....Neither the scripture, nor Calvin, supports your Hyper-Calvinism.
We'll let the votes of most voters stand inside the moderation of the PCUSA. Its better for many to leave the church and divide themselves for a new or young denomination thats likely not stand in the future who are repeating historical mistakes.
The wordings I post are tricky, so read carefully:
The Calvinist position isn't that ...if a non-elect person truly repented... God would refuse them salvation anyhow.
That's hyper-Calvinism.
The PCUSA's position, instead, being that a non-elect person will not truly repent !
Important difference.
The Gospel message is what Berkhof
labels a "bona fide calling" (
Systematic
Theology; Pt. 4, Ch. 5, Sec. 2.b; Louis
Berkhof).
This being: A sincere offer of salvation by God to all who hear that Gospel.
That ain't a new or novel doctrine. The Canons of Dort in 1619:
"All who are called through
the Gospel are called seriously"
(
CoD; HoD-3-4, A-8)
If a non-elect person were to sincerely believe and genuinely repent, the Lord WOULDN'T say, 'Oh, sorry, just joking !'.
"Pardon is prepared for all
sinners who only turn to seek
after it" (
Institutes; Bk. 3,
Ch. 24, Sec 16; John Calvin)
The reprobate aren't reprobate because there's nothing they can do to be saved.
The reprobate are reprobate because they don't
want to be saved ! ( At least not on God's terms. )
What the Holy Spirit does in regeneration is almost wholly volitional.
We're given no new knowledge when we're regenerated. [ Albeit new knowledge results from regeneration. ]
No facility gets altered. We still have only five fingers on each hand.
What's changed is our will (or, if you want, desires).
So the primary thing holding back the unregenerate person from redemption ISN'T that redemption is only offered to regenerate people.
The primary thing holding back the unregenerate person from redemption is that they don't want to be redeemed (on God's terms).
Otherwise "God is undoubtably ready
to pardon whenever the sinner turns"
(
Institutes; Bk. 3, Ch. 24, Sec. 15;
Calvin).
"salvation is offered to every
creature under heaven who
hears the gospel" (Systematic
Theology; Pt. 3, Ch. 8, Sec. 1;
Charles Hodge)
Hence: "Everyone is equally capable of
receiving salvation" (
Commentary on
1 Timothy; 2:4; John Calvin).
Probably the most pertinent point of divergence between you, I and the Reformation is found in the doctrine of Original Sin.
The Reformation believes, and Calvinism teaches, that Mankind was corrupted in all it's parts due to The Fall. This resulting in our Total Depravity and consequent inability to "accept Jesus" or "come to God".
NCT ( like the other semi-Pelagian systems, Romanism and Arminianism ) rejects the Scriptural doctrine of Total Depravity and thus slips into the heretical denial of Original Sin.
If historical and orthodox Calvinism holds to doctrines of Total Depravity and Original Sin, exactly where does hyper-Calvinism come in ?
Well, there's several flavors of your posts on hyper-Calvinism. Thus we cannot make a one-view-fits-all generalization.
Classical hyper-Calvinism disavows the command of Scripture to make a Gospel proclamation. The logic being that predestination negates the necessity.
Normative Calvinism can dispute this without resorting to Arminian -and even Romanist- autosoteric schemes.
Other, more contemporary hyper-Calvinists (e.g., Outside the Camp) raise secondary doctrines to primary importance. Or -more accurately- they deny that there are secondary doctrines. Everything is an essential Doctrine of the Faith !
Such groups will deny that pedobaptists can Christian (or, obversely, others will claim that
only pedobaptists are Christian.
It isn't that these doctrines aren't important. Just that these doctrines are not critical.
There definitely are critical doctrines. Yet NOT every doctrine !
You didn't address such things. New and young denominations want a "Calvinism" that is semi-Pelagian. ( Just as the 17th. Century Remonstrants did. )
Their strategy being to mischaracterize all Calvinism as "hyper- Calvinism". The only Calvinism which ain't is suspiciously like Arminianism ...and even Romanism !
There's numerous definitions of "hyper-Calvinism".
But the best one the Tulipbee have seen is by Phillip R.
Johnson (click
HERE).
The historical definition of a "hyper-Calvinist" was someone who denied the necessity of the Gospel Call to all willing to hear it.
As Dr. Johnson observes, this is less true of hyper-Calvinists today. However, Johnson's emphasis on denial of the Free Gospel Offer doesn't much differ.
Tulipbee's position being that -if a person doesn't deny the Gospel Call to all willing to listen- then it don't make a whole lot of difference if they do deny the Free Gospel Offer.
Tulipbee also differs with Johnson on a couple other relatively minor points. Like the Gospel Call involving "pleading".
Dr. Johnson may mean this in a forensic sense [i.e., as in a court "pleading"]. But 'pleading with' someone to have faith ...as in begging them.. is foreign to any account in Scripture !
I would also add to Johnson's list of "hyper-Calvinism" those who claim all Biblical teachings are doctrinally equal. That there's neither priority in Scriptural dogma, or some Scriptural dogma more clear (or less clear) than others.
Every hyper-Calvinist who I have interacted with has insisted that the smallest point of Biblical doctrine (and often the least clear point, as well !) is of the same significance as any central dogma based upon the most clear and repeated Biblical teaching !
One thing that's untrue:
That "hyper-Calvinism" involves the dogma of Limited Atonement.
Tulipbee ain't going to waste time debating this, or put up with your spurious charge !
Limited Atonement is an orthodox and normative dogma in Calvinism. Any view to the contrary is sub-Calvinist.
Limited Atonement, then, only being permitted to be argued against from the Arminian (or other semi-Pelagian) position.
We shall not entertain any further the ridiculous theory that Calvinism contains some doctrine of universal atonement. But Arminians (and other semi-Pelagians) may argue against Limited Atonement here as an argument against Calvinism.
Petruchio, there are no "hypers" posting in this topic. If you need me to review again what "hyper-Calvinism" is, I'll be happy to, if I have the time.
But you should refrain from calling people here "hypers" who ain't.
Important Point:
The idea behind the General Calling ain't saving the reprobate.
They're reprobate !
Nor is any of this hyper-Calvinism.
The hyper-Calvinists repudiate the whole idea of a "general call" made to those who are not Elect.
The PCUSA, historical Calvinists affirm the General Calling ! We uphold doctrines of BOTH a limited atonement and a broad proclamation of the Gospel to everyone willing to listen.
But ...for God-haters who love sin, self, and Satan... the Gospel isn't "Good News" ...it's bad news.
This being all of us until (and if) we are regenerated by the instantaneous, supernatural, and monergistic acting of the Holy Spirit.