Quote
Pilgrim said:
Quote
Joe k said:
K2P: What you state could not be farther from the truth. I have been called a HC before, and the label is thrown around without the people knowing what it actually means.
[Linked Image] The lad has some truth to what he said. And how do I come to that conclusion? Well, for one reason, I studied at the seminary of a hyper-Calvinist denomination. So, I guess that means what I know about hyper-Calvinism comes straight from the horses mouth. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

At the risk of being too brief, hyper-Calvinism always posits at least these two points:

1) A total denial of any "Free Offer" of the Gospel. (details to follow)
2) A denial of anything that even hints at what is called, "Common Grace". (admittedly, sometimes with good reason)

The best description and criticism of hyper-Calvinism I know of, thanks to brother fredman here on the Board, was written by Phil Johnson, no mean Calvinist himself, which you can read here: A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism.

In His grace,


Well Pilgrim, I do not know what a HC Seminary is!!!! But again, the 2 points you posit are not true according to the "historical" birth of this term. Phil presents his understanding, which is fine, but again from what I have read, the beginning of this goes way before PJ and what modern day teachers espouse. Again, as you mentioned, the free offer and common grace beliefs of those termed hypers are not erroneous in particular, but are dragged to its unlogical conclusion by some. Here is a list on Wikpedia. Now I believe most of these,with clarification of course. and deny others, so am I hyper?

* that God is the source of sin and of evil
* that previous doctrines set forth are more important than general scriptual themes
* that a sign of election is to be sought prior to repentance
* that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect
* that the number of the elect at any time may be known by men
* that it is wrong to evangelize
* that God does not command everyone to repent
* that there is no common grace, i.e. God cares only for his elect and has nothing but hatred for the non-elect.
* that only Calvinists are Christians


Still perhaps even with semantics, I find the major distinctives are the denial of duty faith/duty repentance as the crux of the matter.

But not all tendancies are wrong. God definately does not offer saving grace to all indiscriminately.

Personally I believe in duty faith/repentance. But I deny a free offer with an expecxtation that all will accept.

More to follow.

As an aside, Brine, Hussey, Huntington, Pink, and Gill have written some of the best words on paper.


So you see, regardless what is taught today, or written is not always concise enough, but just opinions.

There never was a sinner half as big as Christ is as a Savior.