Q.
1. “What is the standard or rule which determines genuine Calvinism?”
The standard against
which genuine Calvinism is to be measured is … the Canons of Dordt (which are the original “Five Points of Calvinism”). (Rev. Martyn McGeown)
Check out the following
lecture by Rev. Angus Stewart: “Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism and Hypo-Calvinism”
###################################
Q.
2. “What is hyper-Calvinism?”
Hyper-Calvinism is
defined in different ways by men in Reformed circles. All by itself, the word means
“a teaching that goes above and beyond Calvinism.” Hyper
is the prefix that means, above,
over, beyond, excessive, as a hyperactive child is excessively
active. Hyper-Calvinism is
an exaggeration of Calvinism, a taking of the doctrines of grace above and
beyond the place given them by Calvin and the Reformed fathers. (Prof. Barry Gritters, The Standard Bearer,
vol. 77, no. 5 [Dec 1, 2000], p. 111)
###################################
Q. 3. “What are the marks of genuine hyper-Calvinism?”
The hallmark of genuine hyper-Calvinism is the denial or rejection that it is the
duty of all men everywhere to repent and believe in Jesus Christ—it is a
denial or rejection of what’s
known as “duty faith” and “duty repentance.”
(Rev. Martyn McGeown)
A hyper-Calvinist, therefore, is not someone who
teaches that in predestination, in the death of Christ in the preaching, and in
the work of the Spirit, God loves only the elect and intends only their
salvation. That is simply Biblical Calvinism.
Rather a hyper-Calvinist (historically and
doctrinally) is someone who, because all are not chosen and redeemed, will not command all who hear the gospel
to repent and believe. He is someone who starts from the right
premises, but draws the wrong conclusions—who does not believe that “God
now commandeth all men every where
to repent” (Acts 17:30).
A true hyper-Calvinist, then, is one who believes
rightly in sovereign, double predestination and in particular redemption—who
denies a universal love of God and a will of God to save all men. Yet he
concludes wrongly that because God has determined who will be saved, sent
Christ for them only, and gives to them salvation as a free gift, therefore only the elect should be commanded to
repent and believe in the preaching of the gospel.
… The heart of hyper-Calvinism, therefore, is a rejection of so-called “duty faith” and
“duty repentance,”
i.e., that it is the solemn duty and obligation of all who hear the gospel to
repent and believe. (Rev. Ronald Hanko, “What is Hyper-Calvinism?”)
An hyper-Calvinist is one who believes the gospel should
only be offered to those who are already regenerated and convinced of sin. The
hyper-Calvinist confession expresses it this way:
We deny duty faith and
duty repentance--these terms signify 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 men in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God …
While we believe that the gospel is to be preached in or proclaimed to all the
world, as in Mark 16:14, we deny offers of grace; that is to say, that the
gospel is to be offered indiscriminately to all (Articles of Faith of the Gospel Standard Aid and Poor Relief Societies).
Thus, the hyper-Calvinist limits those to whom the gospel
may be offered and will not call all men without distinction to faith and
repentance. (Rev. Christopher J. Connors,
“The Biblical Offer of the Gospel”)
###################################
Q. 4. “Isn’t a hyper-Calvinist simply somebody who
preaches the gospel only to their church members and to nobody else?”
That is not the issue—the issue is what does
the hyper-Calvinist preach? A person might preach to huge crowds of unbelievers
and still be theologically a hyper-Calvinist. The issue is this: to whom do
we address the command to repent and believe, and (related to
that) to whom do we address the promise, and how
are the command and the promise connected? (Rev.
Martyn McGeown, “An Answer to Phil Johnson’s ‘Primer on Hyper-Calvinism”)
###################################
Q. 5. “Is it really an error to deny ‘duty-faith’
and ‘duty-repentance’ and to refuse to command all men to repent and believe?”
This, we believe, is a serious error. It is an
error that effectively destroys both gospel preaching and evangelism—an error
that must be avoided. (Rev. Ronald Hanko,
“What is Hyper-Calvinism?”)
We reject these notions for various reasons. First,
it is difficult to imagine how anyone, without divine inspiration, can ever be
sure
that he is preaching only to “sensible sinners”
in order confidently to bring the command of the gospel. In reality, therefore,
the command of the gospel will seldom, if ever, be heard in hyper-Calvinist
preaching.
Second, hyper-Calvinism turns the command to repent
and believe into a command to continue
to repent and believe or to persevere
in repenting and believing. So-called “sensible sinners,”
the only ones who may be called to repent and believe are those who have already begun to do so by the
secret operations of the Holy Spirit. The faith called for, in that case, is
not saving faith in the truest and deepest sense of the word, i.e., faith that
brings a person into communion with Christ, justifies him and gives him
salvation, but only faith as it continues to manifest itself in its fruits of
assurance and hope.
It is in this connection that true hyper-Calvinists
usually teach that person is justified completely in eternity and that
justification by faith involves only the assurance of justification. Thus the
faith called for in the gospel does not in fact justify us before God, but only
assures of a justification that has already taken place.
It is in this connection also that hyper-Calvinists
are also accused, and rightly, of a certain antinomianism (anti-lawism or anti-commandism) regarding faith. They do not take seriously the command to repent and believe, exactly because
the call to faith is for them only the call to be assured of one’s faith. It is on these grounds that we
emphatically repudiate hyper-Calvinism. (Rev.
Ronald Hanko, “What is Hyper-Calvinism?”)
We believe, therefore, that the Word of God in Acts
17:30 must be taken seriously by those who preach the gospel. We reject the
notion that the command to repent and believe savingly should be heard only by
those who show some evidence of conviction. That would not only limit the
preaching of the gospel, but would in the end destroy true gospel preaching.
The command to repent and believe is an integral
part of the preaching not only as far as God’s elect are concerned, but also
as far as the “reprobate” are concerned. All who come under the preaching
MUST hear that command! Not only is it according to the will of God that it be
preached to all promiscuously, but it is necessary as far as the gospel itself
is concerned. To deny this is to strip the gospel of its power and make it an
empty and vain show. (Rev. Ronald Hanko,
“What is Hyper-Calvinism?”)
###################################
Q. 6. “How do hyper-Calvinists come to that
position? What is their argument for this?”
Both Arminians and hyper-Calvinists make the same
basic error. They judge man’s duty according to his ability. The Arminian
reasons that, if God commands sinners to repent and believe the gospel (which
is true), unregenerate sinners must be able to do this by the power of free
will (which is false). The hyper-Calvinist reasons that, if unregenerate
sinners are totally depraved and therefore unable to repent and believe (which
is true), God cannot command them to repent and believe the gospel (which is
false). (Rev. Martyn McGeown, “An Answer
to Phil Johnson’s ‘Primer on Hyper-Calvinism”)
[The hyper-Calvinist] concludes wrongly that
because God has determined who will be saved, sent Christ for them only, and
gives to them salvation as a free gift, therefore only the elect should be
commanded to repent and believe in the preaching of the gospel …
Hyper-Calvinism concludes that because men are lost in sin and are unable of
themselves to repent and believe, it is a mistake to command them to do so.
Such a command would imply that they are able to repent and believe.
The hyper-Calvinist, then, makes the same mistake
as the Arminians and free-willists, only he draws a different conclusion. Both
think that to command or demand repentance and faith of dead sinners must imply that such sinners are not dead and have in
themselves the ability to repent and believe. The free-willist says, then: “To
command must imply ability, therefore, men have the ability.” The
hyper-Calvinist says: “To command must imply ability, therefore we will not
command any but the elect.”
This means that while a true hyper-Calvinist will
preach the “facts” of the gospel to all who will hear (and insist that he is
preaching the gospel), he will not command
a “mixed” audience to repent and believe. Those commands, he thinks, should be
preached only to those who show evidence of being “sensible sinners,” that is,
sinners who have come under conviction by the work of the Holy Spirit. (Rev. Ronald Hanko, “What is
Hyper-Calvinism?”)
###################################
Q. 7. “But do hyper-Calvinists also use Scripture
to support this idea?”
Hyper-Calvinists appeal to various statements of
Christ. For example, Christ declares, “They that are whole need not a
physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but
sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:31-32; cf. Matt. 9:12-13; Mark 2:17). Elsewhere,
Christ says, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will
give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). In Luke 4:18, Christ says, “The Spirit of the
Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor
... to preach deliverance to the captives ...” In Matthew 11:5, Jesus bids the
messengers of John to return to John with this message: “The blind receive
their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the
dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.”
From this, the hyper-Calvinist concludes that the
gospel is preached only to the poor (in spirit) or only to
the meek (Isa. 61:1) or only to the captives; that the gospel
is preached only to the (spiritually) labouring and heavy
laden; that God addresses the gospel to no one else, and that therefore the
preacher may not address the gospel to anyone else. But the Reformed faith
teaches that the promise of the gospel is to be “declared and published” (and
therefore addressed) to all men without distinction (Canons II:5). (Rev. Martyn McGeown, “An Answer to Phil
Johnson’s ‘Primer on Hyper-Calvinism’”)
###################################
Q. 8. “But doesn’t Scripture teach an ‘external’
and an ‘internal’ call?”
One tactic of genuine hyper-Calvinists is to refuse
to recognize the distinction between the external call—the command to all to
repent and believe—and the internal call—the gracious operation of the Holy
Spirit in the elect to bring them to saving faith and repentance.
Hyper-Calvinists will not acknowledge that the call of Romans 8:28, 30 and
Ephesians 4:4 is different from the call of Matthew 22:14. Moreover,
because sometimes Christ restricts His call to repentance to
certain kinds of people, hyper-Calvinists restrict the call of the gospel always
and only to those whom they call “sensible [i.e., sensitive] sinners.”
Hyper-Calvinists might even be zealous in their evangelism; they might preach
widely and indiscriminately; they might plant churches; but in their preaching
they do not call the hearers to repent and believe in Jesus Christ. A
“sensible” sinner is actually a regenerate person, a believer, because a
“sensible” sinner is aware of his sin, laments over his misery, and hungers and
thirsts after righteousness. According to Canons III/IV:R:4,
“to hunger and thirst after deliverance from misery and after life, and to
offer unto God the sacrifice of a broken spirit, is peculiar to the regenerate
and those that are called blessed (Ps. 51:10, 19; Matt. 5:6).” (Rev. Martyn McGeown, “An Answer to Phil
Johnson’s ‘Primer on Hyper-Calvinism”)
###################################
Q. 9. “Where does Scripture contradict the denial
of ‘duty faith’ and ‘duty repentance’? Where in Scripture is the gospel with
the command to repent and believe said to be preached, proclaimed, declared and
addressed to all men without distinction, and not only to the elect?”
In one of the earliest examples of Christ’s
preaching, we read, “Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into
Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is
fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the
gospel” (Mark 1:14-15). This was a general call. In Matthew 11:20, Jesus “began
... to upbraid the cities.” Why? “Because they repented not.” If they were not
required to repent, why does Christ upbraid them and threaten them with
damnation for not repenting? When Christ sent out His disciples, “they went
out, and preached that men should repent” (Mark 6:12). Before He
ascended into heaven, Christ commanded His disciples to “teach all nations”
(Matt. 28:19) and “preach the gospel to every creature,” adding that “He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned”
(Mark 16:15-16), for it is His will “that repentance and remission of sins
should be preached in his name among all nations” (Luke 24:47). No restriction
of the call to repentance and faith can be admitted in these passages.
The internal call of grace is limited by election,
for “many are called, but few are chosen” (Matt. 22:14), but the external call
is not limited—the gospel with the command to repent and believe is to be
preached, proclaimed, declared and addressed to all men without distinction. All
who come under the hearing of that gospel must be confronted with their duty before
God to repent and believe. So serious is God in impressing this duty upon all
hearers that He threatens eternal damnation upon all who refuse to believe and
repent.
Exactly this is what the apostles did in obedience
to their Lord. “Repent, and be baptized,” said Peter (Acts 2:38). “Repent ye
therefore, and be converted,” he urged (Acts 3:19). To the unbelieving
Sanhedrin, Peter declared, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there
is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be
saved” (Acts 4:12). In Antioch of Pisidia, Paul preached, “Be it known unto you
therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the
forgiveness of sins,” adding the warning, “Behold, ye despisers, and wonder,
and perish” (Acts 13:38, 41). To the pagans in Lystra, Paul proclaimed,
“[We] preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities
unto the living God” (Acts 14:15). To the trembling Philippian jailor, Paul
preached the command and the promise: “Believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (Acts 16:31). In Thessalonica,
according to Acts 17:3, Paul was “Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs
have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom
I preach unto you, is Christ.” To the Athenians, Paul declared,
“[God] commandeth all men every where to repent” (Acts 17:30).
In Acts 19:4, Paul describes John the Baptist’s preaching thus: “John verily
baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that
they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on
Christ Jesus.” In the synagogue of Ephesus, Paul “spake boldly for the space of
three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning
the kingdom of God,” the result of which preaching was that some “were
hardened, and believed not” (Acts 19:8-9). Paul describes his ministry in
Ephesus as “Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance
toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21). In
prison, before the ungodly governor Felix, Paul “reasoned of righteousness,
temperance, and judgment to come.” So searching was Paul’s preaching that Felix
“trembled,” but he did not repent, although we can be sure that Paul commanded
him to repent (Acts 24:25). To unbelieving Herod Agrippa, Paul exclaims, “I
would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both
almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds” (Acts
26:29). At the end of the Acts, we find Paul teaching the gospel, with the
result that some believed and some did not believe (Acts 28:23-24, 31).
[Further …]
To the unregenerate, hypocritical and, as far as we
can tell, reprobate Pharisees and Sadducees, John the Baptist spoke these
words: “O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to
come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance” (Matt. 3:7-8). To do
that is to go beyond repentance—it is to show evidence of genuine conversion!
Could these unbelieving religionists do that? No, but they were commanded to do
it. To the hypocritical, covetous, erstwhile sorcerer, Simon, whose heart was
“not right in the sight of God” and who was, according to Peter’s accurate
perception, “in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity,” The
apostle urged, “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if
perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee” (Acts 8:20-23).
Whatever Simon was (elect or reprobate), he certainly was not a “sensible”
(spiritually sensitive) sinner. Can one in the bond of iniquity pray?
Can one in the gall of bitterness repent? No, but he was commanded
to do it. To King Herod Agrippa, Paul describes his ministry in these words:
Whereupon, O king
Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto
them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea,
and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and
do works meet for repentance (Acts 26:19-20).
Notice what Paul does not say: “I preached that
only the elect or sensible sinners or spiritually qualified sinners should
repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.” Paul issued general
commands in his preaching and so must all true Calvinists. The risen and
exalted Lord Jesus issued a command of repentance to the wicked, stubbornly
impenitent, false prophetess Jezebel of Thyatira: “And I gave her space to
repent of her fornication; and she repented not” (Rev. 2:21). Christ adds a
warning for her impenitent children: “Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and
them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent
of their deeds” (Rev. 2:22).
We could multiply quotations but one entrenched in
hyper-Calvinism will rarely be convinced. Noteworthy about these and many other
examples in Scripture is that (1) the command to repent is addressed to all indiscriminately;
(2) the preacher, whether John, Peter, Paul or Christ, never promises all the
hearers salvation, even conditionally if they repent and believe; and (3) the
preacher does not make an offer or express a sincere desire in God to
save the reprobate. The command is general but the promise is particular.
(Rev.
Martyn McGeown, “An Answer to Phil Johnson’s ‘Primer on Hyper-Calvinism”)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scripture says in Acts 17:30 that “God
now commandeth all men every where to repent.” John the Baptist in
his preaching even called the unbelieving Pharisees and Saducees to repentance
(Matt. 3:8; Luke 3:8). Jesus, too, called all to repentance in His
preaching (Matt. 4:17) and upbraided the cities of Galilee because they did not
repent (Matt. 11:20). When He sent out the 70 He sent them also to those who
would reject the gospel and even warned them about this rejection (Mark 6:10-11),
yet we read that they went out and preached that men should repent (Mark
6:12).
Nor is there any evidence that when Peter, in the
temple after the healing of the lame man, preached “repent ye and be converted”
(Acts 3:19), that he was preaching only to “sensible sinners.”
Certainly, Simon the sorcerer was not a “sensible sinner” when Peter said to him:
“Repent therefore of this wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the
thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee” (Acts 7:22).
Several of the passages already cited (Acts 3:19;
7:22) also imply that the gospel calls for faith on the part of all who hear.
Faith is part of conversion, and one cannot pray to God for forgiveness without
also praying in faith. So, too, it is not possible that Jesus condemned the
Pharisees for not believing if believing was not required of them
(Matt. 21:25; Luke 22:67; John 10:25-26). (Rev. Ronald Hanko, “What is
Hyper-Calvinism?”)
###################################
Q. 10. “How do hyper-Calvinists respond to all
these Scripture texts?”
The hyper-Calvinist gets around these verses by
speaking of different kinds of repentance and faith. He speaks of “Jewish
repentance,” “reformation repentance,” “circumstantial repentance,” “collective
repentance,” etc., and claims that Scripture also calls for
different kinds of faith. So he insists that many of the verses we have
referred to call only for such kinds of faith and repentance, but not for saving repentance and faith.
We do not deny, of course, that Scripture speaks of
“faith” and “repentance” that are not saving (Acts 8:13; II Cor. 7:10;
James 2:19; Heb. 12:17). But these, as we know, are simply hypocrisy, and do
not find favor with God. They cannot possibly, then, be something God calls for. How could God, who
does not lie, speaking through the gospel, call men to a repentance or faith
which is not sincere and saving? There is not the slightest evidence in
Scripture that He does so, either. (Rev.
Ronald Hanko, “What is Hyper-Calvinism?”)
###################################
Q. 11. “Is there creedal/confessional support for
the idea that God commands all men (including the reprobate) to repent?”
Canons II:6 teaches that
“many who are called by the gospel do not repent, nor believe in Christ, but
perish in unbelief.” Canons III/IV:9 also states that “[some
of] those who are called by the ministry of Word refuse to come and be
converted.” Canons III/IV:10 adds “that others who are called
by the gospel obey the call and are converted is not to be ascribed to the
proper exercise of free will.” Moreover, Canons I:3 avers that
by the gospel ministry “men are called to repentance and faith in Christ
crucified.” [That the reference here is to the external call is clear
from Canons I:4, which speaks of those “who believe not”].
In Canons III/IV:17, the fathers at Dordt remind us that “the
most wise God has ordained [the preaching of the gospel] to be the seed of
regeneration and food of the soul.” In addition, the Heidelberg
Catechism explains the relationship between God’s command and man’s (in)ability:
“God made man capable of performing it [i.e., obedience to His law]; but man
... deprived himself and all his posterity of those divine gifts” (A. 9). The
same catechism explains the duty of the sinner to repent: “it is declared and
testified to all unbelievers, and such as do not sincerely repent, that they
stand exposed to the wrath of God and eternal condemnation, so long as they are
unconverted ...” (A. 84).
[Further …]
Canons II:5 states,
Moreover, the promise
of the gospel is that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified shall not perish,
but have everlasting life. This promise, together with the command to
repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and
to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of His
good pleasure sends the gospel.
Clearest of all is Canons III/IV:8,
where we read,
As many as are called
by the gospel are unfeignedly called. For God hath most earnestly and truly
shown in His Word, what is pleasing to Him, namely, that those who are
called should come to Him. He, moreover, seriously promises eternal life and
rest to as many as shall come to Him and believe on Him.
(Rev.
Martyn McGeown, “An Answer to Phil Johnson’s ‘Primer on Hyper-Calvinism”)
###################################
Q. 12. “How to hyper-Calvinists respond to these
truths?”
To these obvious truths, the hyper-Calvinist
responds with unbiblical distinctions. English hyper-Calvinist Joseph Hussey
(1660-1726) called preachers to “preach the Gospel of the kingdom to
[unbelievers]” but “do not preach the Gospel of the blood of Christ to them.”
Unbelievers are called, he said, to believe in Christ naturally but not with
true faith, and to repent with a legal, but not evangelical, repentance.3 As
if the Bible knows of different gospels or different kinds of repentance! One
hyper-Calvinist whom I encountered recently argued that the “all men every
where” of Acts 17:30 must refer to the elect alone. His argument was that Paul
goes on to say that God “hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath
raised him [i.e., Jesus] from the dead” (v. 31). Since the word for assurance
in verse 31 is pistis, which is commonly translated “faith,” and
since God gives faith as a gift only to His elect, the “all men” in both verses
30-31 must refer only to the elect. Strange exegesis indeed! The word pistis does
indeed mean faith, but its meaning is not determined merely from a lexicon, but
from the context. The meaning of the phrase here is to furnish proof, to
demonstrate something, that is, the resurrection of Christ proves to all men
that Christ will judge the world on the Last Day. The resurrection of Christ is
clear, objective proof—whether men will believe or not—that Jesus is the Son of
God (Rom. 1:4).
###################################
Q. 13. “Why must the command to repent and believe
be preached not only to those whom God has chosen to save, but also to those
whom He has not chosen, i.e., to
elect and reprobate both? Is there a specific reason for this?”
There are two reasons.
First, as far as the elect are concerned, the call
or command of the gospel is the power
by which God brings them to faith and repentance (according to His purpose and
by the sovereign operations of the Holy Spirit). This is what we sometimes
refer to as the effectual call of the
gospel. When the gospel is preached, it is with saving effect!
Augustine showed that he understood this when he
said of the rebukes of the gospel that “the rebuke is the grace,”
the grace, that is, by which God convicts His elect of sin, and begins to draw them
to Himself (John 6:44). In that too the gospel is, then, the means by which God sovereignly,
powerfully, irresistibly calls to Himself His own.
Psalm 19 speaks of this when it says that God’s
law converts the soul, His testimony makes the simple wise, His
commandment enlightens the eyes (vv.
7, 8). Romans 1:16 adds that the gospel is
the power of God unto salvation. Romans 10:17-18 tells us that faith comes by hearing the word of God. I
Corinthians 1:18 says that the preaching of the cross is the power of God (cf. also verse 21).
Preaching is this because Christ Himself speaks
through gospel preaching. Hyper-Calvinists have said that the call of the
gospel as preached by Christ and the
Apostles could be such a power, but not the preaching of preachers today.
Nevertheless Scripture assures us that all
preaching is the means by which Christ Himself sovereignly calls His own.
He says in John
10:27, “My sheep (and there are no exceptions) hear my voice, and I know them, and
they follow me.” Indeed, it is only because they hear Christ’s
voice that they can be saved. No other voice has the power to give them life
like Lazarus and bring them out of darkness into marvellous light. So too, we
read in Ephesians 2:17, that He came
and preached peace not only to the Jews but to the Gentiles, to those who were
far off.
Second, with respect to those who are not chosen,
the preaching of the call of the gospel is also important. Because Christ speaks through it no one can ever
come under the preaching of the gospel and not be affected for good or for ill.
To those who are not chosen and who continue in unbelief, the gospel is the means
for hardening and condemnation.
This is the difficult part of preaching, the part
concerning which Paul is thinking most of all when he says, “Who
is
sufficient for these things?” (II Cor. 2:16). No preacher wants
to see this negative fruit nor does he actually seek to be a means of
hardening, but if He understands Scripture and his own calling then he cannot
avoid it. If the gospel is to be the power of God unto salvation it must also
be a power unto condemnation.
Scripture itself speaks of this in Isaiah 6:8-13 (notice
Isaiah’s response) and in II Corinthians 2:16, where we
read that the gospel is a savor of death unto
death to some.
The sweet savor of Christ is unto death to some in the preaching of the gospel!
All this is simply to say that the gospel is its
own power. It needs not the eloquence of the preacher, nor anything else. Its
power is manifested in all that is preached but especially in the glorious call
of the gospel, the call to repent and believe, the call that brings and gives repentance and faith to those whom God has chosen.
(Rev. Ronald Hanko, “What
is Hyper-Calvinism?”)
###################################
Q. 14. “You say that the reprobate are not
commanded to be assured that Jesus actually died for them. Why is that?”
God does not command all sinners to be assured that
Christ died for them—how could He, when Christ did not die for all men?—but He
does command all sinners to believe in Jesus Christ, promising eternal life to
all who do. (Rev. Martyn McGeown, “An
Answer to Phil Johnson’s ‘Primer on Hyper-Calvinism”)
That
the faith commanded in the Gospel is not a direct and immediate belief that
Christ died for me, appears from this consideration: that when it is enjoined
either by Christ or his apostles, no mention is made of its being applied to
this or that man, in particular. It is set forth only in a general relation to
duty, or to blessings promised to those who believe; as in Matt.xvi.16. (Francis Turretin (1623-1687): “The
Atonement of Christ” [Michigan: Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978], pp.179
-181)
###################################
Q. 15. “If
God does not command the reprobate to believe that Christ died for them
or to believe that God loves them or to believe that they have eternal life, what exactly
does God command the reprobate to believe?
The preacher must declare to the unbeliever who God
is, what sin is, who Christ is and what Christ has done for sinners, and then
call that person to repent and believe. These former steps of explanation are
usually skipped by Arminians looking for premature decisions. To say, “Repent
and believe in Christ crucified” is not the same as “Repent and believe in
Christ who died for you.”
No unbeliever has any right to believe that he has
eternal life, so long as he remains unbelieving. In fact, the opposite is true:
an unbeliever is commanded to believe that the wrath of God remains on him so
long as he remains in a state of unbelief. This is “declared and testified to
all unbelievers” in the preaching of the gospel (Heidelberg Catechism,
A. 84; cf. John 3:36). (Rev. Martyn
McGeown, “An Answer to Phil Johnson’s ‘Primer on Hyper-Calvinism”)
All men must believe that God is.
Atheism is sin, for it is the refusal to believe and confess the one true and
living God. An unbeliever cannot please God because he does not believe that
God is. Unbelievers also do not believe that God rewards those who diligently
seek Him, which is why they refuse to seek Him. “The wicked, through the pride
of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts”
(Ps. 10:4). The reprobate is, however, not commanded to believe that God has a
reward for him personally. He is commanded to believe in the God who rewards
the seeker. And he is commanded to seek that God …
… We need to understand several things. First, we
do not know who is elect and reprobate. Second, since we cannot know who is
elect and reprobate, we can only issue general commands, which
God then applies to individual souls for their salvation or hardening according
to His sovereign good pleasure. Third, therefore, we can never command an
unbeliever, “Believe that Christ died for your sins” or “Believe that Christ
did not die for your sins.” We command simply this, “Believe in Jesus Christ,
who was crucified for sinners.” And we add the promise, “He who believes will
have salvation and will have assurance that Christ died for his sins.” Beyond
that we cannot go. Suffice to say, God does not command a reprobate to believe
a lie, nor does He command a reprobate to hypocritical repentance or to
counterfeit faith. He commands all men, including the reprobate, to repent and
to believe in Jesus Christ. The ground of that command is not in the hearer’s
ability, but in the sovereign will and unchangeable righteousness of God. (Rev. Martyn McGeown, “An Answer to Phil
Johnson’s ‘Primer on Hyper-Calvinism”)
Peter,
in his celebrated declaration of faith, professes no more than this: that he
believes Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of the living God. John vi. 69: “We
believe and are sure, that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Paul demands no more of those who believe unto salvation, than “to confess with
the mouth the Lord Jesus, and to believe with the heart that God raised him
from the dead.”—Rom.x.9. Thus, when the saints are commanded to believe in the
Son of God, they are bound indeed to believe that Christ is the true Messiah,
and to fly to him as the only author of salvation, to those who, through faith
and repentance, betake themselves to him; and these acts must take place before
they are bound to believe that Christ died for them. (Francis Turretin (1623-1687): “The Atonement of Christ” [Michigan:
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978], pp.179 -181)
###################################
Q. 16. “But the Anglican Peter
Toon, in the New Dictionary of Theology, under the entry ‘Hyper-Calvinism,’ states that the main features
of hyper-Calvinism are (1) an overemphasis on God’s sovereignty with a
minimising of the moral and spiritual responsibility of sinners, (2) an
undermining of the universal duty of sinners to believe in the Lord Jesus and
(3) the denial of the word “offer” with respect to the preaching of the gospel
…”
[Theological] dictionaries do not determine
theology. The creeds do. They—not theological dictionaries—were officially
adopted by the church …
This definition is too broad—it includes real hyper-Calvinism
(a denial of duty faith) but it muddies the waters by including some
theological positions which are not definitive of hyper-Calvinism (avoidance of
the word “offer,” an “overemphasis” on God’s sovereignty, etc.)
Toon is [also] a hypo-Calvinist (see his Born
Again: A Biblical and Theological Study of Regeneration [Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker, 1987]) and even in his dictionary article he speaks of “the
universal duty of sinners to believe savingly in the Lord Jesus with the
assurance that Christ actually died for them” (p. 324), contrary to the truth
of particular atonement! The same dictionary notes that Augustine (p. 636) and
Gottschalk (p. 259) denied that God desires to save the reprobate, yet they are
not called hyper-Calvinists! Not only did the New Dictionary of
Theology publish a hypo-Calvinist author and article defining
hyper-Calvinism, but it has N. T. Wright promoting New Perspective on Paul
ideas in his treatments of “Justification” (pp. 359-361) and “Righteousness”
(pp. 590-592), over against Reformed teaching on this article of a standing or
falling church. (Rev. Martyn McGeown, “An
Answer to Phil Johnson’s ‘Primer on Hyper-Calvinism”)
###################################
Q. 17. “But isn’t ‘too much emphasis’ on God’s
sovereignty a mark of hyper-Calvinism?”
[It] is impossible to emphasize the sovereignty of
God excessively, especially as regards the sovereignty of grace. Stand before
the incarnation, the cross, and the wonder of regeneration, and try to
de-emphasize sovereign grace. The ‘charge’ that a theologian excessively
emphasizes sovereign grace is in fact the highest praise that one can give that
theologian, praise that identifies him as a faithful servant of the gospel of
the grace of God in Christ Jesus … Not in an emphasis on God’s sovereignty but
in a denial of man’s responsibility must the characteristic flaw of
hyper-Calvinism be located (Prof. David
J. Engelsma, “Hyper-Calvinism and the
Call of the Gospel” [Grandville, MI: RFPA, repr. 1993], p. 200).
###################################
Q.
18. “You say that the promises of the gospel are limited to the
elect only … but isn’t that a form of hyper-Calvinism?”
This simply is not true. And it is not true because
this view is the traditional view of those theologians from the time of Calvin
on who have maintained the particular character of salvation and grace. If this
is hyper-Calvinism, all the fathers at Dort were hyper-Calvinists! (Prof. Herman C. Hanko, “The History of the
Free Offer,” chapter 6)
###################################
Q.
19. “How do we reconcile the eternal decree of election and reprobation with
the idea that the reprobate have a responsibility to repent and believe, even
though they cannot?”
Regarding your question, no reconciliation between
reprobation and the responsibility of the totally depraved, reprobate sinner is
necessary, because there is no opposition between the two truths. The inability
of the sinner to believe does not relieve him of the duty to believe, or
deflect from him the solemn calling of God that he believe. It is the sinner’s
fault that he cannot believe. God made man upright, but man’s present condition
of depravity is man’s fault. Question 9 of the Heidelberg
Catechism explains the justice of God to require faith and
perfect obedience of fallen, unable man:
Q. 9. Doth not God then
do injustice to man, by requiring from him in His law that which he cannot
perform?
A. Not at all; for God
made man capable of performing it; but man ... deprived himself and all his posterity
of those divine gifts.
As for reprobation and responsibility, the decree
appointing some humans to eternal perdition includes that the condemnation of
the sinner takes place in the way of his own unbelief and other sins and on
account of his unbelief. Article 15 of the Reformed creed, the Canons
of Dordt, confessing reprobation, states:
[God] hath decreed [in
reprobation] to leave [some] in the common misery into which they have wilfully
plunged themselves, and not to bestow upon them saving faith and the grace of
conversion; but leaving them in His just judgment to follow their own ways, at
last for the declaration of His justice to condemn and punish them forever, not
only on account of their unbelief, but also for all their other sins ...
Reprobation is not God’s forcing men to sin and
abide in unbelief. God is not, according to the Reformed faith, the “author of
sin.” Reprobation confesses that men plunge themselves, “wilfully,” into sin
and themselves willingly refuse to believe and commit all their other sins. God
decrees not to save some of them, which salvation He owes no one, but graciously
gives to the others. As for the ultimate explanation of God’s decree that some
perish in their sins, God is sovereign as God. He may do with His creature,
man, as seems good to Him. Read Romans 9 carefully, especially verses 20
onwards. The potter may do with the clay as he pleases. Man may not criticize
God: “Who art thou, O man,” etc. (v. 20)?
One who questions the eternal decree of
predestination, including reprobation, takes the positions that God owes
salvation to all humans and that mere man may call God to account. (Prof. David J. Engelsma)
###################################
Q.
20. “Who or what determines ‘orthodoxy’?”
For
Reformed churches the creeds
are decisive; they are the criterion according to which any view is to be
judged. They are the standard
of what is orthodox and what is not orthodox. (Source: Prof. Homer. C. Hoeksema, The Standard Bearer, vol. 50, issue
7, Jan. 1974 [emphasis added])
Wherefore,
this Synod of Dordrecht, in the name of the Lord, conjures as many as piously call
upon the name of our Saviour Jesus Christ, to judge of the faith of the
Reformed churches, not from the calumnies, which on every side, are heaped upon
it; nor from the private expressions of a few among ancient and modern
teachers, often dishonestly quoted, or corrupted, and wrested to a meaning
quite foreign to their intentions; but
from the public confessions of the churches themselves, and from the
declaration of the orthodox doctrine, confirmed by the unanimous consent of all
and each of the members of the whole Synod. (Canons
of Dordrecht, Conclusion [emphasis added])
###################################
Q.
21. “How do we determine if a man or a group of people is guilty of heresy?”
In
Reformed churches a man is guilty of heresy when he is convicted on the basis
of the confessions; there
is no need to proceed any further. Why? Because all agree to abide by the
teaching of the confessions as the
doctrine set forth by the Scriptures; and all agree not to militate
against the teaching of the confessions. Hence, it is not necessary to judge a
doctrine except on the basis of the confessions. It is not necessary to prove
over and over again that the doctrine of the confessions is that of Scripture—unless objections to the
confessions themselves should arise by way of filing a gravamen, a charge of error,
against them. And it is wrong to by-pass the confessions either to support or
to contradict some view that is contrary to them. (Source: Prof. Homer. C. Hoeksema, The Standard Bearer, vol. 50, issue
7, [Jan. 1974])
###################################
Q.
22. “You state that the objective standard or rule of orthodoxy for what
constitutes ‘Calvinism’ is the Canons of
Dordt, and not the majority consensus of theological opinion of the 16th-17th
century; but does not the following statement of Richard Muller contradict
that?:
Calvinism or, better, Reformed teaching, as
defined by the great Reformed confessions does include the so-called five
points. Just as it is improper, however, to identify Calvin as the sole
progenitor of Reformed theology, so also is it incorrect to identify the five
points or the document from which they have been drawn, the Canons of Dort, as a full confession of the Reformed faith,
whole and entire unto itself. In other words, it would be a major error—both
historically and doctrinally—if the five points of Calvinism were understood
either as the sole or even as the absolutely primary basis for identifying
someone as holding the Calvinistic or Reformed faith. In fact, the Canons of Dort contain five points only
because the Arminian articles, the Remonstrance of 1610, to which they
responded, had five points. The number five, far from being sacrosanct, is the
result of a particular historical circumstance and was determined negatively by
the number of articles in the Arminian objection to confessional Calvinism.
Richard
Muller’s statement doesn’t refute our position at all. We would fully agree
with it. Muller is there only stating what all Reformed men know. His statement
opposes Baptists who claim to be Reformed and people who reject the Reformed
doctrine of the Lord’s Supper or church government, e.g. We mean by Calvinism
the soteriological aspect of the
Reformed faith expressed creedally at Dordt. We hold the full creedal Reformed
faith as stated in all 3 creedal documents of our Three Forms of Unity. (Rev.
Angus Stewart)
###################################
Q.
23. “How do we respond to the charge of ‘hyper-Calvinist’ being given to label
our position?”
Simply
put all the doctrines often classified as “high” Calvinism into the “hyper”
category ... since so-called “high” Calvinism is usually comprised of areas of
theology that “go beyond” Calvin’s writings in one degree or another.
This
is, of course, if our correspondent uses “John Calvin” as the standard of
Calvinism (and not the Canons of Dordt,
as they should).
If
John Calvin and his writings alone really are the official standard of
“Calvinism,” then inevitably this implies that practically 90%+ of the Reformed
church world today are all Hyper-Calvinists—for it is an undeniable fact that
there was doctrinal development after Calvin.
This
doctrinal development includes either the adoption of or the purifying of the
following:
(1)
The doctrine of Limited Atonement
(2)
The issue of Supralapsarianism vs Infralapsarianism
(3)
The “Active and Passive” obedience of Christ distinction.
(4)
The Imputation of Adam's guilt to the human race.
These
are just four (of many) areas where there has been significant development.
Are
ministers and theologians that hold to the above four doctrines classified as
Hyper-Calvinists? (since all four points “go beyond” John Calvin). Usually not
(in fact, never).
So
why are “denial of common grace” and “denial of the well-meant offer”
classified as Hyper-Calvinism? (since, it is said, denial of these two things
“goes beyond” John Calvin).
Notice
the inconsistency in our opponents’ position?
The
Banner of Truth are big into referring to the denial of common grace and the
well-meant offer as “hyper-Calvinism” ... But, in all honesty, that is
extremely hypocritical of that publishing company—for the Banner of Truth
publish books and articles that advocate the four areas of doctrinal
development that are mentioned above: e.g. John Owen’s “Death of Death”—an
exposition of Limited Atonement!
No comments:
Post a Comment