Versus Hyper-Calvinism

North American wilderness (Not my photo)

Versus Hyper-Calvinism

Hyper-Calvinism: Michael Phillips, September 2005: Grace Baptist Church, Fremont, California

Early this morning, I discovered Mr. Phillips' lectures, which I find helpful. I consider myself Reformed and I agree with TULIP, but of course with my own educational background my interpretation is heavily influenced by bible, theology and philosophy of religion. My philosophical takes could lead to some misunderstandings with readers from time to time, I suppose.

I am not a Hyper-Calvinist and never have been. I would have significant disagreement with all the premises noted. I will comment on certain ones. The rest are covered by overall objections.

Further on Hyper-Calvinism from Monergism: Monergism.com

Cited

Most Calvinists reject as deplorable the following hyper-Calvinistic and destructive beliefs: 

- that God is the author of sin and of evil

This is admittedly tricky. I reason theologically and philosophically, God is the first/primary cause of all things, but submitting to Scripture in context, as James states:

James 1:13-15

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted [a]by God”; for God cannot be tempted [b]by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. 15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin [c]is accomplished, it brings forth death.

In the context of sin and evil, God as first/primary cause accurately needs to be understood as permitting sin and evil.

This is opposed to God forcing or coercing sin and evil (no human moral responsibility), or even demanding sin and evil (with human responsibility). Fallen human beings as a secondary cause embrace sin and evil. Demonic beings as secondary cause embrace human sin and evil, and indeed their own evil opposed to God.
 
- that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect 

Again on this website, in comparison:

Compatibilism/Soft determinism

God is first/primary cause
Humanity is secondary cause

Determinism/Hard determinism

God is first/primary cause
---

I realize that soft determinism is under determinism in a sense, but in my MPhil/PhD and blogging, I have found that at times determinism and hard determinism are synonymously used terms.

- that the number of the elect at any time may be known by men 

- that it is wrong to evangelize 

The Holy Spirit can use calls for evangelism in a regeneration process. Preaching and biblical calls for repentance, for example.

- that assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith

- that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they later do 

- that God has chosen some races of men and has rejected others 

- that the children of unbelievers dying in infancy are certainly damned 

Within Hyper-Calvinism, this view, which I disagree with, paedobaptism in some cases may be viewed as a requirement for covenant membership and therefore salvation.

- that God does not command everyone to repent - that the sacraments are not means of grace, but obstacles to salvation by faith alone. 

- that the true church is only invisible, and salvation is not connected with the visible church

- that the Scriptures are intended to be interpreted by individuals only and not by the church.

- that no government is to be obeyed which does not acknowledge that Jesus is the Lord, or that Biblical Law is its source of authority

- that the grace of God does not work for the betterment of all men - that saving faith is equivalent to belief in the doctrine of predestination 

- that only Calvinists are Christians (Neo-gnostic Calvinism

Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism were both among the historical errors battled by Charles Spurgeon, who was himself a 5-point Calvinist. He vigilantly fought these twin errors on both sides of the spectrum. One of Hyper-Calvinism's main errors is to declare that, because of God's sovereignty, we should not evangelize the lost. Spurgeon rejected such nonsense as do the large majority of people who would call themselves Calvinists today (such as R.C. Sproul, John Piper, John MacArthur, Alistair Begg and many others) We believe the doctrine of election should be declared strongly because the Bible does and because man's affections are enslaved to sin. He cannot save himself but needs the effectual working of the Holy Spirit if he is to have ears to hear when we preach the gospel. The preacher casts forth the seed of the gospel (the command to believe) indiscriminately but the Holy Spirit germinates the Word (so to speak) in the hearts of those he intends to save; i.e. those given to the Son by the Father in the eternal covenant made before time (John 6:37, 39, Eph 1, 4). Many Christian missionaries whom most would consider heroes held to the five point of Calvinism: William Carrey (he was opposed by a Hyper-Calvinist), Jonathan Edwards & David Brainard (missionaries to native Americans) just to name 3.

Quote: He cannot save himself but needs the effectual working of the Holy Spirit if he is to have ears to hear when we preach the gospel.  Agreed.

I have found that some within Hyper-Calvinism basically view God's chose of persons in election as arbitrary.

I certainly agree that person's do not save selves or have any work that contribute to salvation. Ephesians 1-2 documents election and salvation by grace through faith, not by works, but for good works, Romans 3 writes that none righteous, no one seeks God, no one does good. Romans 9 explains that God chooses based on his will. not human works or goodness, as good examples.

God through Jesus Christ, does have an everlasting purpose for the elect that he does not have for the non-elect. A human work (or any human ontological quality) does not save anyone, but God works
through the elect with an eternal (God) and everlasting (human) purpose.