The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Hyper-calvinist

When I clicked on the link, it took me to the site's homepage. The article intended isn't found, however. Using the "Search" utility there for "Calvinism", it would certainly appear that they are pro Calvinism. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

Here is the the link . http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm

Oops! That link has already been given here: My reply to Joe k on Dec. 17th. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

Ok, check this pictures and information.
They are Ultra Hyper http://www.godhatesfags.com/

Ok, I will bite. Do you believe Spurgeon was an Arminian?
If not, why did you bring that up? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

I do not believe that he was an arminian. But there were hyper-calvinist who did believe that while he was alive. And today there are hyper-calvinists who believe if you dont believe exactly like them you are an arminian.

I thought I posted somethign in regards to this. These people are not HC's. they are just a cultish mob. This is what bugs me about the term. When a group as such is labeled with the term, becasue they confess Calvinistic doctrine, but there conduct is unbecoming, then the term HC is not represented correctly

This is my point Pilgrim!!!!!!!!!!! A calvinist is described as one who confesses TULIP right? Well hardsheelers go beyond not only Calvin, of which I said is not wrong, but go beyond what is written. Again some of them have written excelent articles. But "logically" conclude wrongly on issues.

Read the primitive baptists, they are true HC's

I think that should be quite obvious, for since Spurgeon wrote a lot against the hyper-Calvinism of his day, he would get a lot of negative feed back.
In our day there are people such as Dave Hunt that believe Spurgeon was an Arminian. This is despite the evidence to the contrary.

I will say however, defining what the term "hyper-Calvinist" is, is kind of like nailing jello to a wall.
I believe for the most part in what Phil Johnson defined hyper-Calvinism as, but there are so many who disagree, that the term is not all that helpful.

Tom

It might be hard to define, but to give up because something is hard is to admit defeat. How would you define them?

Just throwing this out.

Do the Theonomists within the Reformed camp fall into a form of hyper-Calvinism?

John

The criticizing of Spurgeon comes from Spurgeon's sermon “SALVATION BY KNOWING THE TRUTH” and his interpretation of "all men" in that sermon. Some believe it is not true Calvinism but is closer to Arminianism. Also many of these critics are labeled as hyper-Calvinist because they do not believe that God in the preaching of the gospel desires the salvation of all who hear it.

1) Spurgeon's interpretation of 1Tim 2: 4, 5 in that sermon is indeed one that is not in agreement with historic Calvinism. In fact, it is contradictory to what Spurgeon himself preached and taught elsewhere on the doctrine of limited atonement.

2) Because he errs, IMHO, in his understanding of the "all men" in 1Tim 2:4, that does not make him an Arminian nor does it give a warrant to those who disagree with his understanding of that passage to charge him with being an Arminian. Nor is there any warrant to charge ALL who disagree with Spurgeon's understanding of the "all men" as being hyper-Calvinist.

3) It is without doubt true that God "desires", i.e., His decretive will the salvation of the elect only and that from eternity. But it is also true that God's preceptive will is that all men without discrimination come to repentance and believe upon Christ unto salvation. In this sense it can be said that God "desires/wills" the salvation of all who hear the gospel. However, it is suggested that God willed who was to be saved by He also has a genuine emotive desire that ALL be saved without exception, then this is certainly to be rejected. One cannot have a tension in God which is contradictory. Simply, God cannot will that a certain number of sinners be saved in Christ (aka: Election) and that the remainder should be damned (aka: Reprobation) but then be said to have a passionate desire that the reprobate be saved and thus delivered from His own decree to condemn them. For if God truly desired the salvation of all men, without exception, then all men would be infallibly saved. For that which God "wills" is that which God does. (Isa 46:9, 10)

4) Arminians are more than happy to refer people to this particular sermon that Spurgeon preached and exclaim, "He is "one of us". Hyper-Calvinists are quick to point out the error Spurgeon makes, as they are want to do to everyone so quickly it seems, and exclaim, "He was an Arminian". Of course, neither camp is correct as I pointed out before. One error does not give one a warrant to put someone into the camp of one's opponent. Spurgeon may have been wrong indeed but he was definitely no Arminian. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

Could a HC deny the free offer of "common grace" (i.e., non-salvic) in the gospel call but accept that the reprobate do benefit from "common grace"?

All mankind benefit from the benevolence of the Lord. It is as simple as that. Here is the rub though. "A good life" was used by the puritans for instance to determine ones election. Every instance in ones life was either favor or judgement. "Good harvest this year, Gods favor" "No harvest= God's judgement". THis is so contrary to scripture when taken to such an extremem level. Many puritans who navel gazed all their life actually went mad determining their election. All one has to do is look to Christ and realize this line of thinking is very false. He was scorned, rejected, spit at, hungered, poor, and Lastly died a horendous death. Even Paul was left for dead, shipwrecked, "thorned" etc etc etc.

As far as spurgeon, pilgrim hit the nail. This sermon was his worst. Terrible and I have no clue what he was trying to say. But this does not an arminian make. IT makes one fallible. THis is what we always must remember.