A primer on hyper-Calvinism

[jmdrake]

I wrote and posted this article because I am concerned about some subtle trends that seem to signal a rising tide of hyper-Calvinism, especially within the ranks of young Calvinists and the newly Reformed. I have seen these trends in numerous Reformed theological forums on the Internet, including mailing lists, Web sites, and Usenet forums.
Lest anyone wonder where my own convictions lie, I am a Calvinist. I am a five-point Calvinist, affirming without reservation the Canons of the Synod of Dordt. And when I speak of hyper-Calvinism, I am not using the term as a careless pejorative. I'm not an Arminian who labels all Calvinism "hyper." When I employ the term, I am using it in its historical sense.
History teaches us that hyper-Calvinism is as much a threat to true Calvinism as Arminianism is. Virtually every revival of true Calvinism since the Puritan era has been hijacked, crippled, or ultimately killed by hyper-Calvinist influences. Modern Calvinists would do well to be on guard against the influence of these deadly trends.

Phil Johnson



yper-Calvinism, simply stated, is a doctrine that emphasizes divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility. To call it "hyper-Calvinism" is something of a misnomer. It is actually a rejection of historic Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism entails a denial of what is taught in both Scripture and the major Calvinistic creeds, substituting instead an imbalanced and unbiblical notion of divine sovereignty.
Hyper-Calvinism comes in several flavors, so it admits no simple, pithy definition. Here are a few definitions to consider. I'll comment briefly on these and then propose a more comprehensive definition:

From a popular theological dictionary:

1. [Hyper-Calvinism] is a system of theology framed to exalt the honour and glory of God and does so by acutely minimizing the moral and spiritual responsibility of sinners . . . It emphasizes irresistible grace to such an extent that there appears to be no real need to evangelize; furthermore, Christ may be offered only to the elect. . . .
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 three very crucial points in that definition: First, it correctly points out that hyper-Calvinists tend to stress the secret (or decretive) will of God over His revealed (or preceptive) will. Indeed, in all their discussion of "the will of God," hyper-Calvinists routinely obscure any distinction between God's will as reflected in His commands and His will as reflected in his eternal decrees. Yet that distinction is an essential part of historic Reformed theology. (See John Piper, "Are There Two Wills in God? Divine Election and God's Desire for All To Be Saved" in Thomas R. Schreiner, ed., The Grace of God and the Bondage of the Will, 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995, 1:107-131.)
Second, take note of the stress the above definition places on hyper-Calvinists' "denial of the use of the word 'offer' in relation to the preaching of the gospel." This is virtually the epitome of the hyper-Calvinist spirit: it is a denial that the gospel message includes any sincere proposal of divine mercy to sinners in general.
Third, mark the fact that hyper-Calvinism "encourages introspection in the search to know whether or not one is elect." Assurance tends to be elusive for people under the influence of hyper-Calvinist teaching. Therefore, hyper-Calvinism soon degenerates into a cold, lifeless dogma. Hyper-Calvinist churches and denominations tend to become either barren and inert, or militant and elitist (or all of the above).
Some common (but not quite precise) definitions: Hyper-Calvinism is sometimes defined as the view that God will save the elect apart from any means. Some, but very few, modern hyper-Calvinists hold such an extreme view. Those who do hold this view oppose all forms of evangelism and preaching to the unsaved, because they believe God will save whomever He chooses, apart from human means.
The most famous example of this kind of hyper-Calvinism was when John Ryland heard William Carey talking about becoming a missionary to India, and told him, "Sit down, young man. When God decides to save the heathen, He will do it without your help."
Another common but incorrect definition equates hyper-Calvinism with fatalism. Fatalism is a mechanistic determinism, antithetical to the notion of a personal God. While it is true that the most extreme varieties of hyper-Calvinism tend to depersonalize God, it is not accurate to portray all hyper-Calvinists as fatalists.
Hyper-Calvinism is often equated with supralapsarianism and double-predestination. But it is possible to be a supralapsarian, and to hold to a kind of "double-predestination" without embracing hyper-Calvinism. (Virtually all hyper-Calvinists are supralapsarians, but not all supralapsarians are hyper-Calvinists. For more information about supralapsarianism, see my "Notes on Supralapsarianism & Infralapsarianism.")
Finally, some critics unthinkingly slap the label "hyper" on any variety of Calvinism that is higher than the view they hold to. Arminians like to equate all five-point Calvinism with hyper-Calvinism (as Calvary-Chapel author George Bryson does in his horrible little book, The Five Points of Calvinism: "Weighed and Found Wanting" [Costa Mesa: Word for Today, 1996]). That approach lacks integrity and only serves to confuse people.

A fivefold definition: The definition I am proposing outlines five varieties of hyper-Calvinism, listed here in a declining order, from the worst kind to a less extreme variety (which some might prefer to class as "ultra-high Calvinism"):

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

All five varieties of hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message.
Many modern hyper-Calvinists salve themselves by thinking their view cannot really be hyper-Calvinism because, after all, they believe in proclaiming the gospel to all. However, the "gospel" they proclaim is a truncated soteriology with an undue emphasis on God's decree as it pertains to the reprobate. One hyper-Calvinist, reacting to my comments about this subject on an e-mail list, declared, "The message of the Gospel is that God saves those who are His own and damns those who are not." Thus the good news about Christ's death and resurrection is supplanted by a message about election and reprobation—usually with an inordinate stress on reprobation. In practical terms, the hyper-Calvinist "gospel" often reduces to the message that God simply and single-mindedly hates those whom He has chosen to damn, and there is nothing whatsoever they can do about it.
Deliberately excluded from hyper-Calvinist "evangelism" is any pleading with the sinner to be reconciled with God. Sinners are not told that God offers them forgiveness or salvation. In fact, most hyper-Calvinists categorically deny that God makes any offer in the gospel whatsoever.
The hyper-Calvinist position at this point amounts to a repudiation of the very gist of 2 Corinthians 5:20: "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." The whole thrust of the gospel, properly presented, is to convey an offer (in the sense of a tender, a proffer, or a proposal) of divine peace and mercy to all who come under its hearing. The apostle's language is even stronger, suggesting the true gospel preacher begs sinners to be reconciled to God—or rather he stands "in Christ's stead," pleading thus with the sinner. Hyper-Calvinism in essence denies the concept of human responsibility, and so it must eliminate any such pleading, resulting in a skewed presentation of the gospel.
Let's examine individually each of the five varieties of hyper-Calvinism.

1. The denial of the gospel call. This first and most extreme type of hyper-Calvinism denies that the gospel calls all sinners to repentance and faith. The gospel call (the invitation to come to Christ for salvation—Rev. 22:17; Matt. 11:28-29; Isa. 45:22; 55:1-7) is denied to all but the elect.
Historic Reformed theology notes that there are two different senses in which Scripture uses the word "call." The apostle Paul usually employs the word to speak of the effectual call, whereby an elect sinner is sovereignly drawn by God unto salvation. Obviously this "call" applies only to the elect alone (Rom. 8:28-30).
But Scripture also describes a general call. In Matthew 22:14, Jesus said, "Many are called, but few are chosen." Here, those who are "called" are clearly more in number than the elect. So our Lord is quite obviously using the word "call" in a different sense from how Paul used it in Romans 8:30.
The general call, sometimes known as the external call, is the call to faith and repentance inherent in the gospel message itself. When the gospel is preached, the general call goes out indiscriminately to all who come under the preaching of the gospel. This call is issued by the preacher as an ambassador of Christ.
The effectual call, sometimes known as the internal call, is the regenerating work of God in the hearts of His elect, whereby He draws them to Christ and opens their hearts unto faith. This call is for the elect alone and is issued by God alone.
This first variety of hyper-Calvinism denies the general, external call, and insists that the gospel should be preached in a way that proclaims the facts about Christ's work and God's electing grace—without calling for any kind of response.
This is the worst form of hyper-Calvinism in vogue today. I'd class it as an extremely serious error, more dangerous than the worst variety of Arminianism. At least the Arminian preaches enough of the gospel for the elect to hear it and be saved. The hyper-Calvinist who denies the gospel call doesn't even believe in calling sinners to Christ. He almost fears to whisper the gospel summons to other believers, lest anyone accuse him of violating divine sovereignty.
English hyper-Calvinists (most happen to be Baptists), American "Gospel Standard" hypers, and Primitive Baptists have traditionally held to this form of hyper-Calvinism. They generally oppose evangelism of any kind. They would (usually) also embrace all five errors of hyper-Calvinism listed above. Their rhetoric tends to be extremely arrogant and elitist—the natural outgrowth of such theology. Normally they claim that they alone are consistent and true to the doctrines of divine sovereignty, and label every other view "Arminianism" or (lately) "hypo-Calvinism."
An early 18th-century British independent (baptistic) pastor named William Huntington is the godfather of this position. This brand of hyper-Calvinism often also has strong antinomian tendencies, traceable back to Huntington, who denied that the moral law is binding as a rule of life on the Christian. Such antinomianism harmonizes well with hyper-Calvinism's denial of human responsibility. (It is also an extension of the same wrong thinking that denies the preceptive will of God.)

2. The denial of faith as a duty. This variety of hyper-Calvinism ("type-2 hyper-Calvinism") suggests that since unbelievers are incapable of faith apart from enabling grace, believing in Christ must never be presented to them as a duty. (See Arthur Pink's excellent article "Duty-Faith," refuting this this erroneous notion.)
Those holding this position go to great lengths to deny that faith is ever presented in Scripture as the duty of the unregenerate. (Obviously, much Scripture-twisting is necessary to justify such an opinion. See, for example, Acts 17:30.) Instead, advocates of this position suggest that each sinner must seek a warrant for his faith before presuming to exercise faith in Christ. The sinner does this by looking for evidence that he is elect (an utterly absurd notion, since faith is the only real evidence of election).
Understandably, this brand of hyper-Calvinism tends to make sinners obsessed with conviction of sin and self-examination. Those who hold this position rarely know true, settled assurance.
The denial that faith is the sinner's duty illustrates how hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism arise from the same false notion. The one fallacy that lies at the heart of both Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism is the erroneous assumption that human inability nullifies responsibility.
The Arminian reasons, If sinners are incapable of faith apart from God's enabling grace, then the gospel would not call them to believe. Therefore sinners must not really be in so helpless a state. And so the Arminian adjusts the message in a way that nullifies the doctrine of human inability.
The hyper-Calvinist, on the other hand, reasons thus: If sinners are incapable of faith apart from God's enabling grace, then the gospel would not call them to faith. Therefore the gospel cannot really mean that faith is the sinner's duty. And so the hyper-Calvinist adjusts the message in a way that nullifies the sinner's responsibility.
Scottish church historian John Macleod also noticed that Arminians and hyper-Calvinists err on the same point. He wrote,
When we look into it, we find [in hyper-Calvinism] the common Arminian position that man's responsibility is limited by his ability. . . . Each side takes up the principle from its own end. They fail together to recognise that the sinner is responsible for his spiritual impotence. It is the fruit of sin; and man's sin does not destroy nor put out of court God's right to ask for . . . [obedience and] service and repentance and faith [despite the fact that] that His sinful creatures have disabled themselves from yielding to Him. His title to make His demand is entirely and absolutely unimpaired. . . . There is a glorious superiority to man's reasonings shown by Him who bids the deaf hear and the blind look that they may see. They cannot do what He bids them do. Yet He claims what is His own. . . . Do what we may, we cannot get away from the obligation that binds us to be all that God would have us to be, and to do all that He would have us to do. Such is our sin and not only our misery that we cannot yield the return of homage that our Maker and King calls for at our hand. [Scottish Theology (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974 reprint), 141-42.]

In other words, the sinner's inability to obey God does not nullify his duty to do so. This is a crucial point—perhaps the most crucial point of all—because it is the very point that ultimately distinguishes true Calvinism from both Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism. Both Arminians and hyper-Calvinists will protest that it is illogical or unjust to teach that God demands what sin renders us incapable of doing.
But it is neither illogical or unjust. Sin itself is a moral issue, and since sin is the cause of our inability, it is, as Jonathan Edwards said, a moral inability, not a natural one. The defect in man is his own fault, not God's. Therefore man's own inability is something he is guilty for, and that inability cannot therefore be seen as something that relieves the sinner of responsibility.
On this point, type-2 hyper-Calvinism is no better than Arminianism; in fact, the two spring from the same polluted source.

3. The denial of the gospel offer. Type-3 hyper-Calvinism is based on a denial that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect. An alternative of this view merely denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal. For an excellent discussion of this issue, see "The Free Offer of the Gospel," by John Murray and Ned B. Stonehouse (also available at the Orthodox Presbyterian Church's Web site).
If the hyper-Calvinists in England tend to be Baptists, in America the Presbyterian variety seems more common. The best-known American hyper-Calvinists are the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC). They deny that there is any sort of "offer" (in the sense of a proffer or tender or proposal of mercy) in the gospel message. They also deny that they are hyper-Calvinists, because they insist that the only variety of hyper-Calvinism is that which denies the gospel call (Type-1 above).
The most articulate advocate of the PRC position is David Engelsma, whose book Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel is an interesting but in my view terribly misleading study of the question of whether PRC theology properly qualifies as hyper-Calvinism. 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. Still, for those interested in these issues, I recommend his book, with a caution to read it very critically and with careful discernment.
4. The denial of common grace. The Protestant Reformed Churches (see #3 above) grew out of a controversy between Herman Hoeksema and the Christian Reformed Churches over the issue of common grace. Hoeksema denied that there is any such thing as common grace, and in the midst of the controversy, the PRC was founded.
The idea of common grace is implicit throughout Scripture. "The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works" (Ps. 145:9). "He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment. Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" (Deut. 10:18-19). "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 5:44-45).
The distinction between common grace and special grace closely parallels the distinction between the general call and the effectual call. Common grace is extended to everyone. It is God's goodness to humanity in general whereby God graciously restrains the full expression of sin and mitigates sin's destructive effects in human society. Common grace imposes moral constraints on people's behavior, maintains a semblance of order in human affairs, enforces a sense of right and wrong through conscience and civil government, enables men and women to appreciate beauty and goodness, and imparts blessings of all kinds to elect and non-elect alike. God "causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" (Matt. 5:45). That is common grace.
The doctrine of common grace has a long history that goes all the way back to Calvin and even Augustine. But type-4 hyper-Calvinism denies the concept, insisting that God has no true goodwill toward the non-elect and therefore shows them no favor or "grace" of any kind.

5. The denial of God's love toward the reprobate. Type-5 hyper-Calvinism is closely related to type-4. To deny that God in any sense loves the reprobate is to suggest that God holds us to a higher standard than He himself follows, for he instructs us to love our enemies—and Scripture teaches that when we love our enemies, we are behaving like God, who shows lovingkindness even to the reprobate (Deut. 10:18; Matt. 5:44-45).
Furthermore, to insist that God's demeanor toward the non-elect is always and only hatred is a de facto denial of common grace—the same error of type-4 hyper-Calvinism.
There are some who hold this view, yet manage (by being inconsistent) to avoid other hyper-Calvinist opinions. The most influential advocate of the type-5 position was Arthur Pink. I hesitate to label him a hyper-Calvinist, frankly, because he fought the stronger varieties of hyper-Calvinism in his later years. A few other Puritan and mainstream Reformed theologians have also denied the love of God to the reprobate. 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.
This error stems from a failure to differentiate between God's redemptive love, which is reserved for the elect alone, and His love of compassion, which is expressed in the goodness He shows to all His creatures (cf. Matt. 5:44-45; Acts 14:17). For an excellent antidote to the notion that God loves no one but the elect, see R. L. Dabney's superb article, "God's Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy."

Our friends at monergism.com (Threshold) have posted an excellent collection of articles dealing with hyper-Calvinism. See Also:
All House and no Doors: A Brief Critique of Hyper-Calvinism, by C. Matthew McMahon
A review of David J. Engelsma's Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel, by C. Matthew McMahon
Hyper-Calvinism in the Light of Calvin, by Jeffrey Khoo
A Reply to Baptist Hypercalvinism from Vindiciæ Legis et Fœderis, by John Flavel
Calvinism, by A. Allison Lewis
John Calvin and the Free Offer of the Gospel
Calvinists and the Free Offer of the Gospel
The Free Offer Of The Gospel: Is It Biblical And Reformed?
Articles on the Doctrines of Grace from The Westminster Presbyterian. (This is an excellent collection of historic sermons and treatises on gospel themes, demonstrating the classic Reformed views of God's love, common grace, the free offer of the gospel, and the sinner's duty).

[torchbearer]

you article made me think of this info:
(and as a disclaimer, i'm not advocating a position, just throwing out a question.)

Are we careful not to fall into the trends of the Pharisees (or
Sadducees)?
This is the chore of our time: studying the
Pharisees and making sure we're not imitating them!

It is a question that leads to soul searching.


Are we mean-spirited, in the cause of
"righteousness"?

Do we seek institutions more than God and
Jesus?

Do we operate only by laws (like Pharisees), or do
we love (like Jesus)?

Do we ignore the afterlife, as Sadducees ignored
life after death?

Do we pray like Christ, or favor philosophy
like the Pharisees?

Do we live by the letter of our religion (again, are we legalistic) or do we live by its Spirit?

“Whoever has ears ought to hear what the Spirit
says to the churches,” (from Revelation 3).

Do we listen to the Holy Spirit? Do we prefer Him
or institutionalism? Do we mingle among the aristocrats, or among the
disenfranchised? ("Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the chief seats in the
synagogues and the respectful greetings in the market places" -- Luke
11).

Do we disdain miracles? (The Sadducees doubted or
restricted miracles, and disdained the prophetic. Jesus said their forefathers
had killed the prophets.)

Do we encourage healingand
exorcism or discourage it (as the Pharisees attempted to stop Jesus)?

Do we follow the Bible because it is supernatural,
or only for its plain sense (as did the Sadducees)?

We all need to ask: are we humble, or are
we pretentious?

Do we speak plainly or in a way that seeks to
impress?

Are we full of pomp? Do we lengthen our "tassels"
(Matthew 23)? Are we materialistic? Are we too into the "trappings,"
instead of the essence (clean on the outside, like Pharisees, but not
inside)?

Do we argue over the technicalities of religion
instead of pursuing its larger aspirations (as did both Sadducees and
Pharisees)?

Questions, questions! Soul-searching. Let us not
be surprised on how we are evaluated when we die.

And let us ask: Is religion a means to an end --
or (as in the style of Sadducees) an end in and of itself? Many are those who
will be surprised at how they are evaluated when they die -- that what is in the
heart is more important than outward appearances; that treating others well
scores higher than religiosity.

Do we honor God with
our lips while our hearts are far away from Him?

Finally, are we progressing to a higher place in
the afterlife, or entangled in a legalism that knows the structure of religion
without its Truth?

Do we hold "to a form of godliness," although we
have "denied its power" (see 2 Timothy 3)?

Selah!

“

Whoever has ears ought to
hear what the Spirit says to the churches," let us repeat from Revelation
3.

"Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is,
Christ," says Matthew 23. "But the greatest among you shall be your
servant. Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself
shall be exalted."

[jmdrake]

Good food for thought! Thanks for posting this.

you article made me think of this info:
(and as a disclaimer, i'm not advocating a position, just throwing out a question.

Are we careful not to fall into the trends of the Pharisees (or
Sadducees)?
This is the chore of our time: studying the
Pharisees and making sure we're not imitating them!

It is a question that leads to soul searching.


Are we mean-spirited, in the cause of
"righteousness"?

Do we seek institutions more than God and
Jesus?

Do we operate only by laws (like Pharisees), or do
we love (like Jesus)?

Do we ignore the afterlife, as Sadducees ignored
life after death?

Do we pray like Christ, or favor philosophy
like the Pharisees?

Do we live by the letter of our religion (again, are we legalistic) or do we live by its Spirit?

“Whoever has ears ought to hear what the Spirit
says to the churches,” says a Mass reading this week (from Revelation
3).

Do we listen to the Holy Spirit? Do we prefer Him
or institutionalism? Do we mingle among the aristocrats, or among the
disenfranchised? ("Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the chief seats in the
synagogues and the respectful greetings in the market places" -- Luke
11).

Do we disdain miracles? (The Sadducees doubted or
restricted miracles, and disdained the prophetic. Jesus said their forefathers
had killed the prophets.)

Do we encourage healingand
exorcism or discourage it (as the Pharisees attempted to stop Jesus)?

Do we follow the Bible because it is supernatural,
or only for its plain sense (as did the Sadducees)?

We all need to ask: are we humble, or are
we pretentious?

Do we speak plainly or in a way that seeks to
impress?

Are we full of pomp? Do we lengthen our "tassels"
(Matthew 23)? Are we materialistic? Are we too into the "trappings,"
instead of the essence (clean on the outside, like Pharisees, but not
inside)?

Do we argue over the technicalities of religion
instead of pursuing its larger aspirations (as did both Sadducees and
Pharisees)?

Questions, questions! Soul-searching. Let us not
be surprised on how we are evaluated when we die.

And let us ask: Is religion a means to an end --
or (as in the style of Sadducees) an end in and of itself? Many are those who
will be surprised at how they are evaluated when they die -- that what is in the
heart is more important than outward appearances; that treating others well
scores higher than religiosity.

Do we honor God with
our lips while our hearts are far away from Him?

Finally, are we progressing to a higher place in
the afterlife, or entangled in a legalism that knows the structure of religion
without its Truth?

Do we hold "to a form of godliness," although we
have "denied its power" (see 2 Timothy 3)?

Selah!

“

Whoever has ears ought to
hear what the Spirit says to the churches," let us repeat from Revelation
3.

"Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is,
Christ," says Matthew 23. "But the greatest among you shall be your
servant. Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself
shall be exalted."

[moostraks]

Thus the good news about Christ's death and resurrection is supplanted by a message about election and reprobation—usually with an inordinate stress on reprobation. In practical terms, the hyper-Calvinist "gospel" often reduces to the message that God simply and single-mindedly hates those whom He has chosen to damn, and there is nothing whatsoever they can do about it.
Deliberately excluded from hyper-Calvinist "evangelism" is any pleading with the sinner to be reconciled with God. Sinners are not told that God offers them forgiveness or salvation. In fact, most hyper-Calvinists categorically deny that God makes any offer in the gospel whatsoever.
The hyper-Calvinist position at this point amounts to a repudiation of the very gist of 2 Corinthians 5:20: "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." The whole thrust of the gospel, properly presented, is to convey an offer (in the sense of a tender, a proffer, or a proposal) of divine peace and mercy to all who come under its hearing. The apostle's language is even stronger, suggesting the true gospel preacher begs sinners to be reconciled to God—or rather he stands "in Christ's stead," pleading thus with the sinner. Hyper-Calvinism in essence denies the concept of human responsibility, and so it must eliminate any such pleading, resulting in a skewed presentation of the gospel.

I have found this to be particularly true...

[moostraks]

Nice...The author seems to have been in my head with what is being questioned here. I have found my frustrations within the Anabaptist community as they argue over issues like the number of pleats in a prayer cap. Sort of loses the meaning of wearing one when you are resentful, lol!
Anything can become a stumbling block if we live in our heads instead of our hearts.

you article made me think of this info:
(and as a disclaimer, i'm not advocating a position, just throwing out a question.)

Are we careful not to fall into the trends of the Pharisees (or
Sadducees)?
This is the chore of our time: studying the
Pharisees and making sure we're not imitating them!

It is a question that leads to soul searching.


Are we mean-spirited, in the cause of
"righteousness"?

Do we seek institutions more than God and
Jesus?

Do we operate only by laws (like Pharisees), or do
we love (like Jesus)?

Do we ignore the afterlife, as Sadducees ignored
life after death?

Do we pray like Christ, or favor philosophy
like the Pharisees?

Do we live by the letter of our religion (again, are we legalistic) or do we live by its Spirit?

“Whoever has ears ought to hear what the Spirit
says to the churches,” (from Revelation 3).

Do we listen to the Holy Spirit? Do we prefer Him
or institutionalism? Do we mingle among the aristocrats, or among the
disenfranchised? ("Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the chief seats in the
synagogues and the respectful greetings in the market places" -- Luke
11).

Do we disdain miracles? (The Sadducees doubted or
restricted miracles, and disdained the prophetic. Jesus said their forefathers
had killed the prophets.)

Do we encourage healingand
exorcism or discourage it (as the Pharisees attempted to stop Jesus)?

Do we follow the Bible because it is supernatural,
or only for its plain sense (as did the Sadducees)?

We all need to ask: are we humble, or are
we pretentious?

Do we speak plainly or in a way that seeks to
impress?

Are we full of pomp? Do we lengthen our "tassels"
(Matthew 23)? Are we materialistic? Are we too into the "trappings,"
instead of the essence (clean on the outside, like Pharisees, but not
inside)?

Do we argue over the technicalities of religion
instead of pursuing its larger aspirations (as did both Sadducees and
Pharisees)?

Questions, questions! Soul-searching. Let us not
be surprised on how we are evaluated when we die.

And let us ask: Is religion a means to an end --
or (as in the style of Sadducees) an end in and of itself? Many are those who
will be surprised at how they are evaluated when they die -- that what is in the
heart is more important than outward appearances; that treating others well
scores higher than religiosity.

Do we honor God with
our lips while our hearts are far away from Him?

Finally, are we progressing to a higher place in
the afterlife, or entangled in a legalism that knows the structure of religion
without its Truth?

Do we hold "to a form of godliness," although we
have "denied its power" (see 2 Timothy 3)?

Selah!

“

Whoever has ears ought to
hear what the Spirit says to the churches," let us repeat from Revelation
3.

"Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is,
Christ," says Matthew 23. "But the greatest among you shall be your
servant. Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself
shall be exalted."

[Sola_Fide]

Why is it "hyper-Calvinism" to reject the "free offer" and "common grace" and other Arminian impositions on Scripture? Why couldn't I just as easily say that Phil Johnson is hypo-Calvinist?

Actually, I hesitate to call myself a Calvinist anymore because these New Calvinists are Van Tillian lordship salvation neo-legalists. They are as confused about the law/gospel distinction as Rome is.

Count me in with Gordon Clark, Herman Hoeksema, the Westminster Confession, etc.

There is no such thing as "the free offer":

http://godshammer.wordpress.com/2012...ows/#more-3497

Unfortunately, most of what is taught in Reformed hurches today is indistinguishable from the pabulum fed to countless Christians thanks in large part to the late John Murray, who, along with Cornelius Van Til, launched a vicious attack against Gordon Clark in the 1940’s that included a defense of the implicit Arminianism of the so-called “free,” “sincere” or “well-meant offer” of the Gospel. Murray’s notable contribution to the Clark controversy was to pen the majority paper adopted by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. In that paper Murray asserts:

… God himself expresses an ardent desire for the fulfillment of certain things which he has not decreed in his inscrutable counsel to come to pass. This means that there is a will to the realization of what he has not decretively willed, a pleasure towards that which he has not been pleased to decree. This is indeed mysterious …

The “well meant offer” is a doctrine that amounts to saying that God, who alone has the power to save hell bound sinners, desires the salvation of those He has no intention of saving. And, if you hold to the idea that A is A and not Non-A and that the laws of logic are the very architecture of God’s mind and in whose image we are made, you might be tempted to ask: How can God, who alone has the power to save sinners from their bondage to sin and death, desire to save those He chooses to pass by and leave in their sins? After all, doesn’t God say through his prophet Isaiah:

Declaring the end from the beginning And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’….

Therefore, if God does all his good pleasure, and his good pleasure is that all should be saved, then it follows necessarily that all will be saved. Either that or God isn’t God. The doctrine of the “well meant offer,” if true, would mean that God is at cross purposes with Himself, which is impious to consider.

Consider the following from John Calvin’s answer to Roman Catholic apologist Albert Pighius:

…Pighius, like a wild beast escaped from his cage, rushes forth, bounding over all fences in his way, uttering such sentiments as these:

“The mercy of God is extended to every one, for God wishes all men to be saved; and for that end He stands and knocks at the door of our heart, desiring to enter Therefore, those were elected before the foundation of the world, by whom He foreknew He should be received. But God hardens no one, excepting by His forbearance, in the same manner as too fond parents ruin their children by excessive indulgence.”

Just as if anyone, by such puerile dreams as these, could escape the force of all those things which the apostle plainly declares in direct contradiction to such sentiments! And just as if it were nothing at all to his readers, when Paul positively asserts that, out of the twins, while they were yet in the womb of their mother, the one was chosen and the other rejected!and that, too, without any respect to the works of either, present or future (of the former of which there could be none), but solely by the good pleasure of God that calleth! As if it were nothing, when the apostle testifies that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy,” who hardeneth whom He will, and hath mercy on whom He will! As if it were nothing when the same apostle avers, “that God sheweth forth His power in the vessels of wrath,“in order that He might make known the riches of His grace on the vessels of mercy“! Paul undeniably here testifies that all those of Israel who were saved were saved according to God’s free election; and that, therefore, “the election obtained it, and the rest were blinded” (Rom. xi. 7). All these solemn particulars, however, we have more fully discussed in their order in our preceding pages. (A Treatise on Eternal Predestination, 152-153).

God desires to save those He saves and doesn’t desire to save those He doesn’t. Calvin’s response to Pighius is biblical, unapologetic, and without the slightest hint of contradiction. On the other hand, the “well meant offer” is clearly contradictory and that’s the point. The pieces of the puzzle aren’t supposed to fit and embracing contradictions is essential to Van Til’s system and was the central feature underlying his entire complaint against Clark. To suggest that the truths of Scripture do not violate the laws of logic, or simply the laws of God’s own thinking, is, according to Van Til and his followers, “rationalism.” Van Til writing in The Complaint:

Berkhof in his Systematic Theology, pp. 460ff., upholds both the universality and the sincerity of the gospel invitation. He says:

“It is not confined to any age or nation or class of men. It comes to both the just and the unjust, the elect and the reprobate.”

He offers as irrefutable proof Isaiah 45:22, “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else”. He proceeds:

“The external calling is a calling in good faith, a calling that is seriously meant. It is not an invitation coupled with the hope that it will not be accepted. When God calls the sinner to accept Christ by faith He earnestly desires this; and when He promises those who repent and believe eternal life, His promise is dependable. This follows from the very nature, from the veracity, of God. 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.”

And when faced with the objection that according to this doctrine God offers the forgiveness of sins and eternal life to those for whom he has not intended these gifts, Berkhof admits frankly that there is “a real difficulty” at this point, but insists that it may not be assumed that there is a contradiction.

Incidentally it maybe remarked here that when, in 1924*, one of the very few churches in this country which takes the Reformed faith seriously deposed certain ministers of the gospel, one ground, among others, for this action was the denial by these ministers of the sincerity of the divine offer of salvation to all men.

The supreme importance for evangelism of maintaining the Reformed doctrine of the gospel as a universal and sincere offer of salvation is self evident.

Again we are confronted by a situation which is inadequately described as amazing. Once more there is a problem which has left the greatest theologians of history baffled. The very Word of God does not present a solution. But Dr. Clark asserts unblushingly that for his thinking the difficulty is non-existent (35:20-36:2; 47:1f.). Here is something phenomenal. What accounts for it? The most charitable, and no doubt the correct, explanation is that Dr. Clark has fallen under the spell of rationalism. Rather than subject his reason to the divine Word he insists on logically harmonizing with each other two evident but seemingly contradictory teachings of that Word, although in the process he detracts from one of these teachings.

The conclusion is inescapable that Dr. Clark’s rationalism has resulted in his obscuring—to say the very least—a significant teaching of Scripture—a truth which constitutes one off the most glorious aspects of the gospel of the grace of God.

Let that all sink in for a moment. Clark’s “rationalism” is that he had no problem squaring God’s sovereignty in election with reprobation. Clark’s “sin” is that he logically harmonized the teaching of Scripture regarding the general or universal call of the Gospel with the doctrine of reprobation. Van Til admits that the WMO presents to the mind “two evident but seemingly contradictory teachings of [God’s] Word,” but it is “rationalism” to harmonize seeming contradictions in Scripture. The problem is the word “seemingly” can only successfully modify “contradictory” if and only if what appears to be contradictory can be shown to be no contradiction at all. Simply asserting, as Berkhof has done, “that it may not be assumed that there is a contradiction” is not an argument. Further, asserting that there are no contradictions for God doesn’t eliminate, much less soften, the admission that God’s Word is contradictory to the minds of men. What really irked Van Til was that what remains a “real difficulty” for Berkhof turns out to be no problem for Clark. The question is; why? So here is Clark’s reply to Van Til in The Answer (be sure to catch some of Clark’s famously understated humor in his reply):

The last theological section of the Complaint treats of the offer of the gospel. Since the answer to the Complain is already so voluminous, brevity at the end might be appreciated. And brevity will be sufficient, for once again the basic accusation is rationalism, and this accusation has already been refuted.

Once again also the complainants show their unwillingness to be satisfied with the wording of the Westminster Confession. In the first section of the Complaint they were not satisfied with the statement of the Confession on the incomprehensibility of God, but wished to impose on it a strange mystical irrationalism; in the second section they were unwilling to be satisfied with the Westminster doctrine which excludes passions from God’s consciousness: admitting that Dr. Clark’s view is correct, nevertheless they attack it; in the third section the complainants show themselves dissatisfied with the Confession’s encouragement of a logical or rational approach to Scripture: here again the complainants take a position that reduces to irrationalism; and now in the last section they ignore the Confession, and appeal to an earlier and inferior creed.

The Church should note that Dr. Clark is in full accord with the Westminster Confession on the offer of the gospel. The Confession VII, iii, states: “Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.” With this Dr. Clark is in full accord. The complainants, however, were not satisfied with Dr. Clark’s acceptance of the Confession’s statement, but insisted on the word sincere in describing the offer of the gospel.

Now as the Complaint (P. 13, 1; O. 51) admits, the word “sincere” is of little significance in any particular phrase because God is sincere in everything he does. There was no need of the Westminster divines’ using it; and there was no need of the complainants using it. It is superfluous. This was one of two reasons for Dr. Clark’s reluctance to use the term. It has been made clear how necessary it is to define terms accurately. The qualitative difference between the truth of a proposition for man and the same truth for God remains undefined in the Complaint. The word “emotion” is defined carelessly. In this case also Dr. Clark could not know what meaning was to be placed on the word “sincere.” And for this reason he refused to use it. The second reason is closely allied with the first. Because the word “sincere” is of such general application and can be used with various connotations, the Arminians have used it to distinguish their doctrine from ours. The Lutherans do the same thing with the word “earnestly.” According to W. G. Polack, in The Building of a Great Church, page 151, the Missouri Synod in 1881 adopted the following point among others: “We believe, teach, and confess that God has loved the world from eternity, has created all men for salvation and none for damnation, and earnestly desires the salvation of all men.”

These then are the words used by the enemies of Calvinism to make it appear odious. Dr. Clark’s refusal to use such words springs from his desire not to be charged with Arminianism. He seems to have been successful, for Arminianism is one accusation the complainants do not make.

The Church would do well to compare the careless questions of the complainants in examining Dr. Clark and their careless language in the Complaint with the excellent precision of a careful theologian like R. L. Dabney. In his Syllabus and Notes (p. 559), he says:

“Fifth: When we assert this sincere compassion of God in His common calls to the non-elect, we do not attribute to Him anything futile, or insincere; because, in the expressed condition: that they shall turn. He does not say anywhere, that He has any desire to see anyone saved while continuing a rebel. Nor does He say anywhere, that it is His unconditioned purpose to compel all to turn. But He says, He would like to see all saved provided they all turned. So that His will in the universal call is not out of harmony with His prescience. And last: God’s invitations and warnings to those, who, He foresees, will reject them, are the necessary expressions of His perfections. The circumstance that a given sin is foreseen does not rob it of its moral character; and hence should constitute no reason why a righteous God shall forebear to prohibit and warn against it. That God shall yet permit creatures to commit this sin against His invitations is, therefore, just the old question about the permission of evil. Not a new one.”

Though the complainants might reproach Dabney for trying to answer questions and solve paradoxes instead of letting things stand without explanation, Dabney’s statement is the kind of careful wording that is to be approved; This is the form of doctrine that Dr. Clark accepts; and this is sufficient.

Thankfully, had my initial introduction to the Reformed faith and the doctrines of predestination and election come from Van Til and his associates, rather than from Gordon Clark, John Calvin and others, I might have been using my Bible to roast marshmallows.

[jmdrake]

You jumped the shark when you suggested that Calvin himself might be a "hypo-Calvinist".

Why is it "hyper-Calvinism" to reject the "free offer" and "common grace" and other Arminian impositions on Scripture? Why couldn't I just as easily say that Phil Johnson is hypo-Calvinist?

Actually, I hesitate to call myself a Calvinist anymore because these New Calvinists are Van Tillian lordship salvation neo-legalists. They are as confused about the law/gospel distinction as Rome is.

Count me in with Gordon Clark, Herman Hoeksema, the Westminster Confession, etc.

There is no such thing as "the free offer":

http://godshammer.wordpress.com/2012...ows/#more-3497

[Sola_Fide]

You jumped the shark when you suggested that Calvin himself might be a "hypo-Calvinist".

On this issue, Calvin was right. Read my article:

Just as if anyone, by such puerile dreams as these, could escape the force of all those things which the apostle plainly declares in direct contradiction to such sentiments! And just as if it were nothing at all to his readers, when Paul positively asserts that, out of the twins, while they were yet in the womb of their mother, the one was chosen and the other rejected!and that, too, without any respect to the works of either, present or future (of the former of which there could be none), but solely by the good pleasure of God that calleth! As if it were nothing, when the apostle testifies that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy,” who hardeneth whom He will, and hath mercy on whom He will! As if it were nothing when the same apostle avers, “that God sheweth forth His power in the vessels of wrath,“in order that He might make known the riches of His grace on the vessels of mercy“! Paul undeniably here testifies that all those of Israel who were saved were saved according to God’s free election; and that, therefore, “the election obtained it, and the rest were blinded” (Rom. xi. 7). All these solemn particulars, however, we have more fully discussed in their order in our preceding pages. (A Treatise on Eternal Predestination, 152-153).

[jmdrake]

On this issue, Calvin was right. Read my article:

You always have an article. But you never have any truth.

[Sola_Fide]

You always have an article. But you never have any truth.

Do you ever read anything I post or send to you?

[jmdrake]

Do you ever read anything I post or send to you?

Quotes from the Bible? Sure. Someone else's sermon? Nope. Rarely if ever. Why would I especially considering the fact that you often don't even answer direct questions I ask you repeatedly? Further I don't even think that's the proper way to have theological discourse. If we're debating what Calvin said, I don't mind reading something directly from Calvin showing what he did or didn't say. But I'm not wading through someone else's commentary on Calvin. Have you taken the time yet to search Ellen White's writings to confirm that she never said you are saved by keeping the Sabbath or that everyone who keeps Sunday will be lost?

Edit: And the way to get someone to bother opening your PMs is not by being arrogant and rude in the main forum.

[Sola_Fide]

I do apologize for being rude. Sometimes my passion for these things outweighs my manners.

[jmdrake]

I do apologize for being rude. Sometimes my passion for these things outweighs my manners.

Apology accepted.

[Sola_Fide]

Have you taken the time yet to search Ellen White's writings to confirm that she never said you are saved by keeping the Sabbath or that everyone who keeps Sunday will be lost?.

Ellen G. White taught works-salvationism:

"In order to let Jesus into our hearts, we must stop sinning." Signs of the Times, March 3, 1898.

"To be redeemed means to cease from sin." Review & Herald, Sept. 25, 1900.

" . . . conversion is not completed until he attains to perfection of Christian character." Testimonies, Vol. 2, p. 505.

"Human beings may in this life attain to perfection of character." Acts of the Apostles, p. 531.

"Perfection of character is attainable by every one who strives for it." Selected Messages Vol. 1, p. 212.

No Christian could ever say these things. This is total self-righteous Phariseeism.

It is also a misunderstanding of the law/gospel distinction. The law never becomes softened, even for the believer. Even after one becomes a Christian, the law still stands above him and judges him as imperfect. We can NEVER attain to the perfection of the law through sanctification.

[matt0611]

Just curious jmdrake, how would you describe your theology?

[jmdrake]

Ellen G. White taught works-salvationism:

No Christian could ever say these things. This is total self-righteous Phariseeism.

It is also a misunderstanding of the law/gospel distinction. The law never becomes softened, even for the believer. Even after one becomes a Christian, the law still stands above him and judges him as imperfect. We can NEVER attain to the perfection of the law through sanctification.

Charles Spurgeon was not a Christian then.

"Repentance is to leave
The sins we loved before,
And show that we in earnest grieve,
By doing so no more."

Charles Spurgeon

Edit: And you, Sola_Fide, are not a Christian either since you don't think someone can be a Christian and continue homosexual sinning.

Edit 2: And I specifically asked you to provide evidence that Ellen White taught that Sunday worshipers couldn't be saved. Rather than doing the honorable thing and either confirming your claim or admit that it wasn't true, you want to change the subject. Why is that?

[jmdrake]

Just curious jmdrake, how would you describe your theology?

Hmmmmm.....is there such thing as a Seventh-Day Anabaptist? Seriously, I have great respect for that religion in theory, especially the consistency of being against war. (I cringe whenever I'm an any church around memorial day, Baptist, SDA, you name it, and we're told to "Thank those soldiers who are overseas protecting our freedoms" when in my heart I know that the only threat to our freedoms comes from Washington D.C.)

[Sola_Fide]

Charles Spurgeon was not a Christian then.

"Repentance is to leave
The sins we loved before,
And show that we in earnest grieve,
By doing so no more."

Charles Spurgeon

Edit: And you, Sola_Fide, are not a Christian either since you don't think someone can be a Christian and continue homosexual sinning.

Edit 2: And I specifically asked you to provide evidence that Ellen White taught that Sunday worshipers couldn't be saved. Rather than doing the honorable thing and either confirming your claim or admit that it wasn't true, you want to change the subject. Why is that?

Jmdrake, you asked if me if it is possible to be a Christian homosexual. (You used the example of a homosexual Calvinist pastor). It is not possible to be a Christian homosexual...in the sense that it is your identity, morality, life, and philosophy.

That is not the same as saying that Christian men haven't ever committed homosexual sins, and it is not the same as saying (as Ellen White said) that you must cease your sin (in this case homosexuality) to be saved.

There is no sin a Christian man can commit that can separate him from the love of God. That is what Paul says in Romans 8. We are saved by grace alone, not how we live.

[Sola_Fide]

Also, Jmdrake...

I've read a lot more Spurgeon than you. When he said this, he meant it, and you need to understand this as well:

"Repentance" is a grace. Some people preach it as a condition of salvation. Condition of nonsense! There are no conditions of salvation. God gives the salvation himself; and he only gives it to those to whom he will. He says, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy "

Why do you disagree with with his statement above?

[jmdrake]

Jmdrake, you asked if me if it is possible to be a Christian homosexual. (You used the example of a homosexual Calvinist pastor). It is not possible to be a Christian homosexual...in the sense that it is your identity, morality, life, and philosophy.

That is not the same as saying that Christian men haven't ever committed homosexual sins, and it is not the same as saying (as Ellen White said) that you must cease your sin (in this case homosexuality) to be saved.

There is no sin a Christian man can commit that can separate him from the love of God. That is what Paul says in Romans 8. We are saved by grace alone, not how we live.

Right. But that's not the point. In fact you are avoiding the point. It's one thing to say that a person who has committed the sin of homosexuality can be saved. Of course he can be. It's another thing to claim that someone who continues the practice can be saved. In other words, according to your claim, a homosexual must stop sinning (at least committing the sin of homosexuality) to be saved. Note that's not the same as saying that a saved Christian who falls and commits the sin of homosexuality cannot be saved. But that's different from wallowing in his sin.

[jmdrake]

Also, Jmdrake...

I've read a lot more Spurgeon than you. When he said this, he meant it, and you need to understand this as well:


Why do you disagree with with his statement above?

That's nice. But you believe that a condition of salvation for a homosexual is that he has to (at least temporarily) stop committing the sin of homosexuality. So you're putting a condition on salvation.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to prove or retract your statement about Ellen White and Sunday-keeper salvation.

[Sola_Fide]

Right. But that's not the point. In fact you are avoiding the point. It's one thing to say that a person who has committed the sin of homosexuality can be saved. Of course he can be. It's another thing to claim that someone who continues the practice can be saved. In other words, according to your claim, a homosexual must stop sinning (at least committing the sin of homosexuality) to be saved. Note that's not the same as saying that a saved Christian who falls and commits the sin of homosexuality cannot be saved. But that's different from wallowing in his sin.

I have NEVER said that a person must stop ANY sin in order to be saved.

Where have I said this?

There is no condition of salvation. This is a lie from the pit of Hell. Looking to Christ alone requires nothing from a man, including stopping any sin.

[acptulsa]

Looking to Christ alone requires nothing from a man, including stopping any sin.

Lord, when did I see You...?

[jmdrake]

I have NEVER said that a person must stop ANY sin in order to be saved.

Where have I said this?

Okay. So practising homosexuals can be Christians then and you weren't telling the truth when you said they couldn't.

There is no condition of salvation. This is a lie from the pit of Hell. Looking to Christ alone requires nothing from a man, including stopping any sin.

So why did you say it then? Saying someone can't be a homosexual and be a Christian is putting a condition on salvation. Unless you believe that people who aren't really Christians can be saved. You can't have it both ways.

Edit: And you can't wiggle your way around it by claiming the problem is one of "identity, morality, life, and philosophy". For one thing, that's not Biblical. You just made that up. But even if it was, if having a certain 'identity" makes you non Christian, then by definition God has "commanded" people not to have that identity, and by definition having such an "identity" is "sin". Further based on your definition of "law" (anything that goes against God's command) having an "un-Christian identity" is breaking "God's law". So you're back to legalism whether you wish to admit it or not.

Edit 2: Okay. If you want to make a distinction between homosexual sin (you don't have to stop) and homosexual identity (you can't have that and be a Christian), does that mean that someone who doesn't identify himself as a homosexual, but engages in homosexual acts every night without ever crying out for or seeking deliverance can be a Christian and a Calvinist pastor in your opinion?

[jmdrake]

Lord, when did I see You...?

+rep for the Matthew 25 reference that probably went over some folks heads.

[acptulsa]

+rep for the Matthew 25 reference that probably went over some folks heads.

Did I go over someone's head?

Well, I'm actually willing to take responsibility for it. I won't blame God, and don't expect anyone else to, either.

[Sola_Fide]

Okay. So practising homosexuals can be Christians then and you weren't telling the truth when you said they couldn't.



So why did you say it then? Saying someone can't be a homosexual and be a Christian is putting a condition on salvation. Unless you believe that people who aren't really Christians can be saved. You can't have it both ways.

Where in what I said did you get that there is "a condition of salvation"???

Why wouldn't you understand my words to mean that when God saves a homosexual, God changes that man's affections and desires?

[acptulsa]

Where in what I said did you get that there is "a condition of salvation"???

Why wouldn't you understand my words to mean that when God saves a homosexual, God changes that man's affections and desires?

So, when God saved you, why didn't He make you tolerant? Because Jesus said little about homosexuality, but much about tolerance...

[Sola_Fide]

Okay. So practising homosexuals can be Christians then and you weren't telling the truth when you said they couldn't.



So why did you say it then? Saying someone can't be a homosexual and be a Christian is putting a condition on salvation. Unless you believe that people who aren't really Christians can be saved. You can't have it both ways.

Edit: And you can't wiggle your way around it by claiming the problem is one of "identity, morality, life, and philosophy". For one thing, that's not Biblical. You just made that up. But even if it was, if having a certain 'identity" makes you non Christian, then by definition God has "commanded" people not to have that identity, and by definition having such an "identity" is "sin". Further based on your definition of "law" (anything that goes against God's command) having an "un-Christian identity" is breaking "God's law". So you're back to legalism whether you wish to admit it or not.

Edit 2: Okay. If you want to make a distinction between homosexual sin (you don't have to stop) and homosexual identity (you can't have that and be a Christian), does that mean that someone who doesn't identify himself as a homosexual, but engages in homosexual acts every night without ever crying out for or seeking deliverance can be a Christian and a Calvinist pastor in your opinion?

I was only responding to the hypothetical you gave me. If we are talking about the openly homosexual "Calvinist" pastor preaching in the Second Reformed Church of Southern Luxembourg, then yes, such a man (as far as we can tell with our earthly eyes) is not exhibiting a life that is a Christian life.

Does God save homosexuals? Yes.
Do homosexual sins separate a justified man from God's love? No, nothing can.
Does God change the affections and desires of a person who was once a homosexual? Yes.
Are we justified by how we live in this life? No.
Are sexual sins serious? Yes, very serious, because they affect your mind.

Edit: I am more than happy to get Erowe's perspective on this. I want to be sure I'm approaching this subject in a manner worthy of consistency. So, if I need to modify my understanding of this, I will.

[acptulsa]

Note to everyone else: Don't read this. God has obviously put me on Ignore. Now you, too, have gotten the memo.