Defination of Hyper-calvinism by Elder Stanley Philips

Gebruikersavatar
mayflower
Berichten: 1219
Lid geworden op: 23 Sep 2004, 08:19

Defination of Hyper-calvinism by Elder Stanley Philips

Berichtdoor mayflower » 14 Jul 2008, 23:21

Hyper-calvinism:

"A system of belief which embraces Calvinism, and extends the Reformation further toward New Testament Christianity than the Sixteenth Century reforms were able to achieve; especially in church governance and Gospel ordinances. The unique distinction between Hyper-­calvinism and Calvinism is that the Hyper-calvinists believe that Christ saved (past tense) all His elect by His sacrificial atonement; that the Holy Spirit gives spiritual life, by the implantation of the “incorruptible seed,” the living word of God, without human instrumentality; and that the gospel is a publication of glad tidings, rather than an invitation to all men, both elect and reprobates, to "accept Christ as their Savior"; and that the application of this salvation is by the Holy Spirit exclusively, when He brings "life and immortality" to them, and brings "it to light by the Gospel," and that this Gospel is to be preached by God-­called and qualified ministers to whomsoever God is pleased to send them." Hyper-calvinism is basically the "Calvinism" of the historic Particular Baptists' faith prior to the rise of Andrew Fullers' "Neo-Calvinism" (Hypo­-calvinism) revision in 1782.

In the Southern States of the United States , Hyper­-calvinism is more frequently termed "hardshellism.” "Hardshellism" is a term derived from the Nineteenth Century Particular Baptists' debates, when Hyper-­calvinists insisted that "He shall save His people from their sins," ''They shall hear His voice," ''They shall follow Him," and ''They shall all be taught of the Lord," etc. The Fullerites called these "those hard shalls." Eventually, Noah Webster included the phrase "hard shall" in the dictionary as "Hardshell". If one looked this word up in the dictionary, he would be rather surprised!

Among the rank and file of the citizenry, "hyper­calvinism" is seldom used. The term "hardshell" embraces anyone holding to Holy Spirit regeneration, rather than Gospel, decisional, or baptismal regeneration. It is applied to any of the numerous Old School Baptists and Presbyterian groups which hold to the Sovereignty of God. In fact, some Missionary Baptists are classified as "Hardshells, " for rejecting Gospel regeneration.

Neo-Calvinism: "Another name for "Hypo­calvinism". “A religious system closely related to Calvinism, with strong tenets of Arminianism and Pelagianism intermixed.” They are revisionist Calvinists, following elements of the teachings of Andrew Fuller, a Particular Baptist minister in England , who in 1782 began to advocate that Christ's atonement was general and redemption was particular. That is, that Christ's atonement was sufficient for the salvation of all mankind; but efficient for the elect only; that Christ's atonement did not save anyone, but merely put all mankind, both elect and reprobates, in a savable state where the influences of the Gospel could reach them. The introduction of Fullerism among Baptists produced a separation in that people between the Hyper-calvinists of the "Old School" of divinity, and the Neo-Calvinists of the "New School" divinity, between 1813 and 1845*. The " New School " called their "free offer system" "Missionary, " or "Evangelical. " The position of this work is that it is neither missionary, nor "evangelical. " (*See The Great Baptists' Separation, 1832 to ­1844, by The Predestinarian, 1159 County Road 420, Quitman, MS 39355.)

Arminianism: "An opposing system of religion to Calvinism, developed in 1608 by James Jacobus Arminus, a Dutch theologian in the Reform Church . Arminus modified the "Five Points of Calvinism" in such a way as to deny them, and made the atonement of Christ general for all mankind, and taught that the elect could fall from grace and finally be lost." Today, there are few, if any, Arminians left. The whole crew has down-graded to a paganistic form of Pelagianism (Freewillism)

Freewillism: “ Any number of religions that deify the will of man, advocating that the human will is freely motivating, and the determinate cause of salvation.”

Pelagianism: "A system of religion promoted by the Third Century Catholic heretic, Pelagius, which denied original sin, the total depravity of man, unconditional election and predestination, and based salvation on the 'freewill' of man. (Sound familiar?) It is the commonly accepted religious faith of all antichristian denominations in Western society. Basically, it is the corner-stone of the Antichrist. Modern Pelagianism developed directly out of Andrew Fuller's Neo-calvinism. Pelagianism is another name for Freewillism; or 'natural religion' based upon a mental decision for salvation in the absence of an effectual call by the Spirit and the already finished salvation by the shed blood of Christ. It is best described as a "system of easy-decisionism. "

Without apology, this is a Hyper-calvinistic presentation. The author can find no just reason to be ashamed of the peculiar distinction of New Testament Christianity, merely because the carnal mind cannot receive it. It is the original faith of the Particular, or Old School Baptists in the United States . The term "Hyper-calvinism, " is given various definitions, but the prefix "hyper," means "going beyond," "extreme," or "above." This is exactly what those ridiculed as "Hyper-calvinists" must do to be consistent with the New Testament faith. John Calvin was a highly useful and gifted servant of God,

and it is noteworthy that he pressed the Reformation closer to New Testament Christianity than did Martin Luther. They, with other faithful men, were predestinarians to the man, and their reformation almost destroyed the tyrannical power of superstitious Rome , and freed the minds and spirits of men in Western Europe . It is not to disparage the usefulness or truthfulness of John Calvin, nor of Calvinism that this work is offered to the public; but to inform interested people that there is a Biblical position which extends the Reformation “beyond," or "above," that of John Calvin in the Sixteenth Century. Calvin never set himself up to be the Vicar of Christ, or Protestant Pope; nor did his own followers esteem him as such. Most had enough of popery! He was a faithful minister of the Gospel of Christ, insofar as he had light, and his ministration helped to produce a reform. Hyper-calvinists are those who have continued basically upon those cardinal Christian principles advocated by Calvin, yet, being small in number, were able to press the reforms closer to the New Testament model than the larger bodies of "Christians. "

Hyper-calvinists, as a people, have willingly been outside the mainstream of Protestant Christianity since the rise of the Arminian "evangelical movement" of the Nineteenth Century. The evangelical movement’s emphasis on humanism, scholasticism, theological evolution, and the social gospel marked it as a philosophical Liberalism repugnant to Hyper-calvinists, who by regenerating grace are rather reactionary, being bound by a "Thus saith the Lord" for all they believe and practice in religious devotion. Not only are the Hyper-calvinists' reforms ''beyond'' Calvinism in church governance and Gospel ordinances, but also in its historical development. Among Baptists, the Fullerites' movement coincided with world movements and trends, whereas the Hyper-calvinists institutions remain more static. To notice but few of these trends:

During the Colonial Period, the various colonies were each independent of each other, each answering to the Crown; yet, they were interdependent in trade and commerce. So, too, during this period, the churches were independent of each other, yet interdependent with each other, and answerable to their King, the Lord Jesus.

With the formation of a weak national Confederation government, where the States no longer answered to the Crown, but were loosely joined to each other; so, too, the churches began freeing themselves from the authority of God over them, modifying their doctrines and practices, and forming themselves into loose "corresponding orders" or "fellowships" .

With the formation of the strong "Federal" union, nationally, the Fullerite "Evangelicals" began to form State and National Conventions- that is, Federal religious organizations.

Following the War of Southern Independence, the National government moved into a period of Imperialism, and the Fullerites developed a World Baptists Alliance.

Simultaneous with the rise of socialist societies, beginning just prior to 1800, and reaching their international union in 1918; the Fullerite "Evangelical" among Baptists (also formed on May 14, 1814) became "Ultra-­Liberal" and also tyrannical. As the world follows trends, so do the "evangelicals. " They are, as a people, "toss to and fro by every wind of doctrine" and novelty. The second article of their Articles of Faith is the same as the Hyper-­calvinists. "We believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Word of God and the “only rule of faith and practice.” Obviously, they no longer are bound by the Word of God for either faith or practice.

On the other hand, Hyper-calvinists' church structure is still as simple as it was in the Colonial period. They have no modern extra-scriptural auxiliaries, programs, or financial institutions. Their primary and exclusive emphasis is on the "foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." It is their experience that the "preaching of the Gospel" edifies the inner spiritual man, (new man, or new creature) and is instrumental in cleansing one's conscience from daily defilement in his walk and conversation. The central focus of their devotion is the sermon; through which the minister teaches, admonishes, and rebukes with all long­suffering and gentleness when either of these are called for with their congregations.

In presenting this work, a comparison of the two major religions of mankind will be given first. Following, a presentation of Calvinism, Neo and Hyper-calvinism will compare and contrast their positions; to whom the Gospel is to be preached; duty-faith-unto- salvation; soul-winning; antinomianism; Spurgeonism (a term coined by Ian Murray) ; and the full and complete redemption of God's people by the sacrifice of Christ. The uniqueness of Hyper-calvinists will end the discussion in Chapter Ten and the conclusion.

May it please God that some quickened and sensible sinner finds joy and peace with the contemplation that salvation is finished, and by our glorious Savior Jesus Christ.

The founder of the Modern Missionary Movement among Baptists, Mr. Andrew Fuller, wrote the following to a close friend boasting of the change among the Baptists that he had introduced: "When I first published my treatise on the nature of faith, and the duty of all men who hear the gospel to believe it, the Christian profession had sunk into contempt amongst us; inasmuch that had matters gone on but a few years longer, the Baptists would have become a perfect dunghill in society." It is well to ask, after a century of his new development, whether he transformed, reformed, or deformed them, hastening their degeneracy? Surely, no Free Grace believer can believe that the large Baptists' denominations today are as morally upright and doctrinally sound as they were prior to dragging unregenerate members into their congregations. The most practical outcome of Fuller/Spurgeon' s "free offer decisionism" system has been a moral catastrophe to both religion, morals, and society!

The time period in which Fuller wrote was that of the giants among Baptists and Independents. These were the days of such men as John Gill, John Brine, Abraham Booth, Tobias Crisp, and the unsurpassed Methodist, William Huntington! Dr. Booth ably answered Fuller's charge, and so did William Rushton. Mr. Rushton's reply was very appropriate: "Strong and pointed language indeed!" he said of the above quote. "Yet it must really be confessed that this was in a great measure the case. The truth is, that the principles maintained at that time by the Baptists, were such as to render them odious to the public. They never could maintain those principles inviolably, and at the same time be generally esteemed a respectable body by professing Christians. They were distinctly forewarned by the Lord Himself, that they should be hated of all men for His sake; that if they kept His words the world would hate them, even as it hated Him. If the doctrine He taught caused the Master of the house to be despised and rejected of men: if, for the same cause, the apostles were esteemed as the filth of the world, "the offscouring of all things," ­what right had these Baptists to complain, if, while holding in their measure the same truth, their professions become contemptible, and their churches considered a perfect dunghill in society? Complain! No, it was the highest honor they were capable of in this life. If to them it was given on the behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake, they ought to have rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name. And I doubt not many of them did. Dr. Gill, when declaring his determination to go on preaching a free and finished salvation in the face of all opposition, adds, "I am not afraid of the reproaches of men; I have been inured [to make used to something undesirable, esp. by prolonged subjection.] to these things from my youth upward, but none of these things move me."

As the above can be said of Hyper-calvinists in Gill's day, so it can yet be said of them in this day. The motives for the Fullerites' attack then remain to this day. Ishmael, the son of the bondwoman persecuted Isaac, the son of the free woman. Natural religionists still despise the spiritual religion of Jesus. It was the Fullerite revisionists - the Neo-calvinists - who attempted to stigmatize those who then preached a full free and accomplished salvation as "Hyper-calvinists, " claiming that they themselves were the "true Calvinists." Today, in the current ''battle for Gospel preaching," it is yet the Fullerite Neo-calvinists who hurl the euphemism "hyper-calvinism" at the doctrinally sound Baptists! In fact, they charge everyone who disagrees with their own specific views as "Hyper-calvinists" – even those who are not! But Calvin, to this writer's research, never held that Christ died equally for the reprobates as for the elect! Nor that the eternal God "wanted to save all men"! He certainly did not hold to “the universal love of God for all mankind,” Let alone that God merely put all mankind in a savable state where the Gospel could reach them all! Can anyone who has read any of Calvin's works conclude he had so lost his mind? Calvin was a great thinker, and knowledgeable of the Scriptures, and being thus, he would have been mystified by such a theory of mutual contradictions! His mind was too great to stoop to the simplistic irrational arguments of today’s Neo-calvinists – arguments so simplistic they appear downright silly, or imbecilic. The truth is, the Particular, or Old School Baptists prior to Andrew Fuller's novel mission (evangelical, so-called) system were what Neo-calvinists now called "Hyper-calvinists. " And they have, without a break in continuity, remained so to this day!

Again, it was the Fullerite, or Neo-calvinist faction among Baptists, who changed their denominational name to "Missionary, " and/ or "Evangelical" , and introduced the then unheard of innovations to make their new-found "free offer system" operative. Thus, by modifying their doctrine to accommodate the "world of the ungodly that perish,” they also had to modify their practices to fit the novel system. In short, apostatizing the "faith once delivered to the saints," necessitated abandoning the New Testament order of the Gospel. They quickly inaugurated a steady stream of very creative gimmicks to "save souls" that Christ had not saved; build personality cults around persons with high-­sounding titles; collect money, money, and more money, ­as one serious appeal: "Would you give a bowl of rice to save a soul?" Then, instead of asking you to send a package of rice, they asked that you send money for them to buy the package of rice! (The Baptists Board of Foreign and Domestic Missions had to quietly place Luther Rice in a position where he could not get his sticky fingers in the till! It was too embarrassing to their noble cause!) And, they built larger and larger organizations, and sub-divisions thereof, under their centralized control. Such were the first organizational principles of Rome . It worked for them! Why not for the "evangelicals" , or Missionaries?

These Nineteenth Century Neo-calvinists rapidly became Arminians; and just as quickly these Arminians became Freewillers. From about 1800 to 1850, they were Neo-Calvinist revisionists. Between 1850 and 1880, they were more Arminian than Neo-Calvinists. Between 1880'S and 1900 they were full-fledged Pelagians (believers in salvation by the freewill of dead sinners). To be unkind, but truthful, they really ceased being "Christians" at all. They are a relatively modern religion today. Look at their brief development:

The first Arminian sermon preached among the Baptists in the South was preached by Reuban Ross, in 1820, at Port Royal , Tennessee . A committee of ministers was sent to talk to him, and he converted them to freewillism! In his Autobiography, he said he wanted to purchase John Gill's Body Of Divinity, but that it cost too much. So, instead, he purchased Andrew Fuller's “Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation.” He bought the book of lesser value and procured a religion of no value for quickened sinners! (See Chapter Ten).

Reuban Ross had migrated West from the Kehukee Baptists Association in North Carolina . His father was a minister in that body. Reuban converted his father to Arminianism, and Martin Ross introduced Arminianism into that body just at the time the Fullerites were attempting to introduced their mission auxiliaries. The two novelties, introduced together, alerted those faithful brethren that Arminianism was at the root of Fuller's Neo-­Calvinism. In 1825, the two movements were introduced, and in 1826-1827, the Kehukee Association withdrew all fellowship and communion from the Neo-Calvinists, following the example set by Baptists in Illinois and other places. This action alerted American Baptists everywhere that a flood of heresies was sweeping the continent, producing a frenzy of excitement all over the frontier. [There were frequent schemes of men, women, children, foaming at the mouth, barking up trees as dogs, rolling on the ground in fits, and every known heresy of religion being articulated. ] Between 1832 and 1845, the Great Baptists' Separation took place. The Hyper-calvinists rid themselves of the leaven; and the Neo-calvinists were cut loose to drift into the dismal abyss of Pelagianism. Today, Freewillism, or salvation by magical incantations of half-quoted passages of Scriptures, is the basis of their "easy-decisionism. "

Now the Battle for Gospel preaching, to use Mr.

Murray's term, was begun in earnest. The Neo-calvinists quickly learned that the ignorant masses did not take well to sound doctrine, so they toned the doctrines down to make them acceptable enough to the carnal, or natural mind. “Means and measures became the conditions of acceptance with God, and all were exhorted to go to work for the Lord, using these “means and measures” to save lost and dying souls. But it was never enough! The process continued to this day, and the Scripture was fulfilled: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." (II Tim. 4:3,4.) They wanted very much to "win the world to Christ." . . and they did it too! But this world was a world born freewill, and as they were, so they remained, "freewill." That is, in an unconverted religious state.

The New School developed psychological methods which were proven to be successful on natural men in their unconverted natural state; and they filled their societies with what they term - "carnal Christians." Can one imagine anyone begging a child of God to "Let Jesus be your Lord, now that you have let Him come into your heart"! Yet these ministers feel it necessary to so address those they have coerced into their assemblies. Think about it - why?

By the secular movement known as the "Progressive Era," humanism and altruism had gained the foothold in former Neo-calvinists circles, and what Charles Spurgeon referred to as "the Down-Grade" (reference to railroad beds down very steep mountain sloops whereby run-a-way trains were sometimes affected,) produced a run-a-way theology among New School Baptists! The Old School Baptists continued to preach the gospel of the free grace of God and a finished salvation, and left the New School still drifting. “Leave them alone,” they said, as Jesus did, “they be blind leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind they both shall fall into the ditch."

The former Neo-calvinists, now Pelagian freewillers,

"preached another gospel," or one Paul called a "perverted gospel." Among them the truth of free grace was now altogether gone: no longer to be heard in the vast number of so-called "Evangelical" societies. Here and there a few Calvinists would rise up and preach the Gospel, but it was never popular, and they were ridiculed. Often, they were driven out of their denominations and entered the ranks of the Hyper-calvinist churches. This was particularly true during the period ending the "Down-Grade" issue in the 1880'S. Many Hyper-calvinists' churches date from 1885 to ­1905, as large numbers of Free Grace believers left the Missionary groups, and opened fellowship with the Old School groups. The largest number of "free grace" churches among Baptists have always been the Hyper-­calvinist churches. Not only so, but they have never drifted into Arminianism or Pelagianism, and then back to Calvinism. They remained steadfastly what they were! This cannot be said of Neo-Calvinists' churches. They come and go, as waves dashing upon the shores of time. Today they are here, and tomorrow they are gone.

The above historical sketch reveals two very distinct religions. In fact, they represent the only two types of religions known to the race of Man. The rest of this chapter is devoted to an examination of natural religion, which saves none of its devotees; and revealed religion, which concerns all the saved children of God. To the reader, this presentation should be carefully reflected on and examined.

First, before the creation of the earth, or the formation of the first man, the Eternal Godhead, in counsel with itself, scanned their own eternal Mind, or Decree, and selected one person from the whole race of man to be formed, and joined that single man, the seed of Abraham, of the family of David, and the son of Mary, and united him in a hypostatical union with the Godhead - the God- Man, the Person of the Christ in the Godhead, and simultaneously elected all His seed, in seed-substance to be His body and bride, that He might be the Head of His body, the Church. By this eternal and vital union, the Father in the Godhead became the "Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," and the Son in the Godhead became the "only begotten of God," while at the same time, they are Co-Eternal and Co-­Equal; that is: One. The Father "chose us in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the world." Christ is very God, and very Man: the God-Man, that He might lay down His life for His seed, and raise it up again. "Behold My Servant, whom I uphold; Mine Elect, in whom My soul delighteth; I have put My Spirit upon Him: He shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles ... I the Lord have called Thee in righteousness, and will hold Thine hand, and will keep Thee, and give Thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles." (Isa. 42:1,6). And, "My substance was not hid from Thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see My substance, yet being unperfect; and in Thy book all My members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. "(Psa. 139:15,16) And, again, "According as He hath chosen us IN HIM before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love. " (Eph. 1:4) Once and again, these elect, or chosen ones, are referred to as "His seed", for they were chosen IN HIM, and the Life they receive in regeneration is "eternal Life, for it was in Him before their creation in Adam's seed. “When Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand." (Isa. 53:10,11. See also lsa.1:4;14:20; Isa. 6:13; 45:25; 54:3; 61:9; Rom.4:16; 9:8; Gal. 3:16; I Pet. 1:23; I John 3:9)

Those that were not chosen in Christ in the morn of eternity are also referred to a seed. They are the "seed of evil doers." (Isa.1:4; 14:20). "Jesus said of them: "Ye are of your father the devil and the deeds of your father ye will do." This is not to say that they are non-religious. Man by nature is religious. He was formed that way. But religion and salvation are entirely two different things. There is vastly more religion than there is salvation!

The two religions can be characterized in this way by contrast: One is natural and the other spiritual. One is of free grace, while the other is free will. One is simple, and the other very elaborate and ritualistic. One is true, and the other a delusion. One is by revelation by the Spirit, and the other is by education and indoctrination. One is of God, and the other is "doctrines of devils." One is from heaven, and the other is of the earth. One embraces an elect and chosen people redeemed by the blood of Christ, and the other embraces the reprobate seed of the wicked. One is by grace only and the other by works or some mixture of grace and works which is ineffectual.

These two religions show up in the very first family on earth. One was Abel's religion and the other was Cain's religion. Both these religions have simultaneous origins in Adam's first offspring; and they will each culminate, eventually, into the "Perfect Man," Jesus Christ in glory; and the "man of sin" in damnation. So let us examine these ancient religions.

Adam's first son tilled the earth. He was a farmer, or husbandman, making his living by the sweat of his brow. His name was Cain. (In Hebrew, his name means "to procure," to be "fixed in place," - or not a pilgrim - "to own," and "to strike," as with a lance violently). Cain's name is fully consistent with the modern Pelagian or freewill religion today.

His second son was Abel. He was a gentle shepherd, and even this early he typified Christ, the Lamb of God, for He was an innocent substitute for guilty sinners. (His name in the Hebrew means "emptiness." ) His name is characteristic of the humility and spiritual poverty found in all God's regenerate children when they are made to seek for righteousness in themselves; or in their efforts, to justify themselves before a just and holy God. They are completely empty of any righteousness of their own making.

"Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." Here is Cain's religion: (1) He thought it would please the Lord God for him to present the works of his own hands as an offering for his sins. That was perfectly logical to him. What could be wrong· with that? That is salvation by works. Work is what a man does. That, too, is the doctrine of our modern-day Pelagian freewill religion.

"There can't possibly be anything wrong with that. You are supposed to!" It was the underlying principle of Cain's devotion. (2) On a somewhat more positive side, Cain had a higher principled religion than is often found today. That is, he at least recognized that he must make an offering to the Lord. Today, many believe that God must offer Jesus to the sinner to accept or reject. The Scripture teaches that the "lesser is blest of the better." (Heb. 7:7). Modern freewillers also teach that the dead, lifeless sinner (the lesser) must give his corrupt heart to Jesus, (the better). Invariably they teach that one "must accept Christ as his Savior;" when in reality, the sinner needs to be accepted in the Beloved! (Eph. 1:6.) As it is written, "To the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the Beloved" Man, in himself, is totally unacceptable in his own corrupt and condemned nature. (3) Cain's offering was of the earth. Man's religion, antecedently, to regeneration, based on his own works is as himself: "Of the earth, earthy." (I Cor. 15:48.)

Notice the results of Cain's work-based religion: (a) Cain believed in making an offering of his own devising. Modern religions freely "invent" anything they please with which to worship God. It is immaterial to them whether He has commanded it, forbidden it, or said nothing of it! (b) Cain showed some natural remorse over his sin (Gen.4:13-14. ), which indicates an understanding of its sinfulness. Modern natural religion accepts remorse, or a pretended remorse, as being the same as repentance. (c) God “had not respect unto Cain nor his offering.” One can almost hear: ''That ain't fair!" "God is not a respecter of persons!” (d) He was given over to judgment, which judgment resulted in the murder of his brother. He hated his brother only because his brother's religion was accepted and his own was not. By instinctive nature false religionists always despise free grace believers. As Paul stated: "But as then he that was born of the flesh, persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now." (Gal. 4:29.)

Cain's co-religionists of today, arrogantly charge God with unfairness if He has respect for Abel and Abel's offering, and those of that ancient faith. But let such reply against God and His clear declaration in His revealed Word. (Gal. 4:4.) Their enmity does not in the least change God nor His inspired Word. Needless to say, Cain's religion, which is embraced perhaps by as high as 99.9% of all present-day religious societies, is in a thriving condition. And well it should be. For the time has already come when "men will not endure sound doctrine;” when "knowledge shall increase, and the love of many wax cold” for the inspired Word is now fulfilled in that regard. The doctrine of Cain's freewill, work-mongering religion, will invariably appeal to men who are by nature born "freewillers" and it can be accepted by them naturally without a conversion experience. They just "make a decision" and remain what they were before: freewillers!

The other religion that of Abel, is a "free grace" religion, as opposed to the "freewill" religion of Cain. Abel, the gentle shepherd, also "brought of the firstling of his f1ock and the fat thereof” (If Cain, the oldest son, did not know to do this, then how did Abel acquire such an understanding? Surely it had to have been revealed to him!) "And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering." (Gen. 4:4) In examining the religion of Abel, one discovers: (a) He believed it was necessary for him to make a blood-offering; - a sinless substitute for his own guilty and sin-laden soul. Right here, Hyper-­calvinists are made to understand that Christ was a true substitute, bearing the sins of His people in Himself, and thus putting them away then - not when one is given to believe it! They understand that in every respect what is due to the guilty sinner is afflicted upon the innocent Substitute fully, and that the justice of God is completely satisfied, and the guilty sinner fully atoned for and thereby already legally saved. In other words, Abel's imputation of his sins upon the head of the innocent Sacrificial Victim put the Victim to death, even though it was Abel who had sinned. His offering prefigured the most vital aspect of the Gospel of Christ. Take away all external aspects of the Christian's hope, but let this stand, and salvation is secured to such guilty sinners as are covered by that blood-offering. Hence, Christ, not the messengers, is the sin-bearer for the sins of all His elect seed. Their sins were imputed to Him, and He died really for them; in return, His own righteousness is imputed to these redeemed sinners, and they are actually made righteous and eternally saved thereby. This transaction was accomplished and completed about two-thousand years ago ... not when they hear about it, and believe that it is so.

(b) Abel's religion was not of the earth as Cain's; nor was it of works, as was Cain's. Only by revelation could he have so accurately prefigured the glorious redemption by the shed-blood of Christ for His elect people. Abel trusted for his salvation in a blood-offering which testified to the truth that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." (Heb. 9:22) And, "Now where remission of these (sins) is, there is no more an offering for sin." (Heb. 10:18). At this point, notice a basic difference between Neo-calvinists and Hyper-calvinists among Baptists: The Neo-calvinists ignore the remission of sins by Christ's shed blood. They wrongly attribute remission to natural faith and repentance, i.e., "If you will repent and believe, God will put away your sins." Hyper-calvinists recognize that all the sins of God's redeemed people were remitted by, and at the time of, the "shedding of blood." It was at His ascension to His Father's right hand that He sprinkled the heavenly altar with His blood and secured the elects' full and eternal redemption. These sins now atoned for will not be remitted when one is regenerated, or when they are given faith, or when repentance is granted to them; and certainly will not be by a mental decision to join a religious society! Their sins were remitted when Christ died for them. That is what the Gospel message is all about! Not in order to make it so; but because it is so! It was then that God's people were actually, legally, sanctified. "Then said He, Lo, I come to do Thy will, 0 God. He taketh away the first (legal sacrifices), that He may establish the second by the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once." And by this sacrifice, or this offering, Paul clearly says: "He hath (already now) perfected for ever them that are sanctified." (Heb. 10:14.) How needful it is that a poor, quickened sinner grasp this truth of a finished salvation. It is by faith in this gracious work of the blessed Savior that one finds rest from all his legal labors under the curse of a broken law.

"By faith (not by "belief," or moral suasion) Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtain witness that he was (not, -"would become") righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh." (Heb. 11:4.) Notice that it was not by faith that he obtained "righteousness, " which view is held by many Neo-calvinists. Rather, by faith he obtained a witness that he was righteous. This latter view is held by the Hyper-calvinists. Their salvation and their righteousness are not conditioned on the works or beliefs of the creature, as was Cain's. Salvation is of God, based solely on His everlasting loving-kindness toward His Son and the chosen seed "in Him."

Abel's religion is the typical Christian faith. It is founded on the same principle as Calvinism. It is the truth of God's revealed Word. Whereas before, it was noted that Cain's freewillism thrives today, it must be admitted that Abel's religion is not popular, and never has been. Perhaps world-wide, less than .01% of "Christians" believe Abel's free grace religion. But this is no hindrance to one called by grace, and "made willing in the day" of Christ's power. (Psa. 110:5.) Salvation is not voluntary; it was done! Christ atoned for the sins of His people before any of them, since that generation in the first century, were ever born. Such as are redeemed, are made to suffer all things for Christ's name and cause. And, it should be this way. If Calvinists and Hyper-calvinists, along with the apostles of the Lamb, are correct relative to the doctrine of election - which election was before the world began - then the number of those chosen and redeemed is definitely set. (Eph. 1:1-6). The Southern Baptists' first Articles of Faith said: "neither can that number be increased or diminished." {Georgia Baptists Association, 1792, adopted by the SBC in 1845). Thus for every one which goes on to be with the Lord, there is one less left here on earth. This process has been going on since the day of "righteous Abel." Cain's crew must continue to increase until the "man of sin be revealed;" and Abel's must decrease until the "fullness of Christ" be gathered in. It cannot be otherwise, for God is not now still electing people to salvation; nor is Christ yet to die again for more. At some point in time the Lord's question will be answered: "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?' (Luke 18:8.) In Abraham's day, there were but few, and he seemed not to complain: "The Lord did not set His love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people; but because the Lord loved you, and because He would keep the oath which He had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage . (Deut. 7:5) This was equally true in Noah's day when only eight souls were saved from the flood. Again, in the dark days of Israel 's apostasy, and again in the end of their dispensation, Paul records: “God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew, Wot ye not what the Scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel , saying, Lord, they have killed Thy prophets, and digged down Thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? “1 have reserved unto Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace." (Rom. 11:2) A "remnant" is a "handful" which is left. Of the seven thousand throughout Israel , that number was but "a few." Christianity, that is, Hyper-calvinism, is the true religion of our Creator God. . . the ancient religion of Abel. The freewill religion of Cain's is only a natural religion, and as an instrument of acceptable worship, a false religion. Pelagianism "is the theological doctrine propounded by Pelagius, a British or Irish Monk, and condemned as heresy in a.d. 416; included in its tenets a denial of original sin and an affirmation of man's ability to be righteous by the exercise of free will." (The American Heritage Dictionary, Houghton Miffin, Boston, 1976). In time, the Roman Antichrist issued an "anathema" against anyone denying freewill. In 1711, Rome began to grant indulgences to priests who would enter Protestant churches to turn them to freewill. As one can see by comparing Andrew Fuller's statement with that of the Catholic theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas's (inside front cover), the founder of the mission movement had adopted the doctrine of Rome . There can be no doubt by any free grace believer that freewillism is a cardinal principle of Antichrist, or "mystery Babylon ." That is not so clear to freewill believers. While most religions are clearly on one side or the other - free grace or freewill; most "evangelicals" have attempted to create a hybrid religion by mixing grace and works together. For instance, there are five cardinal principles of Calvinism: total depravity, unconditional election and predestination, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance and preservation (TULIP). Evangelicals reject all the first four, yet illogically hold to preservation! This, in the absence of the other four, and perseverance, developed into a very libertarian form of antinomianism ... the very thing they falsely charge against the Hyper-calvinists! Their religious societies are filled and running over with all kinds of immoral abominations, but they all "know they are saved and heaven bound!" What is Biblically taught as being "of grace," they make even that a part of their works system. According to them, a gift is something you have to "accept"! Of course, if you did not receive it, it cannot be a "gift." The Lord Jesus Christ is called "the gift of God," but these "Evangelicals" , and even many Neo-calvinists, never talk of "receiving Christ," but only "accepting" Him, thereby making the experience of grace a creature-merited work. Let us contrast works and grace sharply:

- Belief is something you do. -

- Repentance is something you do. -

- Joining a church is something you do. -

- Making a decision is something you do. -

- Working for the Lord is something you do. -

Now, if the above acts are done in order to become "Christians, " or children of God, then such a system is most clearly an attempt to be saved by works ... or Cain's natural system. It is designed to manufacture children of God by some form of human instrumentality in the hands of professional hirelings. However, it cannot produce quickened and regenerate children of God. God has to do His own begetting, if any are to be His children. He needs no midwives! In opposition to all the above acts of men in a works system, there is a system of salvation by free grace. Please now consider the following:

- If regeneration is an exclusive act of the Holy Spirit; it is by grace-

- If faith is a "gift" of God and the "fruit of the Spirit," it is by grace -

- If repentance is worked by "godly sorrow," and by the convicting of the Holy Spirit; it is by grace --

- If "The Lord adds to the church daily such as should be saved"; it is by grace -

- If "It is God who worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure"; it is by grace -

All the above things the Scripture teaches, and they are by grace. This is salvation by grace, and grace alone, or Hyper-calvinism. It is Abel's free grace religion. God does the work; God does the saving. It is the application of an accomplished and completed salvation. God has the glory!

Where above it is stated that Pelagians "have attempted to create a hybrid religion" by mixing works and grace, it is only a feeble attempt, doomed to failure. Works and grace are mutually exclusive principles. They can no more be mixed than fire and ice. When Paul pointed out that "at this present time also, there is a remnant according to the election of grace," quoted above, he continued his argument, saying: "And if by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the. Election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. . ." One cannot help but wonder what a Freewiller thinks as he reads such Scripture. It surely says the election obtained it, and it says the rest did not! Since the Freewill Pelagian does not believe in election, then he has to be the one that is blinded. There is no escaping the Scriptural conclusion. "According as it is written, GOD hath given them the spirit of slumber " - The same apathy found in religion today - The text says that God did this to them. "Eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day." ( Rom. 11:6-8.) Again, one must wonder how the Freewillers deals with God doing this to them. Where is that "For God so love every one of Adams race" in this text? So then, this hybrid system, in the final Biblical analysis is still "salvation by works," or Cain's religion. The sad part of this is that millions who "know absolutely that they are saved" are dreadfully deceived by that wicked system; and are actually as lost in sin as they ever were before making their mental decisions. If they have no spiritual desire or love for the truth of free grace; then this void identifies them in such a dreadful situation. To wit, "God shall send them strong delusion" - that is exactly what it says, too! And nothing is a stronger delusion than naturally blind freewill; "that they should believe a lie” Oh, My! Does the Bible say that God would do this that they should actually believe a lie? Oh, No! Oh, Yes. That is exactly what it says, but does anyone really care? They don't seem to be much concerned about it, because they can’t believe it! “If it is true,” they think, “it doesn’t apply to me.” They are not so concerned as to get a concordance down and look up the words "elect" , "election," "the called," "predestinated, " "ordained," "foreordained, " etc. But why does God do this - it seems so strange? Paul answers: "That they all might be DAMNED who believe not the TRUTh but had pleasure in unrighteousness. " (II Thess 2: 10-14.) So much for God "wanting everyone to get saved"! No wonder the Lord said: ''Take care how you hear!" The Israelites did not obtain salvation by the mixture of creature-works and grace; nor shall Evangelicals. As then, so now, "the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded." Many who read this have never paid any attention to this passage, and most ministers are totally unable to fit it into their humanistic theology. But, dear reader, if this verse is true - and we contend that the Bible is- this is as serious as death itself! It is important that men make the effort to understand it even in nature, to know the truth. Even if only a head-­knowledge, it is far more God-honoring than presenting a little frustrated God who can't do His own will unless the ungodly reprobate "lets Him." Cain's religion is dangerous! It has brought severe judgment against nations that fear not the Lord.

But the Freewiller will respond with: "But the Bible says, 'choose you this day whom you will serve." This is a perfect illustration of the ministers twisting the truth by half-scriptures, and taking them out of context, and then misapplying them falsely. Let's look at this method, with this Scripture. The closest the Bible comes to such a statement is in Joshua 24:15, but it teaches the very opposite to what they intend to convey. Notice it. "Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve Him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt ; and serve ye the Lord." Now notice this very carefully: "And if it seems evil for you to serve THE LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve." So the choice is only given to such as believe that it is evil to serve the Lord. But look even more closely at the choice given to such: "'whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood or the gods of the Amorites in whose land ye dwell.' There is another strong evidence of the spiritual blindness of the Evangelicals! They pick a phrase completely out of its context, and build a theory around the phrase. In doing so, they force their misunderstanding of the Scriptures to make them contradict our blessed Lord, merely to sustain their "free offer" system. Clearly the choice here is between two sets of pagan gods; one is as good as another!

"A Hyper-calvinist will never convince me that sinners can't "accept Jesus"! Probably not! One would be surprised if he did. But it is still the truth of the Scriptures. The only text in the Bible where a derivative of "accept" is used relative to salvation is in Ephesians 1:6, and it is a text Freewillers must absolutely stay away from! "Having predestinated US”- Oh, No! "Predestination is not in the Bible. I believe the Bible, but I sure don't believe that!" The rest of that verse is: "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself; according to the good pleasure of His own will to the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath Made US ACCEPTED in the Beloved." One might be surprised that, as Joshua 24:15 above, this too ... teaches exactly the opposite of what Freewill Pelagians think! Not only has "blindness in part is happened to Israel ," the same thing spread over the Neo-calvinists and swept them into spiritual darkness. The text continues: "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." (Rom. 11:25.) The spiritual blindness which overwhelms modern religion possibly indicates this "fulness" is near or past already. Paul's most endearing letters were addressed to the Ephesians and the Thessalonians. In both epistles, he very clearly taught the system of Abel's religion, or Calvinism - true Christianity, if you please. In Ephesians, he wrote: "according as He hath chosen US in Him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love," and proceeds into predestination and then particular redemption. In Thessalonians, he wrote: "Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.” Now, how did he know that God had chosen them? His answer: "For our Gospel came not unto you in word only but also in power and in the Holy Ghost and in much assurance. "'(1 Thess. 1:4-5.) When he warned them of the coming of the Man of Sin, he comforted them with: "But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and the belief of the truth; whereunto He called you by our Gospel to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ " (II Thess. 2:13-14) Again, one must wonder what a Freewiller thinks when (or, If) he reads such passages. Divine election and particular redemption are the principles underlying Abel's religion of free grace.

Shortly before Andrew Fuller introduced this first step in modern Baptists' apostasy, Dr. John Gill observed the climate of religion among this people, and forewarned of their dreadful departure; which departure was very immediate. Writing in the “Watchman's Answer: What of The Night?” he wrote: "Of late years there has been a very visible decline and the night is coming on; which we are entering into; the shadows of the evening are stretching out apace upon us, and the signs of the eventide are very manifest and will shortly appear yet more and more: coldness and indifference in spiritual things, a want of affection to God, Christ, His People, truth and ordinances, may easily be observed; the first love is left, iniquity abounds, and the love of many waxes cold; and it will wax yet colder, and will issue in a general forsaking of assembling together, and in an entire neglect of ministers of the Gospel; when such who have been professors themselves will be shy of them, and carefully shun them." The conditions were ripe for the Great Apostasy foretold by all the apostles. Here enters Andrew Fuller with Cain's religion, under the cloak of "Particular" Baptists, to inaugurate a totally new religion . . . "evangelism, " or "missionism, " (humanism) to meet the need of prophesy. Hear him: "There is such a fulness in the satisfaction of Christ, as is sufficient for the whole world, were the whole world to believe in Him." What a strange doctrine is this! There is a sufficiency in the satisfaction, which has already saved all for whom He died! The atonement, he said, is sufficient for the whole world but is insufficient to save anyone at all without their consent! Little did this blind guide know that it was quite too late to add the "world that lieth in wickedness" to that number of redeemed people! He was not a sound Baptist to begin with! He and his followers ridiculed "Hypers" for “limiting the atonement.” And then he does the same, by adding: "at least where the Gospel is preached.” According to this theory, the atonement has not yet been made; or if it has, it did not atone! Yet, the Scriptures everywhere declare it has been. Fuller's “atonement" cannot atone unless you believe that it can! The whole world of evangelical Pelagians fall for such! According to this doctrine, Christ is not a Redeemer, yet. He failed! And according to the present-day Fullerites, He is still trying, but the world population is growing faster than He can get them saved! He gave His life a ransom, yet ransomed no one! He "reconciled us unto God," but we are not reconciled! He justified us by His blood, but we are not yet justified! Evangelicals, Neo-calvinists, and Pelagians are ignorant of the work of Christ. These enlightened "doctors"!

To make matters worse, Mr. Fuller, attempting to deceive his Hyper-calvinist brethren, adds that the atonement was efficient for the elect only, "at least to where the Gospel is preached." Interestingly, today, Evangelicals and Missionaries do not even believe in election and predestination. Yet nowhere in the New Testament does the Scripture present the atonement, or satisfaction for sin, to all mankind. The very thought is preposterous, seeing that millions of souls from the days of Adam to the cross were already in hell when He died!

As Calvinists and Neo-calvinists within many of the "Evangelical" and Missionary societies come to the knowledge of free grace, it would be advisable for them to look carefully at the origins of their denominations' apostasy. Beyond successful contradiction, the very first step in their "Down-Grade" (as Spurgeon called it) was a denial of Christ's finished and completed salvation of His elect people. Once this was denied, the logical step to follow was to save those Christ had failed to redeem. To do this, Calvinism became a mere "plan of salvation” competing with other humanly devised plans; and seeing that Calvinism is hated by the natural man, the other "plans" quickly won out. At this point, Christianity ceased to be "Christian" and became Antichristian.

The preached word cannot regenerate. Life must come from life. Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) put the death-­knell to the medieval doctrine of spontaneous generation in the field of biology. In reality, the apostles of the Lamb put the death-knell to that same doctrine in the spiritual realm. Let the history of the Modern Missionary Movement, or "benevolent (so-called) movement" be a warning to Neo-calvinists not to reinvent it in their reforms today. Truly, "Salvation is of the Lord."


CALVINISM, NEO-CALVINISM AND HYPER-CALVINISM

It is not intended that this chapter cover the above groups in-depth. Anyone interested in a serious study of Calvinism can find very good materials on the subject by the Reformers, Puritans, and present-day Calvinists. One of the best sources is The Sovereignty Of God, by A.W. Pink. (There are two publishers, one extracted as much sovereignty from it as possible, and one is unedited. The unedited can be had from Baker Book House, P.O. Box 6287 , Grand Rapids , MI 49516-6287 , 1997 edition.) Although Pink leans toward the Andrew Fuller type of evangel!sm, he is one of the best non-Reformed Calvinists one can read. (See Richbarry Press List, page 506.) ..

Another good source of Calvinism from the Reformed viewpoint can be had from the Protestant Reformed Church, 4949 Ivanrest, Granville , MI 49418 .

Neo-Calvinistic literature can be found under the title of "Calvinism," by any Evangelical Publishers. Strictly speaking, Evangelical Calvinism is not Calvinism, but a watered down derivative of it, usually mixed with a strong dose of Arminianism or Pelagianism.

Those who hold to the pre-Andrew Fuller (1782) Christian doctrines are termed Hyper-Calvinists. Because they do not utilize organized missionary business enterprises to publish the Gospel, they are falsely accused of being non-evangelical: hence, hypers, or hardshells, etc. The best sources of literature by these faithful writers are: The Remnant Publications, P.O. Box 1004 Hawkins , TX 75765-1004, who have published seven volumes of the Editorials Of Gilbert Beebe. These volumes are from 480 pages to 768 pages each, and listed for $20.00 a volume. (For more sources 'of good materials on these subjects, see the Appendix: Booklists.)

As you read this book, it will become obvious that the author does not recommend, or endorse, all the views covered in these publications. But they are informative for any interested enquirer after the Truth of the historic Christian faith. It is also pointed out, that the above do not necessarily endorse the views set forth in this book; and indeed, most would not.

One of the five points of Calvinism, or as those called Hyper-Calvinists would say, Five Principles of Grace, stands on a pragmatic and Biblical view of human nature as formed by God and as fallen in Adam. That is, the total depravity and inability of man by nature. Man is mortal; therefore he is not spiritual, in spite of people foolishly referring to art as spiritual! To be spiritual one must be begotten by one who is a Spirit, and be born from above spiritually.

When God made Adam, He made him a creature adapted to the natural habitat created for him. He gave to man nostrils to breathe the air created for him. Man was given a digestive system to eat the meats and herbs created for him. He was made upright and given an anatomy capable of supporting him in this position. In short, Man was not made an angel nor a "spiritual" being! He was made of the earth: earthy. "He was never an immortal being. This alone is sufficient to establish the fact that God's eternal purpose was that mortal man should die! and he did just that! I’ll leave it to you to determine how sin entered into the world, and death by sin. If I told you, the reaction would be prejudicial to further examination of this book’s contents!

The point we wish to make here is that man, as he was created, was created a natural being as all other animals, other than that he was a rational creature with higher mental and physical attributes. But there is no scripture, to our knowledge, which suggest that man is a spiritual, or an angelic creature. Thus, man is not a spiritual being in fellowship with his Maker. He was created in God’s image, as a figure of Him that was to come. From his loins, he would seminally produce his generations, and of many in those generations, some will be “vessels of mercy, afore prepared unto glory,” (Romans 9:23) as “earthen vessels” in the which the elect seed of Christ will be given habitation in regeneration ( II Cor. 4:7). Such of Adam’s offspring thus blessed to be recipients of the children of God, will all be given the Spirit of adoption, (Romans 8:23) whereby they cry Abba Father, and these will at the resurrection, receive the adoption of sons, (8:23) and together with their new creature, or spiritual man, be raised unto glory. Others not selected to be vessels for this heaven treasure, are “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction; (Romans 9:22) and will perish because of sins they have done in the body.

God gave man a help-meet, woman, and commanded them to "replenish the earth," which also forecast their future fall; for without the lust of the flesh Adam could not, and did not, procreate until after his disobedience. God said to Adam, of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, "Thou shalt not eat thereof;” and, "In the day thou eatest thereof; thou shalt surely die:” Notice that the Lord God did not say, “If thou eatest,” but “in the day thou eatest.” Again, Adam was created, made, and formed to die! If one still doubts this thesis, then consider that Christ is called “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Rev. 13:8.) Christ being provided as the first Elect (Isa. 42:1) and the sacrificial Lamb for His seed chosen in Him this early (Isa. 53:10), clearly declares that the "determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23) was for Him to die for His people, who would be, in time, "dead in trespasses and sins." Paul says that for Him to die, "then were we all dead!" Again, this is proven by the fact that Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel were "gathered together for to do whatsoever Thy hand and Thy counsel determined before to be done." (Acts 4:28.) It is contrary to intelligent reasoning to deny that it was God's will and purpose that the mortal creature, Adam, was made to die! Calvinists understand that natural mortal man is not a spiritual creature; that he is totally depraved in all his faculties (including his "will") from his fall in Adam; that man is physically born "dead in trespasses and sins." (Eph. 2:1.) The fall of Adam and all those seminally in Him changed his, and their, relationship with their Maker. However, he remained under the "primal law" of his Creator. This did not change. This "First and greatest commandment" - not Moses' Law - all the race has ever been in subjection. (See Chapter Five, "Duty- Faith- Unto-Salvation, " and "Appendix A:" on Antinomianism. )

It is well, then, to ask: "What effect did Adam's disobedience have on all his offspring, or the specie of Man?" Of his sons and daughters throughout all ages of time, from that fall, it is written: " There is none righteous, no, NOT ONE." (Rom. 3:10) In his carnal nature, "There is none that understandeth, " spiritual things, in spite of their natural reasoning ability in natural things. This, the first catastrophic disease to invade man's body, sapped all the created fellowship with God and righteousness out of him, leaving him void of any righteousness or ability in spiritual things. Strangely, with self-righteous religion abounding, the inspired record still remains that: "there is none that seeketh after God.” Other motives, deep within the fallen creature, are at play in all that proselytizing activity. It feeds something natural within the fallen nature of man. With all kinds of social works, in and out of religious establishments - from "Christian Life Centers," (gymnasiums) , "Promise-­Keepers," programs, sectarian hospitals, martial arts for Jesus, bumper stickers, entertainments, et.al., "there is none that doeth good, no not one." The only truly "good work" is one commanded of God and worked out by the Holy Spirit within the believer. Most things "Christians” do as "good things" are unauthorized by God in His Word, and as such, are "without faith." Without divine authorization and faith, it is sin. And the rank dullness and careless apathy relative to true righteousness and truth is crowned by: "There is no fear of God before their eyes." ( Rom. 3:10-18.) This feverish listlessness, - blind lethargic state regarding the truth of God Word - is an effect of the violent degeneration resulting from Adam’s fall. It remains in his offspring. Adam’s fall devastated the race of Man in all his faculties! So badly, few can focus their attention retrospectively in self-examination to see if "they are in the faith" or not. If a doubt eases into consciousness, which might threaten the comfort of the delusional state, the carnal mind quickly compartmentalizes it. It’s gone, almost as swiftly as it arose. Only God, by the Holy Spirit, can sustain that doubt long enough sufficiently to free the man from his bondage; for he cannot of himself be aware of the dire extent of his malady. Doctors of Divinity are of no use to treat this ailment. The man is, unless brought sovereignly to the truth by God's omnipotent power, in bondage to natural religion- a religion which is of his own imagination. Man's terminal illness is evident the very day a child is born. He is born naturally a freewiller in stark rebellion against God and parents. Even if natural religion is pressed upon him, he will remain as he was - an ardent freewiller. And unless freed by the regenerating life-giving conversion by the Holy Spirit, He will die as he was born: an unchanged freewiller. This is sad, but alas! It is the condition of natural fallen Man. That is the reason that the lovingkindness of God provided a Savior. Those precious souls who have been made to acknowledge their devastated nature and to flee to the crucified Savior as a refuge have always found Him ready to forgive and pardon their sins, based upon the finished work of Christ in their behalf, and His righteousness imputed to them by the love and grace of God. They know what they are in nature, and this is their hearts' sincere confession: that they are the chief of sinners!

As David complained to God when brave old Nathan the prophet confronted him in regard to Bathsheba:

"Behold! I was shapened in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. "(Psa. 51:4.) He recognized what he was by nature. He agreed with the observation God made of man prior to, and after the flood. Before the flood, the Lord God "saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was evil and that continually." (Gen. 5:5.) And God destroyed “the world of the ungodly' by water. (Note that this "world" cannot be the "world" of John 3:16.) Did the near extermination of fallen man modify his nature? No, it did not effect any change at all in the terminal illness of man's depraved will. Nothing will ever change the nature of natural man except the resurrection of the body! Immediately after the flood, God again said of Man: "for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth (infancy). (Gen. 8:21) The illness is unabated. The flood was not intended as a remedy; it was a judgment! David again noted: "The wicked are estranged from the. womb, they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." (Psa. 58:3.) The very highest faculty of fallen man is his conscience, and the Scripture says of such who believe not the truth speak "lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared as with a hot iron." (I Tim. 4:2.) "even their conscience is defiled." This is God's pronouncement of the best that is in fallen man. If this is said of this faculty, what might be said of the rest: the "heart", which is the seat of affection; the "will" that natural men deify? How often the Evangelicals, or Missionaries, call upon dead alien sinners to "give" their "heart to God"? They never warn the sinner that the "heart" they are called upon to donate is dreadfully wicked! Who would knowingly offer such filth to His Maker? "The heart is. deceitful ABOVE ALL THINGS, and desperately WICKED: who can know it?' (Jer. 17:9.) That, dear reader, is what ministers now want sinners to "offer" their god. Pretty bad, isn't it? Man's "will" is an interstitial part of his being. It is not separate, apart, nor above his wicked heart. It is lower than his conscience. It is unfit to offer to Jesus. Man by nature is utterly helpless to bring about a change within his own constitution from being what the Bible describes, to a righteous being. He cannot change himself from a dead, wicked, sinner to a living, righteous, saint. A cow may as well fly through the air, or a tree run about the forest freely, as for this natural fallen being to change his own inborn nature. "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his. spot? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do EVIL." (Jer. 13:26.) It is clear that if the first two propositions are impossible - and they are; then the last one is too. All the natural, mental, decisionism possible, (for whatever base and unknown reasons lurking within natural man,) will not change his true condition. HE NEEDS HELP! It is a fact, "there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good and sinneth not." (Ecc. 7:20.) Dear reader, believe it! Natural man is in a terrible condition, and his fallen disease is such, he is unable to even suspect it. He rests under a “strong delusion.” He can believe a lie told to him easier than a truth. He merrily goes to destruction, finding ways to justify himself; "but not before God." Just think, man's "will": it is within his corrupt being; and a dominate part of it. By it he freely sins. By it he denies God without even considering that he is doing so.. By it he disobeys God. By it he hates God's ways, His Truth and secretly, God's people. There is nothing so noble about that thing! It is like his heart, "desperately wicked." Even the apostle said: "The will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good, I find not." (Rom. 8:18.) And preachers call upon that same confused, helpless and deceived "will" in sinners for their decision to "get saved." Surely, if a man ever had a toothache he ought to know his "will" isn't free! But, that is a part of the symptoms of Adam's terminal illness: a confused and befuddled state of mind; an inability to think clearly; a delusion; a reluctance to examine him self for fear of what he might find. But he will, as all others, die. To a quickened child of God, after striving furiously against his willful sinfulness, it is truly glad tidings in the Gospel that "Thy people shall he willing in the day of Thy power," as promised in the Covenant of Grace made with Christ as recorded in Psa. 110:5. It is God that makes him willing, or else he never would be. If the above discussion is still insufficient to demonstrate the truth of the Christian, or Calvinists' understanding of the total depravity of fallen man; and man's need for God Himself to save him; then we add this. "Levi also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham; For he was yet in the loins of his father (great grandfather) "when Melchisedec met him." (Heb. 7:9­10.) This is known legally as a "principle of vicarious representation, " or a principle of "federalism. " Abraham, in God's view, is the federal head of all the Hebrew tribes, because genetically, they were all still seminally in. him when he paid the tithe; so too, Adam is the federal head of the whole race of man, for genetically, they were all still in him when he (and they in him) disobeyed. "Wherefore~ as by one man (i.e., Adam) sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for all have sinned,” in Adam. (Rom. 5:12.) "For by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One (Christ) many be made righteous." (Rom. 5:19.) Again, "As in Adam all die” ... (1 Cor. 15:22). We finalize the point: Adam was created to die; and die he did; and all his offspring are dead to all things spiritual the very day they are born in his generations. It is here, in a state of death and alienation that God's free grace finds the blessed objects of His mercy. They are more than merely "sick," as presented by Pelagian freewillers; but they are dead! In their corrupt flesh they can only "mind the things of the flesh." Their only functioning mind is their fallen natural degenerated carnal mind; as contrasted with a spiritual mind in one who has been born spiritually from above. "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritual minded is life and peace." ( Rom. 8:5,6.) When the Holy Spirit revealed the stupor, or deadness, of the carnal mind of man, He showed its true condition: "Because the carnal mind is enmity (the source or root for becoming an enemy) against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can he. So then, they that are in the flesh cannot please God.” ( Rom. 8:7-8.) So, to make a point here: Can an unregenerate sinner "please God"? That is a legitimate question. This text denies it. If he, before divine quickening, "gave his heart to Jesus," would this please God? The text denies it. In fact, if he could repent or believe, before experiencing the new birth, would even this please God? "So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God". The answer is "No!" Here, then, is the death-knell of all "free offers" to unregenerate sinners! They cannot do spiritually, what preachers tell them to do naturally and benefit spiritually therefrom. All such carnal acts are counterfeits of the real gifts the children of God receive in regeneration, and every child of God is grateful that it was God "Who hath begun a good work in you" and ''shall perform it unto the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6.) This is ascribing praise to Him who loved us and gave Himself for us.

So it becomes clear that the first thing in order to the experience of salvation is "ye must be born again," spiritually. God is a Spirit, and all life is derived from a pre-existing life form of “like kind,” or parentage. Therefore being “born again,” in a spiritual state of existence, one must be “born of God,” or “from above.” This is necessary in order to have a "spiritual mind" ready and able to "discern spiritual things." (I Cor. 2: 14-15). The new birth is in fact a "birth" - not a decision. It is not a mental act. It is a being begotten "from above." No man can beget himself! To be a child of God, it is obvious one must be born of God! Being born of a preacher's words will not do it. If it did, the convert would only be the son of the preacher! The man must be born of God by the Spirit of God before he can discern spiritual things (I Cor. 2:10-14.) It is this baneful condition that prevents natural man - the freewill man - from ever entering into the clear instructions of the Scriptures in the doctrine of sovereign grace. At this revealed truth all Arminians stumbled; and present-day Pelagians follow suit. In reality, they are by Adam's disease blinded to this, even, their own sad condition. Jesus said: "Ye must he. born again," but never told Nicodemus how. The reason seems clear to a Hyper-­calvinist. He said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God ." (John 3:3.) He was not giving Nicodemus instruction as to how to "be saved," but what spiritual condition was necessary for one to "see" or "enter" the kingdom of God . If one is "born again" he can both see and enter the kingdom of God If he is not, he can neither see it, nor enter into it. That spiritual state comes about because "it is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profitest nothing. The words that 1 speak (Jesus – not the preacher) unto you, they are spirit and they are Life.” No mortal man's words are life or spirit. We must point out here, that Jesus did not intend to say “ye must be born all over again.” The natural man is not born twice; he is born of the flesh but once. The new birth is of the Spirit and produces a spiritual birth within the natural man. The confusion resulting for a lack of understanding on this point has produced many a false entrapment – doctrinal apostasy.

Where, then, might Hyper-calvinism fit in this most fundamental Christian issue? Clearly the above is called "Calvinism.” The Hyper-calvinists question just how dead is "dead." Some Calvinists and most all Neo-­calvinists give lip-service to the total depravity and inability of man. But their proselytizing zeal over-runs their consistency, and their "free offer" conditionalism makes them belie their confession. They see nothing inconsistent with begging unquickened, or “dead,” sinners to come to Christ as their "duty." Dead men cannot function in the realm in which they are dead. Hyper-calvinists consider the unquickened individual too dead to cooperate and help the Spirit to regenerate itself. They are certain that the Holy Spirit will "quicken whom He will," (John 6:63) and this will be all for whom Christ died. He will give the elect and redeemed children of God life, spiritual ears, eyes, and hearts to perceive the Gospel of Christ and rejoice therein. Pelagians and Neo-calvinists seem to hold that the dead sinners must take the first step in "their salvation." They often exhort their listeners to do just that! Hyper-­calvinists believe that legally, before the justice of God, all the elect have already been "saved" judicially (no charge can be made against one of God's elect - Rom. 8:33.), but not experimentally. In the experimental application of salvation, the Holy Spirit works first in bringing those redeemed to spiritual life and immortality; and then, and only then, can the Gospel be of benefit to them. Again, "When I was saved," is not an expression one ever hears among Hyper-calvinists in the United States . They might say "When I came to the knowledge of grace," or, "When I was given to believe," or "When I received a hope in Jesus," etc. but they cannot spiritually equate "being saved" with regeneration or conversion. These are different terms and different experiences. To illustrate: No doubt Peter was a child of God. Yet, to him the Lord said: "When thou are converted, strengthen thy brethren." "Salvation" is an all inclusive concept of the whole work of salvation from election before time to eternal glory. It is not the point of a person's so-called "decision" or commitment to a religious cause; nor is it when one is given faith to believe that it is so.

When a Neo-calvinist leaves his profession on the total depravity and inability of man, and shifts to an anthropocentric application of his doctrine, he suggests that the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with regeneration. He basically denies the cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith and of Calvinism. To such, man isn't "dead in trespasses and sins." (Eph. 2:1.) A little sick, maybe, but certainly not totally incapacitated. At least they can waddle down an aisle and "give their (corrupted) heart to Jesus!" In fact, some actually teach that natural man still has a "spark of divinity in him;” while others teach that natural man has a residual "faith" which he can activate to "accept Christ and be saved." In order to give a "free offer," Neo-calvinists as well as Pelagians must do so on the assumption that natural, unregenerate man can do something spiritual. The truth of the matter is that he can't. He is dead in that sphere of existence! They sometimes reply, "But his inability does not negate his 'duty' to do so." We will write more about this supposed "duty" in Chapter Five on the Duty-Faith-Unto- Salvation issue.

The traditional, or classical, Calvinists believe that the Holy Spirit uses the preached or written Word as instruments in the quickening process. Some believe the Gospel regenerates. A very small group believes that baptism regenerates. Arminians believe a man’s mental decision regenerates. Neo-calvinists seem to believe that any small portion of Bible passages will, with the Spirit's application, regenerate. Others explain that the internal call to salvation is by the Gospel to regenerates. This writer cannot comprehend that position and will not elaborate on it. (It is expressed in the publications of the Protestant Reform Church .)

The position of the Hyper-calvinists, is that a child is conceived in this world totally dead to spiritual things; unable to want, or will, his own salvation because his "carnal mind is enmity towards God;" that he "loves darkness rather than light, because his deeds are evil." (John 3:19.); That; "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they (spiritual things) are foolishness unto him: (such as election, predestination and a finished salvation) neither can he know them, because they (the spiritual things) are spiritually discerned." (I Cor. 2:14) Hyper-calvinists believe the unregenerate sinner to be so dead that he cannot will to come to Christ savingly. (" Ye cannot come unto Me that ye may have life"); so dead that they cannot come; ("No man can come unto Me"- John 6:44,65); so dead that they " cannot see the kingdom of God ; (John 3:3;) and being unable to see it, they "cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. (John 3:5). Hyper-calvinists are faulted by some Neo-calvinists and Pelagians for denying that the Gospel brings life and immortality to dead sinners; yet the Scripture is plain: That God saved and called His people according to His own purpose and grace in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world; "but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ who hath (already) abolished death and hath brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel." (11 Tim. 1:9-10.) That is what the Scripture teaches the purpose of the Gospel is. It makes this life and immortality, and this purpose and grace manifest. It brings it "to light" to a quickened sinner. For this reason, the Gospel is glad tidings, or "good news;" a message of the accomplishment of Christ and His finished work for poor and afflicted sinners mourning over their corrupt condition. The very definition of the word "Gospel" shows what it is, as well as what it is not. If salvation is not an accomplished fact for all that Christ suffered and died, it cannot be good news to one disabled and ruined by sin and death. It is not a magical incantation to be used by priests and preachers to do what only God can do, i.e., beget to spiritual life. "It is the Spirit that quickeneth." The principles of Freewillers and Neo­-calvinists relative to the Gospel are very much as Simon Magnus, who requested of Peter, "Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost." (Acts 8:19). It certainly sounds the same! They say, in effect, "Give us the power, that unto whomsoever we quote John 3:16, he may receive the Holy Ghost." That their appeals produce church members no one can deny; but that it produces spiritual life in those members the Scripture denies. "How then,” says a Pelagian or a Neo-calvinist, “can Hyper-calvinists get around James 1:18, "Of His own will begat He us with the Word of truth, or I Peter 1:23, where it says: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God.”? Hyper-calvinists accept both texts exactly as written for what they actually say. The Neo-calvinists and Arminians are the ones who fail to pay close attention to these tests, and "rightly divide the word of truth." For instance, in James, the Hyper-calvinists read it as written" Of HIS own will," (not the preacher's) or God's sovereign immutable will, “He begat US with the Word of truth; (not man's words; certainly not misquoted half Scriptures). That “Word” by which He becomes our Father when He speaks to sinners, saying “LIVE! and they live!” All clear thinking men will acknowledge that whoever begets a child is that child's father. Paul referred to the moment of his own calling, saying: “When it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb." 'When" indicates an appointed or certain day for a sinner's reception of salvation, or the time he is to be quickened. As written: “None eye pitied thee, to do any of these unto thee, to have compassion on thee; but thou was cast out in the open field, to the loathing of thy person, in the day that thou wast born. And when I passed by thee and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee LIVE; yea, I said unto you, when thou wast in thy blood, LIVE! I have caused thee to multiply, "etc., "Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, it was the time of LOVE; and I spread My skirt (imputed righteousness) over thee, and covered thy nakedness, yea I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and THOU BECAME MINE! then washed I thee with water, yea, I thoroughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil. I clothed thee. . ." (Ezek. 15:5-10.) Can there be any question that no high-powered "evangelist" could do any of the above for a poor and needy sinner? That Word "LIVE" spoken by the eternal Son of God, - the Word that was in the beginning with God, and was God- did the begetting, or quickening to spiritual life, and that without human instrumentality! No man's feeble mutterings of John 3:16 will do it. God alone is the saints' Heavenly Father: not a priest, or preacher, or soul-winner. They are not able to beget them with the Gospel, or with any other gimmick.

The text in I Peter is equally clear, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed" (such as men’s!) "But of incorruptible by the WORD of God (not of men "about" the “word of God”) which liveth and abideth for ever." Now, any reasonable man should know that the sermon preached by a preacher never "lives and abides for ever." They are most often forgotten as soon as spoken! Really, they are seldom heard through in their entirety when preached. Spiritual life and salvation had best be on a better foundation than that! And it is. God's living, begetting Word, is Christ, the "eternal Logos." "But the Word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the Word which by the. Gospel is preached unto you.” It is perfectly clear that the "word" in this verse must be different from the "gospel" in the same verse! Otherwise it is meaningless.

The Gospel of grace is the good news, or glad tidings, or the message about the "incorruptible" begetting Word "which lives and abides for ever." A Calvinist stands rather dumb-founded when he hears a simple-minded freewiller deny the most plain texts on election and predestination, or limited atonement. "How can an otherwise intelligent creature be so blind," he wonders as he shakes his head in amazement. The Hyper-calvinists stand equally amazed, that a Neo-calvinist can be so close, and in a blink, miss this most important truth! The Hyper-calvinists strongly believe in the absolute sovereignty of the Eternal Godhead. All three Persons in the Eternal Godhead are co-equal and One. God the Father is sovereign in all His work. He purposed, proposed in council together to unite Jesus, the son of Mary to the Eternal Godhead in a manner whereby they two became One Person, the God-­Man; and simultaneously chose a body and bride for the Chosen Head, and gave these elect members to Him as His seed, which in time would be counted to Him for His generation (Psalm 22:30) and would serve Him, and for which He would suffer, bleed and die (Isa. 53:10). The Father asked not for, nor needed any help from His creatures. God the Son is equally sovereign over all His work, and that work was the full and complete salvation of His body and bride given to Him by the Father. He asked not for, nor needed any help from His creatures; and now that He has already saved them by His suffering and death, it is too late to help Him save them! Not only so, no one knows which ones are His, but the "foundation of God standeth sure, the Lord knowth them that are His.” (II Tim. 2:19.) The Holy Spirit is equally sovereign over all His work; and His work is to "quicken whom He will," and bring them all into spiritual life and experiences. These are the same as the Father elected and the Son redeemed; and the Spirit will guide them into all truth. It is in His department that ministers are called, qualified, and directed "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel " and the "other sheep that are not of this fold." He is to open the hearts, eyes, and ears, of the elect to be attendant upon the hearing of the Word; and to the great surprise of every reader that has followed this discussion, He is the One who selects the instruments He will use in the chosen, redeemed and now quickened sinner's, conversion! Only there will Hyper-calvinists place human instrumentality, and even that subservient to the Holy Spirit. Man is never in the driver's seat! He asked not for, nor needs any help from His creatures in bringing the elect and redeemed their covenant blessings. For the Godhead to be a simple Being, as He is, all three Persons must be equal in all their attributes. He is not dependent at all on His Gospel ministers; they are dependent upon Him. They are but creatures, and have no power to beget children in someone else's name and family. It is this "evil;" this persuasion of the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit; which Neo-calvinists charge against the Hyper-calvinists! But it is the Scriptural and logical position. Christ is the Savior of sinners; not the preachers!

On the doctrine of unconditional election and predestination, the Hyper-calvinists agree with the supralapsarian Calvinists. They both believe that the elect were chosen IN Christ before the world began as Paul repeatedly taught: "According as He hath chosen us IN HIM." (Eph. 1:4). The emphasis is the "in Him". This distinguishes their position from those who believe that God chose His people IN Adam before the foundation of the world, or the "sublapsarian" position. To clarify: The supralapsarian (supra - "above"; lapse - "the fall") is that without considering the elect as being in Adam, God made choice of some of them "in Christ" His First Elect. The sublapsarian (sub- "below"; lapse - "the fall") position is that God foresaw Adam's fall, and then quickly elected some of his fallen race to salvation. There is, of course, a third position- that both are true. But the Scripture favors the first view. They are repeatedly said to be viewed "IN Him: IN Christ: and "with Christ." The view that God chose Christ as Head, and the elect as His body antecedent to the decree of Adam's fall is expressed by Paul in Romans 9:10-20. Without considering the works, or behavior of unborn twins, and to make it clear that God did not condition His election on any foreseen merit or goodness, God said to Rebecca that: "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." This is very clear. This choice was such that all the elect stood represented in their federal Head, Christ, from all eternity; while all the rest stood condemned in their fallen representative head, Adam, from all eternity in God's eternal and immutable, or unchangeable decree. The statement: "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated," is a perfect axiom. Thoughtless Pelagians deny the force of the axiom by saying that God did not really hate Esau. He just did not love him as much as He did Jacob! This being an axiom, it would then also be true that God did not hate Jacob as much as He hated Esau! But Paul is making a point, drawing upon Biblical ground to apply the Scripture he did. To change the axiom is to defeat his argument. He quoted the prophet Malachi, who wrote: "Thus saith the Lord, I have loved you. Yet ye say, Wherein hast Thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the Lord: Yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness." (Mal. 1:2-3.) God's judgment on Edom was proof of His hatred of Esau. In fact, not only did God hate Esau, but the Scripture says: "Thou hatest all workers of iniquity. " (Psa. 5:5.) How often one hears "evangelists" say: "God doesn't hate the sinner. He just hates his sins." That is not so at all. One cannot separate the sins from the sinner. Sinners sin because they are sinners. This text says He hates the workers of iniquity. That is as clear as it needs to be. In addition to this, God hates even the worship of apostates! He said: "I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. Though ye offer to Me burnt offerings? and your meat offerings? I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts." (Amos 5:21-22.) For such who depart the faith, even their "praise bands," or songs, God hates! It is certain that it is as wrong to sing a lie as to preach or tell a lie. And even worse, to go before God with falsehoods on your tongue. "Take thou away from Me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.” (Amos 5:23.) So much, then, of God loving Esau and everyone else in the "whole wide world." As Christ prayed, hear Him: "I pray not for the world, but for them which Thou hast given Me, for they are Thine." (John 17:9.) Surely, if Christ loved everyone and "wanted" to save everyone, He would have made intercession for all mankind, for He said again, "My Father heareth Me always. But He did not pray for them; yet He did pray for those His Father gave to Him in the covenant of grace.

The Hyper-calvinists are not severely censured by true supralapsarian Calvinists; but the followers of Andrew Fuller's so-called "evangelical Calvinists" (whom we refer to as "Neo-calvinists: they are not Biblically "evangelicals. ") are extremely severe. Having an inferior complex for being "apostates", their writings against the historical Hyper-calvinistic Baptists have a bitterness- a vindictiveness - that borders on hatred. It is for that reason this book title is Hyper-calvinism: . . Is It the Truth? Consider it. Is it the truth? The early issue was relative to the purpose of Gospel preaching; but in time, the Fullerites ceased to preach the gospel at all as they turned to “another Gospel.” They ceased to preach what God, Father, Son and Spirit did in the work of salvation and merely exhorted their hearers to believe in Jesus - without presenting anything of substance for them to believe relative to Jesus. In the “battle for Gospel preaching,” (as Mr. Murray called it) the Fullerites, or the proselytizing groups lost, and have fled the field in disarray! They left their swords, (the King James Bible) in their haste! They are now defenseless. The world has full control of their religious societies now. The world Pays their salaries, and they dare not preach the Gospel of the grace of God! If they did, they would quickly be unemployed!

The severity of the attacks on Hyper-calvinism dates back to the historical rise of "benevolent societies (so­called)." [In all the early Old School Baptists associational minutes, they always stated it this way: "benevolent societies (so-called)" indicating that they did not agree that these societies were "benevolent' ] Most denominations in England and the United States splintered; and all kinds of isms and schisms arose. When Fuller first set forth his heresy, there were Congregationalists (Puritans), Particular Baptists, General Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Catholics, Dutch Reform, German Baptists and Methodists in America. Within three decades of that movement, all kinds of "evangelical" religious societies came in as a flood; and all the above splintered. The two great world movement oozed up out of the Pit simultaneously. Socialist societies and Fullerite societies. Little by little the socialist societies kept combining until they formed the International; and finally, World Communism Comintern). The same development was taking place in Fullerite societies. The same pattern was used by both. Splinter, multiply, unite, divide, multiply, and unite - ever enlarging itself; always infiltrating others, dividing, and uniting. The current attempt to unite Evangelical Calvinists with Papal Rome because the Neo-calvinists think they both agree on the doctrine of justification is an indication of the direction of this movement today.

The Modem Missionary Movement led to a world antichristian movement. Evangelism is the greatest adversary of Christian doctrine; whether in the hands of Arab Moslems; Catholic Crusaders, or Evangelical Calvinists. None of them can stand the purity of the doctrine of Christ. It took eighteen hundred years for Christian morality to reach its zenith, and Fullerism destroyed it in less than thirty years! When the Neo-­calvinist had achieved their end, they turned to Pelagianism. They self-destructed. The proselytizing movement was found throughout most major denomination, but the people called Baptists embraced it most greedily.

John Gill, accused by many of "originating" Hyper-­calvinism, had written in his Body Of Divinity, of a spiritual reign of Christ which would commence when Rome lost its political power. The treaty ending the War of 1812, also ended Rome 's political power over the nations of Europe . In 1812, a small group of Fullerites gained control of the Philadelphia Baptist Association. They picked it, they confessed, because it was the oldest and best known in America . In 1813, minutes of Baptists' associations throughout the States were collected. And the 1814 minutes of each report letters from the Baptist Board of Foreign and Domestic Missions asking for help to "evangelize the world." The Philadelphia Association had begun to support the English missionaries from the beginning, but opposed the "free offer system". Separate Baptists, Regular Baptists, United Baptists, Particular Baptists, General Baptists, Six Principle Baptists, German Baptists, and Seventh-Day Baptists were all invited to join in the effort. Many of them did; and even more did not! The Triennial Convention was formed in May, 1814, and met every three years, which gave its managers control. It was, in other words, a "catholic" or "umbrella" organization, made up of many different "orders" of Baptists. In 1845, this National organization split over slavery. The Southern body of Fullerite Neo-calvinists or "Missionaries" formed a National Convention in the Confederate States known as the Southern Baptists Convention. It adopted the strong Calvinistic creed of the Georgia Baptists' Association of 1792 affirming they believed in election and predestination and limited atonement.

Outside of the national Conventions of Fullerite Baptists, many "evangelical calvinists" organized other fellowships. American Baptist Association (ABA) , Missionary Baptist Association (MBA) , Baptist Missionary Association (BMA) , General Association of Regular Baptists (GARB), Eastern District Primitive Baptists, to mention but a few. In their origins, they had been Particular Baptists. They still cling to their Articles of Faith which are Calvinist, but today they oppose their own doctrinal statement. For some strange reason, they will not change them. They came, in time, to fully accept Fuller's view that "Christ atonement was sufficient for the whole world, were the whole world to believe." But they left forever his other view: "That the atonement was efficient for the elect only.” With that departure, they left Neo-calvinism; briefly stopped and visited Arminianism; and soon took their leave of them and have homesteaded in absolute freewillism- Pelagianism. For all practical purposes, Calvinism and Neo-calvinism were now dead among all proselytizing denominations.

But there never was a time when God has cut them all off. Every decade or so, there are a few ministers, and sometimes churches, which are brought to the truth of Free Grace. Repeatedly, a pattern can be seen. Such ministers follow one of three "outs" set before them. Some "come out from among them and be ye separate." Others stay in the Pelagian system as long as they can, only to get "thrown out." Still others, hireling ministers, merely "sell out" for their salaries and retirement funds. These tone the truth down to soup, and sacrifice the free grace believers among them, who must go elsewhere to be fed wholesome food. The strangest thing about these Calvinists, or Neo-calvinists is: instead of fighting the Pelagians, they build straw men of Hyper-calvinists to throw their darts at!

The original Baptists were, and yet are, Hyper­-calvinists. They followed, and still follow, the New Testament pattern in true evangelism. (Proselytizing and evangelizing is not the same thing! Modern "evangelism" is a misnomer - it is blatant "proselytizing.” ) The Hyper-calvinists never utilized man-made institutions to improve on God's Word. They never turned to the world of the ungodly for financial support for church members. Finding no "free offer" - not even one - in the Scripture, they give none. To them, the true Gospel is a proclamation, or publication of ''glad-tidings' to quickened, or regenerated sinners. It is a message of what great things Christ accomplished in their behalf by His sufferings for their sins. They know that God never "tries" to save anyone, let alone every one. They worship a God that "wants" nothing, for He has all things. Man "wants," God "will." Hyper-calvinists do not "offer" the children's bread to dogs or to strangers to the covenant; nor do they promise the children’s inheritance to those outside the family of God. They are careful to obey the Lord to ''not cast their pearls before swine." They do not "compass sea and land to make one proselyte" for the Lord told His disciples that when this was done, the convert was "twofold more the child of hell." (Matt. 23:15). This is far more serious than Neo-calvinists consider! Such practices fill religious societies with dead hypocrites.

Hyper-calvinists welcome all that God in His sovereign Providence delivers to their assemblies, and preach indiscriminately to all. Only the Lord can know "them that are His." They understand that the "Gospel is the savor of life unto life to them that believe; and a savor of death unto death to them that perish;" and for this cause ministers are to preach the same message to all their hearers alike; and leave the results where they are: ­in the hand of Almighty God! God is certainly capable of applying knowledge of salvation to those that Christ saved.

The most fundamental difference between Hyper-­calvinists and the Neo-calvinists is the Hyper-calvinists believe that when Christ came under the law, He did in fact and in deed redeem all that the Father gave Him. He fulfilled the demands of the law and imputed that righteousness to those for whom He died. When He died, He did in fact legally save all His people. When He had completed His Father's will for the elects' salvation, He ascended to His Father's throne. There He now is their very High Priest, making intercession for them day and night. From there on the throne of His glory, He sends the blessed Spirit to quicken those He redeemed and saved; and the Holy Spirit directs all affairs to that great end, and the glory of God. This includes calling, qualifying, and directing His ministers to those He quickens, for their comfort, edification, conversion, and instruction. He guides them into all truth experimentally. If one wishes to know what Hyper-calvinists believe, it is best to ask a Hyper­calvinist, rather than their enemies.

In closing this chapter, we raise the question included in the title of this book: "Hyper-calvinism: Is it the truth?" It is of little or no consequence if the above is called "Calvinism," "Hyper-calvinism, " "Hard-Shellism, " "Christianity, " or just "Rubbish." The real question is "What says the Scriptures?" What is not true in the above chapter? What is true in the above? If it is true, that, and only that, is important. Does it ascribe all the glory of salvation to God alone, and none to man? If it can pass this test, then call it whatever one likes, but rejoice in it. For it is a sweet and precious truth to all such who have known the power and dominion of sin, and the sovereign love and deliverance of Christ by free grace only. May God's grace by magnified!

HYPER-CALVINISM AND EVANGELISM

Many individuals, when they are confronted with an “anti-missionary” treatise, assume that Hyper-calvinists are averse to the preaching of the Gospel, and they often say so. One should consider, that prior to 1782, among the people called “Baptists,” there were no mission societies of any kind. “Missionism” was totally unknown among Baptists and most Protestants. Catholics, Moravians, and here and there some Congregationalists were beginning to dabble in that form of propagating the Gospel. But in general, the preaching of the Gospel was directed solely by the Holy Spirit directing His called-ministers to go wheresoever He was pleased to send them. And He sent them frequently far away from home, civil society, and seemingly in an unorganized haphazard manner. But the Gospel was preached, it spread, was believed on in the world, and churches spread throughout the earth, and in America , all alone the colonial States and the opening frontiers to the West. Aspundh’s Register for the Baptists, of 1792, reported over 12,000 converts in a very brief period of time, and this was twenty years before a mission society was formed in America . Among the Congregationists, David Branard’s work among the Native Americans (Indians) is today called “mission work,” but in his day, he was merely doing what all ministers were also doing: Preaching the Gospel where God led him to! No big deal then! How insidious that humanist principle has become!

Pelagian freewillers often claim that "Hyper­calvinists" or "Hardshells" do not "believe in preaching the Gospel." Can one believe that our moderns make claim that Gilbert Beebe did not, when in fact he devoted his entire life preaching it in its clarity and purity? We find him in New York , in Ontario Canada , in Pennsylvania , in Ohio , in Kentucky frequently on the frontier, all over Virginia and North Carolina , in Georgia , Delaware , Maryland , New Jersey , and yet his enemies are so rash as to claim he not only was not preaching the Gospel, but did not believe in doing it! How bold are the enemies of Truth! If judged on the Biblical definition of the "Gospel," as a "message of glad tidings," the Hyper-calvinists come closer to the mark than any other group. Those who view the Gospel as a "free offer," usually spend all their time "freely offerings," and seldom bother to spend the time necessary to preach "the Gospel." Neo-calvinists often write that "Hyper-calvinists do not believe in preaching the Gospel to sinners." If the Gospel is "glad tidings" of what Christ has done for sinners by His sacrificial life and death, then they stand almost alone preaching it to anyone. Both the Pelagians and Neo-calvinists present the Gospel as nothing more than a glorified plan of salvation! And, it is often presented as a very ineffectual plan, which achieves nothing without the consent of the dead and lifeless sinner. Far too often, the Neo-calvinists present a watered-down version of "Calvinism" coupled with the "free offer system to reprobates" which Andrew Fuller borrowed from Rome .

The definition of "evangelism" as used by Neo­calvinists and Pelagians, and illustrated by their modern practices, is nowhere to be found in the New Testament. The sad thing is, they really do not care that it is unscriptural. This type of so-called "evangelism" is nothing less than Judaic proselytizing, except on a more exaggerated scale. It is "the acts of making converts, usually from one religion to another". The false premise for these proselytizing activities of the "Evangelicals" will be examined more carefully and contrasted with the New Testament methods as used by the disciples and present­-day Hyper-calvinists in later chapters.

Of all the false charges and misrepresentations cast against Hyper-calvinists, the most common charge is that "Hyper-calvinists are “anti-evangelical. " There is not a single article available in print on the subject of Hyper­-calvinism that honestly and correctly presents their views. In fact, their views are most often presented by individuals who have never attended a Hyper-calvinist meeting; never explored the subject with them; nor ever even attempted to be unbiased in their presentation. One can never find a Neo-calvinist who makes any attempt to explain why Hyper-calvinists object to the modern method of proselytizing. They assume that only modern "Evangelicals" can be correct in the novel methods and principles of proselytizing as it has evolved from Andrew Fuller's somewhat primitive introduction in 1780'S.

The reader should not consider this next statement to be the central thrust of this chapter, but we will make it here. The very fact that the words "missions" and "missionary" are terms derived from the Latin, rather than the Greek text, is sufficient for a Protestant or a Baptist to reject it. Rome developed missionism, often at the point of the sword! The Greek word "apostolos," is a delegate, an ambassador, a commissioner, a messenger, or one sent forth. "Apostello" is to set apart, send out, set (at liberty). In none of these meanings can one find a principle for proselytizing. The missionism or "evangelism" of Rome was very Machiavellian. ''The end justified the means." By bribery, deceit, the sword, the rack, crusades, rewards, infant sprinkling, indulgences, interdicts, and superstitious sacraments, they made (literally) converts. So-called "Evangelicals" today are just as Machiavellian, with violence excepted, perhaps. Embarrassment, ice cream for child "decisionism" , youth crusades, scare tactics, secular­ type entertainment, emotional appeals to the flesh, and gimmicks galore are used. Why object to these? They are directed to the carnal nature of people; or the "outer man," - the flesh. They cannot affect salvation! Simply put, modern "evangelism" is not Biblical! It is not evangelism, whatever else it might be called. It is based entirely on a very false and deceitful premise: that decisionism produces conversion, and that conversion produces regeneration. In short, decisionism produces salvation! It considers these unwarranted methods useful, or even necessary, for one "to get saved" who otherwise would go to hell, in spite of Christ's precious atonement and eternal redemption of His people! So, in every way it is wrong. Its purpose is wrong, for it is used "to save souls," when all things are to be done "to the praise of the glory of His grace." (Eph. 1:6) The methods developed and refined are wrong. "Who hast required this of thy hand?" can be asked of them in the Judgment. The methods are carnal and unscriptural. The effects are wrong: they are intended to "convert" a decider-for- Christ and thus regenerate him. It only deceives him into believing he is saved and safe because he did something, rather than giving the glory to Christ. It is a system of salvation by works, which is fully condemned by Christianity. It is new and in a system of religion based upon the immutable counsel of God two thousand years old, anything new has to be wrong! That is, it is unauthorized by the canon of Scripture.

It is not sufficient to merely be against an error. It is best to present a better view and one fully sustained by the New Testament model. It is the view Hyper-calvinists believe to be warranted by the Word of God, and which was the method used prior to Andrew Fuller and that novel system. Since both Pelagians and Neo-calvinists have considered themselves well informed on Hyper-­calvinists' views; and since they have convinced the public that Hyper-calvinists do not believe in preaching the Gospel "to sinners," it is better that a Hyper-calvinist speak to the point; and prove that the older and better way is true evangelism - not proselytizing.

There were no mission institutions among Baptists prior to the Haystack Kid's Prayer-meeting in Kittering , England in 1792. These over-zealous disciples of Andrew Fuller's novelty pressed so hard for sending the Arminian "Gospel" to the East, that Fuller, William Carey, and others formed the first mission society among Baptists on October 2, 1792. Any clear-thinking reader should realize that some other method of Gospel publication must have been in place prior to Oct. 2, 1792! William Carey and his fellows is said to have "prayed down a spirit of missionism from heaven." Where was that "Spirit" before the Haystack meetings? We are exhorted to "try the spirits," and we are taught that "by their fruits ye shall know them.” This modern religion's principles cannot stand that examination. This is eighteen hundred years too late to be considered Scriptural! When these "Missionaries" arrived in India , guess what? There were Christians there to meet them! One seldom hears of that! They had the Gospel of Thomas long before the Missionaries arrived! Two years earlier, John Aspund had printed his Register Of The Baptist Denomination In North America, which listed all Baptist churches in the new Republic; the dates of their constitution, number and names of their ministers, number of members, the State, territory, and county of their location, and, most significantly, what doctrinal persuasion they each held. In 1790, all States in the Union had numerous churches; and doctrinally, ninety-three percent stated that they were of the Calvinists' persuasion! Only seven percent were Arminian, and NONE WERE PELAGIAN! Not one of them was established by a "missionary" ; none had ever been a "mission station," and ALL had been planted by itinerate or established ministers! In 1790, ALL ministers of the Gospel felt bound by their calling to preach the Gospel freely to others than their own churches. Baptists' churches expected this of their ministers. This is evident by their ordination charge "to preach where so ever God in His providence cast your lot." As it is written in the Book of Acts, "They went everywhere preaching the Word." The very fact that the overwhelming number of ministers and churches were Calvinists, clearly demonstrates that the Gospel was being preached to sinners by these Hyper­-calvinist ministers. [Hyper-calvinists, in the sense that (1) they were "Baptists," going beyond John Calvin; and (2) they did not utilize what is today termed "missionism. " And (3) they believed in Holy Spirit regeneration of all the elect for whom Christ died! They certainly were not preaching freewillism as a Gospel!]

The only form of the word for "evangelist" used in the Scripture is "euaggelistes" which means "a preacher of the Gospel." It is derived from the Greek word "euaggelizo, " which means "to announce good news." Itinerate preaching by Hyper-calvinists is exactly this, and this only! It is the announcement, or publication of salvation by Christ's atoning death. That, dear reader, is the gospel- not "a free offer." It is a finished salvation for the chief of sinners. And it is preached by Hyper-calvinists to sinners. Notice here what is not "evangelism" : proselytizing, pressing for decisions, indoctrinating, giving "free offers," "bribing deciders-for- Christ", "raising your hands if you are a Christian," and gimmicks, more gimmicks, and gimmicks galore! None of these things can be "announcing good news;" none is "preaching the Gospel."

We will illustrate this from a personal point. When this writer was seeking those who believed the truth of free grace, he visited a great number of churches that claimed to believe in election and a limited predestination. Most often, knowing the visitor was a Pelagian Southern Baptist, they preached what the Gospel was not, and what it could not do. The writer discovered early that one could spend a life-time preaching what the Gospel is not; and never get around to preaching what it is! He wanted to hear the Gospel preached! As ministers of Christ, or may we say, If they are ministers of Christ, their calling is to preach the Gospel ... not other worthless things! Too few are now preaching the Gospel, so there is plenty of elbow room for one who is burdened to preach it! It may sound terrible, but getting someone to "make a decision" has nothing to do with preaching the Gospel; or for acquiring salvation. I coach my pet cat into making decisions every day: I am not stupid enough to think I saved a cat’s soul! The time would be better used preaching the Gospel. There is not one single example in the New Testament of one making a decision; nor one giving a "free offer". If such had anything to do with salvation, Christ, the apostles and others would have been doing it!

So the title of this chapter: "Hyper-calvinists and Evangelism" is an appropriate one. If it had been titled "Pelagian and Evangelism" it would not; for those ministers harping on "evangelism" are not practicing it! They have a proselytizing system which they wish to pawn off as "evangelism. " If a Neo-calvinist is not preaching the good news that Christ has saved His people, that minister is not preaching the Gospel. Hyper-calvinists are preaching it; and they are preaching it "to sinners."

Gian
Berichten: 6295
Lid geworden op: 27 Nov 2004, 22:24

Re: Defination of Hyper-calvinism by Elder Stanley Philips

Berichtdoor Gian » 16 Jul 2008, 20:31

lijkt wel theologienet hier... :bobo
Uitverkiezing is in de Schrift nooit met uitsluiting van anderen maar ten dienste van anderen. God koos Abraham uit, niet omdat de rest van mensheid Hem niet interesseerde maar juist opdat via hem alle geslachten van de aardbodem gezegend zouden worden

Gebruikersavatar
wim
Berichten: 3776
Lid geworden op: 30 Okt 2002, 12:40

Re: Defination of Hyper-calvinism by Elder Stanley Philips

Berichtdoor wim » 16 Jul 2008, 22:43

Gian schreef:lijkt wel theologienet hier... :bobo

Ja, inderdaad. En hoe ver staat dat af van de doelstelling van RF:

Doelstelling
Refoforum is een forum voor de Gereformeerde Gezindte waarop degenen die daartoe behoren met elkaar discussieren over zaken die spelen in de Gereformeerde Gezindte zelf óf over de interactie tussen de Gereformeerde Gezindte en de samenleving in het algemeen.
Met deze discussies trachten de deelnemers daaraan van elkaar te leren om enerzijds te komen tot een beter begrip van de Gereformeerde Gezindte zelf en anderzijds sterker te staan in de vraagstukken op het grensvlak van de Gereformeerde Gezindte en de samenleving in het algemeen.

Flynn
Berichten: 90
Lid geworden op: 21 Mar 2007, 12:25

Re: Defination of Hyper-calvinism by Elder Stanley Philips

Berichtdoor Flynn » 17 Jul 2008, 20:42

Hey you guys, can you translate your comments to match the smilie with the orbiting stars?

Thanks,
David

Alexander CD
Berichten: 1063
Lid geworden op: 13 Sep 2008, 18:44

Re: Defination of Hyper-calvinism by Elder Stanley Philips

Berichtdoor Alexander CD » 15 Sep 2008, 22:33

The best definition of a Hyper-Calvinism I know of is from David Engelsma;

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. 8
This definition is much more helpful in that it tells us the specific characteristics of hyper-Calvinism: (1) a denial that the call of the gospel to repent and believe is universal, i.e. for all alike, and (2) a denial that the unregenerate man has a duty to believe. It also illustrates how this misguided view adversely affects evangelism. With this definition it is easier to see exactly where hyper-Calvinists have strayed from orthodoxy. It should also be noted here that these particular characteristics are not true of classic 5-point or high-Calvinism.

Flynn
Berichten: 90
Lid geworden op: 21 Mar 2007, 12:25

Re: Defination of Hyper-calvinism by Elder Stanley Philips

Berichtdoor Flynn » 17 Sep 2008, 21:56

Hey there Alexander,

You say:

The best definition of a Hyper-Calvinism I know of is from David Engelsma;

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.


I would encourage you not to rely on Englesma and his historical claims. His claims regarding Calvin and Turretin on the love and will of God are just incorrect. Engelsma just takes Turretin, especially, out of context, leaving out critical words in his quotation. When you insert the words he leaves out (as signified by elipses) you see Turretin saying the very thing Engelsma says he didnt say. If you are interested, check this out: http://www.theologyonline.org/blog/?p=206.

You will also find plenty of Calvin material on genera love and God's desire and will for the salvation of all men. You can go here and scroll down the page to the general love section: http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?page_id=214

And for Calvin he explicitly affirms a general love for all men, distinct from his electing special love. And he affirms that God wills and desires that all men be saved.

You add:
This definition is much more helpful in that it tells us the specific characteristics of hyper-Calvinism: (1) a denial that the call of the gospel to repent and believe is universal, i.e. for all alike, and (2) a denial that the unregenerate man has a duty to believe. It also illustrates how this misguided view adversely affects evangelism. With this definition it is easier to see exactly where hyper-Calvinists have strayed from orthodoxy. It should also be noted here that these particular characteristics are not true of classic 5-point or high-Calvinism.


The problem is, this is simply not true. John Gill for example, totally affirms the universal call of the gospel to all men. You can easily verify this in his Body of Divinity. What Gill did deny was the well-meant offer of the gospel to all. Its true he denied duty-faith. See this link for some Gill: http://www.theologyonline.org/blog/?p=248. Joseph Hussey is well documented as the father of classic hypercalvinism. And documentation from his seminal book is posted here: http://www.theologyonline.org/blog/?p=225. The 19thC hyper, Styles, can be found here: http://www.theologyonline.org/blog/?p=417. I could site more and more.

Modern day hypercalvinism affirms the preaching and call of the gospel, and formally affirm duty-faith. Tho I think the denial of a conditional offer and conditional promise is a side-door way of denying duty responsibility.

If you take the time to read some of the links, you will see that Engelsma is not representative of classic Calvinist theology, but on these points has more in common with classic Gillite Hypercalvinism.

The basic markers of hypercalvinism are:

1) the denial of a general love of God to all men which desires and delights in their salvation, as well as the basic idea of favorable disposition.

2) the denial of revealed will as a will and desire that all men be saved.

3) the denial of the well-meaningness of the offer of grace to all men in the gospel.

4) and for classic hypercalvinism, the denial of duty-faith.

On points 1-3, Engelsma is on the same page as John Gill, Hussey and Styles.

If you scope out this index page, you will see tons of classic documentation: http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?page_id=214 Look out for the Calvin material especially.

Hope that helps,

Take care,
David

Alexander CD
Berichten: 1063
Lid geworden op: 13 Sep 2008, 18:44

Re: Defination of Hyper-calvinism by Elder Stanley Philips

Berichtdoor Alexander CD » 17 Sep 2008, 23:09

Thank you, David for your reply, I am surely interested in the topic, I like the works of Turretin very much.
I did read a lot of what he wrote.
I will surely look at these links, thank you.
With the general love of God I have some problems, I don't know how to see that, if God loves everbody, why doesn't He save everbody, I believe He is Allmighty, He can accomplish everything He wants, do you understand I run into this kind of problems.
peace

Flynn
Berichten: 90
Lid geworden op: 21 Mar 2007, 12:25

Re: Defination of Hyper-calvinism by Elder Stanley Philips

Berichtdoor Flynn » 17 Sep 2008, 23:38

Hey Alexander,

Alexander CD schreef:Thank you, David for your reply, I am surely interested in the topic, I like the works of Turretin very much.
I did read a lot of what he wrote.
I will surely look at these links, thank you.
With the general love of God I have some problems, I don't know how to see that, if God loves everbody, why doesn't He save everbody, I believe He is Allmighty, He can accomplish everything He wants, do you understand I run into this kind of problems.
peace


Sure, its not easy to think through some of these things. I cant answer you exhaustively here. I can only mention a few points.

1) For what it is worth, all Reformed, of all trajectories (except the hypercalvinist wings) have always taught that God loves all men with a non-electing love. This is documented from Calvin, from Musculus, from Ursinus, a' Brakel, Turretin and others.

2) These people come to the point, at the end of the day, that because Scripture teaches it, we must submit to it. Its somewhat like the Trinity: because we may not be able to comprehend it, we must nonetheless submit to it as truth. From experience, when we come to that point where we admit it is a doctrine of Scripture, the subjective unsettling passes in time.

3) Traditionally, all wings have attempted to deal with the apparent humanness of God in some way or another. By humanness, I mean that God expresses himself with human emotions and desires. Normally this is subsumed under the category of anthropomorphic language. Calvin says that God basically speaks a sort of baby-talk for our benefit.

4) The traditional distinction of the two-fold aspect of God's will is a valid theological tool which helps us. By will decretive, God absolutely ordains whatever comes to pass. By will revealed, God expresses to man what he commands and desires men to do. So for example, every Christian, deep down wants to admit that God wants all husbands to be faithful to their wives. No Christian male should think otherwise. The Christian husband reasons from God's will to be faithful to God wants husbands to be faithful. Even if we cannot dissect how it all works, we know deep down, that God wants all husbands to be faithful; even when we know things can be decreed otherwise.

5) This distinction helps us to understand the love of God. God decretively wills to effectually love some. But by will revealed, he displays his compassion to all. God is not such a god that he delights or desires suffering and death. He may will it by decree as a judge against sin, but he may not delight or desire it as the universal father-creator of all men.

6) With the revealed will and desire, it is not as if this will fails. This is important to keep in mind. It is not as if God seeks to actually save all men but fails. The revealed will exhibits God's character and compassion. It accomplished, therefore, everything it seeks to obtain.

There are loads of Scriptures that the Reformed looked to support all these ideas; such as Lam 3:33, Hos 11:8, Ps 81:13 Eze 18:23, Isa 26:10, 28:21, Hos 6:6-Matt 12:7, Matt 5:45 etc etc. I have underlined the verses where Calvin is especially good on. If Calvin is of influence, you might want to check him out on Jn 3:16-17, 2 Peter 3:9, Matt 23:37 etc.

If you have any questions, you are more than welcome to ask here, or you can email me flynn 000 [at] comcast [dot] net [no spaces, convert the at and the dot etc]. Or you can post a comment at either blog I directed you to.

Take care and thanks,
David

Gebruikersavatar
mayflower
Berichten: 1219
Lid geworden op: 23 Sep 2004, 08:19

Re: Defination of Hyper-calvinism by Elder Stanley Philips

Berichtdoor mayflower » 18 Sep 2008, 00:04

Does God Love Everybody?

Introduction:
1. Many think it quite sacrilegious for us to even approach this question, for it is assumed with such arrogance.
2. We are attacking the very bedrock, and for many the entire structure, of man’s presumed knowledge of God!
3. This is all most people know, and think they need to know, about God. All else is subordinate to this theme.
4. They think it horrible to limit God’s love to men, for they presume man is lovable and God must love him.
5. They cannot stand the God of the Bible, for they have imagined a God that is much more to their sinful liking.
6. What men may teach about God does not have any necessary connection to truth without valid confirmation.
7. Men teach there is no God, He is a woman, He watches from a distance, and He couldn’t send anyone to hell.
8. There is only one absolute, complete, final, and true source of information about Jehovah – the Holy Bible.
9. What men may wish about God does not have any necessary connection to truth without valid confirmation.
10. Men wish God was a sugar daddy, Who would forgive all men just to be nice and take them all to heaven.
11. The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, especially in matters about God (Jer 17:9).
12. Natural creation only shows God’s glory, handiwork, eternal power, and Godhead (Ps 19:1-6; Rom 1:19-21).
13. We need much more than that to discover His redeeming love, the objects of His love, and the fruits of it.
14. From creation, we can see choices were made for men that are horrifically distinguishing and discriminating – some die in the womb, die in youth, are born blind, are born retarded, are born in horrible squalor, etc., etc.
15. From the Bible, why do men ignore Eden’s consequences, the Flood, the Canaanites, Korah, Sapphira, etc.?
16. We live in a feminized generation that has watered everything down to lukewarm vomit, except, of course, the right and obligation to hate anyone who dogmatically stands for a sovereign God and an infallible Bible.
17. Addressing this subject must be like Noah telling his generation enough rain was coming to cover mountains.
18. Addressing this subject must be like Columbus saying the earth was round to a world believing it was flat.
19. Addressing this subject must be like Peter telling the Jews Jesus was the Messiah and they had killed Him.
20. The assumptions, presumptions, and default mechanisms on this subject are unbelievably, deeply rooted.
21. The sound of words, especially John 3:16, must be rooted out and replaced with the sense of the words.
22. Hearing John 3:16 with a sense to fit Scripture and truth is no worse than I Cor 11:24 and Gal 5:4 to others.
23. No one truly argues for the character of God when it comes to His love, or they would seek love for the devil.
24. What are some of the consequences of this heresy? No fear of God in the earth, ignorance of God’s holiness and righteousness, feminized church leadership, superficial professions of religion, lack of zeal for holyliving, neglect of discipline in the church and home, a weak and begging ministry, the-end-justifies-the-means evangelism, a degraded view of salvation, contemporary worship to cater to the carnal, universalism and no-hell heresies, candy cane use of Bible verses, PETA, and lovers of pleasure assuming eternal life.
25. How can we benefit by answering the question? Worship God in truth (John 4:23-24), serve Him with reverence and godly fear (Heb 12:28-29), understand the Bible without confusion (II Tim 2:15), bask in our glorious salvation (II Cor 9:15), see through the fallacy of an offer of salvation (John 6:38-39), see the commendation God gave His love (Rom 5:5-8), be motivated to extreme service (II Cor 5:14-17), know we can never be separated from it (Rom 8:38-39), and be filled with all the fullness of God (Eph 3:14-19).

1. God hates all sinners.
A. This is plainly taught in Psalm 5:4-6 and 11:4-6, though these verses are generally ignored.
B. Here are two verses that specifically address the subject at hand – there are people God hates.
C. In spite of these verses, people want to keep right on believing, “God couldn’t hate anybody.”
D. God hates sinners – the wicked in these verses – because He hates sin, and sinners love sin.
E. It is the imagination of weak minds that gently coos, “God hates the sin, but loves the sinner.”
F. This statement is a profane lie! Should Noah have had a banner across the side of the ark comforting the drowning rebels with the words, “God hates the sin, but loves the sinner”?
G. This statement is a profane lie! Should Joshua have had ensigns before the armies of Israel as they exterminated the Canaanites with the words, “God hates the sin, but loves the sinner”?
H. There is nothing in man justifying God’s love; there is nothing in God requiring He love man.
I. Throughout the word of God, there are two great classes of men – the wicked and the righteous, the reprobates and the elect, the sinners and saints, the children and the bastards, the church and the rest, the saved and the lost, vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy, etc., etc.
J. It is a result of confused thinking to say, “God hates the sin, but loves the sinner.” Sin is not a separate thing that can be hated and punished by itself. Sin is the rebellious choice of a rational creature to despise His Creator and violate His commandments. God hates the actor and activity of this rebel creature. He will send persons to hell, not sins. The saying is a profane lie!
K. God hates both the sin and the sinner (Lev 20:23; Deut 18:12; 25:16; Ps 2:4-9; 7:11; 10:3; Pr 3:31-34; 6:16-19; 16:5; 17:5; Malachi 1:3-4; I Corinthians 16:22; Revelation 14:10-11).
L. The apparent dilemma with God loving His elect will be explained in detail in following points; but let it be remembered that God’s elect are not sinners or workers of iniquity, for God has viewed them has holy and without blame since before the world began, when He chose them in Christ Jesus their Surety (Eph 1:3-6)!

2. God hates sin and sinners because He is holy.
A. God is holy, and His absolutely holy nature requires that He hate sin wherever He finds it.
B. The definition of true holiness and righteousness includes hatred for sin (Ps 45:7; Heb 1:9).
C. The great God is of purer eyes than to behold evil or look on iniquity approvingly (Hab 1:13).
D. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is holy … undefiled … and separate from sinners (Heb 7:26).
E. God is so pure in His holiness that angelic sin was not accepted in His sight (Job 15:14-16).
F. Any man who truly fears and loves God will hate sin with Him (Pr 8:13; Ps 45:7; Heb 1:9).
G. God’s holiness requires that He hate sin (Psalm 5:4-6; 53:5; 73:20; Pr 6:16-19; Zech 8:17).
H. God is very holy, and this character trait of God cannot be neglected (Is 6:1-7; Rev 4:8).
I. The holiness of God is a grossly neglected and rejected attribute of the Lord Jehovah.
J. There is no place in heaven for anything that defiles, for God and heaven are holy (Rev 21:27).
K. Consider how the holiness and justice of God poured out wrath on Jesus for the elect’s sins.
L. If He forsook His Son and took pleasure in bruising Him … because of our sins … how much more shall He forsake, bruise, and hate those without faith, who continue in rabid rebellion?

3. God loves His elect because legally they are not sinners.
A. He chose His elect as holy in Christ before the world began, so He could love them (Ep 1:3-4).
1. He chose the elect in Christ in order to view them as holy and without blame! Glory!
2. He chose to view the elect as holy and without blame, so He could love them! Glory!
3. Consider the glorious declarations in this wonderful passage of Scripture about God’s love.
4. The whole passage is wrapped up in the will and purpose of God, not our inherent worth.
5. God chose those He would love, and He made His love for them possible (Rom 9:15).

B. He both predestinated the elect to be His sons and made them acceptable in Christ (Eph 1:5-6).
1. He had to predestinate us to the adoption by Jesus Christ in order to accept us sinners.
2. The issue is not whether we accept God or not, but whether He can and will accept us!
3. And all this choosing and predestinating to make us holy and acceptable is by His will!
4. And it is all to the praise of the glory of His grace, for it is all of God choosing to love us!
5. If God loves all men indiscriminately and without exception, then it is a necessary conclusion that salvation is to the praise of the glory of their free wills! God forbid!

C. The eternal covenant of grace viewed the elect in Christ with their sins fully paid and forgiven.
1. The new covenant includes God forgetting their sins and iniquities (Heb 8:12; 10:17)!
2. The legal phase of salvation must be understood well to fully appreciate this transaction.
3. God was in Christ reconciling the elect to Himself (Rom 3:25; II Cor 5:18-21; I Pet 3:18).

4. God hated the man Esau.
A. The Bible clearly declares that God hated Esau, while loving Jacob (Mal 1:2-4; Rom 9:13).
B. He hated Esau for his sin nature from Adam, not his profane sins (Rom 5:12-19; 9:11-12).
C. If these verses speak of nations and not individuals, then the point is even stronger.
D. If these verses use hate and love just to mean some relative relationship, then what of “world.”

5. God does not love those who are not His children.
A. The Bible tells us that clearly and emphatically that God chastens all those He loves (Heb 12:6-8).
B. But it also tells us that He does not chasten all, for some are bastards and not sons (Heb 12:6-8).
C. To not chasten a child is to show hatred to that child, and God does not chasten bastards (Pr 13:24).
D. The love of God is for His family, which Paul identified as the boundless love of Christ (Eph 3:14-19).

6. God does not love those He doesn’t know.
A. At the last day, the Lord Jesus Christ will profess to many He never knew them (Matt 7:23).
B. These words do not mean He did not know of them or about them, but He never loved them.
C. For the word “know” can mean factual knowledge or an affectionate relationship (Amos 3:2).
D. These persons are “workers of iniquity,” the ones He hates, for they are still sinners (Ps 5:4-6).
E. God knows and foreknows His elect, which foundation is sure (Rom 8:29-30; II Tim 2:19).
F. His foreknowledge of the elect resulted in their predestination as sons (Eph 1:5; I Pet 1:2).
G. He knows His sheep, and He loves them (John 10:14). He knows them, not about them.

7. God does not love those who will be separated from Him in hell.
A. When God loves a man, it is impossible for that man to be separated from Him (Rom 8:38-39).
B. Many will be separated from God in the last day by the words, “Depart from me” (Matt 7:23).
C. Since the wicked in hell will be separated from God, it is sure that He never loved them at all.
D. It is idiocy to say God loves those in hell just as much and in the same way as those in heaven.
E. If you say He stopped loving them at some point, how will you prove He is so changeable?

8. Christ does not love others in the way He loves His Church.
A. Jesus Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it for very specific results (Eph 5:25-27).
B. If Jesus Christ loves all men without exception or distinction, then what do these words mean?
C. Paul appeals to Christ’s love for His church, His bride, to exhort men to love their wives.
D. If Christ loved all men without exception, then husbands should love all women the same way!
E. The Lord Jesus Christ, sent from the Father, loved the church – only – and gave Himself for it!
F. If He loved and gave Himself for others, without helping them, how does that build marriages?

9. God’s love results in eternal salvation.
A. God’s love is inseparably connected with the giving of Jesus Christ (I John 4:9; Rom 8:32).
B. In many places where God’s love is mentioned, so is the giving of Christ for His people.
C. It is due to God’s love that He in wisdom designed the means by which He would save them.
D. Those in the Lake of Fire will suffer for their sins, as they were never paid for nor forgiven.
E. He that spared not His own Son for the elect, those He loved, will give everything else also!

10. God loves righteousness and those who are righteous.
A. God cannot and does not love sin or sinners, but He does love the righteous (Ps 11:7; Heb 1:9).
B. Look at any angle or perspective of God’s love you wish, He can only love righteousness.
C. His divinely perfect character cannot and will not ever approve sin affectionately. He cannot!

11. God’s love is inseparably connected with Christ’s intercession.
A. Jesus sits at God’s right hand interceding for all the Father loves (Rom 8:34-35; Heb 7:22-25).
B. Jesus does not plead for the wicked; He endures them in longsuffering (I Pet 3:20; Rom 9:22).
C. And He will save all His elect to the uttermost without losing a single one of them. Glory!

12. God’s love is revealed to its objects by the Spirit of God.
A. The Holy Spirit reveals and communicates God’s love to all those whom He loves (Rom 5:5).
B. But the Spirit is only given to those who are sons, as God does not love bastards (Gal 4:6).
C. The Spirit is the earnest of the inheritance for the elect only (Eph 1:13-14; II Cor 1:22; 5:5).

13. God is angry at the wicked every day.
A. The Bible declares rather plainly that God is angry at the wicked every day (Psalm 7:11).
B. He burned in His wrath toward men, when He drowned the entire planet in a Flood of water.
C. And He will be angry again toward men, when He burns up the planet with fire in the last day.
D. God’s anger toward His elect brings kind chastening; His anger toward the wicked brings hell.

14. God taught David to hate all those who hated God.
A. David hated all the enemies of God, who hated Him, with a perfect hatred (Psalm 139:21-22).
B. He was the sweet psalmist of Israel, who was also the man after God’s own heart (Acts 13:22).
C. David also admitted his hatred of sinners in other places, but they are ignored (Ps 26:5; 31:6).
D. How are we to believe God loves all the wicked, but the man after His own heart hated them?
E. God did not inspire David to write things carnal or disagreeable; his hatred was holy and good.

15. God’s love for sinners is not a part of scriptural evangelism.
A. It is a popular delusion that Bible evangelism is to spread the news that God loves sinners.
B. The world’s most popular tract, “The Four Spiritual Laws,” declares confidently for its first and most important law, “God loves you, and has a wonderful plan for your life.”
C. Bumper stickers and smiley faces grin everywhere with the words, “Smile, God loves you.”
D. Some have said that John 3:16 is the gospel in a nutshell, the most important verse in the Bible.
E. Which would you have hung on a banner from the ark? The first spiritual law or John 3:16?
F. But if we read the Acts of the Apostles, we cannot find even one reference to the love of God in any of the thirteen conjugations and forms of love used in the New Testament. Amazing!
G. But we can read about God’s judgment – over and over again (Acts 10:42; 17:30-31; 24:25)!
H. Consider how he opened with Cornelius and his household of Gentiles (Acts 10:34-35).
I. Something is clearly wrong! Either the apostles were wrong, or modern evangelism is wrong!
J. Jesus Christ and the apostles focused on our love for God (and neighbor), not His love of us!
K. When Stephen faced the Jews in Acts 7, why didn’t he tell them about the love of Jesus?
L. When Peter faced the first Gentiles in Acts 10, why didn’t he tell them about the love of Jesus?
M. When Paul faced the philosophers in Acts 17, why didn’t he tell them about the love of Jesus?
N. When Paul faced the Jews in Acts 28, why didn’t he tell them about the love of Jesus?

16. But … does not the Bible teach that God loved the world?
A. Yes, the Bible teaches that God loved the world in John 3:16.
B. This is the “gospel in a nutshell,” many say. They say, “This is all I need and all I want.” But it is merely one verse out of 31,173. Every word of God is pure, and helps explain the others.
C. But this oft-quoted, never-understood verse does not say that God loves every single human without exception so very much and so very badly that He had to send His son to try to save them all, with the overall project being a colossal failure in that most are not saved at all.
D. The whole issue with this popular corruption of the verse is the definition of the word “world.” But what of 12:19; 14:17; 15:19; 16:20; 17:14?
E. First, if we force world to mean every single descendant without exception or distinction, then we have a serious contradiction with all we have already read and studied in the perfect Bible.
F. Second, if we force world to mean every single descendant without exception or distinction, then we create a whole basket full of absurdities and contradictions elsewhere in the Bible.
G. Jesus is speaking to a ruler of the Jews and laying heavy doctrine on him. He has described the new birth that blew his mind, now he points out a dying Messiah, who would die for Gentiles.
H. Whomever God loved, He gave His Son for them, meaning the elect (Jn 6:39; 10:11; 17:2-3).
I. And true to John’s purpose for writing, believers only can know eternal life was purchased for them (John 20:31; I John 5:13).
J. Jesus had already made crystal clear that sovereign regeneration had to precede any belief, which is granted only to the elect (John 1:12-13; 3:3,8).
K. There is a sermon and extensive outline explaining John’s own interpretation of John 3:16.

17. But … does not the Bible teach that God is love?
A. Yes, the Bible teaches that God is love in I John 4:8 and I John 4:16.
B. But these words do not prove (1) God is only love, (2) God loves all men, (3) God loves any man, (4) God loves you, (5) how long God loves, or (6) just about any thing else you imagine.
C. It simply and only teaches that one characteristic of God is that He loves, and He does love.
D. But He is also holy and righteous, which John introduced first in this very epistle (I John 1:5).
E. While God is love, God cannot love sin or sinners, as we have clearly proved in other places.

18. But … does not the Bible teach that God loves us as sinners?
A. Yes, the Bible teaches that God loved us when we were yet sinners (Romans 5:8).
B. However, in what sense(s) we were still sinners? This is the key, for we were already in Christ.
C. When we read the personal pronouns “us” and “we” in context with God’s love and Christ’s death, we are not to understand a letter written from heaven to the whole human race!
D. We were still sinners vitally and practically before our regeneration and conversion, when Christ died for us. But we had been loved eternally long before the cross of Calvary.

19. But … particular love makes God unfair, cruel, and a respecter of persons?
A. Paul knew long ago you would raise this objection. His answer? God forbid (Romans 9:14-24)!
B. You do not even understand your own objection, for how is it respect of persons to choose to love someone for nothing in them whatsoever, but altogether contrary to what is in them?
C. How does it make God unfair? Because He does not love all? Do all deserve love? We are sinful rebels, why must He love us? He is unfair by loving any, which is why it is called grace!
D. If you are so concerned about the character of God, why not argue for God loving the devil?

20. But … I couldn’t and wouldn’t serve a God that doesn’t love everybody!
A. Truly? There is another Jesus, spirit, and gospel with many preachers (II Cor 11:3-5,13-15).
B. If you are so concerned about God loving everybody, why don’t you feel sorry for the devil?
C. You are gravely mistaken to think there is anything about you worth loving at all.
D. You are gravely mistaken to think there is something in God requiring Him to love you at all. E. If you are going to create a God after your own thoughts, He has a word for you (Ps 50:21-22)!

21. God’s love is only meaningful when His hatred of sinners is fully understood.
A. If a prostitute told a thinking man she loved him, her statement of love would be worthless.
B. In the same way, the love of God is not very meaningful when it is loosely scattered to all.
C. What is so special about the love of God for me, if God loves everyone equally?
D. What is so moving about the love of God for me, if many He loves are already in hell?
E. The love of God is not a promiscuous love of all men, but an efficacious love of the elect.
F. How does God commend His love? By loving us when enemies and giving Christ for us?
G. Paul sought for the Ephesians to know the full dimensions of God’s love, which knowledge could fill them with all the fullness of God (Eph 3:14-19).
But how can universal love do this?
H. What saddens the righteous and confirms the wicked (Ezek 13:22)? The universal love of God! I. Now the words of John make sense, “We love him, because he first loved us” (I John 4:19).

22. God’s love for us should constrain us to serve and fear Him.
A. When we rightly understand the love of God, it will powerfully move us to devoted service.
B. If God’s love is universal without distinction, and it accomplishes nothing for sure, there is hardly a motive for service at all. That is why there are so few truly dedicated Arminians.
C. The more the love of God is bandied about, the greater the carnality and weakness of hearers.
D. Isaiah was moved to instant service by God giving a specific sacrifice for his sins (Is 6:1-8).
E. When Paul reasons, “If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love …,” he is arguing from the overwhelming sense of debt and obligation we ought to have (Phil 2:1).
F. Paul was constrained to serve God by the life-giving love of God in Christ, and he understood that this sacrificial and saving love should cause all saints to be new creatures (II Cor 5:14-17).
G. It should be easy to tremble before Him and His word, when we see His love in truth (Is 66:2).
H. We should also find it easy to worship Him with reverence and godly fear (Heb 12:28-29).
I. We should understand that there is forgiveness with Him that He might be feared (Ps 130:4).
J. Our prayers should be quite different from those who think He’s a hand full of cotton candy.
K. How can we sin easily, presumptuously, or repeatedly, if we are standing in awe (Psalm 4:4)?
L. This doctrine should cause us to walk humbly and justly before our God in holy sobriety.

Conclusion:
1. This is surely not a popular subject, but neither was a universal flood by Noah or a round earth by Columbus.
2. You cannot know the blessed God of heaven apart from His detailed revelation in the Holy Scriptures.
3. All the feelings and opinions of men are profane folly, for their hearts are deceitful and desperately wicked.
4. The personal issue for you is not whether God loves you, but whether you fear and love God with all you are.
5. God is not obligated to love any. His love is by His sovereign choice, which He did to His elect (Rom 9:15).
6. How can we benefit by answering the question? Worship God in truth (John 4:23-24), serve Him with reverence and godly fear (Heb 12:28-29), understand the Bible without confusion (II Tim 2:15), bask in our glorious salvation (II Cor 9:15), see through the fallacy of an offer of salvation (John 6:38-39), see the commendation God gave His love (Rom 5:5-8), be motivated to extreme service (II Cor 5:14-17), know we can never be separated from it (Rom 8:38-39), and be filled with all the fullness of God (Eph 3:14-19).

For further reading and study: 1. John 3:16 reclaimed: http://www.letgodbetrue.com/Sermons/pdf ... sited.pdf2. Holiness; its importance: http://www.letgodbetrue.com/Sermons/pdf/Holiness.pdf3. Adoption as the sons of God: http://www.letgodbetrue.com/Sermons/pdf/Adoption.pdf4. Why preach the gospel?: http://www.letgodbetrue.com/Sermons/pdf ... ospel.pdf5. The Book of Life: http://www.letgodbetrue.com/Sermons/pdf/BookOfLife.pdf6. Salvation Rightly Divided: http://www.letgodbetrue.com/Sermons/pdf ... vided.pdf7. Love of Christ Constrains Us: http://www.letgodbetrue.com/Sermons/pdf ... eth_Us.PDF
Laatst gewijzigd door mayflower op 18 Sep 2008, 00:28, 2 keer totaal gewijzigd.

Flynn
Berichten: 90
Lid geworden op: 21 Mar 2007, 12:25

Re: Defination of Hyper-calvinism by Elder Stanley Philips

Berichtdoor Flynn » 18 Sep 2008, 00:26

Hey Mayflower,

The formatting of your post is not that reader-friendly.

The arguments look very standard. The problem is, the Reformed orthodox have always affirmed general love. Turretin affirmed it, Calvin affirmed it, a' Brakel affirmed it. I think its important to keep that in mind. I have no problem if someone disagrees. However, what normally happens is the denial of the historicity of the doctrine.

But I took a look at one of the points:

From the start of the file here: http://www.letgodbetrue.com/sermons/pdf/does-god-love-everybody.pdf
"God hates all sinners."


The apparent dilemma with God loving His elect will be explained in detail in following points; but let it be remembered that God’s elect are not sinners or workers of iniquity, for God has viewed them has holy and without blame since before the world began, when He chose them in Christ Jesus their Surety (Eph 1:3-6)!


That's not orthodox. Biblically the unbelieving elect are sinners and workers of iniquity. Eph 2:3. Ps 5:5 is not an exclusive reference to the reprobate, but to the wicked. Prov 6:17 is not a reference to the non-elect. God hates all liars. Men are not justified in eternity. Justification happens in time upon faith, Rom 5:1.

God can love and hate the same object, Jer 12:7-8, for example.

So now, from the orthodox perspective, if your author can so get these foundational points wrong, everything else will probably be skewed accordingly.

I am sure you have seen all these verses before, so I dont think this is anything new to you, or will be persuasive.

But I do like the way he says the elect were/are never sinners. :-)

Take care,
David

Gebruikersavatar
Bert Mulder
Berichten: 9060
Lid geworden op: 28 Aug 2006, 22:07
Locatie: Sherwood Park Alberta Canada
Contact:

Re: Defination of Hyper-calvinism by Elder Stanley Philips

Berichtdoor Bert Mulder » 18 Sep 2008, 00:57

My friend Mayflower, unfortunately your links are dead...

My friend Flynn, you are resurrecting all the old arguments of universalists,

However, neither Calvin, Brakel nor Turretin, when not taken out of context, taught a universal love of God for all mankind.

Also, the orthodox fathers taught justification from eternity...

(do not see a citation war as edifying, so will restrain myself....)
Mijn enige troost is, dat ik niet mijn, maar Jezus Christus eigen ben, Die voor mijn zonden betaald heeft, en zo bewaart, dat alles tot mijn zaligheid dienen moet; waarom Hij mij ook door Zijn Heilige Geest van eeuwig leven verzekert, en Hem voortaan te leven van harte willig en bereid maakt.

Flynn
Berichten: 90
Lid geworden op: 21 Mar 2007, 12:25

Re: Defination of Hyper-calvinism by Elder Stanley Philips

Berichtdoor Flynn » 18 Sep 2008, 16:17

Bert Mulder schreef:My friend Flynn, you are resurrecting all the old arguments of universalists,
However, neither Calvin, Brakel nor Turretin, when not taken out of context, taught a universal love of God for all mankind.


Hey Burt,

That's an interesting claim. I did adduce a few Scriptures there. :-)

From your side, for your argument--regarding your historical claims--to hold good, you would need a positive argument and a negative one.

Positively, you would need to adduce statements from Calvin and Turretin wherein--even tho they are worded by way of negation--they positively state a denial of any love, or a non-electing love to the reprobate. It has been decades, and I still dont see a single statement from Calvin or Turretin tabled to prove that that I can recall.

Negatively, you would have to show how it is that the dozens of comments from Calvin, throughout his entire life, which to all intents and purposes declare that God loves all mankind with a love that is distinct from his electing love, are all taken out of context. This holds good for the related subjects of Calvin's view on the will of God for salvation of all men, for common grace, and so forth.

I will give you some sample quotations from Calvin. You show me how they are taken out of context, please:

1) The meaning of Moses is then easy enough, namely that albeit God loves all people, yet that his Saints are in his charge or protection, yea even those whom he has chosen. Unless a man will refer these words, “the People”, to the twelve tribes: but that were hard and constrained. Moses then does here compare all men and all the Nations of the earth with the lineage of Abraham which God had chosen: as if he should say, that God’s grace is spread out everywhere, as we ourselves see, and as the Scripture also witnesses in other places. And not only men are partakers of this goodness of God, and are fed and maintained by his liberality: but he does also show himself bountiful even to brute beasts. Even thither does his mercy extend according to this saying of the Psalm, Who makes the fields and mountains to bring forth grass for the feeding of cattle, but God who has a care of them? Seeing that GOD vouchsafes to have so merciful regard of the beasts which he has created, as to given them food; it is more to be thought that he will be a foster father to men, whom he has made and shaped after his own image, which approaches nearer unto him, and which have a thing far excelling above all other creatures: God then does love all people. Yea, but yet not in comparison to his Church. And why? For all the children of Adam are enemies unto God by reason of the corruption that is in them. True it is that God loves them as his creatures: but yet he must needs hate them, because they be perverted and given to all evil. And that is the cause why the Scripture tells us that God repented him that ever he made man, considering that he is so marred. And in the same respect also is it said, that we be banished out of God’s kingdom, that we be his enemies, that he shakes us off and disclaims us, that he abhors us, that we be the children of wrath, and that we be so corrupted, as there remains nothing but utter confusion upon our heads. When the Scripture speaks so, it is to show us that although God for his part be favorable and merciful to us, for so much as we be his creatures: yet notwithstanding we deserve well to be disclaimed and hated at his hand, and that he should not vouchsafe to have a care of us. Now then, whereas God loves us, let us understand that he overcomes our naughtiness with his goodness, which is infinite. Albeit, as I have touched already, his loving other men is nothing in comparison to those whom he has chosen and whom he acknowledges for his children. Now then, does he love all people? Yet we are his hand: that is to say, he will show that we be far nearer to him, and that he has much more familiar acquaintance with us beyond all comparison, than he has with all the rest of the world. For he has called us unto his house, he dwells among us, he will be known to be our Father, he will have us to call upon him with full trust and liberty, so as we need not to doubt but that his power is spread out to defend us. Lo how Moses meant to magnify God’s goodness in this place, after the manner that he has made himself to be felt in his Church and to his Flock…

We see how brute beasts are sustained by his hand: and therein we ought to consider what his goodness is. Again, as touching the wicked which despise him, and do nothing else but provoke his wrath; when yet for all that, we see the sun shine upon them to give them light, they eat and drink, and they be maintained at God’s cost, and by his liberality: let us consider that although men deserve to be utterly forsaken; yet notwithstanding God spares them and bears with them, and overcomes their wickedness with his goodness, in that he roots them not out at the first, but vouchsafes to foster them still, and to show a fatherly care towards them. Calvin Sermons on Deuteronomy, Sermon 91, 33:1-3, p., 1188-9.


2) True it is that God giveth oftentimes some sign of his love to all men in general: but yet is all Adam’s offspring cut off from him, till we be grafted in again by Jesus Christ. Therefore there is one kind of love which God beareth towards all men, for that he hath created them after his own image, in which respect he maketh the Sun to shine upon all men, nourishing them and having a care of their life. But all this is nothing, in respect of the special goodness which he keepeth in store for his chosen, and for those that are of his flock: howbeit not for any worthiness which he findeth in them, but for because it pleaseth him to accept them for his own. From Calvin’s Sermons on Galatians, Sermon 2, 1:3-5,


“Yea, he loved the people.” If it be preferred to apply this to the Gentiles, the sentence must be thus resolved, “Although He loves all human beings, still His saints are honored with His peculiar favor, in that He watches over their safety;” but it is more correct to expound it as referring only to the children of Abraham, whom He calls “peoples,” because, on account of the multitude into which they had grown, in their several tribes, they might be reckoned as so many nations. And since the particle "asp” signifies prolongation of time, like adhuc in Latin, the following sense will be very satisfactory, that, Although the descendants of Abraham were divided into various races, and might therefore seem to be no longer a single family, nevertheless God still continued to regard them all with affection, and their numbers and divisions did not prevent Him from accounting them to be a single body. The sum is, that God’s favor towards them was not extinguished, either by the progress of time, or the increase of the people; but that it was constantly extended to the race of Abraham, however far or widely it might be spread. Calvin, Deut, 33:3.


Hence he says, I loved you. God might indeed have made an appeal to the Jews on another ground; for had he not manifested his love to them, they were yet bound to submit to his authority. He does not indeed speak here of God’s love generally, such as he shows to the whole human race; but he condemns the Jews, inasmuch as having been freely adopted by God as his holy and peculiar people, they yet forgot this honor, and despised the Giver, and regarded what he taught them as nothing. When therefore God says that he loved the Jews, we see that his object was to convict them of ingratitude for having despised the singular favor bestowed on them alone, rather than to press that authority which he possesses over all mankind in common. Calvin on Mal, 1:2.


One last:

1) But I will content myself with dwelling on one point only, and let that suffice. Proofs of the love of God towards the whole human race exists innumerable, all of which demonstrate the ingratitude of those who perish or come “to perdition.” This fact, however, forms no reason whatever why God should not confine his especial or peculiar love to a few, whom he has, in infinite condescension, been pleased to chose out of the rest. Calvin, “he Secret Providence of God,” found in Calvin’s Calvinism, p., 268.


That will do. That was just one small sample of all the Calvin material on this point.

The link to all the Calvin material is here: http://calvinandcalvinism.com//?p=93

The link to the Turretin material on general love is here: http://calvinandcalvinism.com//?p=115

The link to a' Brakel is here: http://calvinandcalvinism.com//?p=62

Please Burt, in all good conscience, when and will you tell me how and why these comments taken from a range of Calvin's writings are all taken out of context?

I will leave it at that.

Have a good day,
David

Gebruikersavatar
Bert Mulder
Berichten: 9060
Lid geworden op: 28 Aug 2006, 22:07
Locatie: Sherwood Park Alberta Canada
Contact:

Re: Defination of Hyper-calvinism by Elder Stanley Philips

Berichtdoor Bert Mulder » 18 Sep 2008, 16:31

As I already told you Flyn, am not interested in a citation war...

And am quite familiar with Calvin, Brakel and Turretin, and do not need your links...
Mijn enige troost is, dat ik niet mijn, maar Jezus Christus eigen ben, Die voor mijn zonden betaald heeft, en zo bewaart, dat alles tot mijn zaligheid dienen moet; waarom Hij mij ook door Zijn Heilige Geest van eeuwig leven verzekert, en Hem voortaan te leven van harte willig en bereid maakt.

Flynn
Berichten: 90
Lid geworden op: 21 Mar 2007, 12:25

Re: Defination of Hyper-calvinism by Elder Stanley Philips

Berichtdoor Flynn » 18 Sep 2008, 21:01

Bert Mulder schreef:As I already told you Flyn, am not interested in a citation war...


Hey Bert,

That's fine. Perhaps one day. :-)

To Mayflower, Turretin has a very good discussion on the time of justification. See his Institutes, 2:682-685.

Have a good day,
David

Alexander CD
Berichten: 1063
Lid geworden op: 13 Sep 2008, 18:44

Re: Defination of Hyper-calvinism by Elder Stanley Philips

Berichtdoor Alexander CD » 20 Sep 2008, 19:33

You cannot know the blessed God of heaven apart from His detailed revelation in the Holy Scriptures.
3. All the feelings and opinions of men are profane folly, for their hearts are deceitful and desperately wicked.
4. The personal issue for you is not whether God loves you, but whether you fear and love God with all you are.
5. God is not obligated to love any. His love is by His sovereign choice, which He did to His elect (Rom 9:15


Mayflower, I agree, God has no obligations to man, but we must fear God, and do his will.
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. "
Too many Christians think they can wrest the scripures and have no fear of God, and when you Quote scripture say that your opninion.
But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children


Terug naar “Theologie - In English”

Wie is er online

Gebruikers op dit forum: Geen geregistreerde gebruikers en 1 gast