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)
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.
It would be unscriptural to posit one's election or reprobation based on outward circumstances. However, I was thinking that, perhaps, more moderate hyper-calvinists, considering the reprobate to be permenently dead spiritually, would say the reprobate are not even offered "common grace" in the gospel call as opposed to Calvinists in general who say reprobate are offered and may receive "common grace" in the gospel call.
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)
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.
It would be unscriptural to posit one's election or reprobation based on outward circumstances. However, I was thinking that, perhaps, more moderate hyper-calvinists, considering the reprobate to be permenently dead spiritually, would say the reprobate are not even offered "common grace" in the gospel call as opposed to Calvinists in general who say reprobate are offered and may receive "common grace" in the gospel call.
Pilgrim went to a PRC seminary and will give you loads of articles denying common grace. IT becomes semantics though. What is meant by the term? First off I find nothing common about grace. Does it have to do with favor Love? or just benevolence? The debate becomes moot in my estimation. Perhaps a beteer way of positing the discussion would be to decide if the Lord offers, ahows any type of love for the reprobate at all. And if so what level of love. The Englesma /Moo debate is a fine read. Find it and read it, then you will find what is historically defined as CG and why some deny it according to that definition.
I used to be 100% against any form of it for the reprobate, but now I am undecided. THe parable of the soils appears to destroy the idea that the reprobate do not enjoy any joy from God. Since it shows there that one soil has joy for a while, but then dies.
There never was a sinner half as big as Christ is as a Savior.
speratus said: However, I was thinking that, perhaps, more moderate hyper-calvinists, considering the reprobate to be permenently dead spiritually, would say the reprobate are not even offered "common grace" in the gospel call as opposed to Calvinists in general who say reprobate are offered and may receive "common grace" in the gospel call.
speratus,
Perhaps you are confused <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> as to definition of terms and/or the nature or content of the gospel and/or of common grace? What is certain is that there is no offering of "Common Grace" in the gospel. There are residual effects enjoyed by the reprobate from the grace given to the elect in their salvation, but that is an entirely different matter. In the gospel, God extends to all men reconciliation, redemption and remission of sins, among other things to ALL who will repent and believe upon Christ. The "grace" in the gospel is strictly salvific.
As to "Common Grace", I will be the first to admit that it is a term which all too often leads to much confusion. In fact, I would have to say it is actually a misnomer, for "grace" is synonymous with "salvation". And salvation is not "common" but specific. Common Grace is actually the general kindness or benevolence of God to all men without discrimination and has to do more with His providential care of the creation without reference to the end of that creation.
If you are wanting to discussion the doctrine of "Common Grace", then please start a new thread as it is actually a subset of one of the major tenets of hyper-Calvinism and I believe would be best discussed on its own.
Sorry, you misunderstood my point. I do believe that there is a true definition of what "hyper-Calvinism" is. I just think because of the wide spread disagreement on what the term means, it is sometimes not a helpful term. Not as far as I am concerned, but I think you understand my point.
speratus said: However, I was thinking that, perhaps, more moderate hyper-calvinists, considering the reprobate to be permenently dead spiritually, would say the reprobate are not even offered "common grace" in the gospel call as opposed to Calvinists in general who say reprobate are offered and may receive "common grace" in the gospel call.
speratus,
Perhaps you are confused <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> as to definition of terms and/or the nature or content of the gospel and/or of common grace? What is certain is that there is no offering of "Common Grace" in the gospel. There are residual effects enjoyed by the reprobate from the grace given to the elect in their salvation, but that is an entirely different matter. In the gospel, God extends to all men reconciliation, redemption and remission of sins, among other things to ALL who will repent and believe upon Christ. The "grace" in the gospel is strictly salvific.
As to "Common Grace", I will be the first to admit that it is a term which all too often leads to much confusion. In fact, I would have to say it is actually a misnomer, for "grace" is synonymous with "salvation". And salvation is not "common" but specific. Common Grace is actually the general kindness or benevolence of God to all men without discrimination and has to do more with His providential care of the creation without reference to the end of that creation.
In the thread, "Infant Salvation", I asked, "Baptism (which the WCF calls a sacrament) does confer grace to elect infants in His appointed time. What is grace other than a regeneration?" and you answered:
Quote
Again, you are confusing/intermixing terms. Grace is a very broad term which may be simply defined as God extending undeserved favor upon men. The term may even be sub-divided into two further categories; Salvific Grace and Common Grace. The former being extended to only those whom God has predestinated to salvation in Christ. The latter is that general benevolence of God whereby men are granted temporal favors, even physical life itself; i.e., the judgment that they deserve from the moment of conception is withheld during the time that the reprobate are allowed to live on earth. Regeneration was addressed above.
Hence my question regarding the view of hyper-calvinists as opposed to general (i.e., Westminister) calvinists. Would not the hyper-calvinists say that Baptism, a gospel call, does not confer additional "common grace" on baptized reprobate?
Perhaps, Calvinists don't consider Baptism to be a gospel call? Then, of course, both hyper and general Calvinists could say the reprobate receive favor through the keeping of the covenant in Baptism (1st use of the law).
You are terribly confused in all this and I would suggest you do some further reading at least on "Common Grace" before plunging ahead here. Again, there is NO "common grace" offered in the gospel.
Quote
speratus wrote: Perhaps, Calvinists don't consider Baptism to be a gospel call? Then, of course, both hyper and general Calvinists could say the reprobate receive favor through the keeping of the covenant in Baptism (1st use of the law).
I'll let others take time to answer you more fully in regard to whether or not baptism is a "gospel call". For me, it is NOT... although God's salvation is displayed in baptism, it is not THE gospel nor can it save in and of itself. And the last part of your statement is simply ridiculous and even ludicrous. NO ONE receives favor from God by the keeping of the law of any kind.
As for you, [color:"red"]DO NOT[/color] attempt to hijack yet another thread by going off on your favorite tangent, i.e., Baptism. Start another thread or keep silent.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/biggrinking.gif)