Calvinism and the Divine Decrees – Correcting a Misunderstanding

Steve Hays,

Of course I don’t think that it’s part of one’s genetic racial makeup. My comment was a sociological observation, not a genetic one, much like saying that it is young white males in our culture who would be most inclined to sit in their bedrooms in their pajamas while watching Star Trek clips on YouTube and also debating Calvinism on the Internet at the same time, possibly while wearing plastic pointy Spock ears 🙂 [Note to Michael Patton: stop doing that! You’re older now, and married.]

In the United States particularly, 1) it is young white male Christians who are largely turning to Calvinism in terms of their soteriology. That’s a fact. It’s another fact that 2) young men are prone to be arrogant and quickly puffed up by any new intellectual insight they gain, leading to self-confidence, hence the unwisdom of quickly elevating them to leadership positions. Prone to lean on their own understanding, these young white males turning in large droves to Calvinism [many times in reaction to their former Arminianism] are therefore easily inclined to rationalism, so they tend to flatten out any theological tension in their systems [sometimes for polemical purposes] by holding to one truth at the expense of another. When some of them do this in the name of their Calvinism, they reason that either a) God only loves the elect, or that b) He is only gracious to the elect, or that c) He’s only sincerely offering Christ to the elect since d) He only wishes their salvation, not the non-elect; or that e) the elect alone are duty-bound/responsible to evangelically believe the gospel, since they alone are given the ability to do so. When they reason this way, they have arrived at hyper-Calvinism.

If and when these young, arrogant and polemitically aggressive white males become curious about lapsarian speculation, in their preoccupation with the decretal will of God, they are most attracted to extreme varieties supralapsarianism, finding it in men like Gordon Clark and Herman Hoeksema.

I think the non-Amyraldian version would not add “sincere, well-meant” to the offer with the idea that God really wants everyone to be saved. That is an Amyraldian view. Calvinists are divided on that point, and that does not make them hyper-Calvinists. I would point to Phil Johnson’s breakdown of hyper-Calvinism for generally agreed upon definitions.

“1) it is young white male Christians who are largely turning to Calvinism in terms of their soteriology.”

I think it has more to do with affluence than race. Perhaps bored rich kids who get more of a kick off of attacking happy Christians and making them lose the joy of their salvation than they do off of simply living for Christ and enjoying the joy of their own salvation (if they truly have any). Perhaps at the heart of what makes on a Calvinist is that they don’t feel saved, can’t feel the love of God, and get jealous of those who do and decide to make those people’s lives a living hell by casting all sorts of aspersions on God’s moral character.

Hodge,
Phil Johnson believes the gospel is not sincerely offered to all ?

Copied and pasted from Phil Johnson’s “A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism”

2. It is that school of supralapsarian ‘five-point’ Calvinism [n.b.—a school of supralapsarianism, not supralapsarianism in general] which so stresses the sovereignty of God by over-emphasizing the secret over the revealed will of God and eternity over time, that it minimizes the responsibility of sinners, notably with respect to the denial of the use of the word “offer” in relation to the preaching of the gospel; thus it undermines the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly in the Lord Jesus with the assurance that Christ actually died for them; and it encourages introspection in the search to know whether or not one is elect. [Peter Toon, “Hyper-Calvinism,” New Dictionary of Theology (Leicester: IVP, 1988), 324.]

Notice what he says about offer, is Phil Johnson an Amyraldian? I’m confused.

Hodge,

Your effort to discredit my historical description of hyper-Calvinism by associating me with Amyraldism is problematic for at least two reasons. Here’s the first reason:

1) You erroneously assume that anyone who holds to a dualistic view of Christ’s death [such that He suffered for the sins of all, but with a special intent to save the elect] like me is an Amyraldian. “It might help” if instead of reading Turretinfan, you read Dr. Richard Muller and other top-notch Reformed historians/scholars [who are non-Amyraldians] who have conceded that varities of “hypothetical universalism” can be found in Wolfgang Musculus, Jerome Zanchi, Zacharias Ursinus, Jacob Kimedoncius, Heinrich Bullinger, William Twisse, James Ussher, John Davenant (and others in the British delegation to Dort), Edmund Calamy, Lazarus Seaman, Richard Vines, Robert Harris, Stephen Marshall, John Arrowsmith [these last 6 men are Westminster divines], John Bunyan, and others. “It might help” if you read Dr. Robert Godfrey’s doctoral dissertation [see W. Robert Godfrey, Tensions within International Calvinism: The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dort, 1618-1619 (Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University, 1974), pp. 196-198.], wherein he concedes that Matthias Martinius [a moderate Calvinist from the Bremen delegation to Dort] could appeal to Zacharias Ursinus [of Heidelberg] for support for his atonement views. Muller and Godfrey are on the same page with respect to Ursinus, and it would be unwise and anachronistic to call Ursinus an Amyraldian. “It might help” if you listened to what James Swan recently said about Martin Luther on the extent of the atonement. I don’t hear any Reformed scholars calling Luther an “Amyraldian.” Why not call me Lutheran on the point, or Ursinian, or a Bullingerite, or a Musculurite, or an Ussherite, or a Davenantian on the atonement rather than Amyraldian? “It might help” to stop reading Turretinfan [an anonymous and unaccountable über-apologist on the Internet] on the subject and start reading some genuine scholarship instead.

The second reason is forthcoming.

Cadis,

Your confusion stems from the fact that you didn’t read what I said. I said the Amyraldian view interprets the offer as a “sincere, well meant” offer where God is hoping that the non-elect will accept it and be saved. I didn’t say that Hyper-Calvinists were not to be defined as rejecting the language of “offer.” Johnson’s description, therefore, is consistent with what I said, as I’ve read it many times.

Tony,

I’m not attempting to discredit you. That’s a little paranoid, don’t you think? I wanted you to make the fact known, however, that this interpretation of hyper-Calvinism, which frankly includes many non-hyper-Calvinists, is a specific interpretation of these issues, not necessarily what is held by most Calvinists.
Second to this, I went round and round with you a few years ago on the Founder’s Blog. I don’t know if you remember. Whether you want to call yourself an Amyraldian or not, you defend those views as your own. I said nothing as to the dual purpose of Christ’s sacrifice. I believe He died for all too; but not for the reasons you do. I also know that many monergists believe the way you do. That was not my point.
My point instead is that you, and a couple of those who are of your camp, make it a point to go around and argue that what many Calvinists believe is really hyper-Calvinism every time there is a discussion on Calvinism. I don’t see any other group making this argument. So to me this is simply the convenient interpretation of Amyraldians that allows them to discredit monergism that is not of their brand.
In any case, you erroneously confuse my arguing against an interpretation of hyper-Calvinism for an argument that would posit that any dualistic view of Christ’s death is Amyraldian. Not so, my friend, I just know your history.

Hodge,

Your effort to discredit my historical description of hyper-Calvinism by associating me with Amyraldism is problematic for this second reason:

2) You erroneously assume that my definition of hyper-Calvinism is an “Amyraldian interpretation,” assuming that “the non-Amyraldian version would not add ‘sincere, well-meant’ to the offer with the idea that God really wants everyone to be saved.”

2A) It would be a remarkable case of folly to call Iain Murray an “Amyraldian,” and yet he sums up his book on Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism this way:

“The book is intended to show the momentous difference between evangelistic Calvinistic belief and that form of Calvinism which denies any desire on the part of God for the salvation of all men.” Iain H. Murray, “John Gill and C. H. Spurgeon,” Banner of Truth 386 (November 1995), 16.

In the book itself, which few people are reading carefully, Murray wrote:

“If God has chosen an elect people, then, Hyper-Calvinism argued, he can have no desire for the salvation of any others and to speak as though he had, is to deny the particularity of grace. Of course, Hyper-Calvinists accepted that the gospel be preached to all, but they denied that such preaching was intended to demonstrate any love on the part of God for all, or any invitation to all to receive mercy.” Iain H. Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching (Carlisle, Penn.: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), 89.

On page 88, just before the above quote, he says these thigns are “perhaps the most serious difference of all between evangelical Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism.” He goes on, quoting Spurgeon on the “sincere offer” and God’s “wish” for all lost sinners sitting under the gospel “to come and be saved,” and says that “Spurgeon regarded the denial of God’s desire for the salvation of all men as no mere theoretical mistake. For it converged with one of the greatest obstacles to faith on the part of the unconverted, that is to say, a wrong view of the character of God.” Ibid., 90.

David Gay writes similar warnings against “a practical, or incipient, hyper-Calvinism” in one of his article on, “Preaching the Gospel to Sinners: 2,” Banner of Truth 371-372 (August-September 1994), 44–45. He’s no Amyraldian either.

2B) Erroll Hulse [yet another non-Amyraldian] writing in Reformation Today, said:

“By selective use of Reformed Confessions it is possible to claim to be reformed but at the same time hide the fact that you are a hyper-Calvinist. The hyper-Calvinist denies that God loves all mankind and that the gospel is good news to be declared to all without exception. That is the very essence of hyper-Calvinism.”

and:

“It is typical of hyper-Calvinism to rationalise. By rationalising I mean that the hyper takes the doctrine of total depravity and reasons that because man’s will is crippled by the fall it is futile to offer the gospel. Moreover it cannot be sincere of God to offer the gospel to all if he does not intend to save all. In other words this rationalisation effectively emasculates the gospel so that it is not good news for the sinner at all.

It is impossible for the hyper to proclaim the love of God for sinners. What he can proclaim is that out there in the world are God’s elect and God loves them but he hates the rest! That is hardly good news!”

and again:

“According to the hyper God only loves the elect and hates the non-elect. Hypers cannot take John 3:16 and say that God loves the fallen sinful world, that is, loves sinners as sinners. A hyper cannot say to a sinner, ‘God loves you and wishes you to be saved and he has so loved you that he has given his only begotten Son that you might not perish but have eternal life.’ We note well that John 3:16 does not say, for God so loved the elect. The Holy Spirit did not write the text that way. Are we to understand that ‘the world’ here means both Jews and Gentiles? The word ‘world’ must be interpreted in the way it is used throughout the Gospel, namely, all people without exception not all people without distinction. In John’s Gospel the Jews do not stand in contrast to the world. The world is that whole world into which Jesus came, that world which did not recognise him (Jn 1:10).” Erroll Hulse, “John 3:16 and Hyper-Calvinism,” in Reformation Today 135 (September-October, 1993), 27-30.

Hulse is a Reformed Baptist, not an Amyraldian, and he’s writing in complete harmony with Iain Murray on the subject of the free offer and the love of God.

Next comes a renowned expert in the field of the history and theology of Calvinism, particularly in the area of hyper-Calvinism.

2C) Dr. Curt Daniel is on the same page with Murray, Hulse and Gay above. Daniel wrote:

“Hypers usually reject the idea of offers that are free, serious, sincere, or well-meant.” Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism (Springfield, Ill.: Good Books, 2003), p. 89.

Expanding on this, he lists four “main Hyper-Calvinist arguments” against “free offers” along with the historic Calvinist reply. The fourth in the list says:

(4) “Free offers imply that God wishes all men to be saved. This contradicts the doctrine of election. It also implies that grace is universal.” But: The Reformed doctrine of the revealed will of God is that there is a sense in which God certainly does will the salvation of all who hear the Gospel, just as He wills all who hear the Law to obey. Ibid., 90. [see also Curt Daniel, Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1983), pp. 426-429.]

——————————

2D) Robert A. Peterson [co-author of the book Why I Am Not an Arminian and a licensed, ordained teaching elder in the PCA] and Anthony Hoekema also associate the denial of the well-meant offer with hyper-Calvinism. Peterson, after talking about the need of taking the gospel to everyone and affirming that it is a well-intentioned offer for them all, says “Who would ever say the Gospel call is not a well meant offer? Hyper-Calvinists.”

——————————-

2E) Loius Berkhof long ago boldly [and rightly] said:

“It is blasphemous to think that God would be guilty of equivocation and deception, that He would say one thing and mean another, that He would earnestly plead with the sinner to repent and believe unto salvation, and at the same time not desire it in any sense of the word.” Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), p. 462.

NONE of these men are Amyraldian, and I am only saying the same thing they are on the subject of the sincere/well-meant offer.

Tony,

I don’t have time to get into another long debate right now, but a few things.

1. Repeat of what I said in #59. Your posts didn’t address this.

2. I said nothing to the idea of whether God loves the non-elect. I am talking about the idea that God is hoping that the non-elect will accept His offer and be saved.

3. Quoting to me books like Murray’s that cuts and pastes material that supports his position and leaves the rest out doesn’t speak “scholarship” to me. Murray has the same axe to grind that you do.

4. The nomenclature is not important. I called you an Amyraldian, not every Calvinist who thinks of this issue like you do. My point is that, as an Amyraldian, you gather the historic quotes that help build a case you want to make against the rest of Calvinistic thought that runs contrary to your thinking. Rather than engage that thought as equally within the Calvinistic camp, you want instead to malign it and confuse it with hyper-Calvinism, which is frankly cultic in nature.

5. I would like you to explain the distinction here, as you were asked before to do so, between High Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism. I’m guessing High Calvinism, interpreted by you, is going to sound a whole lot like hypo-Calvinism.

I leave the rest of this debate to those who are more willing and wish to be more relevant to the thread. 🙂

Final question: Do you understand the difference in God wanting everyone to obey His commands, including that of the Gospel, and do what is right, which in this case would be to obey the Gospel, and the idea that God really wants them to be saved?

2F) Although I no longer appeal to Phil Johnson’s insufficient article, he did say these things elsewhere, which are quite revealing:

“There are some who call themselves Calvinists but who deny that the gospel includes any _bona fide_, well-meant offer of mercy or sincere plea for all hearers to be reconciled to God. I have argued that such a view is not Calvinism at all; it is hyper-Calvinism. (I have an article posted on the Web that explains why I believe that label is justified.)”

And, in a discussion with one hyper-Calvinist, Johnson wrote:

“The root of your problem is that you apparently imagine a conflict would exist in the will of God if God, who has not ordained some men to salvation, nonetheless desires all men to repent and seek His mercy. That is, in fact, precisely the false dilemma virtually all hyper-Calvinists make for themselves. They cannot reconcile God’s preceptive will with His decretive will, so they end up (usually) denying the sincerity of the preceptive will, or else denying that the pleading and calls to salvation apply to all who hear the gospel.”

Johnson is a Spurgeonite Calvinist, by no means an Amyraldian, yet look at what he is saying about hyper-Calvinism, the well-meant offer, and God’s will in the above quotes. It’s not Cadis who is “confused.” You are.

Let me just clarify:

What you, and all the men you quoted, need to do is not just say that hypers believe X. What you need instead to do is to show that ALL non-hypers believe Y instead of X, and Y is the condition that must be met in order to be a consistent non-hyper. X, therefore, cannot be believed by a genuine non-hyper.

Showing that hypers believe X is not showing that they are distinct from other Calvinists or Calvinism. This is the same issue as the supra discussion above.

“Do you understand the difference in God wanting everyone to obey His commands, including that of the Gospel, and do what is right, which in this case would be to obey the Gospel, and the idea that God really wants them to be saved?”

There is no difference. Only a blasphemer would try to create one.

@#54, John Calvin certainly fits the description of a bored rich kid himself, being the son of a wealthy French lawyer and having nothing better to do than burn Spaniards at the stake.

Tony,
Yeah, I think you’re confusing the issues that would be answered by the question I posed to you above. I believe God sincerely wants all men to obey Him and believe the Gospel. My issue is with those who would say that God is really hoping that they will be saved. That’s the issue.

Rey,

And with that brilliant observation, I’m out.

Now, finally:

2G) On the subject of the love of God and hyper-Calvinism, I could cite Robert Peterson, Michael Williams, D. A. Carson, Samuel Waldron, Erroll Hulse, Curt Daniel and Iain Murray. They all associate the denial of God’s love for all as hyper-Calvinism, and none of these men, again, are “Amyraldian.”

With similar boldness as Berkhof, John Davenant [an English delegate to the Synod of Dort] said:

“The general love of God toward mankind is so clearly testified in Holy Scripture, and so demonstrated by the manifold effects of God’s goodness and mercy extended to every particular man in this world, that to doubt thereof were infidelity, and to deny it plain blasphemy.” – Davenant’s Answer to Hoard, p. 1.

J. C. Ryle cites the Davenant iquote above in his treatment of John 3:16.

Relating the love of God to the issue of God’s will, Iain Murray wrote:

“…can the divine love…be without desire for the highest good of those loved? To side-line the question of desire will not, we think, blunt the hyper-Calvinist’s claim that a free-offer, expressive of love to all, attributes two wills to God – fulfilled in the case of the elect and unfulfilled in the case of all others. But that charge needs to be met…on other grounds. We do not think that Scripture allows us to make the question of God’s desire secondary.” From the “Book Reviews,” in Banner of Truth 507 (December 2005), 22.

Murray is rightly saying that it is absurd to think that God loves all without a desire for their highest good, i.e. their salvation, according to his revealed will. Go Hoeksemian and deny that God loves any of the non-elect in any sense whatsoever, rather than adhere to Gill’s futile position that God merely temporally loves the non-elect without a corresponding wish/will/desire for their eternal well-being/good.

No Amyraldians here, yet it is remarkable what the above “axe-grinding” men have to say on hyper-Calvinism, the free offer and God’s love. Surely they have no more credibility than I do on the topic 🙂

It is a brilliant observation. For if God wants “everyone to obey His commands, including that of the Gospel, and do what is right, which in this case would be to obey the Gospel,” then he wants them to be saved, because if they did so they would be saved. And since he wills them to do so, he wills them to be saved. But they don’t will to do so because they have free will and they don’t wanna.

God is not a college project that you should be using to make yourself feel like you have a superior intellect. Convoluting the gospel with asinine philosophy doesn’t make you smart. It makes you an enemy of Christ. And Calvinists would be better of if they learned that before they die.

Colossians 2:8 “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.”

All your philosophy about determinism does is turn men to the “elemental spirits of the world” and away from Christ. Calvinist attacks on the faith either make atheists or Calvinists, but never Christians. Christians worship Christ, not Fate.

And my dear Hodge, when you say in #68 “My issue is with those who would say that God is really hoping that they will be saved. That’s the issue.” What you are doing is asserting that you reject 1st Timothy 2:4.

God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1st Timothy 2:4) No so! Wrong Paul! You’re a liar! So some say anyway, but not me.

If for the sake of the argument God didn’t want all men to be saved, and some poor Christ-like individual thought (oh horror of horrors) that God did want all men saved, what would God do to that sap? Burn him in hell forever for thinking that God is better than he actually is? This whole debate is just so silly. “Oh God please forgive me of thinking you wanted people saved. I’ve made such a grave mistake.” I mean come on.

Hodge,

in post #58 I did read and understand what you said. You did not read me. I did not say look Phil Johnson uses the word offer . I said look what he said about offer, how he defines offer
” thus it undermines the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly in the Lord Jesus with the assurance that Christ actually died for them;”

I’ve read down through this definition a few times myself , Phil Johnson is defining a sincere well meant offer in the same manner as Tony defines it. Now the deeper into the issue you investigate I know there would be some differences but noone is saying that either a supra or a strict particularist is Hyper.

The issue is the gospel message and restricting it’s proclamation. Restricting by a bit or alot is still restricting.

Rey,

Continue posting comments like that and they will continue to be deleted.

That being … such and such burning in hell…

These type of comments are inflamatory and fruitless.

My apologies I was signed in as admin to moderate when I left the comment I just deleted…

OK so, Hodge. In what way do Iain Murray and Ynot, “have the same axe to grind.”?

Thanks.

Yikes, I’m sucked into a debate I don’t really want to have.

Admin,

Murray has been criticized for doing what Tony has done: Quote a bunch of statements that sound like they are in favor of his position without clarifying the main issue. The issue is whether rejecting the idea that God hopes that the non-elect will be saved is specifically a hyper belief. If no non-hyper rejected it AND it is inconsistent with being a non-hyper then Tony and Murray have a point. If it is simply a matter of hypers rejecting this doctrine, but non-hypers also reject it, then characterizing the rejection of it as the hyper position falls prey to the same criticism that one would get when characterizing supralapsarian belief as the hyper position.

Rey,
Of course only heretics would say something like:

For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, “He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.

Finally,
Tony, please read my questions to you. They have nothing to do with Murray’s belief that one cannot say that God loves the non-elect unless God really wants them to be saved. Is that the view of all non-hypers or is that Murray’s opinion?

Cadis,

” thus it undermines the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly in the Lord Jesus with the assurance that Christ actually died for them;”

This phrase could be taken either way, so it is not clear that it is referring to the well-meant offer or just God’s desire that the non-elect believe that offer. It may be that Johnson meant the former, but the definition does not make that distinction clear. Perhaps, the quotes given by Tony clarifies that issue.

Here’s the dilemma I see:

1. All people are saved because God chooses to save them
2. The non-elect could be saved if God really wanted them to be
3. God really wants the non-elect to be saved
4. Ergo, _____________________________________ (fill in the blank)

Now, this could be worked out somehow between God’s two wills, but I would want to hear how exactly it does.

Ok Hodge. Thanks. By the way I was still logged in as admin when I posed my question to you. I promptly deleted that post then asked again under my name as I didn’t want it to be perceived as a position being taken by the ministry.

Would you mind naming some Reformers or Puritans who rejected the well-meant offer or that God wills the salvation of all men according to the revealed will? I presume you can since you feel both Murray and Ynot are inaccurately “cutting and pasting” historical quotes to buttress their position.

Thanks.

For the record, I do not believe all supralapsarians are hyper-Calvinists.

I felt I had to make at least one comment that was on topic! 😀

Hi Carrie,
I actually think its anachronistic to impose the debate on the Reformers and even many of the Puritans. It’s sort of like asking which Church Fathers believed in substitutionary penal atonement. The question is whether what they say about the non-elect is consistent with this idea.
Now, since this debate, there are numerous Calvinists who would reject the idea that God really wants everyone to be saved; but the problem is that many of them would be characterized by Tony as hyper, even if they rejected all other aspects of hyper-Calvinism.

The main heretical element in hyper-Calvinism with this issue is when they say: “We deny duty faith and duty repentance — these terms suggesting that it is every man’s duty spiritually and savingly to repent and believe. We deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So that we reject the doctrine that man in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God” (emphasis added). And Article 33 says, “Therefore, that for ministers in the present day to address unconverted persons, or indiscriminately all in a mixed congregation, calling upon them to savingly repent, believe, and receive Christ, or perform any other acts dependent upon the new creative power of the Holy Ghost, is, on the one hand, to imply creature power, and on the other, to deny the doctrine of special redemption.”

But those of Tony’s group want to expand this to the idea that God may not desire everyone to be saved. Fine. Let him prove it then. The onus is not on me to go through every Calvinist who has ever lived. I’m not making the claim. Tony and his ilk need to show their statements true. If they do, great. I’ll believe that that is historic Calvinism and that a belief to the contrary cannot be held by anyone who is a historic Calvinist. I also then would like to see how holding this belief is inconsistent with the non-hyper view.

What I have largely seen is that the misunderstanding of some historic figures on the “all” passages have led them to think that God has two desires for the reprobate: His decretive will that decrees that only the elect will be saved and His moral will that decrees that He wishes all men to be saved. From what I can gather, the decrees deal with calling men to repentance and belief, as a result they would be saved; but the desire of God is that they obey those decrees. Now, if the decrees are “be saved” (and by that God is talking to the reprobate rather than using it to change the elect in the crowd) then Tony has a point.

The reason why I don’t want to get into this debate is (1) time and (2) I don’t think it is important. It’s not a matter of orthodoxy. It doesn’t have anything to do with what we are to do. It only makes a fine distinction that in the end is only a matter of semantics, since both the person who believes in the well meant offer and the person who only believes in the offer end up believing the same thing about what God ultimately did/does and what we are to do with the gospel.

To clarify on my last point, In what way is this question meaningful, and therefore, a meaningful distinction between hypers and non-hypers?

Here’s a scenario. I have ten children who I love with all my heart. All ten are playing in the street. A semi is racing down the road. I have within my power to save all ten out of the street. I really want to save all of them. I choose to save five of them, and not only do I not save the other five, but I send other influences (in this case, people) to convince them to stay in the street, so that they will not be saved from the Semi.
Now, in what way can we speak of my really desiring them to be saved? If their only hope of being saved was what I do, and I not only did not do it, but made sure they remained in the street by sending other influences, then how exactly am I really hoping that they will be saved?

It seems, therefore, to be a matter of semantics. Tony’s group wants to say that what God does here is loving desire to save. The other group wants to say that what God does here is not loving desire to save, even though God wanted all the children to obey His voice and get out of the street. In the end, therefore, how is the distinction meaningful, if in fact, it’s simply describing the same act with different words?

Anachronistic? Prosper (c. 390 – c. 455), a disciple of Augustine of Hippo, said this long ago:

“Likewise, he who says that God will not have all men to be saved but only the fixed number of the predestined, speaks more harshly than we should speak of the depth of the unsearchable grace of God.” Prosper of Aquitaine: Defense of St. Augustine, trans. by P. De letter (New York: Newman Press, 1963), 159.

Prosper, an Augustinian, was aware of the idea that some might have that God only willed the salvation of the fixed number of the predestined, and he considered it “harsh.” It was in fact a topic they thought about at that time, as Prosper demonstrates, and it was rebuked even then.

Iain Murray, Curt Daniel and I have appealed to both Reformers and Puritans [and some modern Calvinists from later centuries] to substantiate our claims regarding the consensus on the free offer and God’s will for the salvation of all men. You, “Hodge” (whoever you are–formerly “Bristopoly” I’m guessing from the Founders Blog?), have said we’re not quoting them rightly. Which of them are we misquoting or misrepresenting? Since you can’t name a Reformer or Puritan who rejected the free/well-meant offer, perhaps you can name some we’ve supposedly misrepresented?

Hodge,

Wow. It’s not semantics. The issue is whether God wills all to be saved, he does, scripture tells us so, as Rey has so lovingly pointed out 🙂 Man is the problem here not God. God is not barring man from salvation. He is not putting quicksand in the middle of the road. Man does not want to come. That is the issue. Man has no one to blame but himself. And he certainly cannot blame God. That God gives man what man wants is tremendously different then saying God prevented and barred him from salvation. He has not, he would that all should come…and none would….so God forces his hand on some for his own plan and purpose unknown to me.

Tony,

What in the world? We’re talking about Calvinists. Is Prosper a Calvinist? Talk about anachronistic. BTW, you’d be able to find Augustine himself saying that. We’re not talking about what others in history have believed.

Here’s name for you then, Tony. John Calvin. Does Calvin believe in the well meant offer in the sense that you are proposing? Is he to be considered a hyper-Calvinist?

http://www.prca.org/articles/ctjblack.html

I didn’t say anyone misquoted anyone. I said that this type of “cut and paste” scholarship doesn’t come off to me as scholarship because it quotes everything in your favor and leaves out anything that is contrary to it. Very little context is explained. I can’t see any quotes from others, like Calvin himself, that would dismiss your concept that only hypers believe X. And the major criticism I had was that you rail off a bunch of quotes without clarifying the main issue.

BTW, a great example of this is your quote of Johnson, who you know does not apply this across the board as you do. That’s what I mean by “cut and paste.”

Hi Hodge.

You said

“I actually think its anachronistic to impose the debate on the Reformers and even many of the Puritans. It’s sort of like asking which Church Fathers believed in substitutionary penal atonement. The question is whether what they say about the non-elect is consistent with this idea.”

I say:

If one is seeking to demonstrate what has been believed regarding a certain doctrine or doctrines by the vast majority of Calvinists throughout Calvinistic history, then it is in no way anachronistic to appeal to the very sources who held those beliefs.

In other words, if I am simply to appeal to modern sources about a Calvinistic view of the “well-meant offer” or “God’s universal saving will as it is seen in His revealed will” then how on earth will I gain a comprehensive historical understanding of what has been believed? How would I know what is orthodox regarding this issue? How would I know anything contrary to it might be considered outside the bounds or reformed thinking? How would I know for sure if these modern sources fell in line with the historical ones? Would it not be wise when discussing a distinctly historical issue to appeal to historical sources?

This has been done by Iain Murry and even here on this very blog, by Tony. Your only reponse to that has been to suggest they are using these sources inaccurately (without demonstrating that to actually be the case, I might add).

Further still instead of actually providing historical sources to support your position you claim you don’t need to, that the burden of proof is not on you and state that my even asking it is anachronistic (which I have shown you that is not the case).

I have to think the reason you can’t provide a list of reformers or puritans who rejected the notion of a “well-meant offer” or who denied “God’s universal saving will as seen in His revealed will” is because there are none.

So if you can’t provide these sources, just say so please. Don’t evade the question as you clearly did in your response to me.

If this type of dialogue is your standard approach then I have no interest in debate (and when I say that, I really mean it. Which means I won’t be back to discuss this directly with you).

Thanks.

Cadis,
If I say a square is a square and you call it a circle, but then go on to describe to me a square, then I see little distinction except for in semantics. Now, if the WMO crowd wants to say that God’s actions P should be defined as X instead of Y and that’s different from saying that God’s actions P should be defined as Y instead of X, that’s fine; but I see little importance to the semantics of it. I could be wrong though, and I am actually offering up to Tony to refute what I’ve said on the historical issue. So we’ll see there.

Carrie, I provided John Calvin himself. My point is that there are Reformed individuals who believe otherwise. Tony classifies all of these individuals as hyper. Tony is arguing that anyone who believes X is a hyper rather than non-hyper from a historical perspective. I want, therefore, to know if that is true. I didn’t say that it absolutely wasn’t, but from what I can see, there are Reformed folk, present and past, who disagree with this idea. To label them all as hyper needs the added information that everyone who is non-hyper has and must believe in the well meant offer, as it is defined by this group (i.e., that God is really hoping that the non-elect are saved). I’ve already said I don’t have time to do this, nor do I think it is beneficial, so accusing me of not engaging the debate in the way you want me to is a bit ridiculous. I’m simply asking for this data, and I don’t like the smearing of a lot of modern Calvinists as hypers simply because they don’t believe what they view as a logical contradiction. AND most will admit that it is. The answer that I see most people of Tony’s group give is that we have to chalk it up to mystery because it is contradictory.

Friends, this conversation amounts to a circular waste of time. Please adjust your reasons for being here. Some discussions are not worth having. This is one of them as conceding and learning are not on the table. Move along…

Thanks, Michael. I would just say to Carrie that if you want to see another perspective of the historical situation, you can look here:

I’m surprised Michael let it go on this long. 🙂

I’m not sure why this didn’t post, Carrie, but here it is again.

http://www.prca.org/current/index3_files/Free%20Offer/cover.htm

“That being … such and such burning in hell… ”

How did you not see it was joke? Seems to me from Hodge’s perspective, Amaraldius (i.e. Moses Amyraut) is in hell because he had the audacity to believe God’s offer of grace must be sincere. I was just mocking the cruelty of such a view. I don’t remember who all I included but I said something like “Poor Amaraldius is burning in hell with John Wesley and Billy Graham for believing in 1st Timothy 2:4.” I didn’t really mean they are there. I mean that this is what the Calvinist condemnation of Amaraldians amounts to.

Rey I am very sorry about that. I completely misread and misunderstood the tone of your comment. I thought you were serious …

I do apologize!

Rey,

This is pure slander. I didn’t say anyone was in hell. In fact, I said this issue isn’t important. Did you not read that? I don’t think Tony is going to hell for believing it. My concern is claiming that how one falls on this issue makes one a member of a cult instead of orthodox. My point was that it’s not a matter of orthodoxy. Please read what I said rather than spilling your wild imaginations all over those you deride.

Hodge,

My concluding remarks are these:

In comment #53 you said, “I would point to Phil Johnson’s breakdown of hyper-Calvinism for generally agreed upon definitions.”

It should be noted that in contrast to my historical sources, you’ve twice linked to Protestant Reformed Church material, when they qualify as type-3, 4 and 5 hyper-Calvinists according to Phil’s Primer. As Phil says, “The best-known American hyper-Calvinists are the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC).” I would add that they are the most extreme variety as well. Reader beware. Phil’s description of David Engelsma’s historiography fits other PRC advocates as well, including Herman Hanko. As Phil says:

“Engelsma does some selective quoting and interpretive gymnastics in order to argue that his view is mainstream Reformed theology. But a careful reading of his sources shows that he often quotes out of context, or ends a quote just before a qualifying statement that would totally negate the point he thinks he has made.”

PRC sources are notoriously unreliable examples of theological propaganda. It’s telling that you would side with their historiography as opposed to Murray, Daniel, Johnson and the other sources I provided above.

Grace to you,
Tony

Tony,
I consider their quotations the same as yours, and found for the same reasons. BTW, what you have just done there is something we like to call ad hominem and begging the question. I alluded to Johnson’s list of beliefs that refer to hyper-Calvinism, not everything Johnson believes should be placed under that category. I disagree with him on that point, as he disagrees with you that James White is a hyper-Calvinist according to his list. If anyone wants to follow the debate with you then they can look here:

http://timmybrister.com/2008/11/30/david-allen-hyper-calvinism-and-james-white-the-rundown/

and here:

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2008/11/james-white-is-not-hyper-calvinist.html

Fare thee well

And since we’ve used Phil Johnson’s stuff so much here, I thought it would be fitting to let him have the last word:

“Let me go on record here: I know James White well and he is not a hyper-calvinist. The article Dr. Allen cited from me says nothing whatsoever about what God “desires.” What I have consistently said elsewhere is that optatiove expressions like desire are always problematic when it comes to describing God’s demeanor toward the reprobate. I try to avoid them most of the time, though I think there’s a germ of important truth in God’s own pleas and expressions of willingness to be reconciled to any and all sinners. But I recognize and affirm the equally valid point being made by those who reject the language of “desire,” and who choose never to use it. I would not call someone a “hyper-Calvinist” for holding and defending that opinion. Especially someone who is as active in evangelism as James White.

Moreover, in the section of my notes on h-cism that deals with God’s will toward the reprobate, I expressly acknowledged that there is a strain of classic high-calvinists who deny that God’s expressions of goodwill toward the reprobate may properly be called “love,” but who are not really hyper. I said, “They are a distinct minority, but they nonetheless have held this view. It’s a hyper-Calvinistic tendency, but not all who hold the view are hyper-Calvinists in any other respect.”

Seriously everyone, no more about nomenclature. Who cares if people don’t agree about what is a hyper-Calvinist? It ads nothing and takes away nothing from the points being made! The designation “hyper” can be used and abused no matter what the issue and is going to be subjective in most circumstances.

That is why I qualified this in the original post and then further warned about this in a comment.

“wrangling about words” cannot find a better illustration.

I am just glad that 95% of the people only read the post, not the comments.

Anyway, as respectfully as I can say it, enough of this.