsible for that which they are unable to perform, namely, repentance and faith. The rationale behind this, at least as argued by John Brine, is that Adam in his innocency never possessed the ability to repent and believe savingly nor, therefore, the responsibility to do so, since such was not necessary. Thus, such ability and responsibility do not inhere to fallen men as his progeny.
I realize this does not answer your questions but it does express how I see the essence of hyper-Calvinism. As I said, I am not willing to get into an extended discussion of all of the issues here.
Blessings,
tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the reply, however brief. I didn't mean to leave the impression that I wanted to get into an extended conversation or debate the topic. I thought about stating that in what I said above, but didn't. I was just curious about whether or not you thought the four particular things I outlined above qualified as hyperism in your historical and theological perspective. I would have just left it at that.
The reply could have been as simple as 1) maybe 2) yes 3) maybe, etc. etc.
Anyway, thanks for your time,
Tony
Brother Tom Ascol,
I must beg your indulgence to allow this post in this thread for your pastoral consideration. Please consider the following words carefully.
I listened to the radio program and was rather disappointed. The popular Protestant Reformed Church definition of hyperism was used, yet again. If hyper-Calvinism essentially consists in 1) the denial of the need to engage in missions/evangelism and in 2) the denial of duty-faith, then hardly anyone (except the Primitive Baptists) qualifies as a hyper-Calvinist in history, even the Protestant Reformed Church itself (they affirm duty-faith and the need to "evangelize"). For goodness sake, Mark Carpenter and the Outside the Camp lunatics (who have anathematized virtually all Christians throughout the centuries) don't even deny duty-faith; and they engage in some perverted sense of "evangelism." The use of the PRC definition doesn't help the modern day church to address the sophisticated forms in which hyperism appears in our day.
Further, there was not much said about how one's view of the character of God impacts one's view of man, sin and salvation. That is precisely where, it seems to me, the hyper-Calvinists have gone astray. I would also add that IF my fourfold criteria above on the nature of hyperism is correct, then two men (among the several that were mentioned) that were lauded at the beginning of the show as good contemporary Calvinists are actually hyper-Calvinists, since both of them AT LEAST deny God's universal saving will and/or that God is well-meaning in his offers to all that hear the external call.
With that in view I would like to encourage you to ponder the following argument. In his book on The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity, Dr. Peter Toon said that they make "no meaningful distinction between the secret and revealed will of God, thereby deducing the duty of sinners from the secret decrees of God." The following is how some hyper-Calvinists think:
1) We are duty-bound to do that which God wants us to do.
2) God does not want the non-elect to repent and believe (in the evangelical sense).
3) Therefore, the non-elect are not duty-bound to repent and believe (in the evangelical sense).
In the first proposition, what God "wants" is only associated with his decretal will. For that reason, the erroneous second proposition is asserted. Then comes the denial of duty-faith as a result. Notice carefully that the faulty doctrine of man (anthropology) stems from a faulty doctrine of God (theology proper). Therefore, the essential and primary problem with hyper-Calvinism, as with other false systems, is their doctrine of God.
In any discussions about systems dangerous to Christianity, the focus should primarily be on where they go astray in their perception of God. Only then can the other faulty ramifications in their system (i.e., in relation to harmartiology, anthropology and soteriology) be properly understood. Hyper-Calvinism has a skewed conception of the nature of God and his will (as the above syllogism demonstrates), and that issues in a faulty doctrine of sin, man and salvation.
As with all errors, the devil wants us to primarly have faulty conceptions of God and his nature. Since the devil's business is blasphemy, he wants to subtly encourage blasphemous thinking about God, especially in the case of Christians. The goal of the tempter is to encourage blasphemy in all things, which is why he especially loves unbelief. What could be more blasphemous and cause unbelief than to think and say that God does not want everyone to comply with his commandments? Or to say that God is not well-meaning in his indiscriminate gospel proposals? How blaspemous is it to think that so called "common grace" really amounts to common hate among the majority of people on earth? The problem with the denial of duty-faith also goes back ultimately to faulty conceptions of God's nature and his will, just as in the case of denials of his universal love, common grace and the well-meant offer.
Where is the "Ministerial Courage" to confront these particular errors, even if it happens to be discovered among our friends and/or colleagues?
Dear brother Tom, I would plead with you to cry out against these particular errors with all pastoral zeal, passion and precision, no matter where they are found, even as you cry out against all other forms of attack on our glorious God and his gospel.
With all affection in Christ Jesus our Savior,
Tony Byrne
Irving, Texas
Tony:
I am sorry you were disappointed. You obviously give much time and energy to this topic, as your own blog demonstrates. Since you have left an abundance of links to your blog while commenting here, it is not difficult for anyone who stumbles across my posts to get to your place, where you can discuss these matters with them further.
Blessings,
tom
Post a Comment