Biblical Election and Predestination

[Vic C.]

Is this topic closed because I just lost my post?

No, the topic was locked so I could clean it out, not because you lost your post. : As you can see, it's unlocked again. 8-)

 

[MarkT]

To step back and try to explain my methodology. I fully admit that I come to Paul's material with a number of beliefs about him:

1. He is a brilliant sophisticated thinker, much more subtle than most;

2. He does not tend to wander from one topic back to another, except when absolutely necessary;

3. He needs to be read in his historical context. So, for example, Paul wrote the letter primarily to the Romans to the church at Rome, not us. Of course, this does not mean there are not truths in there for us.

4. When Paul quotes Old Testament passages, he intends us to look those passages up and let their content inform what he is saying in the letter he is writing.

These beliefs about Paul lead me to skeptical of the idea that he would introduce a chapter (Romans 9) as dealing with Israel, then make a tangent to statements about God's election of individuals to heaven or hell (something that has no connection to the Israel issue) and then return to dealing with Israel, without announcing a change of topic.

Point number 4 manifests itself, for example, in Paul's quoting of Malachi when he refers to loving Jacob and hating Esau. I do not think it is correct to simply import the 21st century notion of what it means to "love" or to "hate" when we read the stuff in Romans. This would lead to JayR's conclusion that since God "hates" Esau, this leads us to conclude that Esau has been elected to hell (in a context where Paul is admittedly talking about election).

Instead, I go Malachi 1 and follows the "trail" to the relevant ways that "love" and "hate" have been used elsewhere in the scriptures. And when I do this, I see "love" and "hate" as having a more precise meaning: "selection" and "rejection" in respect to covenantal behaviours on the part of God. And since I see Romans as largely an apologetic from Paul as to how God has been faithful to the covenant, and 9 through 11 as specfically focussing on Israel in this respect, I am inclined to see the Romans 9 treatment of Esau and Jacob as having a specifically "covenant plan" sense more than the more broad sense that might sustain the view that Paul is talking about "election to salvation" and "election to loss".

The reference to Jacob and Esau is made to show us that God didn't pick Jacob because Jacob had done anything. Jacob wasn't even born yet and Rebecca was told that God loved Jacob and he hated Esau.

So God's purpose of election continues, not because of works but because of his call. God picks people to bring them to the knowledge of his Son so that they will be his people to glorify his name.

Is God unjust? No. God said to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy'. So God has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills. So why does he still find fault with a man? For who can resist his will? If God hardens a man's heart so that he can not see, then why does he fault him for not seeing? The potter has a right over the clay to make of the same lump ... see how he calls Isaac a 'lump' ... one vessel for beauty and another for menial use ...; brothers Jacob and Esau, for example. So it is by God's will that he makes vessels of mercy, and he puts his mercy into the vessels that are meant for glory, and he puts his wrath into the vessels that he makes for wrath that are meant for destruction. Indeed the wrath of the Islamists can be seen towards us. They would be candidates for 'Esau' more than any others I can think of.

 

[MarkT]

Is this topic closed because I just lost my post?

No, the topic was locked so I could clean it out, not because you lost your post. : As you can see, it's unlocked again. 8-)

Ok. I asked because I lost it. Oh well.

 

[Orion]

God said it was.

WHERE. . . . did God say it was? This is another topic, far from the original post. I will start another one. . . . . . . don't answer it in this thread, please.

As for THIS thread, I believe that I must have been given a "depraved mind" by God, because I don't find a lot of the things in the Bible as exciting. . . . . . . they don't draw me to it, and if they DO, . . . it's because my logical brain has questioned what it was saying. That also goes with some of the things you said. . . .

For example. I asked how God could violently hate a person, yet love them to the same degree at the same time. I stated it was impossible. Your answer was the "very convenient", . . . "what is impossible for man is possible for God". But that isn't an answer to my question. That is the same as you giving that same answer to the question, "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he can't lift". Both are paradoxical and cannot exist in any reality.

So, according to you, if God hates people like me, . . . there is no love because these qualities cannot and DO not reside together.

 

[GraceBwithU]

The basic principle of Calvinism is the sovereignty of God. This doctrine allowed John Calvin to interpret Scripture in any manner he desired in order to fit his Institutes theology. He simply claimed the sovereignty of God allowed it. God's other attributes such as love, justice, mercy and grace became less important so long as sovereignty reigned. John Calvin's extreme definitions of sovereignty and sin (Total Depravity or Total Inability) laid the foundation for a religion that bears his name, Calvinism

I am reluctant to say this, but Calvinist do not worship the same God that Christians do. They are listed in many places as a cult because they fit the definitions of a cult.

1. A cult claims to be Christian. For instance, Buddhism is a false religion, not a cult.
2. A cult, though it claims to use the Bible, is built on extra-biblical teachings. These teachings usually come from a person or small number of people and they usually are centered in a book or a small number of key books. The main distinction is that these teachings, in practice, take authority over the teachings of the Bible. These extra-biblical teachings have become the true authority.
3. A cult, because of its acceptance of extra-biblical authority for truth, teaches doctrines so opposed to scripture that they cloud the truth of salvation and damn souls to hell. They match the practice of the Pharisees in Matthew 23:13 - "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."

Sorry but I have found all of this to be true of at least the hyper-Calvinist. :

 

[mutzrein]

The basic principle of Calvinism is the sovereignty of God. This doctrine allowed John Calvin to interpret Scripture in any manner he desired in order to fit his Institutes theology. He simply claimed the sovereignty of God allowed it. God's other attributes such as love, justice, mercy and grace became less important so long as sovereignty reigned. John Calvin's extreme definitions of sovereignty and sin (Total Depravity or Total Inability) laid the foundation for a religion that bears his name, Calvinism

I am reluctant to say this, but Calvinist do not worship the same God that Christians do. They are listed in many places as a cult because they fit the definitions of a cult.

1. A cult claims to be Christian. For instance, Buddhism is a false religion, not a cult.
2. A cult, though it claims to use the Bible, is built on extra-biblical teachings. These teachings usually come from a person or small number of people and they usually are centered in a book or a small number of key books. The main distinction is that these teachings, in practice, take authority over the teachings of the Bible. These extra-biblical teachings have become the true authority.
3. A cult, because of its acceptance of extra-biblical authority for truth, teaches doctrines so opposed to scripture that they cloud the truth of salvation and damn souls to hell. They match the practice of the Pharisees in Matthew 23:13 - "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."

Sorry but I have found all of this to be true of at least the hyper-Calvinist. :

I'm not a Calvanist - nor am I anything else which bears the name of a man who has founded a particular theological stance - but I have to ask, what is it specifically about Calvanism that leads you to say it is a cult?

 

[Vic C.]

I agree with this is definition of a cult:

CHRISTIAN DEFINITION
CULT - Any group which deviates from Biblical, orthodox, historical Christianity. e.i. They deny the Deity of Christ; His physical resurrection; His personal and physical return to earth and salvation by FAITH alone.

This definition only covers those groups which are cults within the Christian religion. It does not cover cults within other world religions such as Islam and Hinduism. Nor does it cover Psychological, Commercial or Educational cults which do not recognize the Bible as a source of reality.


UNIVERSAL DEFINITION
CULT - Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top. The group will claim to be the only way to God; Nirvana; Paradise; Ultimate Reality; Full Potential, Way to Happiness etc, and will use thought reform or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their members. This definition covers cults within all majopr world religions, along with those cults which have no OBVIOUS religious base such as commercial, educational and psychological cults. Others may define these a little differently, but this is the simplest to work from. THE 'ORTHODOX BIBLE-BASED CULT'

A group is called a cult because of their behaviour - not their doctrines. Doctrine is an issue in the area of Apologetics and Heresy. Most religious cults do teach what the Christian church would declare to be heresy but some do not. Some cults teach the basics of the Christian faith but have behavioural patterns that are abusive, controlling and cultic.

This occurs in both Non-Charismatic and Charismatic churches. These groups teach the central doctrines of the Christian faith and then add the extra authority of leadership or someone's particular writings. They centre around the interpretations of the leadership and submissive and unquestioning acceptance of these is essential to be a member of good standing. This acceptance includes what we consider non-essential doctrines e.i. not salvation issues (such as the Person and Work of Christ.) The key is that they will be using mind control or undue influence on their members.

An excellent book on this subject is "Churches that Abuse" by Dr Ronald Enroth.

Using these guidelines of definition, Bible-based, Psychological, Educational and Commercial aberrations can easily be identified

http://www.religio.de/cudef.html#2

Using this as a guideline, I can't consider Calvinism as a cult. I don't agree fully with some of their interpretations, but nonetheless, they do only use scripture as their guide.

Hyper-Calvinism is a different story. 8-)

 

[MarkT]

The basic principle of Calvinism is the sovereignty of God. This doctrine allowed John Calvin to interpret Scripture in any manner he desired in order to fit his Institutes theology. He simply claimed the sovereignty of God allowed it. God's other attributes such as love, justice, mercy and grace became less important so long as sovereignty reigned. John Calvin's extreme definitions of sovereignty and sin (Total Depravity or Total Inability) laid the foundation for a religion that bears his name, Calvinism

Total inability is consistent with the teaching that no one can come to Christ except the Father draws him. The idea of depravity is also consistent with the teaching that we are evil, as Jesus said, 'if you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts' Mt. 7:11 However, I think it's more accurate to say we are all under the power of sin.

Election: Those who God made to save. As far as who they are, God knows who they are. In accordance with Paul's letter to the Corinthians, 'knowing the fear of God, we persuade men; but who we are is known to God.' 2 Cor. 5:11

The idea here is that even though men are persuaded, who they are, is already known. If they are 'of God', they will hear us, but if they are not 'of God', they will not hear us.

The Elect: Perhaps the reference is to the ones who are made to be saved - the few. 'Many will fall away': the reference to the many who are called. Many can be saved. It's hard to put into words. I believe we are all known to God.

Predestined: It's likely everything is predestined. According to Paul, 'He destined us in love to be his sons' Eph. 1:5 And again, he refers to God's will when he says he was set apart before he was born Gal. 1:15, 'according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things.' Eph. 1:11 ; what came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal. 1:12

The only thing I would say about freewill is that all men are free as far as their ability to think, to see, and hear. They are free to speak. 'A man's mind plans his way, but the LORD directs his steps.' Pr. 16:9 So the mind is free; whether the man is able to hear or not depends on the mercy of God.

 

[Drew]

A "conceptual" point. I think it is important to critically reflect on what the term "elect" could mean, given that one, of course, acknowledges that there is "an" elect. In this regard, I am going to humbly suggest that people default to thinking that it is a "list of names" of those that God has pre-determined will ultimately be justified.

I think it is also possible that Paul is describing' God's pre-destining the existence of a category of persons, with pre-scribed criteria for membership. On this view, the actual individuals are not pre-destined to salvation - that would conflict with passages that either directly or indirectly suggest choice.

An analogy. Country X decides it wants to create an athletic "elite" to represent that country in the Olympics. So they set aside tax dollars to buy training equipment, hire the best coaches, create programs in schools to encourage advanced athletic accomplishment, etc. etc. One can, I suggest, legitimately say that country X is creating an athletic "elect" in that that they are pre-destining that an athletic elite will emerge as a result. The country does not pre-destine that Fred and Sue in particular, will be part of that elite. But there is indeed "pre-destining" and "election" going on here.

And this is not "playing intellectual games". This kind of election involves real "fore-ordainment" on the part of God - He is indeed "determing something in advance". In contrast, we have the position that God "elects / pre-destines according to what he foreknows". I never liked this view since it seems to take the "ooomph" out of election - it really calls into question whether anything at all is determined in advance. And I think that involves too much mangling of the concept of election / pre-destination.

And I think that what I am saying is consistent with how Paul writes. He often works at the "category" level - referring to "national Israel", "true Israel", the "Gentiles", etc. In this respect, note how Paul refers to Gentiles:

"salvation has come to the Gentiles ......

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith

Have all Gentiles obtained righteousness? OF course not. So we should be careful about assuming that when Paul says "x" about a group, that he is saying "x" about each person in that group. I suggest that Paul sees the "elect" as a pre-destined category of persons and may never intend to represent that the specific people in it have been pre-destined as well.

 

[mondar]

The basic principle of Calvinism is the sovereignty of God. This doctrine allowed John Calvin to interpret Scripture in any manner he desired in order to fit his Institutes theology. He simply claimed the sovereignty of God allowed it. God's other attributes such as love, justice, mercy and grace became less important so long as sovereignty reigned. John Calvin's extreme definitions of sovereignty and sin (Total Depravity or Total Inability) laid the foundation for a religion that bears his name, Calvinism

I am reluctant to say this, but Calvinist do not worship the same God that Christians do. They are listed in many places as a cult because they fit the definitions of a cult.

1. A cult claims to be Christian. For instance, Buddhism is a false religion, not a cult.
2. A cult, though it claims to use the Bible, is built on extra-biblical teachings. These teachings usually come from a person or small number of people and they usually are centered in a book or a small number of key books. The main distinction is that these teachings, in practice, take authority over the teachings of the Bible. These extra-biblical teachings have become the true authority.
3. A cult, because of its acceptance of extra-biblical authority for truth, teaches doctrines so opposed to scripture that they cloud the truth of salvation and damn souls to hell. They match the practice of the Pharisees in Matthew 23:13 - "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."

Sorry but I have found all of this to be true of at least the hyper-Calvinist. :

And will you allow even non-Calvinists to hold you accountable for your words? Of do you just shoot and run?

 

[stranger]

Hi Drew, after a bit of an absence I return with this contribution.

Drew wrote:

I think it is also possible that Paul is describing' God's pre-destining the existence of a category of persons, with pre-scribed criteria for membership. On this view, the actual individuals are not pre-destined to salvation - that would conflict with passages that either directly or indirectly suggest choice.

This seems to be the 'logical difficulty' that many people have with election and predestination. I am actually content and see no conflict with 'whosoever will' and presdestination or election.' The fact is that people are NOT falling over each other to hear the Gospel. You can make choices, Elijah at one point told the Israelites 'Choose this day whom you will serve.' It is not common that a prophet would go to a 'pagan' country and make the same pronouncement - but we have the example of Ninevah and Jonah.

The other point, which I reiterate, is that God revealed Himself through the nation of Israel and since nearly all the scriptures were written by Jews - it follows that they will naturally speak about Israel's election from among the nations. This is not so much a discovery as it is a plain fact. The complications set in with the inclusion of the Gentiles into the Church.

The first time I met a Messianic Jew face to face I said: 'I am a son of Abraham', and he replied: 'No, only after promise but not by blood, I am a son of Abraham by blood.' (this is a recollection of what he said). Since then I have come to see 'Israel ' and the church as separate entites yet both have a destiny in the Kingdom of God. Try as I may I can't change the fact that I have not been born a Jew. That in itself is a form of election I suppose but I am content to be a Gentile believer.

To get back to the actual predestining of individuals - we reach a barrier in what is revealed - on what exactly are you to base your views? On reasoning that you find consistent with perhaps majority support? The word 'those' whom He predestined he foreknew - we don't have the exact id list of names and at best we are instructed to make our own election sure. If we do that we do well.

An analogy. Country X decides it wants to create an athletic "elite" to represent that country in the Olympics. So they set aside tax dollars to buy training equipment, hire the best coaches, create programs in schools to encourage advanced athletic accomplishment, etc. etc. One can, I suggest, legitimately say that country X is creating an athletic "elect" in that that they are pre-destining that an athletic elite will emerge as a result. The country does not pre-destine that Fred and Sue in particular, will be part of that elite. But there is indeed "pre-destining" and "election" going on here.

I appreciate that you are trying to give 'form and substance' to the doctrine of predestination. Now, I have become acquainted with a reformed presbyterian minister who prepares sermons in a painstaking fashion reading all the reformed commentaries and relevant theological reference books pertaining to his sermon. On a couple of occassions I have told him that if all the books in his extensive library could condensed and distilled together with all the confessions of faith etc, we would not end up with the scriptures. This working backwards does not give us the original revelation. So your illustration, using examples that may or may not accurately depict the 'form and substance of predestination' is in the final analysis the difference between God's word and man's word and the Divine mind and the human mind. That difference will never be overcome. For this reason there is emphasis in the scriptures about the word being in us and this means a faithful adherence to the 'form and subsatnace of scripture'. To get back to your illustration - while I agree that the country did not known Fred and Sue, the country is not God who, in my understanding, knows everything.

And this is not "playing intellectual games". This kind of election involves real "fore-ordainment" on the part of God - He is indeed "determing something in advance". In contrast, we have the position that God "elects / pre-destines according to what he foreknows". I never liked this view since it seems to take the "ooomph" out of election - it really calls into question whether anything at all is determined in advance. And I think that involves too much mangling of the concept of election / pre-destination.

'Good works' are an example of what we know God has prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. So we can say with confidence that some things are prepared beforehand. But would you expect that God tells us everything that is prepared beforehand?

I don't think that you are willingly playing intellectual games but perhaps consider that your intellect is playing the games with you, for I do not do what I want. . . Let me ask you: How can an activity of God (and predestination and election are God's activities) take the 'ooomph' out of the very doctrine He reveals?

Romans 8:28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also (justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

The statement you don't like is:

In contrast, we have the position that God "elects / pre-destines according to what he foreknows".

cf Romans 8:29
For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son . . .

For my part I cannot understand why you don't like God's activity of 'forekowing and predestining'? Are you finding fault with God" We have discussed this before, no activity of God makes Him a cold and callous monster. The God whom I have encountered is by nature exceedingly beautiful and perfectly good. It is nevertheless 'a terrible thing to fall into His hands' because of what we are.

A proof of 'presdestination and whosoever will' . . .

A proof that God predestines all who will believe is that the end result is a conforming to the image of His Son as it says in Romans 8:29. Now 'those' who are predestined are the very ones whom God will conform to the image of His Son. As only those who are conformed to the image of Christ will enter heaven, and no one else meaning that no one outside God's activity of forknowing and predestination will be conformed to Christ's image - we can say only those 'whosoever will' will be the identical persons who are predestined to do so.

And I think that what I am saying is consistent with how Paul writes. He often works at the "category" level - referring to "national Israel", "true Israel", the "Gentiles", etc. In this respect, note how Paul refers to Gentiles:

"salvation has come to the Gentiles ......

Israel is the chosen nation. No other nation (including USA and Canada) will ever be chosen in the same sense.

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith

Have all Gentiles obtained righteousness? OF course not. So we should be careful about assuming that when Paul says "x" about a group, that he is saying "x" about each person in that group. I suggest that Paul sees the "elect" as a pre-destined category of persons and may never intend to represent that the specific people in it have been pre-destined as well.

Paul is speaking about Gentiles that are part of the household of faith, the church. Those outside the church are not of the household of faith. So election for Gentiles has to do with the church.The olive tree with its natural and wild branches it the best referemce I can find for the relation of Israel to the Church. I assume that the natural branches are Messianic Jews.

You have certainly worked hard on these issues, I wish you every success

 

[GraceBwithU]

Using this as a guideline, I can't consider Calvinism as a cult. I don't agree fully with some of their interpretations, but nonetheless, they do only use scripture as their guide.

Hyper-Calvinism is a different story.

I agree. The post that I made before about cults was directed toward the Hyper-Calvinist. I have several friends that are Calvinist. Although I don't agree with their interpretations, I can still see very clearly the peacefulness of their spirit that indentifies them with our Lord. The Hyper-Calvinist seems to put the writings of John Calvin and the TULIP above scripture. Making it their authority, over scripture. (not good).

 

[mutzrein]

Using this as a guideline, I can't consider Calvinism as a cult. I don't agree fully with some of their interpretations, but nonetheless, they do only use scripture as their guide.

Hyper-Calvinism is a different story.

I agree. The post that I made before about cults was directed toward the Hyper-Calvinist. I have several friends that are Calvinist. Although I don't agree with their interpretations, I can still see very clearly the peacefulness of their spirit that indentifies them with our Lord. The Hyper-Calvinist seems to put the writings of John Calvin and the TULIP above scripture. Making it their authority, over scripture. (not good).

So again, what is it specifically about Calvanism (or hyper-Calvinism) that leads you to say it is a cult?

 

[GraceBwithU]

So again, what is it specifically about Calvanism (or hyper-Calvinism) that leads you to say it is a cult?

Like I said my post was directed at Hyper-Calvinism.

“A cult, though it claims to use the Bible, is built on extra-biblical teachings. These teachings usually come from a person or small number of people and they usually are centered in a book or a small number of key books. The main distinction is that these teachings, in practice, take authority over the teachings of the Bible. These extra-biblical teachings have become the true authority.â€Â

Hyper-Calvinist with out a doubt fit this description. The teachings of John Calvin and the TULIP is the authority…they only use the scripture to support their extra-biblical literature. Their mind is made up before they read a word of scripture.

For instance…I wanted to hear what the leaders of this religion had to say. I went to R. C. Sproul’s website. I started listening to a series of teachings from him, (there were 12 in all). About half way through his videos I realized that he had hardly ever quoted scripture. In six lectures he only referenced scripture a couple of times. All of his references where to John Calvin and St Augustine, (St Augustine by the way did not teach the radical beliefs that John Calvin did) this is their authority. He did reference however was the famous chapter 9 of Romans. And of course he started at verse 11. This is the typical starting point for them. Because if you read the complete chapter one can not twist the scripture to teach what they already believe from the extra-biblical teachings that they follow. All one has to do is back up 3 verses and you will get a completely different understanding of the scripture than what they teach their belief.

Like I said I do not believe that the average Calvinist is cultish because of their interpretation of what the scripture says about election. But the Hyper ones that very plainly use such writings as the Institutes and a clever acronym, (TULIP) as their authority are indeed pressing the envelope.

“King James wrote the brief that guided the translation, such as prohibiting the marginal notes found in the Geneva Bible and ensuring the position of the Church of England was recognized on various points.†(wiki)

These notes were from John Calvin. They were prohibited because they were not canonical, (extra-biblical).

Please do not get me wrong. I do not think that all Calvinist or cultish. But the religion does lay a foundation for some to use to cross the line.


“A cult, because of its acceptance of extra-biblical authority for truth, teaches doctrines so opposed to scripture that they cloud the truth of salvation and damn souls to hell.â€Â

Hyper-Calvinist evangelize Calvinism, not salvation. They can’t…they do not understand how to. When asked such questions from someone lost and seeking Christ as this:

“Please help me understand I want to know Jesus. I pray but I just don’t feel what is told me that I will feel. Could it be that I’m just simply not one of His elect and I’m wasting my time?â€Â

I have heard responses like, “that is not for me to decide…only God knows if he elected you.†Humm…could this not cause a person that is asking for help to give up. And therefore be damned. YES! Not good…not good at all.

The quotes I have posted about cults are not mine. I wish I could tell you where I got them, but it has been a while. Anyway I have had these definitions of a cult much longer than I have studied Calvinism. In other words I did not go out there trying to find a definition of a cult that fit Hyper-Calvinism. I had the definition long before I knew much about them.

 

[Vic C.]

There is a very good piece about hyper-Calvinism on the spurgeon.org/site (Note-Spurgeon himself was a Calvinist) which points out the errors of hyper-Calvinism:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm

Intro:

Hyper-Calvinism, simply stated, is a doctrine that emphasizes divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility. To call it "hyper-Calvinism" is something of a misnomer. It is actually a rejection of historic Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism entails a denial of what is taught in both Scripture and the major Calvinistic creeds, substituting instead an imbalanced and unbiblical notion of divine sovereignty.

Hyper-Calvinism comes in several flavors, so it admits no simple, pithy definition. Here are a few definitions to consider. I'll comment briefly on these and then propose a more comprehensive definition:

 

[GraceBwithU]

There is a very good piece about hyper-Calvinism on the spurgeon.org/site (Note-Spurgeon himself was a Calvinist) which points out the errors of hyper-Calvinism:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm

Intro:

Hyper-Calvinism, simply stated, is a doctrine that emphasizes divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility. To call it "hyper-Calvinism" is something of a misnomer. It is actually a rejection of historic Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism entails a denial of what is taught in both Scripture and the major Calvinistic creeds, substituting instead an imbalanced and unbiblical notion of divine sovereignty.

Hyper-Calvinism comes in several flavors, so it admits no simple, pithy definition. Here are a few definitions to consider. I'll comment briefly on these and then propose a more comprehensive definition:

Thanks vic. The difference of a hyper calvinist one can just feel in their words. For enstance I was posting on a thread in another forum and during the debate a lady came on and repilied to one of my post...she was obviously a Calvinist. Her words were so peacful and plainly stated that it brought tears to my eyes. When I first started looking into Calvinism I did not understand that there was such a thing as Hyper-Calvinism...I have found out different. I'll check it out. This would be good stuff to know.

 

[mondar]

GBWU, it seems to me that clear definitions are needed.

Like I said my post was directed at Hyper-Calvinism.

In your last post, you blurred the distinctions between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism. In some ways, using these terms is not fair to general readers. The term Calvinism is actually a kind of theological short hand. It really has nothing to do with being a follower of John Calvin. In fact Calvinism predates John Calvin. Men such as John Hus, John Wycliff, and many others all the way back to Augustine of Hippo (and of course back to Paul) wrote on Calvinism. It is a mere quirk of theological history that the teachings on predestination and election became associated with Calvin's name.

In fact, it was John Calvin's theory of the atonement that articulated that the atonement was substitutionary and penal. Have you every heard of the phrase "substitutionary atonement?" What do you think is the history behind that phrase?

“A cult, though it claims to use the Bible, is built on extra-biblical teachings. These teachings usually come from a person or small number of people and they usually are centered in a book or a small number of key books. The main distinction is that these teachings, in practice, take authority over the teachings of the Bible. These extra-biblical teachings have become the true authority.â€Â

You are referring to using a source of authority other then the scripture and associating this with the term "Cult." While I think this is a dubious definition for the term "Cult" begun by Walter Martin in his book "The Kingdom of the Cults," I will accept whatever definition you desire. The definition of the term is not the point we need to discuss.

The point is that you have most likely never read even one "hyper-Calvinist." Can you name a book in your library that you have read that is a recognized "hyper-Calvinist?"

The point that needs to be discussed is that Hyper-Calvinists, and Calvinists have long articulated the doctrine of "sola scriptura." In fact, your statement that either Calvinists or hyper-Calvinists take a body of teachings to have authority over scriptures is so unhistorical that I really do not need to be bothering to say the things I am right now. Calvinists are a very creedal people (westminister---London Baptist Confession---New Hamsire confession, etc). I have never once heard a Calvinist say that their creeds are either equal or superior to the scriptures.

Hyper-Calvinist with out a doubt fit this description. The teachings of John Calvin and the TULIP is the authority…they only use the scripture to support their extra-biblical literature. Their mind is made up before they read a word of scripture.

Would it be a shock if I said John Calvin never even heard of TULIP. Your statements above are not correctly historical at all. John Calvin taught in Geneva, and after his death was replaced with Theodore Beza. Some have said that Beza was more Calvinist then Calvin. Many of the 2nd generation reformers ended up in Holland. A group of people called "Remonstrants" were protesting Beza (and Calvin's) theology on 5 points. Calvinists gathered in Holland at a Synod to discuss the proposed corrections, and resolved that all five points of the "Remonstrants" were error. This defense against the attacks of the "Remonstrants" is commonly called the five points of Calvin (TULIP), and never actually originated with Calvin or Beza. It came from the Puritans of Holland. So then, TULIP (both acronym and flowers) really come from Holland, and not directly taught by Calvin. The people called Calvinists, are those who believe that TULIP accurately reflects biblical teaching.

Who then are Hyper-Calvinists? The are a varied sort. I do not know any hyper-Calvinists personally. I have heard of men who will say that unless you subscribe to all 5 points, your going to hell. They view any denial of any one of the 5 points as a denial of the grace of God, and thus a refusal of salvation. The classic Calvinist believes in the 5 points, but will think that "christians have to learn." Let me give you a personal illustration. Less then a year ago, I was more Arminian in doctrine. Less then 2 years ago, I would have agreed with "free will," but would have wrestled with it, and been unsure. Less then 2 years ago, I was much more Arminian, but was forced by a few nasty events to study these biblical doctrines. In the process, I recognized my errors in biblical understanding and became a Calvinist. I was saved many years ago. I was saved long before I became a Calvinist. Many Calvinists will testify of the same thing. We were born into this world Pelagians, converted into Arminianism, then as we study the scriptures we become Calvinists (no slam intended).

Hyper-Calvinists also have different views on evangelism. An example of this would be the teachings of J.E. Adams. Adams once wrote that in counseling, you should make sure the person is one of Gods elect before evangelizing him. Of course not even Christ did that. Christ came preaching the gospel of the kingdom to the nation if Israel, not just the elect. Now in Matthew, he did begin speaking in parables to Israel so that he would give the mysteries of the kingdom to only them with a heart to perceive. But thats another long story.

For instance…I wanted to hear what the leaders of this religion had to say. I went to R. C. Sproul’s website. I started listening to a series of teachings from him, (there were 12 in all). About half way through his videos I realized that he had hardly ever quoted scripture.

Actually, I think this critique of RC Sproul is to a degree fair. It is exaggerated, but fair since RC seems more of a philosopher and historian then a biblical exegete. Now good ole RC seems to be the Calvinist poster boy of the hour, but certainly this does not mean that careful biblical exegesis is not far more valued in Reformed circles. Can you listen to John MacArther (http://www.gty.org/), John Piper (http://www.desiringgod.org/ ), and other reformed preachers and say they don't believe in the bible as you do? Have you read any of James White's books ( http://aomin.org/ ) or listened to his video's, or seen his debates and still think the reformed have no skill at biblical exegesis. White's books "Potters Freedom," and "Justification" are heavily exegetical. There is a James White/Dave Hunt debate book called "Calvinism, five points -- two views." The difference in exegetical ability can be observed in that book. Dave Hunt ( thebereancall.org ) is just is not in the same class with James White in that book.

In six lectures he only referenced scripture a couple of times. All of his references where to John Calvin and St Augustine, (St Augustine by the way did not teach the radical beliefs that John Calvin did) this is their authority. He did reference however was the famous chapter 9 of Romans. And of course he started at verse 11. This is the typical starting point for them. Because if you read the complete chapter one can not twist the scripture to teach what they already believe from the extra-biblical teachings that they follow. All one has to do is back up 3 verses and you will get a completely different understanding of the scripture than what they teach their belief.

I cannot help but suspect that picked a random number of verses to back up and then made claims that the context of Romans 9 cannot support election. OK, RC is not always big on exegesis. But to say he does not respect scriptural authority is nothing more then spreading something fabricated. Tell me, where do you think this next quote came from?

"We believe that the Bible, in its entirety, is divine revelation, and we submit to the authority of Holy Scripture, acknowledging it to be inerrantly inspired by God and carrying the full weight of His authority."

If you guessed it came from the statement of faith on RC's web site, you would be right... http://www.ligonier.org/about_statementoffaith.php

By the way, RC is not a hyper-Calvinist. He is from the PCA.

Like I said I do not believe that the average Calvinist is cultish because of their interpretation of what the scripture says about election. But the Hyper ones that very plainly use such writings as the Institutes and a clever acronym, (TULIP) as their authority are indeed pressing the envelope.

“King James wrote the brief that guided the translation, such as prohibiting the marginal notes found in the Geneva Bible and ensuring the position of the Church of England was recognized on various points.†(wiki)

These notes were from John Calvin. They were prohibited because they were not canonical, (extra-biblical).

Really? Your not kidding here? So anyone that has a bible with some foot notes does not respect the authority of the scriptures?

Doe this include cross references?

So then everyone with a Schofield reference bible is a cultist?

Please do not get me wrong. I do not think that all Calvinist or cultish. But the religion does lay a foundation for some to use to cross the line.

“A cult, because of its acceptance of extra-biblical authority for truth, teaches doctrines so opposed to scripture that they cloud the truth of salvation and damn souls to hell.â€Â

Hyper-Calvinist evangelize Calvinism, not salvation. They can’t…they do not understand how to. When asked such questions from someone lost and seeking Christ as this:

“Please help me understand I want to know Jesus. I pray but I just don’t feel what is told me that I will feel. Could it be that I’m just simply not one of His elect and I’m wasting my time?â€Â

I have heard responses like, “that is not for me to decide…only God knows if he elected you.†Humm…could this not cause a person that is asking for help to give up. And therefore be damned. YES! Not good…not good at all.

The quotes I have posted about cults are not mine. I wish I could tell you where I got them, but it has been a while. Anyway I have had these definitions of a cult much longer than I have studied Calvinism. In other words I did not go out there trying to find a definition of a cult that fit Hyper-Calvinism. I had the definition long before I knew much about them.

Heh, non-Calvinists say some of the most bizarre things about what Calvinists believe and practice. Do non-Calvinists feel a responsibility to make the worse and most inaccurate caricatures of Calvinists that you can? Does anyone really think they will convince a Calvinist that they have accepted some exegetical errors when they say "Calvinists believe a person has no will," or "Calvinists makes people into robots." Such misrepresentation will never convince any Calvinist. It might whip up paranoia and emotion among those who are prone to love conspiracy theories.

In the caricature GBWU presented in his paragraph above... Any knowledgable Calvinist would recognize that the response is not Calvinistic. A Calvinist would first go for the emotionalism of the response of the unbeliever. Salvation is not about us and how you feel, it is all about what you believe about Christ. A Calvinist would preach the substution of Jesus Christ. Of course the substutionary atonement is a Calvinistic concept of the gospel.

 

[GraceBwithU]

mondar,
If I was unfair in any of my post I will quickly retract them and make apologies for anyone that I have offended. I will visit the sites that you posted. I just visited the site that Vic posted...and it helped...I'm very interested in understanding the difference between Hyper-Calvinist and true Calvinist.

After visiting the site that Vic posted is seems to me that these forums tend to attract the Hyper-Calvinist more than the true Calvinist. This probably does more harm to your belief than Armenians do,( as I said, I do not agree 100% with there doctrine either, I'm a Christian I truly believe that the real truth lies somewhere in the middle.)

Thank you for the links. I will surly visit them. In return I will post what I believe. I only ask you to at least consider it carefully before you reject it...as I will do the same from the websites that you have given me.

My comments on R.C. Sproul were based on personal experience with his videos. He was evangelizing Calvinism not salvation. He may not be a Hyper-Calvinist, but maybe I judged his intention based only on just a dozen or so videos that I listened to over the period of several hours. Maybe I should listen to more to see and count for you how many times he references scripture instead of writings of extra-biblical literature. There is a huge difference between using these references as guides and using them as authority over scripture. That is what crosses the line. And yes I do have a Scofield Bible. I also have over thirty versions of the Bible plus many commentaries, (including Calvin’s commentaries.) I am serious about learning the truth. I feel you are also.

I wonder is there anyway to reach a common understanding of this issue? Between Calvinist and Armenians…I doubt it. Between Hyper-Calvinist and anyone…I doubt it. Between Hyper-Armenians and anyone…I doubt it. Between one Christian and another…hum could work. I am a believer! I am one of the elect. All we may really disagree on is how this election happens for most of us. There are those that were elected before the world began,(no doubt about it) just not all. Perhaps you should visit the website that vic posted yourself. It was written by a Calvinist.

God bless you sir,

 

[mutzrein]

Pardon my ignorance but help me out here guys. Can someone explain to me what it is that 'hyper-Calvanists' believe that is not scriptural. Is there some doctrine that they hold to that marks them as a cult . . . or what?

Thanks

 

[mondar]

Vic posted that post while I was writing. I did not read it until after I posted. I just finished reading it now. It is a good article that defines some of the variety of hyper-Calvinist views. I am certainly not an expert on hyper-Calvinism. I have never intensely studied the arguments for supralapsarianism or infalapsarianism (nor sublapsarianism). I know the fall of man in eden happened and resulted in the sinful nature of mankind.