By Ron F. Hale, Minister of Missions, West Jackson Baptist Church, Jackson, TN
My definition of hyper-Calvinism:
“The Hyper-Calvinist tends to lean so strongly toward the sovereignty of God (God’s eternal decree, predestination, and election) that he loses sight of man’s responsibility (repentance & faith) so that the Gospel’s free offer of grace is inhibited, withheld, or limited to the elect. Hyper-Calvinism shows up more as an anti-evangelistic spirit that throws a cold blanket of censure over means or methods to evangelize all sinners.”
A more formal definition by Curt Daniel:
“Hyper-Calvinism is that school of Supralapsarian “Five Point” Calvinism which so stresses the sovereignty of God by over-emphasizing the secret over the revealed will and eternity over time, that it minimizes the responsibility of Man, notably with respect to the denial of the word “offer” in relation to the preaching of the Gospel of a finished and limited atonement, thus undermining the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly with the assurance that the Lord Jesus Christ died for them, with the result that presumption is overly warned of, introspection is overly encouraged, and a view of sanctification akin to doctrinal Antinomianism is often approached. This (definition) could be summarized even further: it is the rejection of the word “offer” in connection with evangelism for supposedly Calvinistic reasons.” [Curt Daniel, Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1983), 767].
Taking the time to study history can save every generation headaches and heartbreaks due to the fact that certain lessons have already been learned based on battles that have already been fought. Can we trace the trail of theological struggles in Baptist history concerning doctrine “gone wild” in regards to divine sovereignty and man’s free will?
Peter Toon in his book (The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity, 1689-1765) speaks highly of Andrew Fuller and his key role as a catalyst in moving the English Particular Baptists away from hyper-Calvinism. Toon shares how Fuller struggled in the development of his own theology and how he eventually wrote a book with his newfound convictions (The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, 1785). This short and concise book helped ignite a firestorm for evangelism and missions in the hearts of many pastors and laymen and laid the foundation for the start of the Baptist Missionary Society.
The following is a brief excerpt where Toon shares some history and the personal theological pilgrimage of Fuller:
“Though the influence of Isaac Watts and Philip Doddridge, as well as of such societies as the King’s Head Society, kept the majority of Congregationalists in the paths of Moderated or High Calvinism, many Particular Baptists adopted Hyper-Calvinism through the influence of Gill and Brine. Indeed, Hyper-Calvinism reigned supreme in many Churches until Andrew Fuller, minister of the Baptist Church in Kettering, where Gill and Brine had been nurtured, printed in 1785 his little book which helped to change the course of Baptist history. Its title was, The Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation: or the Obligation of Men fully to credit and cordially to approve whatever God makes known. Wherein is considered, the Nature of Faith in Christ, and the Duty of those where the Gospel comes in that Matter. In a letter to a friend in 1809, Fuller explained how he had come to the point where he had broken loose from the shackles of Hyper-Calvinism.
“The principal writings with which I was first acquainted, were those of Bunyan, Gill and Brine. I had read pretty much of Dr. Gill’s Body of Divinity, and from many parts of it had received considerable instruction. I perceived, however, that the system of Bunyan was not the same with his; for that while he maintained the doctrines of election and predestination, he nevertheless held with the free offer of salvation to sinners without distinction. These were things which I then could not reconcile, and therefore supposed that Bunyan, though a great and good man, was not so clear in his views of the doctrines of the Gospel as the writers who succeeded him. I found, indeed, the same things in all the old writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that came in my way. They all dealt, as Bunyan did, in free invitations to sinners to come to Christ and be saved; the consistency of which with personal election I could not understand. It is true, I perceived the Scriptures abounded with exhortations and invitations to sinners; but I supposed these must be two kinds of holiness, one of which was possessed by man in innocence, and was binding on all his posterity, the other derived from Christ, and binding only on his people. I had not yet learned that the same things which are required by the precepts of the law are bestowed by the grace of the gospel. Those exhortations to repentance and faith, therefore, which are addressed in the New Testament to the unconverted, I supposed refer only to such external repentance and faith, as were within their power, and might be complied with without the grace of God. The effect of these views was, that I had very little to say to the unconverted, at least nothing in a way of exhortation to things spiritually good, or certainly connected with salvation.
But in the autumn of 1775, being in London, I met with a pamphlet by Dr. Abraham Taylor, concerning what was called The Modern Question. I had never seen anything relative to this controversy before, although the subject, as I have stated, had occupied my thoughts. I was but little impressed by his reasonings, till he came to the addresses of John the Baptist, Christ, and the Apostles which he proved to be addressed to the ungodly, and to mean spiritual repentance and faith, inasmuch as they were connected with the remission of sins. This set me fast. I read and examined the scripture passages, and the more I read and thought, the more I doubted of the justice of my former views.”
So in 1785 he wrote The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation. The simple truths of this book soon penetrated the hearts and minds of many ministers and laymen, and alerted them to the need for the evangelisation of the world. At Kettering on the 2nd October, 1792, in the home of Mrs. Beeby Wallis, the widow of the great-grandson of the first minister of the Little Meeting, William Wallis, the Baptist Missionary Society was formed. Soon after William Carey sailed to India. From this time the greater part of the Particular Baptist denomination turned its back on Hyper-Calvinism.” [See Toon, The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity, Part III: The Propagation of Hyper-Calvinism.”
Every generation has to guard against doctrines, attitudes, and revived teachings that hinder the spread of the Gospel. In 1998, Phil Johnson published A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism and by way of introduction said, “I am concerned about some subtle trends that seem to signal a rising tide of hyper-Calvinism, especially within the ranks of young Calvinists and the newly Reformed. I have seen these trends in numerous Reformed theological forums on the internet, including mailing lists, Web sites, and Usenet forums.”
Speaking as a self-described five-point Calvinist, Johnson serves up several guiding concerns toward the future:
- “Virtually every revival of true Calvinism since the Puritan era has been hijacked, crippled, or ultimately killed by hyper-Calvinist influences. Modern Calvinists would do well to be on guard against the influence of these deadly trends.”
- “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.”
Phil Johnson shares a five-fold definition of hyper-Calvinism or five varieties of hyper-Calvinism. His assessment is a listing of the worst variety first and in declining order.
Johnson says that a hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear,
2. OR Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner,
3. OR Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal),
4. OR Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,”
5. OR Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.
Later in the Primer, Johnson says of point one:
“This first variety of hyper-Calvinism denies the general, external call, and insists that the gospel should be preached in a way that proclaims the facts about Christ’s work and God’s electing grace – without calling for any kind of response …
This is the worst form of hyper-Calvinism in vogue today. I’d class it as an extremely serious error, more dangerous than the worst variety of Arminianism. At least the Arminian preaches enough of the gospel for the elect to hear it and be saved. The hyper-Calvinist who denies the gospel call doesn’t even believe in calling sinners to Christ. He almost fears to whisper the gospel summons to other believers, lest anyone accuse him of violating divine sovereignty.”
In a very interesting dialogue with Tony Byrne, the author of the research blog (theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com), shared with me his assessment of the (5) five core problems of modern-day hyper-Calvinism (particularly #1 and the second half of #3):
A Hyper-Calvinist is one who either:
(1) Denies that God has any *love* for the non-elect, OR
(2) Denies God's common *grace* (the concept), OR
(3) Denies that God is giving an indiscriminate *offer* in His gospel call through preachers and/or that it is *sincere,* *well-meant,* or a *good-will* offer toward the non-elect, OR
(4) Denies that all sinners are *responsible* to evangelically believe the gospel (i.e. duty-faith), OR
(5) Elevates the TULIP doctrines to an essential status, such that anyone denying one or more of the points should be viewed as unregenerate on that basis."
[Note that Tony puts ** symbols around the important words within each point. For example, some Hyper-Calvinists may speak of a general mercy or kindness in God displayed to all through the common bounties of providence, but they still refuse to say that it is a common *love* or common *grace*, hence the asterisks around those words.]
Personally, I like how Tony Byrne begins with the question of God’s love. This, of course, has to deal with God’s character and I feel is a better theological starting point on the subject of hyper-Calvinism.
M.R. DeHann illustrates God’s election as a train traveling down a track with two rails. One rail is sovereign grace; the other is man’s responsibility. These rails never meet, they never come together, but they are both necessary to keep the train on the track. Remove the rail of man’s free will and try to run on only the rail of election and you will land in the ditch of fatalism and hyper-Calvinism. Reverse it and remove the rail of sovereign election and grace, and you wreck yourself in the ditch of a religion of human works and hyper-Arminianism. DeHaan encouages a healthy theological balance as he says “Keep your wheels on both tracks.” See Our Daily Bread: 366 Devotional Meditations (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959, 1966), April 20
Closing questions:
- Do you have a better (clearer & more concise) definition of hyper-Calvinism?
- In the SBC, do you see attitudes or tendencies that point to a spirit of hyper-Calvinism? Examples?
- Using DeHann’s illustration of two rails, do you tend to lean more toward the sovereignty of God or the responsibility of man? Share the names of theologians/writers that have helped you keep a healthy balance between these two?
Thanks Ron,
Well written, balanced and worthwhile. Blessings.
Would not calling the Gospel is an “offer” turn it from being good news into bad in that it suggests that by refusing the “offer” one is damned, vs the idea that the Gospel is the good news of Christ’s finished work and the “message of salvation” to those who are “children of wrath just as the rest” because of their sins?
Seems some of this language is intended to parse-hairs so as to allow for specific traditions rather than accurately define a position. I’ve met folks who denied “common grace”, yet they were quite evangelistic. I’ve also met folks who felt that TULIP was the end of all theology, and they wouldn’t attend church because no churches taught “the truth”, I would call the latter a “hyper” and the former not, even though the former fits Mr. Byrne’s conditions.
I’m not sure what you’re asking in your first question, Micah. Perhaps you’d like the re-word it?
You went on to say:
“I’ve met folks who denied “common grace”, yet they were quite evangelistic. I’ve also met folks who felt that TULIP was the end of all theology, and they wouldn’t attend church because no churches taught “the truth”, I would call the latter a “hyper” and the former not, even though the former fits Mr. Byrne’s conditions.”
Me now:
By “quite evangelistic,” I suppose you mean they believed in preaching to all. You’re statement is built on the common, yet faulty, assumption that Hyper-Calvinists are against preaching to all. That’s not true. What the classical Hyper-Calvinists were against was free *offers*, particularly if one is suggesting in the indiscriminate offer that God wills the eternal well-being, i.e. salvation, of every man who hears the gospel.
In the recent True Church Conference on Hyper-Calvinism, notice what Dr. Michael Haykin said about John Gill’s rejection of free offers:
“He admitted that the “gospel is indeed ordered to be preached to every creature to whom it is sent and comes….Gill stated, “that there are universal offers of grace and salvation made to all men, I utterly deny.” Not even to the elect does God make an “offer” of salvation.”
Iain Murray is the same, and says this about Hyper-Calvinists preaching to all:
“If God has chosen an elect people, then, Hyper-Calvinism argued, he can have no desire for the salvation of any others and to speak as though he had, is to deny the particularity of grace. Of course, Hyper-Calvinists accepted that the gospel be preached to all, but they denied that such preaching was intended to demonstrate any love on the part of God for all, or any invitation to all to receive mercy.”
Gerald Priest wrote in the Denver Baptist Theological Journal:
Robert Oliver (who thinks Gill was a Hyper-Calvinist), writing in the Banner of Truth, said:
And then finally, in Dr. Curt Daniel’s doctoral thesis on the subject, he wrote:
One can see all of these men, who have studied the issue, admitting that Hyper-Calvinists believed in “preaching” to all men. What they were actually against were free “offers,” since “offers” presuppose certain theological issues they viewed as problematic (i.e., conditionalism in the New Covenant, man’s ability to accept, God’s willingness to give, etc.) and contrary to the “doctrine of sovereign grace.”
If you’re listening to someone who describes Hyper-Calvinism as not believing in “preaching to all men,” that indicates that they really haven’t studied the matter historically, and/or they’ve just swallowed the seriously flawed assumptions of David Engelsma’s (who is a Hyper-Calvinist in the Protestant Reformed Church) book, “Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel.” Hyper-Calvinists are more sophisticated than to simply think, “We shouldn’t preach to all men!” No, they were much more nuanced than that, as they stood against free offers and other seemingly problematic theological “errors” that seemed Arminian in nature (man’s responsibility [aka duty-faith] and God’s desire for the salvation of all men).
If you want, I can cite other sources that demonstrate the denial of the concept of common grace as a form of Hyper-Calvinism. It’s in Dr. Curt Daniel’s “The History and Theology of Calvinism.” Also, it is inevitable that one who denies the concept of common grace also denies God’s common love for non-elect, since they know these concepts are interrelated. What seems to be a mere denial of common grace by some self-described Calvinists turns out to also be a denial of God’s love for all men.
I said:
“You’re statement is built on the common, yet faulty, assumption that Hyper-Calvinists are against preaching to all. That’s not true.”
I’d prefer to modify that to this:
Your statement seems to be built on the common, yet faulty assumption, that one is only a Hyper-Calvinist if they are against preaching the gospel to all. That is not true.
My point is/was this: one can still be a Hyper-Calvinist and yet maintain that the gospel should be preached to all men. It’s just that they don’t think God has the eternal well-being of *all* those that hear it in His heart. Rather, universal preaching, they think, should *only* be done for the sake of the elect, hence their fondness for quoting and viewing 2 Tim. 2:10 through that narrow and faulty theological grid.
Iain Murray touched on this very point, as I quote above, when he wrote the following in Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism:
You can see some essential components in Hyper-Calvinism in this one quote:
1) They reason/argue that, given a proper view of election, it cannot be said that God desires the salvation of the non-elect, and that anyone saying the contrary is denying the particularity of grace, i.e. they’re “crypto-Arminians,” “sub-Calvinists,” etc.
2) While the bulk of them accept that the gospel is to be preached to all, it is only for the sake of the elect among the lost (which are not yet known to us), and not because God is manifesting love to them and a desire to eternally save them all in and through that indiscriminate preaching.
Murray is accurately targeting the heart of the Hyper-Calvinist beast by focusing on these two points: love and God’s desire. He gets even more focused and accurate when he describes his purpose in writing Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism:
Tony,
What is it that damns a person? Is it their failure to obey God’s commands or their failure to believe in Christ? If the latter, could it not be said that the Gospel is therefore far from “good news” since so few avail themselves of it?
Micah asked:
1) “What is it that damns a person?”
My answer:
Properly speaking, it is God that finally damns a person on account of their own sin, which may or may not include the additional sin of rejection of Christ in the Gospel.
Micah asked:
2) “Is it their failure to obey God’s commands or their failure to believe in Christ?”
My answer:
Beware of false either/or dilemmas. A failure to believe in Christ is a failure to obey God’s commands. There are two kinds of people who ultimately perish: 1) those that have heard the gospel and 2) those who have not. Both of these groups are damned on account of their sin, but the second group have the additional guilt for rejecting the greatest light shown to them in the Gospel.
People are not damned for *merely* not believing in Christ. That is only one of the sins for which people (who have heard the Gospel) finally perish.
Micah asked:
3) “If the latter, could it not be said that the Gospel is therefore far from “good news” since so few avail themselves of it?”
My answer:
The Gospel is good news whether a person rejects it or not, just as a medicine is objectively good for a person even if they spurn and refuse it. God is still good and loving toward those who refuse to recognize or acknowledge it, but their continued refusal eventually receives a response of wrath, and justly so, for such heinous ingratitude.
As for those who finally perishing after hearing the good news of the Gospel, they are said to be “ungrateful” and refuse to “give thanks.” One is not expected to “give thanks” for bad news, an ill-meant offer or for wrath, but rather for good news, a well-meant offer and divine long-suffering. Their ingratitude underlines the fact that God was well-intentioned toward them through the grace offered them (as orthodox Calvinists have taught), but they spurned their own good remedy from the one with outstretched arms ready and willing to receive a disobedient people. As Jonathan Edwards said when considering the misery and memory of the damned:
One last thing, given what God says of himself in Isa 46:10…
Is it not contradictory therefore to say that God desires each and every man who ever lived and to acknowledge what God says of himself to Isaiah that he does all he pleases and gets all he purposes? Isaiah and elsewhere seem to indicate that God gets all that He desires, all that he purposes he does. (“I have purposed, and I will do it.”)
Do you believe God gets all he desires, or that he is thwarted in that?
Finally, how do you reconcile the idea that God desires all men to be saved, but failed to send the Gospel to them?
Thanks,
Micah
Micah asked:
“One last thing, given what God says of himself in Isa 46:10…
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure
Is it not contradictory therefore to say that God desires each and every man who ever lived and to acknowledge what God says of himself to Isaiah that he does all he pleases and gets all he purposes? Isaiah and elsewhere seem to indicate that God gets all that He desires, all that he purposes he does. (“I have purposed, and I will do it.”)”
My answer:
As I mentioned above, beware of false either/or dilemmas. What is true of the secret/decretal will should not be used to overthrow what is true of the revealed/preceptive will of God. Example: Though it is true that God has not always effectually purposed to give us the moral ability to obey His commandments, it is nevertheless still true that He desires that we comply with His commandments. So, while God had not purposed to give the non-elect the moral ability to overcome their own hostility to the gospel, He still desires that they obey the gospel commands and thus to be saved. God commands all men everywhere to repent and believe, and He desires compliance to those commands, even expressing that desire through the affectionate invitations of the Prophets, Apostles, and faithful preachers of the gospel today.
Jonathan Edwards touches on this very point (click) when he speaks of Christ and the godly seeking the salvation of all lost sinners. He said, “Christ himself is now seeking your salvation. He seeks it by the forementioned means, by appointing men to make it their business to seek it; he seeks it by them; they are his instruments, and they beseech you in Christ’s stead, to be reconciled to God. He seeks it in commanding our neighbors to seek it. Christ is represented in Scripture, as wooing the souls of sinner’s…He often invites…that they may have life…Christ is become a most importunate suitor to sinners, that he may become their sovereign.” Edwards continues with these strong words: “All the persons of the Trinity are now seeking your salvation. God the Father hath sent his Son, who hath made way for your salvation, and removed all difficulties, except those which are with your own heart. And he is waiting to be gracious to you; the door of his mercy stands open to you; he hath set a fountain open for you to wash in from sin and uncleanness. Christ is calling, inviting, and wooing you; and the Holy Ghost is striving with you by his internal motions and influences.” Note well that Edwards appeals to Matthew 23:37 (as does the Puritans Isaac Ambrose, Richard Sibbes, John Howe, William Perkins, John Cotton, Theophilus Gale, Ezekiel Culverwell, Oliver Heywood, John Flavel, Hugh Binning, John Trapp, Edward Leigh, Thomas Ford, Edward Polhill, William Burkitt, Matthew Henry and Thomas Boston, among others) to prove his point, unlike some who are following an erroneous Gillite and Hoeksemian view (which David Silversides refutes) of that text. Elsewhere, in the work “Concerning the Divine Decrees in General and Election in Particular, Edwards, appealing again to Matt. 23:37 and other texts, says, “There is all in God that is good, and perfect, and excellent in our desires and wishes for the conversion and salvation of wicked men…There is all in God that belongs to our desire of the holiness and happiness of unconverted men and reprobates, excepting what implies imperfection…[Jesus Christ] really desired the conversion and salvation of reprobates, and lamented their obstinacy and misery; as when he beheld the city Jerusalem, and wept over it, saying, “O Jerusalem,” &c.”
No self-described Calvinist should see a problem with this. It is the traditional/orthodox Calvinistic view. I will spare the readers here of scores and scores of Reformers and Puritans teaching the same thing, and appealing to the same passage(s), but, since the Puritan John Preston answers the very question Micah raises, I’ll paste him here:
Beware of the same rationalism of the atheists. The above difficulty is also related to the so called “logical problem of evil.” It is the atheists who say God does not really will the good if He wills [even if by way of permission] evil to come to pass. Or, they say, He is not omnipotent if He truly wills the good since He apparently does not stop the evil in this world. They cannot handle God willing and nilling the same thing at the same time, but in different respects, so they stumble, and find fault with the classical Christian conception of God’s attributes. This same rationalism surfaces in the area of soteriology when men argue that God does not truly will the ultimate good of the non-elect if He wills that they remain in their evil. The fundamental apriori is that God cannot truly will what He nils. The Puritan William Perkins deals with the same difficulty when comparing Matt. 23:37 with what is said in Isaiah 6:10. Notice, some critics were using the decretal will in one text (Isa. 6:10) to overthrow what is said about the revealed will (Matt. 23:37), but Perkins responds, saying:
And, similar to Preston and several other Calvinists who use this analogy, Perkins said:
For a modern treatment of this subject by a Reformed Theologian, I would encourage you (and others) to read R. L. Dabney’s “God’s Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy.” Phil Johnson said, “This article overhauled and revitalized my understanding of the doctrines of grace.”
Micah asked:
“Do you believe God gets all he desires, or that he is thwarted in that?”
My answer:
Ultimately, God’s will is not thwarted when men go against His revealed desires. For they could not violate God’s will unless God willfully permitted them to. So, even though the non-elect disobey the will of God as revealed in the Gospel, it is only because God willfully permits them to remain in unbelief. Ultimately, why does the revealed desire not come to pass? The secret/decretal purpose of God. The will of man that violates God’s expressed commands is only the secondary cause, but the purpose of God is what counterpoises His expressed wish of His commands. This is not a new perspective. Augustine, expounding on “why the will of God is never defeated, though much is done that is contrary to His will,” said:
John Arrowsmith, a Westminster Divine, appealed to this very text in Augustine in his statements about God’s will of permission, and then in another area of Amilla Catechetica where he mentions 2 Peter 3:9 and Romans 2:4, he says these “places declare sufficiently that the long-suffering God doth in a manner long to see our conversion to him.” This is the old and true Augustinian trajectory, which is why Prosper of Aquitaine, the defender of Augustine, said:
Micah asked:
“Finally, how do you reconcile the idea that God desires all men to be saved, but failed to send the Gospel to them?”
My answer:
While it is true that God has not purposed that all men hear the gospel, it is us who have “failed” to send the Gospel to everyone. Actually, it is God’s revealed will that the Gospel go out to all nations, which is consistent with His expressed wish that men hear it, obey, and be saved. The Great Commission shows that it is God’s revealed desire that the Gospel go out to all men.
There are two reasons why some do not hear the Gospel: 1) God has purposed to leave some men in darkness, and thus to harden them, and 2) God suffers us to disobey His command to take the Gospel to all nations, so they hear it. In the first case, God’s purpose to harden according to the secret will cannot overthrow what is true in His revealed will, as I addressed above. Moreover, it is still true that Jesus told us to take the Gospel to all nations, and to what end? Because He desires that men hear it and believe it unto salvation, of course. You’ll notice that Perkins above answers this very objection when he compared Matt. 23:37 with Isa. 6:10. Your question parallels Perkins’ objector, who argued, “if it was the will of God to harden them, as in Isa. 6:10, how can it be consistently said that He desired to save Jerusalem (as in Matt. 23:37)?”
I’ll end with a quote from Phil Johnson from the Theology List on Dec. 7th, 2001, since it pertains to Hyper-Calvinists who think one is a “squeamish,” “inconsistent” “sub-Calvinist” and/or “crypto-Arminian” if they affirm God’s desire in the revealed will for the salvation of all men, including the non-elect. He said:
Grace to you,
Tony
p.s. I would encourage you to check out the words of Sam Waldron (a Reformed Baptist) on John 5:34 in his Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, as well as Robert Gonzales’ (a dean at Reformed Baptist Theological Seminary) sermon on “God’s Heart for the Non-elect.”
“…Christ desires and designs the salvation even of his enemies and persecutors.” ~ Matthew Henry on John 5:34
“these things I say that you may be saved. By this statement he means that it is not so much from a regard to himself as from a desire to promote the advantage of men, that he raises up the heralds of his Gospel by whom he testifies to us concerning his will. In this we see also a striking proof of his wonderful goodness, by which he regulates all things for our salvation. It is therefore our duty, on the other hand, to strive that the great care which he bestows in saving us may not be fruitless.” From Calvin’s Commentaries on John 5:34
Tony,
Thanks for the reply.
I agree, and I think this point needs to be reiterated. People are not specifically damned only because they fail to believe the Gospel: Tthe message that Christ has come, and by faith in Him, one can be saved from God’s wrath against their sin, but people are specifically damned because of their sin, unbelief is but one of them.
I say this because often in this discussion (of well-meant offers and the like), unbelief sometimes becomes the only “unforgivable” sin, and I think it is important to clarify that point.
As to your description of the “two wills” of God. I believe your usage of the distinction is in error. God is not double-minded, wanting one thing but ultimately REALLY desirous of another. As to the Law and man’s failure to obey, Paul explains that the purpose of the Law was never to provide obedience, but to show sin. God commanded the Law, yes, but his intent was always to reveal sin and point to the need for a savior. I can agree that God did command obedience, however, within the Law is clear indication of the impossibility of fulfilling it’s demands, just as Christ and Paul state.
That said, one cannot extend the idea that God issues command vs his provisioning for the keeping thereof, to extend to the claim he desires the salvation of each and every person who ever lived (using the typical Arminian understanding of ‘all’.)
The reason I say this is rooted in your usage of the term “secretive”. It seems that you’re suggesting that God’s will in Isa 46, “I will do all my pleasure” is in real contradiction with his revealed will elsewhere, wherein it is claimed a universal desire for salvation is made. Neither of these two “wills” are secretive, for they’re both declared in the pages of Scripture.
The only possible answers to this conundrum is that either God is double-minded, wanting one thing but doing another, God wants one thing but is unable to accomplish it, or God doesn’t really get all he desires (Isa 46 is misread) and/or God doesn’t desire the salvation of each-and-every person (using the Arminian understanding).
Ultimately, if one looks across the pages of Scripture at the redemptive plan and purpose of God, it simply cannot be true, that God desired the salvation of everyone born of Adam.
Throughout the Old Testament God specifically saves from Israel, nearly exclusively, and even from them only a remnant. It is at the cross, and arguably the binding of Satan therein, that God sends the Gospel to the nations as an offense and judgement against Israel and purposely hardens Israel.
I want everyone reading this to understand what you’ve said: God had not purposed to give the non-elect the moral ability to overcome their own hostility to the gospel.
The concept of “universal” offer seems specifically intended to negate this view, that is, that God has not purposed to give each person the ability to believe.
I know you believe that, but I sincerely doubt others here do.
We agree again, and yet, God’s commands are not identical to his plan and purpose. John Preston’s view is not definitional of Reformed belief, nor is his or other’s agnostic understanding of these things.
God HAS revealed that all he desires comes to pass. God HAS revealed that faith is a gracious gift given to his elect. This is not part of some “secret” will, it is in fact revealed to us in Scripture.
There are things that are secret, the day of the Lord’s return, the exact name and number of the elect, etc. But it is wrong to call that which IS revealed in Scripture “secret”, and it only serves to hold up a tradition, namely Amyraldism.
Honestly, many in the SBC will still take issue with what you believe, specifically your denial of prevenient grace. And I think it’s something that needs to be addressed.
Ron,
Good article and good reminder to Calvinists to keep it straight and not go beyond what scripture teaches.
One quibble is your paraphrase ( I assume a paraphrase) of Mr. DeHaan says. You write, “One rail is sovereign grace; the other is man’s responsibility. These rails never meet, they never come together, but they are both necessary to keep the train on the track. Remove the rail of man’s free will…” did you mean to change the wording to substitute “man’s responsibility” with “man’s free will?”
Those are not the same thing.
But good post.
Rather amused at our similar description of the same issue in the last paragraph.
That is funny.
Les,
You could be correct; I’m not in my study currently, therefore, I can’t get to my Dehann material. If I did misquote it, it was a mistake. If you do have the exact quote, please post it … for it will be a while before I can do it. Blessings!
Ron, I really couldn’t tell if you were quoting him or paraphrasing him. I don’t see quotation marks but on one of the last sentences in that paragraph.
Anyway, again good post.
Ron,
Great post, Brother….very, very clear. I will be sending a link of this to my friends.
David
A good overview of hyper-Calvinism. One of the positives in today’s resurgence of Calvinism, both in and out of the SBC, is that hyper-Calvinist tendencies appear – to me – to be quite minimal. Johnson’s quotes came from an article written 13 years ago, and I wonder if he would say some of those hyper-Calvinist trends continue to exist today. There are problems in the movement (MacArthur has recently done a pretty good job addressing some of the issues), but hyper-Calvinism does not seem to be one of the problems.
A couple of quibbles. In Byrne’s list of five traits of hyper-Calvinism, #5 really doesn’t belong. It has to do with ignorance, not hyper-Calvinism.
The second quibble is in the last paragraph, where I’d change the line “remove the rail of man’s free will” to “remove the rail of man’s responsibility”.
Chris,
Please read a note to Les above about Dehaan’s quote. I’m sure that Tony will be reading the article at some point and may want to share his point of view on your comment on #5.
Blessings!
Chris said,
“In Byrne’s list of five traits of hyper-Calvinism, #5 really doesn’t belong. It has to do with ignorance, not hyper-Calvinism.”
First, see my response below. Second, it’s not merely ignorance, it’s a matter of hardcore sectarianism, even cultish behavior, coupled with blasphemies in the name of protecting the true “gospel” of TULIP. Go read Marc Carpenter and other Outside the Camp types, if you have not already. As I mention below, they at least have the first 3 problems in addition to their extreme condemnation of the vast majority of the Christian Church, including all the Puritans, and even a supralapsarian like Gordon Clark! They condemn them all as unregenerate.
Let’s say X stands for the position that says TULIP deniers are unregenerate, and Q stands for those who also deny common love, common grace, and well-meant offers. All those holding to X also have Q. It’s the Carpenterites I have in view. If you deny they are Hyper-Calvinists, you’re probably all alone in that opinion, at least among Calvinistic scholars and historians alive today who have studied the issue. In my phone conversations with Dr. Curt Daniel, he certainly thinks they are Hyper-Calvinists of the most extreme kind. The overwhelming consensus is not only that they are Hyper-Calvinists, but they are the worst or most extreme kind, and there hasn’t been people like them (the Carpenterites) in the past. They are the kookiest among the kooks!
Ron,
As long as we talk about Hyper-Calvinism everyone is one big happy family. Chris’ comment regarding number 5 is interesting… (5) Elevates the TULIP doctrines to an essential status, such that anyone denying one or more of the points should be viewed as unregenerate on that basis.”
“A couple of quibbles. In Byrne’s list of five traits of hyper-Calvinism, #5 really doesn’t belong. It has to do with ignorance, not hyper-Calvinism.”
Me thinks his objection fits #5 quite well. Remember, in bloggin, ignorance is most often in the eye of the beholder.
Grateful to be in His Grip!
><>’
I’m not sure which direction you mean when you say the objection is valid – my objection to him including it, or his including it as a point of objection.
I do agree that a mindset of that sort needs to be opposed. Anyone who thinks non-Calvinists are not Christian are just as bad as those who think Calvinists are not Christian. What I’m saying is such a position, while very wrong, is not hyper-Calvinism. I understand hyper-Calvinism in the way most of the post describes it – one who does not believe there is a universal offer of the gospel or a universal obligation to respond. A hyper-Calvinist is not a person who condemns you for not being a Calvinist; a hyper-Calvinist is a person who won’t tell you the gospel if you are lost.
Chris, you are right on.
Here’s the thing, though, Chris. Who are those who are saying any TULIP point deniers are unregenerate? It’s Marc Carpenter and the Outside the Camp crowd, all professing to be true Sovereign Gracers (I don’t think they would want the label “Calvinist”). Far from being alone, every popular Calvinist today views these kooks as *the* most hardcore of Hyper-Calvinists. There is no one more extreme. All of them, without a single exception, has the other first 3 problems in my definition (i.e. they deny common love, common grace and well-meant gospel offers). Inevitably, when some TULIPer starts calling other non-five pointers unregenerate, it’s because they’ve confused the secret will with the revealed will of God, such that a denial of any point of the TULIP is the same as denying the gospel. This confusion not only comes up in Peter Toon’s work, but also in the writings of Iain Murray.
At the very least, you won’t find a single person who has the #5 problem without also having the first 3 problems as well.
Whatever may be the case with some hyper-Calvinists today, would you say that hyper-Calvinists have historically made the claim that those who deny the claims of Calvinism are unregenerate? The classic issue with hyper-Calvinism, as demonstrated in Hale’s quotes above, have to do with matters surrounding evangelism. We might use another label for those who deny the salvation of the non-Calvinist (or even those who deny hyper-Calvinism, in Carpenter’s case), but that specific view does not, I think, fit into the classic hyper-Calvinist debate, even if it is trumpeted by a small group of hyper-Calvinists today.
Hi Chris,
There were Hyper-Calvinists in Gill’s day and particularly in Spurgeon’s day who were viewing others as unregenerate for rejecting their notions of sovereign grace, but I think they were an extreme minority. However, I don’t see any record of them going as far as the Carpenterites today, and judging as lost most of the Calvinistic stalwarts of the past. It is more common, particularly today, for them to try to claim them for themselves. Even Gill engaged in bogus historiography to that end.
Anyway, it seems to me that in order for you to say these people are not Hyper-Calvinists, you would also have to think that a denial of God’s common love, common grace and well-meant offers does not constitute Hyper-Calvinism, since all those elevating the TULIP to an essential status are those who also reject those doctrines. You will hold that opinion alone. There is no other Calvinistic historian or theologian today who would agree with you. Everyone one of them, when they encounter a Carpenterites, think, “Wow! These are *the* most extreme “TULIPers” I have ever read or heard about! No one exceeds their buffoonery!”
In my view, Hyper-Calvinism is essentially a theology of blasphemy (though they won’t admit that), as well as being schismatic in nature. The Carpenterites, in their condemnation of other Christians in true Pharisaical form, have *both* of these elements. If they are not Hyper-Calvinists, then Hyper-Calvinism has simply never existed. I don’t think it is even possible to get more extreme then the Carpenterites, unless one starts engaging in actual physical violence against believers.
The bottom line is this: You won’t find a single person who is viewing non-TULIPers as lost who does not also have the other components (with the possible exception of duty-faith) of my historically-grounded definition. In other words, where there is A (TULIP as Gospel), there is also necessarily B (denials of common love, grace, well-meant offers, etc.). Find someone doing A without B also, and I may grant your dichotomy ;)
Grace to you,
Tony
I think the Hyper-Calvinist is an anti-Calvinist bugbear. I have attended “ground zero” of the young Calvinist movement for six years and have yet to meet anyone who believes that only the elect are responsible to repent and believe the gospel. It is unfortunate that Johnson wrote that virtually every revival of Calvinism since the Puritans has been ruined by Hyper-Calvinism. Did he give any historical justification for this assertion?
“I think the Hyper-Calvinist is an anti-Calvinist bugbear.” That is interesting. I think the “hyper-Calvinist is a Calvinist bugbear” (whatever that is! LOL)
To me the reason the term hyper-Calvinist even exists is because Calvinists point to a hyper-Calvinist as everything they don’t want to be associated with in Calvinism. Talk about reprobation… oh hyper-Calvinists believe in that.
Talk about God not loving the non-elect… Jesus not dying on the cross for the non-elect… oh… hyper-Calvinists believe that.
Chris… you wrote, “I have attended “ground zero” of the young Calvinist movement for six years and have yet to meet anyone who believes that only the elect are responsible to repent and believe the gospel.”
Can you explain what you mean in that statement. Are you saying that the non-elect are equally responsible with the elect to repent and believe the gospel?
><>’
Bob,
I think we are both right concerning the first point. Many Calvinists do indeed call other Calvinists “hyper” without justification.
You read me right on the second point. I have met many different types of Calvinists in the last six years, but I have not heard one of them argue that the gospel should not be preached to the non-elect or that the non-elect do not have the responsibility to repent and believe.
Thanks… there is a BIG difference in saying “I have not heard one of them argue that the gospel should not be preached to the non-elect or that the non-elect do not have the responsibility to repent and believe.” and saying “I have yet to meet anyone who believes that only the elect are responsible to repent and believe the gospel.”
Here is a LIGHT problem I have with the semantics of even your last statement… “that the non-elect do not have the responsibility to repent and believe.”
You can say that you believe they have the responsibility to repent… but in all fairness you also believe that they CANNOT repent and believe BECAUSE they ARE not the elect… correct?
This is sort of part of the problem that I have with Calvinists… they say things in a way to sound like they are saying the same thing non-Calvinists are saying; when in reality they are not.
Just an observation on my part.
><>’
“you also believe that they CANNOT repent and believe BECAUSE they ARE not the elect”
They cannot because they will not.
Bob,
When a Calvinist says he believes that a non-elect person is responsible to repent and believe the gospel, he is saying the same thing as a non-Calvinist when a non-Calvinist says it. They disagree on whether or not the non-elect person has the moral ability to respond, but they agree that the non-elect person has the responsibility to respond. Isn’t that what matters in this debate?
If there is a fine line between a 5-point Calvinist and a Hyper-Calvinst, why is there not more (or any) Hyper-Calvinists around?
Chris… (the other one!)
You wrote, “When a Calvinist says he believes that a non-elect person is responsible to repent and believe the gospel, he is saying the same thing as a non-Calvinist when a non-Calvinist says it.”
I beg to differ with you sir. From my perspective, God’s revelation and effort to reconcile a lost world unto Himself, is followed by a response to repent and respond in faith and EVERYONE who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
That is what matters in eternity….
Grateful to be in His Grip!
><>’
PS…
If there is a fine line between a 5-point Calvinist and a Hyper-Calvinst, why is there not more (or any) Hyper-Calvinists around?
My answer is simple… they are all Calvinists.
><>’
To me the reason the term hyper-Calvinist even exists is because Calvinists point to a hyper-Calvinist as everything they don’t want to be associated with in Calvinism. Talk about reprobation… oh hyper-Calvinists believe in that.
…Jesus not dying on the cross for the non-elect… oh… hyper-Calvinists believe that.
Bob,
Your statement is in error. Calvinists unashamedly embrace both reprobation and particular atonement. I’ve never encountered a Calvinist “passing off” these doctrines to only the “hyper-Calvinists.”
Joshua,
I agree with you to a point. I’ve heard Calvinists deny reprobation. They’re in error, I believe and perhaps don’t understand reprobation. But to your other point, I’ve never known a Calvinist deny particular atonement.
Fact is, reprobation and particular redemption are true and should be unashamedly embraced.
Joshua…
Actually you are correct. The problem is a LOT of Calvinists are not so quick to stand up to the table as you are. A far as I am concerned, there is really a fine line in a hyper-Calvinist and a 5-point Calvinist. There are extremes in all of us.
The particular nuances like refusing to preach to the non-elect is really a misnomer in the first place… because no one knows who that person is in the first place… and just because someone does not seem to be among the elect today does not mean his time is not up tomorrow or next week for that matter.
In fact… the Perseverance of the Saints actually tells the other side of that story for the one who says he is the elect… if he does not persevere he was not saved in the first place… so his security is not in his conversion but rather in his perseverance.
Man… this theology stuff can sure get mind bogglin for a country boy!
><>’
Bob, I think the answer is in Acts:
“The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,”
All people are under the command of God and the obligation of God to repent and trust in Christ. And in case one wants to try and separate repent and believe, well can one do either without the other, in a biblical sense? John also says some are condemned for not obeying the gospel.
“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”
Now, let’s be about preaching the good news to all!
I think one of the biggest differences between Classical Calvinists (CC) and Hyper-Calvinists (HC) is one of internal consistency.
HCs are extremely consistent, by their own admission. HCs take the Calvinist staple doctrines of exhaustive determinism and unconditional election to their logical conclusions, and if those conclusions conflict with the Bible, so be it.
CCs, on the other hand, are more careful to not carry everything to its logical conclusion. As the article states above, they preserve (at least in proclamation) of the well-meant offer, love for the non-elect, and the like. Though CCs don’t like the moniker, opponents on both sides call them inconsistent Calvinists.
As for hyper-Calvinism, I think John Piper might come close to it. Although he affirms all of Johnson’s points that separate CCs from HCs, he falls under the first clause of Daniel’s definition of HCism and I think his view on sanctification is perilously close to antinomianism. I’m not alone. Thomas McCall, in his rejoinder to Piper in Trinity Journal three years ago pushes the envelope to the brink of antinomianism in Piper’s theology.
I think internal consistency is the biggest difference between the two. Both HCs and CCs affirm the same presuppositions. HCs take them all the way, while CCs do not. I understand why CCs stop short of the logical implications, but it remains quite inconsistent.
Jim G.
Jim,
Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say, “CCs, on the other hand, are more careful to not carry everything to its logical conclusion. As the article states above, they preserve (at least in proclamation) of the well-meant offer, love for the non-elect, and the like. Though CCs don’t like the moniker, opponents on both sides call them inconsistent Calvinists.”
><>’
Hi Bob,
The presuppositions underlying all forms of Calvinism are meticulous providence undergirded by exhaustive determinism and unconditional individual election to salvation/reprobation. If a person were to fully follow where the logical conclusions of these presuppositions lead, that person would likely be what we call a HC. If God predetermines (or permits) everything that occurs, it is very hard to find love in reprobation or in whether the gospel call to the reprobate is seriously a well-meant offer. HCs are very logical in their approach and deny both God’s love to the non-elect and that the gospel is not meant for them.
CCs, on the other hand, know that the Bible says otherwise, so they hold the same presuppositions as the HCs, but hold to the Bible’s teachings at these points rather than the logical deductions of their own presuppositions. Both HCs (David Engelsma comes to mind) and Arminians (pick your favorite one because nearly all say it) charge CCs with being inconsistent in their beliefs.
CC’s try to maintain that God loves the non-elect, but the logical deductions of their two presuppositions (crystal clearly, as I see it) suggest that God does not love the elect. He has predestined them to reprobation when he could have just as easily saved them. He rejects them for no reason outside himself. Rejection seems to be the closest thing to the opposite of love that I can think of. Because of meticulous providence, God has made it impossible for the elect to be saved, yet he holds them accountable for their sins that he has foreordained them to commit. Yet the “offer” of salvation is still “well-meant” toward them. These are the inconsistencies that CCs try to maintain. HCs, Arminians, and outsiders (notably Barth) have been making these criticisms for centuries.
The only way around the inconsistencies, as I see it, is to surrender the presuppositions. But if they did, they would no longer be Calvinists. Some proclaim “paradox” or “mystery,” but I don’t think these fit. The CC problem is not a paradox, because a paradox is a conditional logic problem (A implies not A). But that’s another argument for another time.
Jim G.
Thanks Jim,
If I am reading what you are writing correctly, then my original position of saying that Hyper-Calvinists are Calvinists would be correct. If your statement, “If a person were to fully follow where the logical conclusions of these presuppositions lead, that person would likely be what we call a HC” is indeed true; which I maintain it is. I had not seen it explained this way but I like it.
One of the problems that I have with Calvinism, are these inconsistencies and saying one thing with an underlying implication that is a presupposed “given” in the mind of the speaker, but not in the mind of the listener. This whole business of saying one thing and meaning another is not quite right and can be seen as down right deceptive.
I appreciate your contribution and your continued response.
Grateful to be in His Grip!
><>’
Jim and Bob,
Calvinists hold to another vitally important presupposition that non-Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists both ironically reject. Calvinists hold that human responsibility is compatible with God’s meticulous sovereignty. This sets them worlds apart from hyper-Calvinists. They believe that God can both predestine some to eternal life and some to destruction and still believe that those who perish on the final day do so because, in their sin, they refuse the free offer of the gospel. They also hold that God can love those who have chosen to rebel against Him without ultimately saving them, because God’s ultimate purpose is not to save rebellious, unworthy sinners per se, but to save or judge responsible, unworthy sinners to display His glory. These may appear as inconsistencies to you, but Calvinists do not believe they are inconsistent. To lump 5-point Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism together is unfair and irresponsible, and to suggest that 5-point Calvinists are deceptive when they urge everyone to repent and believe the gospel can be seen as down right slanderous.
“These may appear as inconsistencies to you, but Calvinists do not believe they are inconsistent. To lump 5-point Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism together is unfair and irresponsible, and to suggest that 5-point Calvinists are deceptive when they urge everyone to repent and believe the gospel can be seen as down right slanderous.” or inconsistent and deceptive.
><>’
Chris,
Since you include me in your reply….
I never suggested CCs were insincere in their proclamation. I admire CCs’ attempts to remain faithful to Scripture given such difficult presuppostions to work with. HCs sacrifice biblical fidelity to uphold the logical conclusions of Calvin’s presuppositions. CCs painstakingly try to affirm the Bible and the presuppositions.
In my opinion, I don’t think CCs are convincing in showing that universal divine love is compatible with unconditional reprobation. I am likewise unconvinced by the appeal to the glory of God. I think it comes perilously close to collapsing into panentheism or downright pantheism. These problems are not easy to avoid in the glory of God defense.
But there are problems that both HCs and CCs share, including the arbitrariness of election and reconciling God’s “good pleasure” (or glory, since I think they mean almost the same thing in parlance) to his goodness (a critique by Barth).
I don’t accuse CCs of any sort of insincerity or untruthfulness. I just think the CC attempt to hold the Bible together with the presuppositions of all forms of Calvinism is unconvincing.
Jim G.
I am
Thanks for your article, Ron. In many informal theological discussions of which I have been a part, “hyper-Calvinist” is sometimes utilized and understood in its more literal meaning, as extreme, militant, or “hard” Calvinism (as opposed to a more moderate or irenic Calvinism), sometimes evidenced as much or more in attitude than in doctrine. However, this is a helpful reminder to all of us that in more circumspect theological discussions, “hyper-Calvinist” can have a very specific point of reference in terms of doctrine.
Les,
You reference to Acts 17 is a reference to Paul preaching to the intellectuals in Athens and he is using the altar to the unknown god as a spring board to preach Jesus to them.
Paul said to them, “this God I preach to you is not One who can be made by human hands… He is the creator of the universe… He gives life and breath to every living thing. “He has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, then Paul tells them that they are all “offspring of God”, which to me is like saying we are all His created beings…. certainly not the elect.
Now therefore, since we are the offspring (created sons) of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. ( refering to all the altars surrounding him as he preached) Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, (all this religious ritual surrounding us) but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”
Seems to me… this quote clearly says that God commands all men everywhere to repent and since that is a command it must reflect His decretive will… judgment is to those who do not repent… in this passage some did repent and believe and some did not. Their choices determined their eternal destinies. It was not God who made that choice.
‘Now, let’s be about preaching the good news to all!”
AMEN AND AMEN!!!!!!!!
GRATEFUL TO BE IN HIS GRIP!!!
><>’
Bob,
BTW, I have received your doctrinal dissertation: Calvinism or Conversionism; Reformed or Transformed Theology: A Contrast in Terminology and Theology.
I’m looking forward to studying it; I’ve already enjoying reading Chapter one!
Bob,
You said, “Seems to me… this quote clearly says that God commands all men everywhere to repent…”
We agree!
“…and since that is a command it must reflect His decretive will…”
No, I think you mean, or should mean, His preceptive will. If God’s decretive will is that all men repent (if He has decreed all men to repent), then all men would surely repent. But since he has commanded it (a precept) then it is His commandment but may be disobeyed.
“…judgment is to those who do not repent… in this passage some did repent and believe and some did not. Their choices determined their eternal destinies.”
Yes, men choose according to their nature. Since the unregenerate are, well, unregenerate, they will never choose Christ unless and until they are made alive by God. Then they would choose Christ.
“It was not God who made that choice.”
Prior, God chose, or appointed who were His elect. Acts:
“And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.”
Blessings,
Les
Hi Bob,
You wrote:
“this quote clearly says that God commands all men everywhere to repent and since that is a command it must reflect His decretive will”
Some confusion arises in these discussions because people use different senses of “decree.” For you, Bob, “decree” references God’s commands, or His legislative will. That’s one legitimate way to use the term. However, when Calvinists use the term, they commonly have in view God’s effectual purpose to bring something to pass, so they frequently speak in this sense of a “decretal will,” “secret will,” “voluntas beneplaciti,” or will of majesty (in Luther).. As the Baptist theologian J. L. Dagg observed:
I’m citing this just to clarify the confusion in the usage of the term “decree.” Calvinists are not used to thinking about this term for what they call the “revealed” or “preceptive will” of God, even though it is fair biblically to do that; and other Calvinists, even original Reformers (such as Zanchi), used it that way. This is part of the reason why there have been very heated disputes over talk of “conditional decrees” in Calvinistic history, particularly during the days of Amyraut. The parties in dispute were not using “decrees” in the same sense, consequently, much confusion and misrepresentation resulted in the literature, and it remains to this day. Just know that when you’re talking with Calvinists, they are using the “decree” term for what they think is God’s effectual purpose to bring about a state of affairs, rather than in your legislative or preceptive sense of command.
I thought I would make this theological and historical note, even though it is not relevant to the discussion of what does or does not constitute Hyper-Calvinism historically.
Tony,
Thanks for your comments. While I do not claim to understand everything that the different nuances of “decrees” suggest, since I do not subscribe to them, I am aware of some of them. I used the term intentionally because I personally believe it is used in error.
To me God’s commands are just that; His commands. The fact that I may not adhere to them neither detracts from nor dilutes the intent or the extent of the command. It says nothing about God’s intent in giving the command. As far as I am concerned, God said what He meant and He meant what He said. That is as decretive as it gets.
Thanks for your contribution.
Grateful to be in His Grip!
><>’
Bob,
What Calvinist does not believe that “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved”? I don’t see how what you stated goes against my statement. Calvinists are not trying to trick anyone. They truly believe that every person is responsible to repent and believe the gospel. Would you rather they withhold the gospel from some, because you do not see how their theology is consistent?
I also don’t understand your P.S. comment. Do you distinguish between Hyper-Calvinists and 5-point Calvinists or no?
Chris….
You cannot be serious… “What Calvinist does not believe that “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved”? … They truly believe that every person is responsible to repent and believe the gospel.”
You are very aware that for you, regeneration is what causes your “everyone” to call and prohibits your “every person” from renenting and believing… you and I do NOT say the same thing… no where close.
So lets not be playing with words here… say what you mean…
><>’
Bob,
Again, Calvinists believe that every single person is responsible to repent and believe the gospel and that every single person that calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. It is also true that Calvinists believe that no one will call on the name of the Lord unless effectually drawn by the Spirit. The latter does not negate the former. Non-Calvinists and Calvinists disagree over the latter and totally agree on the former. They agree that the gospel should be proclaimed to all people and that all who respond shall be saved! That is what they say, and that is what they mean! Again, do you prefer that Calvinists only preach the gospel to some, because you do not see how their theology is consistent? They do not see a problem with their doctrines of unconditional election and effectual calling and with inviting all to come. Perhaps they are dunces and cannot recognize the incoherence that you see, but they do not play with words or talk in code in order to attempt to fool non-Calvinists.
Chris…
All I know is that if I were a Calvinist and I believed what you just wrote, if someone asked me “what must I do to be saved,” I would tell them hope that you are among the elect… if you are, you will be saved. if you are not, then there is no hope for you at all.
Like it or not… that is exactly what you believe.
Grateful to be in His Grip!
><>’
Based upon what I stated above, if a man asked me what he must do to be saved, then I would respond, “Repent towards God and believe in Christ, and you will be saved!” That is what I believe. I also believe that if they were to respond positively, they would do so because they are elect. Maybe I am a dunce, but that is what I believe and that is what I would say, and I think that the overwhelming majority of Calvinists agree with me. I guess it is a good thing that you are not a Calvinist and that we Calvinists do not really understand what we believe!
Correct Chris. Not dunces at all.
Bob,
No word games here. You wrote,
“You are very aware that for you, regeneration is what causes your “everyone” to call and prohibits your “every person” from renenting and believing… you and I do NOT say the same thing… no where close.”
God by His spirit makes a dead sinner alive. Said sinner then willingly and joyfully repents and believes.
Others who hear the same gospel call to repent walk away because they are dead in their sins, do not want Christ, love darkness, hate God and have not had the Holy Spirit operating on their hearts.
But, and this is important, the blame lies at their feet for their refusal to come to Christ. Again, see Romans 9.
Also see Habakuk. The prophet writes…”How long Lord…”
God replies, ““Look among the nations, and see;
wonder and be astounded.
For I am doing a work in your days
that you would not believe if told.
For behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans,
that bitter and hasty nation,
who march through the breadth of the earth,
to seize dwellings not their own.”
God goes on to say about the Chaldeans:
“Shall not all these take up their taunt against him, with scoffing and riddles for him, and say,
“Woe to him who heaps up what is not his own—
for how long?—
and loads himself with pledges!”
Will not your debtors suddenly arise,
and those awake who will make you tremble?
Then you will be spoil for them.
Because you have plundered many nations,
all the remnant of the peoples shall plunder you,
for the blood of man and violence to the earth,
to cities and all who dwell in them.”
Who is to blame for the bloodshed by the Chaldeans? God? Since He says he raised them up for this very purpose?
No. They are accountable for their actions. Why? Because they do what Chaldeans do! They plunder and shed blood. That is their nature.
God is not and cannot be held accountable for sinners doing what they by nature do…reject God. Again, your disagreement is not with Calvinists. It’s with God for doing what He does the way He does it.
Les,
Two very different perspectives… This whole business of God’s decretive or permissive or preceptive will is “your” perception of God’s will. I am inclined to say that God’s will is His Will, period. as far as I am concerned, God gave His commandments and His intent was that people keep them. Imagine that simple thought.
The fact that people did not keep them, does not have a thing to do with God’s sovereignty or lack of, but everything to do with His love for man that He created for a relationship. That is why revelation is so important. That is why God is in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself; He forgives those who believe and adopts them into His forever family.
Your conclusions regarding man’s nature is equally your perspective as well. It is amazing to me that so many seek to justify their differing theological positions handicapped by the Reformed position of total depravity. I do not see total depravity at all in the Scriptures.
Man in lost in that he cannot in and of himself stand justified before God. In that sense, he can be described as being depraved. His nature however, is not ambivalent to God’s initiative of revelation and reconciliation. To deny God that opportunity is to say that man’s will is able to overcome God’s revelation of Himself, which I am sure your position of sovereignty will not allow to happen. That is kind of like using your own argument against you. Seems like I have read that argument used against the idea of man in his free will trumping God’s will in salvation therefore justifying your own position of unconditional election and irresistible grace. (Maybe not yours, but I have read that argument from a number of others)
So… since it is a matter of interpretation that “the unregenerate are, well, unregenerate, they will never choose Christ unless and until they are made alive by God. Then they would choose Christ.” It seems to me that this argument has two very serious Scriptural problems.
First of all, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit comes after saving faith and repentance and not before. The Holy Spirit cannot inhabit a sinful heart. The second problem is there is absolutely no concept of regeneration in the OT. In fact, God is decidedly distant from the OT saints. This would require either two means of salvation or the Calvinist has serious problems in his contention that God has to regenerate the unregenerate before he can even respond to Him.
Faith and repentance on the other hand are clearly the work of revelation in both testaments. God reveals Himself and man is expected to respond. There is the consistency in both testaments.
Grateful to be in His Grip!
><>’
Bob
You wrote,
“First of all, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit comes after saving faith and repentance and not before. ”
Can you point that out from scripture please?
Bob, a better question I should have asked is, “Do you believe that regeneration precedes faith?” If so, from where do you draw that conclusion?
Thanks
No. I do not believe that regeneration precedes saving faith… revelation and regeneration precede saving faith and bring about regeneration.
><>’
ooooooopppppppsssssss
Revelation and reconciliation precede saving faith that leads to regeneration. mind not kicked in gear.
><>’
And from where in the bible do you get that?
Chris,
Johnson’s #1 decriptor of hyper-Calvinism says, “Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear,”
In your last post to Bob Hadley … you say, “I also believe that if they were to respond positively, they would do so because they are elect.”
So are you saying that the gospel call does not “really” apply to the non-elect sinner?
Or … are they now elect because they are a “whosoever will” that believed in the Lord Jesus Christ?
As you know, Calvinists distinguish between two types of calls. The effectual call is only applied to the elect by the Holy Spirit. Saying this does mean that one has broken Johnson’s first decriptor of hyper-Calvinism. The general call is broadcasted by the preacher and goes out or applies to every single person or whomever will. Calvinists believe that whomever they preach the gospel to is responsible to repent and believe the gospel and that whoever will respond to the gospel shall be saved. They also believe that those who do respond positively do so because the Holy Spirit has applied the effectual call to them. This does not meant that those who respond negatively are not responsible or are not a part of the general call. They are, and, if they would only believe, they too would be saved. Again, there are no playing with words here or not saying what one means. This is what Calvinists believe. The overwhelming majority of 5-point Calvinists are not hyper-Calvinists, because they affirm the general call to every single person. Again, I have not met any Calvinist in the SBC who denies the general call.
Chris,
I am not challenging what YOU believe and did go overboard in my last statement, intentionally. However, this issue of a general call and an efficacious call… is a stretch as far as I am concerned.
Listen to what you just wrote… “Calvinists believe that whomever they preach the gospel to is responsible to repent and believe the gospel and that whoever will respond to the gospel shall be saved.”
I say AMEN. The problem is you cannot stop with that statement. Your statement must have a disclaimer added to it. Here comes that disclaimer …
“They also believe that those who do respond positively do so because the Holy Spirit has applied the effectual call to them.”
What is wrong with saying… the Holy Spirit has convicted them of their sin and their need for Christ? Isn’t that the result of revelation and reconciliation, which is what the BIBLE says God’s initiative is?
“This does not meant that those who respond negatively are not responsible or are not a part of the general call. They are, and, if they would only believe, they too would be saved.”
Nicely worded. However, if the effectual call is NOT given by the Holy Spirit, the general call is of no consequence and is not a call at all. In my estimation to try to reduce God’s Word that tells all men to repent everywhere, (Acts 17:30) to a general call… is amazing…
That is like having a fire drill in an elementary school and locking the door to a third of the classrooms at the same time and saying… get out. Sorry, No can do.
“Again, there are no playing with words here or not saying what one means. This is what Calvinists believe.”
This is sadly too accurate a statement.
Grateful to be in His Grip!
><>’
“Nicely worded. However, if the effectual call is NOT given by the Holy Spirit, the general call is of no consequence and is not a call at all. In my estimation to try to reduce God’s Word that tells all men to repent everywhere, (Acts 17:30) to a general call… is amazing…
That is like having a fire drill in an elementary school and locking the door to a third of the classrooms at the same time and saying… get out. Sorry, No can do.”
The general call is of consequence and a call. If anyone repents and believes in Christ, that person will be saved. To borrow your analogy, it is not like having a fire drill and barring the door to a third of the classrooms. It is throwing all the doors open and inviting all to come. Some come in and others choose not to come. Those that come do so because the Spirit has effectually drawn them. Those that do not come refuse to go through the open doors and will perish because of the rebellion within them.
One of us is missing the boat on what Calvinism contends.
“The general call is of consequence and a call. If anyone repents and believes in Christ, that person will be saved. ” Yes or no… can a lost person respond positively to this general call WITHOUT the efficacious call?
“To borrow your analogy, it is not like having a fire drill and barring the door to a third of the classrooms. It is throwing all the doors open and inviting all to come. Some come in and others choose not to come.”
Who determines who will walk out those doors, the individual or God? Certainly the general call is the open door, but can anyone walk out that door apart from God’s effectual call? Can those students follow the one crying in the wilderness… repent for the kingdom of God is at hand… follow me to safety apart from God’s efficacious call?
I have no problem with WHAT you wrote; I just do not believe it is anywhere close to an accurate depiction of what Calvinism teaches… and I would also think that those who are Calvinists would address your answer.
>&ly;>’
Ron,
“So are you saying that the gospel call does not “really” apply to the non-elect sinner?”
Chris can speak for himself. But from my understanding the gospel call surely does apply to the non-elect sinner…if you mean should he/she receive the call.
All men everywhere receive a general call (Romans 1). But then some men receive a specific call, as when a person preaches the gospel to another person and calls that peson to repent and trust in Christ.
But obviously, a non-elect person will not/cannot truly respond positively to the gospel. Now some will object. See Romans 9.
But remember, all have sinned. All deserve God’s wrath. All deserve hell. If ANY are saved it is because of grace. Isn’t that the definition of grace? Someone gets something they don’t deserve?
So the man who ultimately perishes in his sin gets what he deserves, right? He doesn’t get efficacious grace. But he didn’t deserve it either, did he? And if all got that grace then we have universalism, right?
The complaint department in this whole matter is located in Romans chapter nine where the apostle answers any and all complaints about election.
So, some get what everyone deserves…justice.
Some get what no one deserves…grace.
God is, after al, God.
Hey Les,
“So, some get what everyone deserves…justice.
Some get what no one deserves…grace.”
I do not have a problem with this statement, as it sits on its own.
You said, “But obviously, a non-elect person will not/cannot truly respond positively to the gospel. Now some will object. See Romans 9. As you know, this is the area of contention. Calvinism makes God personally responsible for every person who goes or does not go to heaven. If a person cannot/will not respond positively to the gospel, and God is the determining factor, then He and He alone is responsible, not man. In this light, the non-elect CANNOT respond to something he has not received, the efficacious call.
“But remember, all have sinned. All deserve God’s wrath. All deserve hell. If ANY are saved it is because of grace. Isn’t that the definition of grace? Someone gets something they don’t deserve?” What about the guy who does not get the Calvinist’s efficacious call? Where is the grace of God for that person? Somehow, I believe the grace of God is there for that person too… and it is not the invitation that is the critical point, but rather the coming that makes the angels in heaven rejoice! (Matthew 22)
“So the man who ultimately perishes in his sin gets what he deserves, right?
No problem with this statement.
He doesn’t get efficacious grace. But he didn’t deserve it either, did he? And if all got that grace then we have universalism, right?” Here is the fallacy of Calvinism. The antithesis of Calvinism is universalism. Not so. Your statement “He doesn’t get the efficacious grace” is the other problem. Why does he NOT get the efficacious grace? Because it was not offered to Him by God. That is the problem. This whole argument is based on one simple principle… Calvinism is the only possible answer to the problem of universalism. That is it.
Calvinism is NOT the only answer to universalism.
Grateful to be in His Grip!
>:<>’
Bob,
My reply in ALL CAPS.
You said: As you know, this is the area of contention. Calvinism makes God personally responsible for every person who goes or does not go to heaven. NOT SO. SINNERS ENDURE ETERNAL JUDGMENT BECAUSE THEY LOVE THE DARKNESS MORE THAN THE LIGHT. THEY ARE SINNERS AND ARE IN REBELLION TO THEIR CREATOR. THEY WILL NOT, AND YES INDEED ARE INCAPABLE OF EFFECTING THEIR OWN SALVATION. If a person cannot/will not respond positively to the gospel, and God is the determining factor, then He and He alone is responsible, not man. In this light, the non-elect CANNOT respond to something he has not received, the efficacious call. FOR SURE A SINNER CANNOT RESPOND TO THE EFFICACIOUS CALL UNLESS HE RECEIVES SUCH CALL. IF HE DOES RECEIVE IT HE WILL SURELY RESPOND.
What about the guy who does not get the Calvinist’s efficacious call? IT IS NOT THE CALVINIST’S EFFICACIOUS CALL. IT IS GOD’S EFFICACIOUS CALL. Where is the grace of God for that person? COMMON GRACE ABOUNDS. SAVING GRACE IS THERE FOR HIS TAKING, EXCEPT HE LOVES THE DARKNESS AND WILL NOT REACH TOWARD GOD. Somehow, I believe the grace of God is there for that person too… WELL HOWEVER YOU OR I FEEL ABOUT IT IS NOT THE ISSUE.
You said: Here is the fallacy of Calvinism. The antithesis of Calvinism is universalism. I DID NOT SAY THAT. WHAT I SAID, OR INTEND TO SAY CLEARLY, IS THAT IF EVERY HUMAN RECEIVED THE EFFICACIOUS CALL OF GOD THEN EVERY HUMAN WOULD BE SAVED. THAT IS UNIVERSALISM, THAT ULTIMATELY ALL WILL BE SAVED. OBVIOUSLY WE ALL AGREE THAT NOT EVERY HUMAN WILL RECEIVE THE EFFICACIOUS CALL OF GOD. SEE THE DEFINITION OF EFFICACIOUS. Not so. Your statement “He doesn’t get the efficacious grace” is the other problem. Why does he NOT get the efficacious grace? Because it was not offered to Him by God. That is the problem. WELL IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IS A PROBLEM WHICH IS NOT A PROBLEM, AND YOU’RE TRYING TO FIX IT. YOU’RE ARGUING NOT WITH ME, BUT WITH THE BIBLE. I DON’T MEAN TO BE TRITE BY SAYING THAT. BUT AGAIN, WILL YOU AGREE THAT NOT ALL RECEIVE EFFICACIOUS GRACE? IF YOU AGREE, THEN THERE IS NO PROBLEM. I THINK YOU EITHER DON’T BELIEVE IN EFFICACIOUS GRACE OR YOU SEE IT AND JUST DON’T LIKE IT.
I close with:
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
(Romans 9:19-24 ESV)
“BUT AGAIN, WILL YOU AGREE THAT NOT ALL RECEIVE EFFICACIOUS GRACE? IF YOU AGREE, THEN THERE IS NO PROBLEM. I THINK YOU EITHER DON’T BELIEVE IN EFFICACIOUS GRACE OR YOU SEE IT AND JUST DON’T LIKE IT.”
Make no mistake about it… I do not believe in efficacious grace… I believe in all-sufficient grace for those who believe. The fact that someone does not believe does not negate the all-sufficient aspect of the offer. That is where we disagree.
I believe AGAIN… that revelation and reconciliation bring an individual to a point of decision; “what am I going to do with the man called Jesus” and his eternal destiny hinges on the choices he makes concerning Christ. That is it.
The discourse noted above, “What about the guy who does not get the Calvinist’s efficacious call? IT IS NOT THE CALVINIST’S EFFICACIOUS CALL. IT IS GOD’S EFFICACIOUS CALL.” was intentionally written by me in that way because I do not see the Scriptural basis for God’s efficacious call; so I deliberately noted it as the Calvinist’s efficacious call.
In quoting Romans 9… I will refer to the following… “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?”
I believe Paul is speaking of corporate election and not individual election and he is speaking specifically about the gospel being freely given to the Gentiles as opposed to being reserved exclusively for the Jews.
As I see it, Calvinists sort of have a Jewish mentality when it comes to salvation or conversion; if God intended for the elect only to be saved, then why did He not just have them all born to Jewish parents and that would settle everything? Period.
That was never His plan and it is still not His plan. His plan is for real people of faith to be those who hear His revelation and respond to it in believing faith and that is what brings them into His covenant of grace and allows us all to be adopted into Hiss forever family
Grateful to be in His Grip!
><>’
Bob,
“I believe Paul is speaking of corporate election and not individual election and he is speaking specifically about the gospel being freely given to the Gentiles as opposed to being reserved exclusively for the Jews.”
Well that is fine for you to believe that. But in context it cannot possibly be. Paul has to be talking about individual election. He is concerned that some of his fellow Jews are not being saved and that a charge is brought against the promises of God concerning Israel. He answers thusly,
“But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.””
Just because one was/is a Jew does not (and never has) guaranteed their redemption.
Not only that but Paul is using the OT as an example of God’s privilege to do as He pleases.
“For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.””
“So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.”
Does this truth not apply anymore? Or was it only for Pharoah’s situation?
He goes on in Ch. 10 to apply this to individuals even further.
Further the weight of scripture is against you on this. One example is John 6:44:
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”
See also 2 Tim. 1:9
“who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,”
If anyone comes to Christ it is because God has determined that individual to do so. He calls them. He draws them. He has mercy on whom He desires to have mercy on.
Blessings.
To be clear…and Chris’ comments above caused mt to clarify…the general call of creation is what I was referring to in Romans 1. A general call also comes from actual proclamation, as Chris says above.
The special call by God is the working by the Holy Spirit and is efficacious and irresistible.
I am confident that what I said accurately describes what the majority of Calvinists believe and teach. I think that I said exactly the same thing that Les is saying, but that we merely stated it differently. If there are any Calvinists out there reading this who does not agree with my statement, I would love to know.
Yes, those who have the open door of the gospel call opened to them will not enter unless they are effectually drawn by the Spirit. However, the reason and responsibility that they will not respond to the general call lay within themselves. The problem is not with the caller, but with the one who is being called. They do not and will not enter, because they do not want to enter.
For the record, I do not think that the only two options for believers are Calvinism or Universalism, just as I do not think 5-point Calvinistis should be lumped together with Hyper-Calvinists.
Ron,
Don’t know if you will see this comment amid all the off-topic discussion, but I do want to commend you for consulting other classic Calvinists in your article. Far too often people launch off into a discussion of Hyper-Calvinism without considering sources that are knowledgeable on the subject (such as Phil Johnson). While I often disagree with you (especially within this series of posts), I do appreciate you taking the time to hear what classic Evangelical Calvinists say about those they consider to be truly “hyper”. I think once people understand the terminology correctly, a Biblical discussion can ensue that is focused on the text and not on stereotypes.
Thank you D.R. for you kind words; I appreciate it.
It really does seem to be that 5 pointers believe that some people really have no hope whatsoever to be saved…because they were not predestined to be saved, thus they will not receive the effectual call. Thus, the Gospel invitation is not truly, sincerely offered to all people…it’s just to the elect…because the non-elect have absolutely no way to be saved…no hope, whatsoever….
So, when preaching to the lost, about all that a 5 pointer can say to them is…”I hope you can be saved.” In fact, I knew some hyper-Calvinists, who believed that no one could really be sure of their salvation….that no one could be sure, really sure, of their salvation….all you could really have was a pretty certain hope…
David
“So, when preaching to the lost, about all that a 5 pointer can say to them is…I hope you can be saved.”
And yet 5-pointers continue stubbornly to invite whoever will to respond to the gospel with repentance and faith and be saved! They keep planting churches and leaving everything behind to go to the mission field. What an ignorant group they are! Don’t you wish they would wisen in and keep the gospel within their own little “chosen” clique?
because they were not predestined to be saved, thus they will not receive the effectual call. Thus, the Gospel invitation is not truly, sincerely offered to all people…it’s just to the elect
The “sincerity” of the offer is not determined by man’s ability to respond but by God’s promise to save all those who do respond in faith. Will God save someone who responds in faith to the proclamation of the Gospel? Yes! Because it is a “sincere” offer.
Joshua said:
“The “sincerity” of the offer is not determined by man’s ability to respond but by God’s promise to save all those who do respond in faith.”
This is not accurate. Actually, the sincerity of God’s offer to all is, in a sense, indexed to man’s ability to respond, among other things. “Ability” is vague, and can refer to either natural or moral ability. All men possess the faculties (natural ability) necessary to respond to the offer, but lack the moral freedom (moral ability) to do so, as they are under the dominion of sin. Certainly God, or any sane man, cannot make offers to entities that have no faculties to respond, but one can make offers to those who lack the moral ability to respond; thus offers are indexed to man’s natural abilities, but not necessarily to his moral abilities. Making offers to one who has no sense of ability would be absurd. The Puritan Stephen Charnock addresses the point as follows:
Moreover, it is not accurate to say that the sincerity of God’s offers is indexed to “God’s promise to save all those who do respond in faith [the elect].” It is, rather, indexed to 1) His possession of something to give all those hearing the invitation, call and promise, 2) His willingness to give it and 3) His desire that they take what is promised to them.
Without a 1) sense of ability in man (natural ability), without 2) God’s possession of something sufficient to give to all, without 3) His willingness to give it to all and 4) His desire that they take it, one cannot sustain a free/well-meant gospel offer by God to all those that hear the gospel call. In other words, without these essential components of a sincere offer, one is left with the non-offer of Hyper-Calvinism.
It is, therefore, not accurate to say the sincerity of God’s offer is not indexed to man’s ability or that it is properly grounded in His purpose to give what is promised to all the elect. Something more is necessarily needed, as I outlined above.
Moreover, it is not accurate to say that the sincerity of God’s offers is indexed to “God’s promise to save all those who do respond in faith [the elect].” It is, rather, indexed to 1) His possession of something to give all those hearing the invitation, call and promise, 2) His willingness to give it and 3) His desire that they take what is promised to them.
I agree with all three points.
From reading your response, you actually support my position that the “sincerity” is “indexed” in God, not man. If this is not so, and man must be “able” to obey the command of repent and believe for the Gospel to be “sincere”, then an enabling, but not salvific, prevenient grace must be established and we all know how problematic that is.
Man’s inability does not negate man’s responsibility to obey the Gospel command and does not negate the sincerity of the Gospel offer/command.
I wasn’t supporting what you said above. As I said, I thought it was not correct, accurate, or properly qualified. It’s not an either/or, but a both/and. The sincerity of God’s offer is indexed to God *AND* to man’s ability. On both points you were off.
First, concerning God, it is not right to index it to His secret will to save the elect (“God’s promise to save all those who do respond in faith”), as you said above, but to His revealed desire/will to save every man (with the other components I mentioned above). Secondly, without qualification, you did not index it to man’s ability to respond, when it is, in the sense of *natural* ability. Without that ability, there can be no sincere offer by God.
However, I agree that one does not need to argue the concept of prevenient grace in order to get a universal moral ability (i.e. liberty of indifference) in man to ground a sincere offer, and neither did Stephen Charnock think so as the quote shows.
You said:
“Man’s inability does not negate man’s responsibility to obey the Gospel command and does not negate the sincerity of the Gospel offer/command.”
Again, this needs qualification. Responsibility does presuppose ability, in the sense of a natural/physical or constitutional ability. If man lacks the faculties to respond, a faith-capable-faculty, so to speak, then he cannot be held responsible to believe. So, we should qualify, and say, “Man’s *moral* inability does not negate man’s responsibility to obey the Gospel command and does not negate the sincerity of the Gospel offer/command.”
I am not saying that you need to make these qualifications for my sake. Your non-Calvinist critics automatically assume moral ability when they see ability appealed to by God in scripture, and so they will use a half-truth to attempt to defeat the traditional/orthodox Calvinistic conception of the unregenerate man’s inability and moral limitations, without seeing the necessity of making these crucial natural/moral ability distinctions. Jonathan Edwards used these with good reason, as did Andrew Fuller (in his arguments for duty-faith against the Hyper-Calvinists). Nevertheless, the distinction did not arise with them. It is at least goes back to William Twisse, Thomas Manton, Stephen Charnock, and many, many others, and perhaps even back to Augustine (I’ve seen hints of the distinction in his writings). It’s very old, and it is very important when trying to set forth a case for free agency (not free will) and the consistency of sincere offers given election and the bondage of unregenerate man’s will.
The logic of the well-meant offer and Calvinism is, I think, clearly against the Calvinist.
If Calvinism of the sort under discussion is true, then our offering the Gospel to all is a matter of pragmatism; we don’t know who will respond in what ways, and God has asked us to. But we cannot, in good conscience, say things like “God sent his son Jesus Christ to die for you.”
How much worse it is for God! For God knows exactly whether or not any given person would respond. Since only those who have their sins paid for will respond, God cannot say “I sent my Son to die for you,” not out of ignorance or uncertainity, but because such would be a lie! Further, while we can be sincere in offering something that cannot possibly be true in a counterfactual format (such as is the case if I were to say, “If you were to jump into space without a suit, I would go with you”) the same sincerity cannot be applied in cases where one controls or causes the antecedent’s falsehood.
Consider if I were to say, “if I loved you, then I would marry you,” yet I despised the person, while that may possibly be a true counterfactual, it nonetheless does not constitute a sincere offer of the consequent. It’s just telling you that if I wanted to do X, then I would do X, and then Y obtains. Or consider: “if I cared about the homeless, I would feed them.” No one should think this is my sincere offer to feed the homeless. So it is with God. “If you would believe, then you would be saved,” when applied to those for whom it is impossible to believe on account of God’s choice not to allow them to, should not be constituted a sincere offer of the consequent. I’m going to write a blog post on this I think. ;)
Randy,
You said, “But we cannot, in good conscience, say things like “God sent his son Jesus Christ to die for you.”
You don’t need to say that to anyone. You can simply repeat scripture,
“The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.”
Then proceed to explain from scripture the gospel message and call the person to repent and trust Christ!
Of course, that doesn’t defeat anything I said whatsoever. The fact remains, it is not true that the offer is sincere, and so far no rebuttal has been given to that effect.
Randy, was Paul not offering a sincere call to repent in Acts 17? And some believed and some didn’t.
Of course he was.
Randy,
My point in referring to Paul was his sincere offer. Of course Paul, a Calvinist before Calvin, knew not all in his hearing were elect. Yet he offered and even commanded them to repent. And it was sincere.
Les, thanks for the response. But that doesn’t contradict the premise in my first question (that the Calvinist can only say Christ died for them, at best, as a matter of pragmatism), smuggles in the premise that Paul was a Calvinist (obviously, no non-Calvinist will believe it), and most germane, does not affect the argument I made concerning God and the well-meant offer. Paul could not affect the antecedent condition of the will, and in fact desired that he could go to Hell for the sake of those who were unsaved.
From: Ron
I’m going to re-post this exchange between Jim and Bob. It was UP in the posts, but are some of the most recent …
Jim Gifford says:
September 8, 2011 at 3:58 pm
I think one of the biggest differences between Classical Calvinists (CC) and Hyper-Calvinists (HC) is one of internal consistency.
HCs are extremely consistent, by their own admission. HCs take the Calvinist staple doctrines of exhaustive determinism and unconditional election to their logical conclusions, and if those conclusions conflict with the Bible, so be it.
CCs, on the other hand, are more careful to not carry everything to its logical conclusion. As the article states above, they preserve (at least in proclamation) of the well-meant offer, love for the non-elect, and the like. Though CCs don’t like the moniker, opponents on both sides call them inconsistent Calvinists.
As for hyper-Calvinism, I think John Piper might come close to it. Although he affirms all of Johnson’s points that separate CCs from HCs, he falls under the first clause of Daniel’s definition of HCism and I think his view on sanctification is perilously close to antinomianism. I’m not alone. Thomas McCall, in his rejoinder to Piper in Trinity Journal three years ago pushes the envelope to the brink of antinomianism in Piper’s theology.
I think internal consistency is the biggest difference between the two. Both HCs and CCs affirm the same presuppositions. HCs take them all the way, while CCs do not. I understand why CCs stop short of the logical implications, but it remains quite inconsistent.
Jim G.
Reply
Bob Hadley says:
September 9, 2011 at 8:50 am
Jim,
Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say, “CCs, on the other hand, are more careful to not carry everything to its logical conclusion. As the article states above, they preserve (at least in proclamation) of the well-meant offer, love for the non-elect, and the like. Though CCs don’t like the moniker, opponents on both sides call them inconsistent Calvinists.”
>’
Reply
Jim Gifford says:
September 9, 2011 at 10:52 am
Hi Bob,
The presuppositions underlying all forms of Calvinism are meticulous providence undergirded by exhaustive determinism and unconditional individual election to salvation/reprobation. If a person were to fully follow where the logical conclusions of these presuppositions lead, that person would likely be what we call a HC. If God predetermines (or permits) everything that occurs, it is very hard to find love in reprobation or in whether the gospel call to the reprobate is seriously a well-meant offer. HCs are very logical in their approach and deny both God’s love to the non-elect and that the gospel is not meant for them.
CCs, on the other hand, know that the Bible says otherwise, so they hold the same presuppositions as the HCs, but hold to the Bible’s teachings at these points rather than the logical deductions of their own presuppositions. Both HCs (David Engelsma comes to mind) and Arminians (pick your favorite one because nearly all say it) charge CCs with being inconsistent in their beliefs.
CC’s try to maintain that God loves the non-elect, but the logical deductions of their two presuppositions (crystal clearly, as I see it) suggest that God does not love the elect. He has predestined them to reprobation when he could have just as easily saved them. He rejects them for no reason outside himself. Rejection seems to be the closest thing to the opposite of love that I can think of. Because of meticulous providence, God has made it impossible for the elect to be saved, yet he holds them accountable for their sins that he has foreordained them to commit. Yet the “offer” of salvation is still “well-meant” toward them. These are the inconsistencies that CCs try to maintain. HCs, Arminians, and outsiders (notably Barth) have been making these criticisms for centuries.
The only way around the inconsistencies, as I see it, is to surrender the presuppositions. But if they did, they would no longer be Calvinists. Some proclaim “paradox” or “mystery,” but I don’t think these fit. The CC problem is not a paradox, because a paradox is a conditional logic problem (A implies not A). But that’s another argument for another time.
Jim G.
As a classic/moderate Calvinist, in terms of my concept of God and soteriology, I see several problems with what Jim is saying, even some straw men. Perhaps he and I could discuss this sometime, under a different topic, or in a more organized and easy to follow context with a sense of sequence. I believe I could answer his objections to my theology, or charges of inconsistency, and offer defeaters for his own non-Calvinistic viewpoint :) I am reluctant to engage Jim here and now because this comment thread is already off-topic and someone confusing with how the comments are formatted (non-sequential).
Anyway, it’s an “offer” for a friendly exchange in the future :-)
Grace to you,
Tony
correction: …somewhat confusing with how…
Sure, Tony. I’m always up for a friendly exchange. I think it would be tough in a blog venue, but I suppose we can figure it out some way. I don’t think I threw up any straw men, but I’m open to have my eyes opened if need be.
Jim G.
Mr. Gifford,
You should consider open theism.
Open theists use your line of reasoning to prove God does not have infallible foreknowledge. They say a sincere offer cannot be made to those whom He infallibly knows will reject it. What would you say to this?
Hi David,
I am a long, long way from open theism. There are lots of views of the sovereignty of God between CC and open theism. At least Terry Tiessen thinks so.
And I wasn’t doing much reasoning. I was simply pointing out that CCs do not follow their presuppositions to their logical conclusions. That is a good thing.
Jim G.
Question …
I took a stab at it in my article, would anyone like to share their personal definition of hyper-Calvinism? That was one of my closing questions …
… anyone?
Ron,
I’m not smart enough to form my own definition. But here are two imcame across. I’d like your thoughts on them.
“Hyper-Calvinism is the denial that God in the preaching of the gospel calls everyone who hears the preaching to repent and believe. It is the denial that the church should call everyone in the preaching. It is the denial that the unregenerated have a duty to repent and believe. It manifests itself in the practice of the preacher’s addressing the call of the gospel, “repent and believe on Christ crucified,” only to those in his audience who show signs of regeneration and, thereby, of election, namely, some conviction of sin and some interest in salvation.”
This next one is from some self-proclaimed hyper-Calvinists Baptists.
“We deny duty faith and duty repentance – these terms suggesting that it is every man’s duty spiritually and savingly to repent and believe. We deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So that we reject the doctrine that man in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God.”
I wish the comments were in sequence.
I agree, Les.
To Ron Hale or Steve Lemke,
If you can or want to, I think it would be better to have the comments in sequence, rather than out of order as replies beneath other replies, if you know what I mean. That way one can see the latest responses at the bottom of the page all the time, rather than scrolling through 70+ responses to see if something was said above that was missed. changing this post may not be possible or worth doing, but for future posts it would be helpful to consider.
Thanks,
Tony
Tony and Les,
I agree and I’ll pass on that word, thanks.
<
Tony,
I understand the distinction between natural and moral ability. The disagreement between non-Calvinists and Calvinists over the “sincere offer” is not about natural ability but moral ability. Moral ability, not natural ability, has been the heart of my discussion.
That’s good :-) If you see that many non-Calvinists misconstrue the orthodox Calvinist position as if we were denying any sense of ability in unregenerate man, then it seems wise to adjust our language to help them see the point precisely. “Can” and “ability” are vague, so making the following unqualified statements is, at the very least, not wise:
1) Responsibility does not entail ability, and
2) Sincere offers do not presuppose (or are not necessarily indexed to) ability in the one hearing the offer.
1) Responsibility does entail ability, in the natural sense, so merely pointing out biblical passages where people are exhorted to obey and exercise their wills does not defeat Calvinism, as so many opponents seem to automatically suppose. What Calvinists are saying, as you know, is that it is consistent with God’s nature to exhort those to obey who are fixed in their stubborn refusal to disobey. Their problem is not ‘will power’ but ‘won’t power’. They have God-given faculties to obey, but their bondage to sin is such that, in a moral sense, they cannot. Since this point is often missed and/or distorted, it is wise for us to be more careful in our articulation of the point.
2) Moreover, sincere offers given by God to the non-elect does necessarily presuppose their ability to comply, in the natural or constitutional sense. As the Puritan Stephen Charnock said in the quote above, “If man indeed had not a faculty naturally fitted for the object, it might entrench upon God’s wisdom to make commands and promises to such a creature as it would be to command a beast to speak.” And again, “These commands presuppose in us a faculty of understanding and will, and a suitableness between the command and the faculty of a reasonable creature. This is the reason why God hath given to us his law and gospel, his commands, not because we are good or bad men, but because we are men endued with reason, which other creatures want, and therefore are not capable of government by a command.” This exhortation of people with no capacity is not, however, what is going on with God’s sincere offers to the non-elect, as you know. God is exhorting those to obey who are in a *moral* bondage (‘won’t power’), not in a state of physical inability. If you see and expect your opposition to either miss or misrepresent this vital point, then I would encourage you to anticipate it, carefully qualify yourself, and thus leave them without excuse if they do distort your clearly stated and qualified meaning :-)
If we see that non-Calvinists are sometimes failing to see the difference between our own position and that of Hyper-Calvinism, then we can help them do so by affirming a sense of ability in unregenerate man, which is the very thing some classic Hyper-Calvinists denied. Gill was against “duty-faith” and free offers because both of these presuppose “ability” in the unregenerate. He was right, but then he was also wrong. Why? Well, as Andrew Fuller pointed out (with the aid of Edwardsian distinctions), this ability need only be natural, not moral, for it to be consistent and biblical. This is one of the doors that helped him get him out of the house of Gillite Hyper-Calvinism.
Anyway, I hope that helps to at least clarify my concerns about “ability,” “divine sincerity,” and what “offers” presuppose.
Grace to you,
Tony
p.s. You’re welcome for the J. L. Dagg reference to the subject of “decrees” ;-)
p.p.s. Micah, if you’re reading this, I will get to your second questions above when I can, as it requires time to elaborate and cite helpful Calvinistic sources. I am about to have lunch with an old friend from my Criswell College days, so I will have to get to it later.
Tony,
?Do you have the following book: Daniel L. Akin, Editor, A Theology For The Church, (Nashville, TN., B&H Academic, 2007); I wanted to ask you something about Dr. Kenneth Keathley’s chapter … concerning supralapsarianism and reprobation.
Unfortunately I don’t, Ron. I almost picked up a used copy recently at Half Price Books, but it was too marked up and highlighted by a student. Anyway, if it is not too much text to type, I can take a look at your citation and analyze it. Or, you can mention the page number(s) and I can see if it is available to see in <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=elzlVK5c3dQC"the Google Books preview edition of the book.
There are varieties of supralapsarianism, so they don’t all think of reprobation the same way. The Hoeksemians, for example, are the most extreme. There are even varieties of supralapsarianism that have maintained that Christ died for the sins of all men, i.e. William Twisse. Richard Muller has recently acknowledged him as advocating a kind of “non-Amyraldian hypothetical universalism” (a confusing label). Anyway, they’re not a monolithic bunch, and the whole group of them are well in the minority in the Reformed camp historically. And one should not think that infralapsarianism is the only other choice. There are some (Herman Bavinck and R. L. Dabney, for example) who have thrown out lapsarian speculation as unnecessary. So, there are non-lapsarians who thought Christ only suffered for the sins of the elect (Bavinck) and non-lapsarians who thought Christ expiated for every man (Dabney).
I thought I would just add that interesting historical note, since even the Calvinists reading this are not likely to know that ;-)
I messed up the hyper-link in the above post, so here is the Google Books link (click) again.
From: Ron … I want to re-post this because it was way UP in the thread but a more recent post:
____________________
Micah Burke says:
September 9, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Tony,
What is it that damns a person? Is it their failure to obey God’s commands or their failure to believe in Christ? If the latter, could it not be said that the Gospel is therefore far from “good news” since so few avail themselves of it?
Reply
Tony Byrne says:
September 10, 2011 at 10:03 am
Micah asked:
1) “What is it that damns a person?”
My answer:
Properly speaking, it is God that finally damns a person on account of their own sin, which may or may not include the additional sin of rejection of Christ in the Gospel.
Micah asked:
2) “Is it their failure to obey God’s commands or their failure to believe in Christ?”
My answer:
Beware of false either/or dilemmas. A failure to believe in Christ is a failure to obey God’s commands. There are two kinds of people who ultimately perish: 1) those that have heard the gospel and 2) those who have not. Both of these groups are damned on account of their sin, but the second group have the additional guilt for rejecting the greatest light shown to them in the Gospel.
People are not damned for *merely* not believing in Christ. That is only one of the sins for which people (who have heard the Gospel) finally perish.
Micah asked:
3) “If the latter, could it not be said that the Gospel is therefore far from “good news” since so few avail themselves of it?”
My answer:
The Gospel is good news whether a person rejects it or not, just as a medicine is objectively good for a person even if they spurn and refuse it. God is still good and loving toward those who refuse to recognize or acknowledge it, but their continued refusal eventually receives a response of wrath, and justly so, for such heinous ingratitude.
As for those who finally perishing after hearing the good news of the Gospel, they are said to be “ungrateful” and refuse to “give thanks.” One is not expected to “give thanks” for bad news, an ill-meant offer or for wrath, but rather for good news, a well-meant offer and divine long-suffering. Their ingratitude underlines the fact that God was well-intentioned toward them through the grace offered them (as orthodox Calvinists have taught), but they spurned their own good remedy from the one with outstretched arms ready and willing to receive a disobedient people. As Jonathan Edwards said when considering the misery and memory of the damned:
“And all this will be aggravated by the remembrance, that God once loved us so as to give his Son to bring us to the happiness of his love, and tried all manner of means to persuade us to accept of his favor, which was obstinately refused.” Jonathan Edwards, “MISERY OF THE DAMNED”, 1726, p. 3. Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, eds. Harry S. Stout, Kenneth P. Minkema, Caleb J.D. Maskell, 2005-. http://edwards.yale.edu/ref/10307/e/p/3
My second reply to Micah can be read above here (click).
From … Tony Byrne’s research site (Theological Meditations)
“We call attention to Calvin’s warning that if one limits the ‘all’ of the atonement, then one limits the revealed salvific will of God, which necessarily infringes on the preaching of the gospel and diminishes the “hope of salvation” of those to whom the Gospel is preached. Both High and Hyper-Calvinists fell prey to Calvin’s warning. The former limited the atonement and opened the door to limiting the revealed will that all be saved. Hyper-Calvinists went through that door and logically diminished the Gospel ministry and content.”
Curt Daniel, Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1983), 603.
In light of this quote from Dr. Daniel, Ron, check out what the Puritan Edward Polhill said about the extent of the gospel commission and the death of Christ, as well as his statements on God’s will of salvation and the death of Christ. Both of these are from his work on “The Divine Will Considered in its Eternal Decrees,” in The Works of Edward Polhill (Morgan, PA.: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1998), and you can read Dr. David Allen’s citation of the first quote in Whosoever Will, pp. 94-95.
The issue that Dr. Daniel is pointing out above is this: universal sincere offers (or univeral offerability) presuppose the saveability of all men, and the saveability of all men presupposes a universal satisfaction for their sin (unless one thinks the atonement was unnecessary for forgiveness of sins, aka the voluntarism of John Owen’s earlier position in The Death of Death). The High Calvinist tries to uphold the universal salvific will of God with well-meant offers (such as Iain Murray, Phil Johnson and Tom Ascol), but they keep the view that there was a limit in the imputation of sin to Christ. The Hyper-Calvinists throw out the universal salvific will along with free/well-meant offers (although the Hoeksemians try to re-define “offer” to keep the veneer of Reformed confessionalism), since they see what is entailed by the logic of a limited substitution.
Stated formally, this is the logic that Hyper-Calvinist sees clearly, in some cases:
1) If one is saveable by God (P), then one is died for [Q].
2) Judas (or any non-elect person in this world) was not died for [~Q].
3) Therefore, Judas was not saveable by God [~P].
Modus Tollens = Valid Form
Then this is built on the previous syllogism:
1) If one is offerable by God [P], then one is saveable by God [Q].
2) Judas (or any non-elect person in this world) was not saveable by God [~Q]. See the first syllogism.
3) Therefore, Judas was not offerable by God [~P].
Modus Tollens = Valid Form
The only question remaining is, are these sound (since they are in fact valid)? Moderate Calvinists say yes, they are sound, but they affirm that Christ satisfied for all men and indiscriminate well-meant offers. Hyper-Calvinists say yes, they are sound, and then go through the door to deny well-meant offers by God to any of the non-elect. Some self-described Calvinists (one implicitly Hyper- and the other explicitly Hyper-Calvinistic) have recently employ a Tu quoque (“thou also”) fallacy in response to the above arguments, and therefore don’t answer the argument to salvage their own system; but, like some non-Calvinists, they just retort that moderate Calvinists have the same problem, given the presupposition of the special election of some only to salvation. But moderates (like the later Andrew Fuller, Ralph Wardlaw and many others) say 1) they’re confusing moral with physical barriers, and also 2) assuming that truths concerning God’s effectual purpose can be used to overthrow truths in the revealed aspect of God’s will in their “thou also” rejoinders.
Nevertheless, all Calvinists have to answer the above syllogisms, and show where the first two premises in each (the first premise in the first syllogism or the first and/or second premise in the second syllogism for them) are in error. This has yet to be done by them.
I just realized I messed up one of the Polhill links above. Here’s the corrected link to his words on God’s will of salvation and the death of Christ. This is the one Dr. Allen quotes.
I have a serious problem with the syllogisms presented above…
1) If one is saveable by God (P), then one is died for [Q].
2) Judas (or any non-elect person in this world) was not died for [~Q].
3) Therefore, Judas was not saveable by God [~P].
Modus Tollens = Valid Form
Then this is built on the previous syllogism:
1) If one is offerable by God [P], then one is saveable by God [Q].
2) Judas (or any non-elect person in this world) was not saveable by God [~Q]. See the first syllogism.
3) Therefore, Judas was not offerable by God [~P].
Modus Tollens = Valid Form
There is a BIG difference in saying:
2) Judas (or any non-elect person in this world) was not “saveable by God” and saying
2) Judas was “not saved”
instead of being labeled…
1) If one is saveable by God (P), then one is died for [Q].
2) Judas (or any non-elect person in this world) was not died for [~Q].
The syllogism should state…
1) If one is saveable by God (P), then one is died for [Q].
2) Judas (or any non-elect person in this world) was not SAVED [~S].
That would eliminate ALL of the conclusions presented above would it not?
Grateful to be in His Grip!
><>’
I am with you, just for the record, but I think the Calvinist here will seek to qualify the terms in the antecedents. That is, they will probably say, “given that God did not die for Judas, then Judas is not saveable by God, for a necessary condition of salvation is one’s sins being paid for. Since God does not engage in logical contradictions, he cannot bring it about that he both did and did not die for Judas’ sins, and hence there is no problem.”
Of course, some extreme Calvinists may claim God can do even the logically impossible, but this is truly radical. I also think Calvinism has myriad problems and cannot have God giving a well-meant offer, something many Calvinists like to retain. Just thought I would try to help. :)
Hi Randy,
Actually, what some High’s and Hyper-Calvinists are doing is not affirming that all men are saveable (just as the first syllogism demonstrates on their system), but they’re re-defining what an “offer” is (making it a bare conditional statement) in order to say that the non-saveable (or non-died-for) are still truly/sincerely offerable. They’re seeking to deny the first premise of the second syllogism (i.e., 1) If one is offerable by God [P], then one is saveable by God [Q].), so as to keep the semblance of an “offer,” unlike the Gillites who deny them outright. This is where they are more Hoeksemian and Clarkian in their Hyper-Calvinism than Gillite.
Also, Randy, as you talk about “Calvinists,” you might want to clarify who you have in mind, High’s, Hypers? Both? Even Moderates? The High and Hyper-Calvinists both think Christ only satisfied for the elect, so they have the difficulty of sustaining free/well-meant offers. But, if you think that moderate Calvinists also have the same problem, then set forth your case, not with mere assertions, but in a carefully stated logical form/argument. There are piles and piles of mere assertions in the 100+ comments above (both by Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike), but very little primary source documentation and minimal actual argumentation.
If you think (or anyone else thinks) that all varieties of Calvinism cannot consistently sustain a belief in a well-meant Gospel offer given by God through preachers to all men, then write down a carefully stated logical argument, and I will try to show where it is flawed from a moderate Calvinistic standpoint.
But, if you want to fire a potentially defeating torpedo in my direction, just know that I am going to fire back with my own logical arguments, which will need to be answered, lest your own theological submarine sinks ;-) That’s only fair.
Grace to you,
Tony
Hi Tony, I think you misunderstood the point of my post. The point surrounded the conditionals given by Bob (or discussed by Bob) and how a Calvinist may seek to avoid the conclusion (X is not saveable by God); he may embrace the entire argument but clarify what terms mean, he may claim God can do the logically impossible, or he may seek to deny a premise. These are all legitimate possibilities, and it seemed you took the possibility and made it somewhat representative of my position, mistakenly.
One last clarification: I was speaking of extreme Calvinists in my final paragraph of my first reply, just so I am explicitly clear. :)
I do in fact think that Calvinism of all stripes either is actually some kind of Arminianism/Molinism or cannot be consistent in maintaining a well-meant offer, avoiding making God the cause of sin, et al. But these may all be rejected by you prima facie, for within the context of this debate I seek only discussion on extreme Calvinism (hey, it’s the easiest target). I only mentioned it because you brought it up. It is also perfectly acceptable, and fine, to note that I have given no reason for anyone to believe that claim. I may do that another time.
I love my Calvinist brethren of all stripes, but I get really annoyed with the hypers sometimes. It seems you are not one of them. But in all things, I ought to show love to the brethren. :)
Hi Bob,
You’ve changed the premise such that the argument is no longer even valid. Saved and saveable are two different terms (an equivocation), and the terms must remain the same in the argument for it to be valid. It’s one thing to say one is saveable and quite another thing to say one is saved.
As a moderate Calvinist, I would say that, by virtue of what Christ has done on the cross for all mankind, all are now in a *saveable* condition. The legal barriers on God’s side of the equation have been removed. Therefore, they need only believe in Christ through the Gospel offer in order to be saved. Fallen men in this respect, are not like fallen angels, whose condemnation is a legal necessity since they have no satisfaction for their sin, so neither are these angels even “offered” salvation, for that would be an absurdity given no satisfaction.
Since you’re not a Calvinist, I would say the syllogisms, as they are stated above by me, do not apply to you anyway, so don’t worry about it ;-) The most you could do with the arguments is to say, “well, ‘you too’ (Tu quoque), Tony, even as a moderate Calvinist, have the problem, given that you still hold to special election. Given election, how can you (or anyone who believes in unconditional election) say that all men are saveable, and thus genuinely offerable?” That’s not only what non-Calvinists have done (like one opponent of Andrew Fuller), but there are two or three implicit Hyper-Calvinists today in the blogosphere who are employing that Tu quoque rejoinder to the argument on blogs. It’s not new, however. I think I even saw that reply in the High Calvinist Robert Traill (1642-1716) years ago, but I need to find it again to confirm that it was him and not another.
Bob,
You said the other day,
“Revelation and reconciliation precede saving faith that leads to regeneration…”
And I asked where in the bible you get that. I know it’s far above in these comments and is easily lost he way the comments are structured. I’m hoping you can have a response soon.
Blessings.
Les,
Surely you are not asking me to justify the validity of revelation or reconciliation in the salvific process (2 Cor 5) so I must assume you object to the issue of which comes first, faith or regeneration. I have written a TON on that issue and am not inclined to repeat that.
There does not seem to be even the slightest reference to regeneration in the OT causing depraved men to respond to God. God is most often distant with the saints of the OT and even in cases where He is “close” He is still distant. Regeneration is not even possible without the work of the Holy Spirit and it appears to me that repentance always precedes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and not the other way around…. as would seem to me to be required in a regeneration, saving faith, repentance scenario.
I do not believe that God has to do regenerate ANYONE to reveal Himself to them and to reconcile them (who are apart of the world) unto Himself. His sovereignty can take care of that minor problem; at least for me.
That is at least part of the basis for my broad statement.
><>’
You wrote, “You’ve changed the premise such that the argument is no longer even valid.” I think that was my point in and of itself. To me the premise is ill-defined.
You asked the question, “The only question remaining is, are these sound (since they are in fact valid)?” Maybe I missed the meaning of your post. I think I am following the flow from “saveable” to “offerable”. I guess where I am missing something here is the assertion that Judas is “non saveable.” I can see that if this becomes a given, then you have an argument.
My point is I disagree with that premise. I do not really see how me being a non-Calvinist has anything to do with the validity of the argument. If the premise is flawed then how can it be a “sound argument”? I am sure I am missing something here…
><>’
As you may know, Bob, there’s a distinction between “validity” and “soundness.” “Validity” has to do with the form of the argument, and the above is a modus tollens (P>Q. ~Q, therefore ~P). The form of my argument is correct, therefore, “I have an argument.” However, “soundness” is a different category, and it concerns whether or not both premises are true, because, if they are, the conclusion must of necessity follow, given the correct form.
The premises (as I stated them) were fine, not “ill-defined.” “Saveable by God” means “capable of being saved by God.” Is it or is it not the case that God can save the non-elect in this world given the nature of Christ’s death? That’s focusing the nature of salvability. No one here is talking about whether the non-elect are “saved.” That’s your own changed term and introduction of an equivocation, not mine. As stated, there is nothing wrong with the form or terms in my argument. It is in fact valid.
I didn’t say you’re being a non-Calvinist impacts the validity of the argument. I said the argument is not applicable to you since you’re not a Calvinist. In other words, the conclusion poses no danger for your own theological system. The argument only supposes that there is a danger for the High and Hyper-Calvinist systems that presuppose the substitution of Christ was limited to the elect alone.
As a non-Calvinist, the argument doesn’t really concern you, unless you just want to analyze it in terms of its validity before it is fired like a torpedo against your opposition. If you think a premise, as I stated it, is flawed, then show me how:
1) If one is saveable by God (P), then one is died for [Q].
2) Judas (or any non-elect person in this world) was not died for [~Q].
3) Therefore, Judas was not saveable by God [~P].
Modus Tollens = Valid Form
Then this is built on the previous syllogism:
1) If one is offerable by God [P], then one is saveable by God [Q].
2) Judas (or any non-elect person in this world) was not saveable by God [~Q]. See the first syllogism.
3) Therefore, Judas was not offerable by God [~P].
Modus Tollens = Valid Form
You seem to be struggling with the first premise of the first syllogism: 1) If one is saveable by God (P), then one is died for [Q].
All that is saying is that a sinner in this world is only saveable (capable of being saved) by God if and only if Christ has died for that person. If you like biblical language, then apart from the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sins. In other words, the death of Christ was an absolute necessity in order for God to propose terms of pardon and forgiveness of sins to us.
That’s not the same as saying “if one is saved, then one is died for.” That’s obvious, and no one denies that, not even the Hyper-Calvinists. As I said above, saved and saveable are not the same ideas, so one should not switch them in the syllogism, otherwise is becomes invalid (and unsound), due to equivocation.
My objection was not with the 1st statement, P or Q. My objection was with the premise, 2) Judas (or any non-elect person in this world) was not died for [~Q].
I agree that given that as a condition, the conclusion is valid and even sound. My objection was with the validity of that statement itself. If the premise is flawed, the conclusions will be flawed. That was the point of my original objection… where you said that Judas was “not saveable.” I do not see that statement as valid. He was not “saved” but I contend the fact that he was not saved did not mean that he was “not saveable.”
><>’
Bob,
Yes I’m asking about which comes first in your view. You wrote,
“Regeneration is not even possible without the work of the Holy Spirit and it appears to me that repentance always precedes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and not the other way around….”
I agree with the first part of that statement. It’s the second part I’m looking for what scriptures you use. What scriptures do you think support the idea that repentance precedes faith. If you’ve posted about that, then a link will suffice. I went to your site and couldn’t see a topical listing of posts. May be an issue with my browser.
Blessings.
Here are a few:
Here repentance follows the preaching of the Word of God and His work of reconciliation is what “cut their hearts and Peter tells them to repent and THEN you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”
38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:36-39)
Once again Peter tells the crowd again to “repent and be converted that your sins be blotted out.” The refreshing times to come from the presence of the Lord is to me a direct reference to the coming of the Holy Spirit into their lives.
17 “Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers. 18 But those things which God foretold by the mouth of all His prophets, that the Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. 19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before. (Acts 3:17-21)
Peter tells the crowd that they are His witnesses and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who believe. Belief preceded the giving of the Holy Spirit.
29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. 31 Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.” (Acts 5:29-32)
Notice Paul’s question to the gentile Christians at Corinth. “Did you receive the Holy Spirit WHEN you believed?”
And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples 2 he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?” So they said, “Into John’s baptism.”
4 Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 Now the men were about twelve in all. (Acts 19:1-7)
Notice what caused the believers to trust Christ: the hearing of the Word of truth, the gospel of your salvation and “having believed, they were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of their inheritance.”
11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.
13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory. (Ephesians 1:11-14)
Notice what Paul says about the promise of the Spirit. We receive the promise of the Spirit how? Through faith! Faith is that which brings the Spirit and not the other way around.
13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Galatians 3:13-14)
><>’
I think that if God were only going to give the efficacious call to a few elect, He would simply empower (or enlighten) His saints to offer the gospel only to those whom He knew would be saved (so He is not accused of making disengenuous offers). But then, the Bible quotes God as repeatedly offering salvation to an embarrassingly broad “whosoever will” . . . so maybe, as Jesus said, “I have sheep you know not of.” Or, to draw another analogy, the people of Israel believed themselves to be the only elect nation, but God chose to invite others to the party . . . even those sinful Gentiles. On what basis? Because the Gentiles came the same way Abraham and all the believing Jews did . . . by faith!
Hey Steve,
Very good point.
What about this statement, “I think that if God were only going to give the efficacious call to a few elect, He would simply” make the Jews the “elect” and those that He determined to be the elect, He would cause them to be born Jews and that would settle everything.
><>’
Bob,
With all due respect, I think you are completely misinterpreting those verses to “find” faith and repentance preceding the quickening of the Holy Spirit (regeneration). But thank you for responding.
Blessings.
Les
Les,
Thanks. Do not misunderstand me. I do believe the Bible is clear that the Holy Spirit convicts a lost person and leads one to saving faith; I do not believe the Holy Spirit regenerates the lost person, which is a process whereby saving faith is an irresistible part of the process.
><>’
I thought I would leave a comment notifying others reading here that this will be my last comment. It’s time consuming here :-) Anyway, thanks for the interaction. All the sources on my blog pertaining to Hyper-Calvinism is labeled and can be read here.
On a final note, I don’t think Hyper-Calvinism is presently much of a threat in Southern Baptist circles, but it can be, if the High Calvinist gatekeepers in the SBC keep turning a blind eye to the subject of God’s universal salvific will. One will not see Hyper-Calvinists coming in Southern Baptist churches, saying “I don’t think we should preach to all men!,” or “I don’t believe in evangelism!” They will also not be the type (Gillites) who will say, “I don’t think everyone who hears the gospel is responsible to evangelically believe it!” I also doubt that they will say, “I don’t believe that the gospel is an offer, particularly a free offer!” It will be much more subtle than that.
The thing to watch are those adhering to “sovereign grace” or the “TULIP” (they may or may not call themselves “Calvinists”) who are either openly denying God’s desire for the salvation in the revealed will, or showing problems with it, so as to waver on it, as if it is not important or a secondary matter. These are undermining the crucial basis for the free offer of the gospel. As Iain Murray said (in Banner of Truth 507 [December 2005], 22.), “We do not think that Scripture allows us to make the question of God’s desire secondary.” And again, in his critical interaction with David Engelsma, Murray wrote: “The critical issure here, of course, is not the mere use of the term ‘offer’, but whether the offer of the gospel is an expression of God’s desire that it should be received by sinners.” (Banner of Truth 307 [December, 1995], 24-25.) Iain Murray, to the same effect in his book Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism (p.90), cites John Murray as saying, “the real point in dispute in connection with the free offer of the gospel is whether it can properly be said that God desires the salvation of all men.” Appealing to Spurgeon, Iain Murray said, “Spurgeon regarded the denial of God’s desire for the salvation of all men as no mere theoretical mistake. For it converged with one of the greatest obstacles to faith on the part of the unconverted, that is to say, a wrong view of the character of God.” This is why Murray sums up the intention of his book by saying, “The book is intended to show the momentous difference between evangelistic Calvinistic belief and that form of Calvinism which denies any desire on the part of God for the salvation of all men.” (Banner of Truth 386 [November 1995], 16.) As I said above to Micah, that’s the very heart of the Hyper-Calvinist beast, and every single one of them shares that in common, i.e. a denial that God in the revealed will desires the salvation of all men. Watch out for those who are systematically undercutting the biblical basis for the doctrine of God’s universal salvific will, particularly Ezekiel 18 & 33 and Matt. 23:37. Those are usually the last to go after 1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Pet. 2:9 and similar passages have been otherwise interpreted to concern the elect alone.
The issue of God’s love for mankind is the flip side of the same coin. As Iain Murray asked in his review of David Silversides book on The Free Offer, “But can the divine love…be without desire for the highest good of those loved?” (Banner of Truth 507 [December 2005], 22) God’s general love for the non-elect must include His desire for the highest good of them, namely their eternal salvation. The denial of God’s love for the non-elect usually goes hand in hand with the denial of God’s desire for their eternal well-being, but there are some who would say God loves all men (in a temporal sense) but does not desire the eternal salvation of the non-elect. These are those like John Gill in this respect, but be aware of them as well.
If Hyper-Calvinism comes in to Southern Baptist circles, these are the doors through which they will come, in a creeping and subtle manner, not in outright denials of the obvious (i.e. that we need to preach to all and evangelize all, etc.). The modern Calvinistic movement is not paying much attention to God’s revealed will. First, they are learning from Calvinistic scholars/leaders who have mostly a singularly decretal emphasis and focus. Second, the young guys are reactionary and mostly unstudied in the primary Calvinistic sources of the past. They are mere dabblers or dilettantes, so they are more likely to have this massive blind spot. Also, since they tend to be more active on the Internet, they’re more likely to be exposed to Hyper-Calvinist writings where the well-meant offer and God’s general love are denied. Last, the leaders are either not paying attention to these tendencies or they’re not willing to take a strong stand against them. sometimes for political reasons, which overrides pastoral faithfulness.
High Calvinism is the norm among Calvinists today; and, since they are not speaking in a qualified manner that clearly distinguishes their own position from Hyper-Calvinism, it is difficult for non-Calvinists in the SBC to see the difference, so they think the threat is bigger than it actually is. The real danger is for both sides (High Calvinists vs. varieties of non-Calvinists) to harden one another in to more extreme positions as they interact and react. It’s easy for people who have been mentally bruised in a heated exchange with someone acting in an ungodly manner to so harden and overreact that they swing in to extremes. Each side tends to get viewed as enemies (a white hat/black hat, or us vs. them mentality), rather than people, even fellow Christians, who are to be loved and served. Sectarianism and a party spirit increases, in place of a spirit of impartiality, gentleness and charity. Politics then begins to trump pastoral faithfulness, so the “white hats” circle the wagons around other “white hats,” even if that person has (or those people have) significant theological and/or behavioral problems.
Anyway, that’s it for me here, I think :-) Thanks for the interaction (everyone) and thanks for generously including my thoughts in your main post, Ron.
Grace to you,
Tony
Thanks for your input here. I will look forward to spending some time on your blog. I personally appreciate your spirit and wealth of knowledge.
><>’
Tony,
Thanks Brother for your time, patience, and sharing in these posts and especially for this very profound and prophetic “last post”!
Bob, I appreciate you asking tough questions, sharing your convictions, sharing the Word and for helping push this thread to break the record for the most posts on SBC Today.
My classmate from U.U. days … Dr. Leo Percer and now prof at Liberty University/Seminary posted the article on his Face Book for his students and they had a long thread going. Actually …. I think all his students should get extra credit for reading all the posts (if they did).
Blessings!
High Calvinism is the norm among Calvinists today; and, since they are not speaking in a qualified manner that clearly distinguishes their own position from Hyper-Calvinism, it is difficult for non-Calvinists in the SBC to see the difference, so they think the threat is bigger than it actually is.
This is very easily asserted, but I imagine it is not so easily supported.
To solely blame “High Calvinists” for the failure of non-Calvinists to understand what Calvinism teaches is not a fair assessment. There is a responsibility on both sides to understand what each other believe. When non-Calvinists refuse to allow basic principles of logic, i.e. category distinctions, it is not the fault of the Calvinist speaking in an “unqualified manner.” I have rarely seen Calvinists speaking in an “unqualified” and confusing manner.
Also, when non-Calvinists like VolFan007 (Pastor David Worley) respond to Calvinists with comments like, “Wow, you really know some big words. Good for you. ,” this is type of behavior does great damage to the discussion between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC.
For the most part, Joshua, I agree with you. I shouldn’t “solely blame” the High Calvinists for the prevalent misunderstandings. As you say, there is responsibility on both sides. Very true indeed, sadly.
However, I take issue with what you’ve said here:
“I have rarely seen Calvinists speaking in an “unqualified” and confusing manner.”
All I can say is that I see it frequently (not “rarely”). I even hear it frequently in the leading teachers on the radio. Since I don’t think contemporary Calvinists are spending much time diligently investigating the history and theology of Hyper-Calvinism, their words are *not* filtered through an anti-Hyper grid, so to speak, which would bring about careful qualifications. They’re not qualifying themselves on the issue of the will of God (or even showing any zeal about the revealed aspect of God’s will), or divine permission (i.e. different senses of “decree” or “ordination”), human inability (“moral” vs. “natural”), among other things. And, in my perspective, they are flat out incompetent and irresponsible (even the leaders and authors) when it comes to understanding the history of the atonement views within the Calvinistic/Reformed tradition, so they are *incredibly* unqualified, even using sloppy terminology, on that *very* important subject.
As I read young Calvinists in the blogosphere in the popular posts on Calvinism, I see a vast amount of ignorance and imprecision among them. I suspect Phil Johnson sees the same thing, which is *one* reason why one of his first posts on Pyro was “Quick and Dirty Calvinism.” As Phil said, “Sniff around some of the Calvinist forums on the Internet and it won’t be long before you begin to think something is rotten in Geneva.” He says that “my advice to young Calvinists is to learn your theology from the historic mainstream Calvinist authors, not from blogs and discussion forums on the Internet.”
As I dialog with some of these young Calvinists, and/or read their words, it seems obvious to me that they are not heeding Phil’s advice here. We’ll have to agree to disagree on the frequency of this, I guess; but I do thank you for your previous caution to me, as I did not carefully qualify myself about shared responsibility. I was uneven in my criticism ;-)
Grace to you,
Tony
OK, now maybe that is it for me, so leave me alone, even if you have valid criticisms of something I said! Just teasing! :))
Adios,
Tony
“Every time I want out, they pull me back in!” ~ Pacino as The Godfather
:-)
Joshua,
I’ve had BBQ and fellowship with Pastor David and he has forgotten more “big words” than I’ll ever know. We talked a lot about the precious Word of God.
Some of us have been reading and writing on blogs for a number of years and the arguments and accusations get old and stale, it really comes down to what Paul told Timothy …… “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:17).
Blessings!
Bob, on 9/13 at 3:30pm you said,
“There does not seem to be even the slightest reference to regeneration in the OT causing depraved men to respond to God. God is most often distant with the saints of the OT and even in cases where He is “close” He is still distant.”
I agree that what we know about the Spirit’s work in the OT is surely less revealed than in the NT. I beg to differ with you, though, if you are saying that salvation takes place NT forward any differently than in the OT. I believe the bible teaches that people have always been saved the same way pre and post Jesus.
Just today I saw someone reference Baptist John Piper’s sermon thusly:
Notice what he says in particular about Jesus and Nicodemus. Would you agree or disagree with Piper?
Thanks,
les
Good Morning Les,
We are on the same page where salvation is concerned: that salvation takes place in the NT and in the OT. I believe the bible teaches that people have always been saved the same way pre and post Jesus.
As for Piper’s comments with respect to Nicodemus, I make a similar argument and reference Jesus’ statement to him. I think Piper’s statement, “I’m not teaching or requiring anything new. Any Israelite who has ever been saved had to be born again by God’s Spirit.” is certainly an accurate application of Jesus’ intent.
The statement has nothing to do with the issue of regeneration preceding conversion. The OT seems to me to be clearly synergistic… the term covenant itself implies a synergistic look. The sacrificial system is synergistic from start to finish. Both are based on God’s promises and man’s act of faith expressed in his obedience. The Passover is a perfect example. Moses himself could have been so busy warning everyone to make sure they did what they were supposed to do… after all there were a million or more folks… and they did not have televisions and telephones to communicate… had he been so busy trying to get everyone else prepared that he failed to do what God instructed EVERYONE to do… the death angel would have entered his house.
Looking at the serpent on the pole was another perfect example of salvation… the bronze serpent was raised up and EVERYONE who looked at the serpent lived; those who did not died. It was a simple provision but obedience was the key. Same with Rahab… everyone who was in her home was spared destruction.
Neither Numbers 14 or 27 indicates the timing of regeneration. Obviously we are in complete agreement on the importance of regeneration just not the timing of it.
There is another concept that is central in the OT and that is the concept of the Promised Son that begins in Genesis, is central in Abraham and even David among others… and it is clear that it is God’s promise of this Son that elicits a response from His people; especially Abraham. It is the promise of a son that causes Abram to go with God in the first place. But it is no accident that Abram is chosen by God because he is in the linage of Noah and Enoch… so he has been brought up with an understanding of who the God of creation is.
The contention that we began with concerning the same salvation in the OT and NT is the basis for my argument that regeneration does not precede saving faith because obedience to the edicts of God are the primary theme in the OT and the same continues into the New. Man’s response to God’s provisions are what determine the position of the OT saint and I maintain that to be true in the New as well. There is no determined picture of depravity, regeneration and irresistible grace in the OT… none whatsoever, that I can see.
as an example, I see no reference or relevance in the sacrificial system to regeneration being required before anyone brought a sacrifice to the tabernacle or temple: sacrifice was commanded to the nation but effective only for those who brought their sacrifice. The provisions were there for all; they were effective for those who came.
><>’
Sorry, the link is http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/how-believers-experienced-the-spirit-before-pentecost