Herman Hoeksema

[JM]

Is Hoeksema consider a hyper Calvinist? I'm interested in his Reformed Dogmatics, anyone have this one in their collection? What about his commentary on Revelation?

Thanks,

jm

 

[cygnusx1]

Is Hoeksema consider a hyper Calvinist? I'm interested in his Reformed Dogmatics, anyone have this one in their collection? What about his commentary on Revelation?

Thanks,

jm

I have his commentray on Revelation , very good!

Yes in some quarters Hoeksema is considered a hyper Calvinist , He fronted The PRC Church who deny The Gospel Offer , Deny Common Grace , and deny God loves anyone other than the elect.

That doesn't mean to say everything he writes is bad.
I personaly do not share the PRC beliefs mentioned above and neither does the Banner Of Truth.


Hope that helped.

 

[JM]

One, tiny, weeny thing Cy....I've come to learn that Hoeksema did not deny the Gospel offer. He did in fact preach the Gospel to everyone, but did in fact deny that God loved everyone.

It's a tricky topic.

 

[cygnusx1]

One, tiny, weeny thing Cy....I've come to learn that Hoeksema did not deny the Gospel offer. He did in fact preach the Gospel to everyone, but did in fact deny that God loved everyone.

It's a tricky topic.

I can catagorically state that he did deny the genuine Gospel offer and his Church was expelled from the Reformed Church's over this very issue (some have said he left , maybe so)

His Church deny that the Gospel is offered they say it is not a Gospel Offer but a Gospel CALL ..... but when you get right down to it , they still think the call to repent and have faith in Christ is only for the elect.

It is like arguing that the warnings in scripture against apostacy have nothing to do with Christians because they cannot lose their salvation!
in my opinion , faulty logic is at work , God saves through means. Eternal Secuirity is by giving heed to God's warning and being diligent to use the God appointed means ........ anything else is fatalism.

God Bless

 

[cygnusx1]

I find this web site of great value as a guide .
scroll down you will find the PRC .... I don't take any pleasure in quoting or reading this , even one Pastor I really respected has gone off the rails , that really makes me feel sick., but it is a necessary guide of warning for many today.


http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/bookmark/bad.htm

if you can stomach this ;

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/bookmark/realbad.htm

 

[JM]

I find this web site of great value as a guide .
scroll down you will find the PRC .... I don't take any pleasure in quoting or reading this , even one Pastor I really repected has gone off the rails , that really makes me feel sick., but it is a necessary guide of warning for many today.


http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/bookmark/bad.htm

if you can stomach this ;

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/bookmark/realbad.htm

I asked the same question on the Puritan Boards, it seems they are more willing to accept Hoeksema then Johnson. Any who, here's a response to Phil Johnson that shouldn't be over looked.

http://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=404

 

[cygnusx1]

I asked the same question on the Puritan Boards, it seems they are more willing to accept Hoeksema then Johnson. Any who, here's a response to Phil Johnson that shouldn't be over looked.

http://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=404

don't mention that site to me

I have read that guf before , Johnson is right not only about that dodgy web site but about it's attitude ...... totally graceless!

see here ;

http://www.christianforums.com/t3303918-the-gospel-of-deciet.html

 

[JM]

Cy, Van makes some good points in that thread.

This thread isn't an attempt to make an apologetic for hyper calvinism, but Van does in fact, for once! make a few good points in that thread.

jm

 

[cygnusx1]

Cy, Van makes some good points in that thread.

This thread isn't an attempt to make an apologetic for hyper calvinism, but Van does in fact, for once! make a few good points in that thread.

jm

care to say which good points , I am biting my tongue here ...

 

[Jon_]

Is Hoeksema consider a hyper Calvinist? I'm interested in his Reformed Dogmatics, anyone have this one in their collection? What about his commentary on Revelation?

Thanks,

jm

Many people consider him an hyper-Calvinist. I don't. To me, an hyper-Calvinist rejects the preaching of the Gospel to any but the regenerate. Hoeksema staunchly denies this. Where he parts with orthodoxy is that he denies that God loves any but the elect. Rather than the blessings of Matt. 5:45 being bestowed out of love for errant men, Hoeksema asserts these blessings are meant to harden the hearts of men against God. It's hard to reconcile this in context, though. Jesus commands us to love our enemies. He then concludes, after explaining why we should love our enemies that we should be perfect as God is perfect. The context seems to clearly indicate that part of being perfect includes loving one's enemies, and as God is perfect, God loves even his enemies.

I have not read Reformed Dogmatics, yet. I would like to. I would especially like to see how Hoeksema handles this passage, although I must admit I would expect him to founder on it. The passage is just too clear to be explained away.

I do agree with him concerning the "genuine offer" of the gospel, however. Rather than stir this up all over again, I'd encourage you to run a couple of searches in this forum for "genuine offer." You'll find some rather in-depth and... er... ardent defense of either position put forth by myself and Cygnus. I commit you to the grace of the Holy Spirit that he might illuminate this doctrine according to the Father's will. As for me, though, my mind is made up.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

Is Hoeksema consider a hyper Calvinist? I'm interested in his Reformed Dogmatics, anyone have this one in their collection? What about his commentary on Revelation?

Thanks,

jm

I can catagorically state that he did deny the genuine Gospel offer and his Church was expelled from the Reformed Church's over this very issue (some have said he left , maybe so)

His Church deny that the Gospel is offered they say it is not a Gospel Offer but a Gospel CALL ..... but when you get right down to it , they still think the call to repent and have faith in Christ is only for the elect.

It is like arguing that the warnings in scripture against apostacy have nothing to do with Christians because they cannot lose their salvation!
in my opinion , faulty logic is at work , God saves through means. Eternal Secuirity is by giving heed to God's warning and being diligent to use the God appointed means ........ anything else is fatalism.

God Bless

Just as a matter of clarification, I wanted to point out that Hoeksema did not deny that the gospel should be preached to all men. He affirmed this and did it. He denied that the gospel was for any but the elect. Hoeksema and the PRC also do not think the command to have faith and repent is only for the elect. They stand resolutely with Paul that God has commanded all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). And they believe as all Calvinists do that God has denied the reprobate the grace that causes them to believe.

Really this comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of what the gospel is, anyway. The gospel is not, "Repent and have faith in Christ," as many people think it is. The gospel is, "Christ has died for the elect." This is why the gospel falls on dead ears when it reaches the heart of the reprobate. He knows it is not for him and he will have none of it.

I visited Evangelical Reformed Church a few months ago and one of the things that Rev. Leigh said that I thought was particularly striking and quite correct is this (I'm paraphrasing).

The gospel has a two-fold purpose. It is intended to draw the elect to faith and repentance, yes. We preach the gospel that those God has given grace to believe should hear it and indeed believe. But we also preach it to harden the hearts of sinners and drive them out from the congregrations.
​

John 12:38-40 affirms this.

You know when the whole counsel of God is being preached when you find two kinds of people among the congregation and only two kinds: those who believe whole-heartedly in the message spoken, and those who squirm in discomfort and hatred toward it.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[cygnusx1]

I would say this is where we differ , and I am sure it will remain so.
Are any other than the ELECT called to believe on Christ for salvation Jon ?
To say that the Gospel is preached to all men but at the same time maintain the Gospel is not "REPENT and believe on The Lord Jesus Christ , Flee The wrath to come " ... is I would say a contradiction.....

To say that the Gospel is preached to all men , and the message is simply "Christ has died for the elect " is not preaching the Gospel .
The Gospel is not simply what God has done or what God will do , but it is also what men ought to do.

If we are not calling all men to Repent towards God and place their faith in Christ to submit to Jesus authority and to trust in His redeeming work , then we are not preaching the good news , merely telling someone what the Good News is abstractly is not the same as preaching it to them.

an example ;

"Should we say, "perhaps you should try Jesus as you savior" ...almost with a consumer market oriented mentality"?. "There are lots of religious options and if you try this particular religious option you might like it." ... No... rather, Jesus is Lord and he will soon be invading with His armies. He is offering pardon in advance of His invasion and should you receive the pardon and ally yourself with Him now before He invades, when he comes you will be considered HIs ally and He will raise you to Kingship. The alternative is to be under the wrath of the king. It is not some kind of religious option. It an announcement that a new king is on the throne and he'll be invading. The gospel is not an invitation to an array of a buffet style choices, it is a command. Will you heed the command? Jesus is Lord, repent and believe." -William Wilder


A Summary of the Gospel
"The gospel of Christ in general is this: It is the good tidings that God has revealed concerning Christ. More largely it is this: As all mankind was lost in Adam and became the children of wrath, put under the sentence of death, God, though He left His fallen angels and has reserved them in the chains of eternal darkness, yet He has thought upon the children of men and has provided a way of atonement to reconcile them to Himself again... Namely, the second person of the Trinity takes man's nature upon Himself, and becomes the Head of a second covenant, standing charged with sin. He answers for it by suffering what the law and divine justice required, and by making satisfaction by keeping the law perfectly, which satisfaction and righteousness He tenders up to the Father as a sweet savor of rest for the souls that are given to Him...And now this mediation of Christ is, by the appointment of the Father, preached to the children of men, of whatever nation or rank, freely offering this atonement unto sinners for atonement, requiring them to believe in Him and, upon believing, promising not only a discharge of all their former sins, but that they shall not enter into condemnation, that none of their sins or unworthiness shall ever hinder the peace of God with them, but that they shall through Him be received into the number of those who shall have the image of God again to be renewed unto them, and they they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation." - Jeremiah Burroughs


So I know we arn't going to agree on this brother , but I find it difficult to ignore this important issue.

God Bless you Jon.

 

[cygnusx1]

Many people consider him an hyper-Calvinist. I don't. To me, an hyper-Calvinist rejects the preaching of the Gospel to any but the regenerate. Hoeksema staunchly denies this. Where he parts with orthodoxy is that he denies that God loves any but the elect. Rather than the blessings of Matt. 5:45 being bestowed out of love for errant men, Hoeksema asserts these blessings are meant to harden the hearts of men against God. It's hard to reconcile this in context, though. Jesus commands us to love our enemies. He then concludes, after explaining why we should love our enemies that we should be perfect as God is perfect. The context seems to clearly indicate that part of being perfect includes loving one's enemies, and as God is perfect, God loves even his enemies.

I have not read Reformed Dogmatics, yet. I would like to. I would especially like to see how Hoeksema handles this passage, although I must admit I would expect him to founder on it. The passage is just too clear to be explained away.

I do agree with him concerning the "genuine offer" of the gospel, however. Rather than stir this up all over again, I'd encourage you to run a couple of searches in this forum for "genuine offer." You'll find some rather in-depth and... er... ardent defense of either position put forth by myself and Cygnus. I commit you to the grace of the Holy Spirit that he might illuminate this doctrine according to the Father's will. As for me, though, my mind is made up.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Would you say Charles Haddon Spurgeon preached the Gospel Jon ?

 

[JM]

hey guys, this is a can of worms!

the hypers don't believe he is a hyper, and most Reformed that I've been in contact with do not consider him a hyper, but slightly unorthodox.

thank you for your replys, it wouldn't bother me if this thread died.

peace,

jm

 

[Jon_]

I would say this is where we differ , and I am sure it will remain so.
Are any other than the ELECT called to believe on Christ for salvation Jon ?
To say that the Gospel is preached to all men but at the same time maintain the Gospel is not "REPENT and believe on The Lord Jesus Christ , Flee The wrath to come " ... is I would say a contradiction.....

To say that the Gospel is preached to all men , and the message is simply "Christ has died for the elect " is not preaching the Gospel .
The Gospel is not simply what God has done or what God will do , but it is also what men ought to do.

If we are not calling all men to Repent towards God and place their faith in Christ to submit to Jesus authority and to trust in His redeeming work , then we are not preaching the good news , merely telling someone what the Good News is abstractly is not the same as preaching it to them.

an example ;

"Should we say, "perhaps you should try Jesus as you savior" ...almost with a consumer market oriented mentality"?. "There are lots of religious options and if you try this particular religious option you might like it." ... No... rather, Jesus is Lord and he will soon be invading with His armies. He is offering pardon in advance of His invasion and should you receive the pardon and ally yourself with Him now before He invades, when he comes you will be considered HIs ally and He will raise you to Kingship. The alternative is to be under the wrath of the king. It is not some kind of religious option. It an announcement that a new king is on the throne and he'll be invading. The gospel is not an invitation to an array of a buffet style choices, it is a command. Will you heed the command? Jesus is Lord, repent and believe." -William Wilder


A Summary of the Gospel
"The gospel of Christ in general is this: It is the good tidings that God has revealed concerning Christ. More largely it is this: As all mankind was lost in Adam and became the children of wrath, put under the sentence of death, God, though He left His fallen angels and has reserved them in the chains of eternal darkness, yet He has thought upon the children of men and has provided a way of atonement to reconcile them to Himself again... Namely, the second person of the Trinity takes man's nature upon Himself, and becomes the Head of a second covenant, standing charged with sin. He answers for it by suffering what the law and divine justice required, and by making satisfaction by keeping the law perfectly, which satisfaction and righteousness He tenders up to the Father as a sweet savor of rest for the souls that are given to Him...And now this mediation of Christ is, by the appointment of the Father, preached to the children of men, of whatever nation or rank, freely offering this atonement unto sinners for atonement, requiring them to believe in Him and, upon believing, promising not only a discharge of all their former sins, but that they shall not enter into condemnation, that none of their sins or unworthiness shall ever hinder the peace of God with them, but that they shall through Him be received into the number of those who shall have the image of God again to be renewed unto them, and they they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation." - Jeremiah Burroughs


So I know we arn't going to agree on this brother , but I find it difficult to ignore this important issue.

God Bless you Jon.

Both of the quoted authors are wrong, but the first more obviously than the second. The first is wrong because the gospel is not a command, but a statement. It is declarative, not imperative. The gospel is, as Jeremiah Burroughs correctly put it, "The good tidings that God revealed concerning Christ" (viz. that Christ has died for the elect). But Burroughs goes astray in saying that this message is applicable to all men, for to all men the gospel is preached, and that must mean that the gospel is meant for all men. This is an invalid inference and it is this kind of faulty logic that causes people to misunderstand the true nature and purpose of the gospel.

There; I suppose that should suffice for this thread.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

Here is the gospel, according to the Scriptures:

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures. (1 Corinthians 15:1-3)
​

In other words, the gospel is, "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures."

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[cygnusx1]

mind blowing!

even the command to repent would be nullified by that construction , never mind the call to faith......

I leave this thread none the wiser.

I am off for a cup of tea , plenty of sugar , I feel faint.

 

[AndOne]

Don't forget the crumptets, Cyg!

Seems like you guys are hung up on schematics here - Bottom line is - only the elect are saved. Check out John 8:47 and all of John 10. Also Luke 10:22. Problem is we don't known who that is - and it is the reason why we are called to preach to all nations. Like Spurgeon said - it would make life a whole lot easier on us Christians if every elected person had a yellow stripe on the back of his head - but they don't and therefore we must preach to the world as if all were potentially of the elect. We don't know - nor will we until the end of time - so all must be approached the same way. What a blessing that God allows us to participate in the process.....

 

[JM]

Don't forget the crumptets, Cyg!

Seems like you guys are hung up on schematics here - Bottom line is - only the elect are saved. Check out John 8:47 and all of John 10. Also Luke 10:22. Problem is we don't known who that is - and it is the reason why we are called to preach to all nations. Like Spurgeon said - it would make life a whole lot easier on us Christians if every elected person had a yellow stripe on the back of his head - but they don't and therefore we must preach to the world as if all were potentially of the elect. We don't know - nor will we until the end of time - so all must be approached the same way. What a blessing that God allows us to participate in the process.....

I agree with your bottom line, no matter what, the elect are still the elect.

 

[cygnusx1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-Calvinism


now where's those crumpets ............