Hyper Calvinism and the Gospel/Missions.

[stenerson]

I listened to a 3 part series by Tim Conway entitled "When Calvinism goes bad. " (he is a Calvinist.)
Anyways he is concerned that stats are showing this growing Calvinist movement is not producing fruit. Most Calvinist are ex Arminians and came to faith in Christ via Arminians.
He says that many are uncertain of how to proclaim the gospel, and many don't even believe that the Mathew 28 mandate applies to them.
Tim claims there is a tendency to give the 5 points a spin that's not biblical. Example is taking people at their word when they insist they want to believe but that God is not letting them believe. Many Calvinist won't push people as to the urgency of embracing Christ now, but instead tell them to "wait on the Lord" "pray to the Lord that he will give you repentance" "pray that He will remove your hard heart" etc. We are, according to him giving people an out, whereby they can sit back and blame God for their hardness of heart, sit back, keep embracing their sin, rebellion and unbelief whiltst pretending they are sincere in wanting to be saved.
I'll have to admit, I was convicted by this series of some sloppy thinking.
Hyper Calvinism is a subtle threat that sometimes disguises itself in zeal for God's sovereignty and zeal for grace.
I recommend giving it a listen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8QZjkByodA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_D2LANAYUf4

 

[JM]

Never really liked Conway's teaching. Did he define what a hyper was?

see The Calvinism Chart

 

[stenerson]

Never really liked Conway's teaching. Did he define what a hyper was?

see The Calvinism Chart

He was basing much of it on research done by Ian Murray who wrote a book about Spurgeon vs hyperCalvinism. Also on writings by Phil Johnson on the subject.
I don't know much about Conway, I heard of him before but never heard anything. He goes into some of the history of the Particular Baptist in England and William Carey's tension with these people. Carey stressed God's use of means to accomplish His saving work. I'll admit this convicted me personally of some confusion and sloppy use of language involved in my witnessing to people.

 

[Awaken4Christ]

I don't completely agree to the language or structure of TULIP, but I believe Spurgeon and others had an appeal and success with evangelism because they didn't force the Doctrines of Grace upon their own minds and preaching in an "unwarranted" way.

I think its important for those with a monergistic theological view to let the Gospel breath on us mere mortals in the context of our lowly understandings (in comparison to Gods understanding). Just because there are truths about predestination doesn't mean you can wield it like a kid in a candy store. We experience the world in its "secondary causes"

There is some real wisdom in those old confessions of faith. Things like explaining God "doesn't suffer violence" to the will of man. (1689 London Baptist Confession I believe). And it also describes "secondary causes" still being valid.

I see it this way.

A man preaches the Gospel knowing God is the cause of whoever is saved. And feels privileged that God uses him for such an endeavor. He knows that his life and the choices he makes are important, however, God is sovereign over his creation.

We should operate with the understanding that God has everything covered. We do not however see through God's eyes and thus are understanding of his sovereignty is incomplete. As soon as we try to start thinking like God in the context of his sovereignty we humanize it. We don't know all the gears, cogs, and wheels that makeup the system he has created. Our brains cannot comprehend the inner workings because of our limited ability, but also because of things yet to be revealed to us.

But if a person takes that big idea of God's sovereignty and starts to apply it in ways not intended... then they can make a lot of trouble for their own understanding and others understanding.

We live in a world of secondary causes, we have only been told what THEE TRUE cause is. The bible was addressed to humans in a world full of secondary causes.

I hope I am making sense

Here is an example of awkward thinking that some Calvinists ponder on too long imo.

Take part of my opening sentence

"I believe Spurgeon and others had an appeal and success with evangelism because they didn't force the Doctrines of Grace upon their own minds and preaching in an "unwarranted" way."

A Calvinist might think: "Spurgeon had an appeal what do you mean Spurgeon? If it lead to salvation it was God."

Okay yes it was God. God used Spurgeon. But your creating this blockage in your brain. Spurgeon's characteristics aren't invalidated because of God's sovereignty. SECONDARY CAUSES. Of Course your Going to Magnify THEEE CAUSE but don't invalidate the creation in trying to give proper acknowledgement to the creator.

Does this make sense?.. I'm trying here

 

[stenerson]

Does this make sense?.. I'm trying here

Yep, you're making very good sense. What Conway is concerned about here is the confusion, or lack of confidence many new, young Calvinist have in proclaiming the gospel. They don't feel that they can proclaim to people God's desire and command that they repent, believe and receive Christ. They are taking the 5 points and using carnal, human logic to come to the wrong conclusions concerning how we proclaim the gospel.

 

[stenerson]

I've listened to lots of Don Fortner sermons. There is a certain aspect of his preaching which Conway would classify as being influenced by hyper-Calvinism. Fortner is very critical of the idea of Christian apologetics. He seems to often heckle the notion of any such ministry. What's Fortner's reasoning behind this? Fortner, I've noticed, criticizes it based on his belief in the deadness of man, God's sovereignty, the fact that only God can change a heart, etc.. These are all truths which all Calvinist embrace. But the apostles didn't take these truths to mean we weren't' to plead with people that they be reconciled to God. They believed in striving, pleading, cajoling, warning, reasoning, making good arguments, presenting the free and generous offer of the gospel of grace, in Christ. etc.
Fortner often says his favorite Theologian and go to guy for doctrine is John Gill. Gill is criticized by many modern day folks as "the king of hyper-Calvinistic preachers." Many say he is unfairly being portrayed as such.

I highly recommend giving this series a listen.

 

[bbbbbbb]

In my own experience I have seen strenuous theological efforts made by both Arminians and Calvinists to avoid personal evangelism. I am in a spectrum of churches which has strong strains of both, varying from church to church. If one wishes, one can find excuses to avoid evangelism. It does not matter what one's theological perspective may be.

I have been accused of being both Arminian by my Calvinist brethren and Calvinist by my Arminian brethren. Truth be told, my views are aligned with the doctrines of grace. That said, I rejoice to see God at work through me bringing His lost sheep to Himself.

 

[stenerson]

Truth be told, my views are aligned with the doctrines of grace. That said, I rejoice to see God at work through me bringing His lost sheep to Himself.

 

[gord44]

I always like Hyper Calvinism as I dislike evangelism. My favourites were the hardshell baptists. They were almost anti-evangelism which was more to my tastes.

 

[stenerson]

I always like Hyper Calvinism as I dislike evangelism. My favourites were the hardshell baptists. They were almost anti-evangelism which was more to my tastes.

Do you dislike the gospel (evangel) or just sharing it with others?
Didn't you claim to be a Muslim now? Or am I confusing you with someone else.

 

[gord44]

Do you dislike the gospel (evangel) or just sharing it with others?
Didn't you claim to be a Muslim now? Or am I confusing you with someone else.

I think at the time I just really wasn't keen on sharing it with others. A theology came along that didn't require me to so I took an interest in it.

Yes, I explored Islam for a month or so. After that I realized it wasn't what I was looking for and left it behind.

 

[stenerson]

I think at the time I just really wasn't keen on sharing it with others. A theology came along that didn't require me to so I took an interest in it.

Yes, I explored Islam for a month or so. After that

I see.. A dabbler.

 

[twin1954]

He was basing much of it on research done by Ian Murray who wrote a book about Spurgeon vs hyperCalvinism. Also on writings by Phil Johnson on the subject.
I don't know much about Conway, I heard of him before but never heard anything. He goes into some of the history of the Particular Baptist in England and William Carey's tension with these people. Carey stressed God's use of means to accomplish His saving work. I'll admit this convicted me personally of some confusion and sloppy use of language involved in my witnessing to people.

Both Ian Murray and Phil Johnson have an agenda in their writings against what they call hyper-Calvinism. They paint everyone who doesn't hold to common grace and the so-called free offer as hyper. Needless to say, their definitions are formed in such a way as to put any who do not agree with them as hyper. Therefore they are not reliable.

Since you have listened to Don you know that there is no one who is more involved in the preaching of the Gospel of the free and sovereign grace of God in Christ Jesus than he. He preaches and teaches the urgency of the message to lost sinners and always calls on sinners to believe and rest in Christ.

If the young new Calvinists are using the doctrine of predestination and election as an excuse to not share the Gospel it is because they are not being taught. But painting it as hyper-Calvinism is a false assumption and really has nothing to do with the truth.

There is a world of difference between just changing your theology and having the truth of God supernaturally infused into your soul. There are many who hold to the doctrines of grace but few whom the doctrines hold.

 

[stenerson]

They paint everyone who doesn't hold to common grace and the so-called free offer as hyper. Needless to say, their definitions are formed in such a way as to put any who do not agree with them as hyper. Therefore they are not reliable.

Thanks for commenting. Conway didn't mention Don Fortner.
In all fairness Fortner seems to regard anyone believing in common grace as damned heretics. I've made it clear that I like Fortner, though I think he's a bit over the top on some things.

Since you have listened to Don you know that there is no one who is more involved in the preaching of the Gospel of the free and sovereign grace of God in Christ Jesus than he. He preaches and teaches the urgency of the message to lost sinners and always calls on sinners to believe and rest in Christ.

I like Fortner, but I do notice a mocking and disdain for those involved in apologetics. I heard it many times in his sermons. Like I said, his reasoning seems to be based on the spiritual deadness of lost people. I've heard him tell the congregation several times not to waste time discussing these issues with those that disagree, or to just steer them towards some of his sermons.

 

[gord44]

I see.. A dabbler.

I always enjoyed to explore a variety of beliefs to learn all I could from them.

 

[twin1954]

Thanks for commenting. Conway didn't mention Don Fortner.
In all fairness Fortner seems to regard anyone believing in common grace as damned heretics. I've made it clear that I like Fortner, though I think he's a bit over the top on some things.

Don is very strong in his beliefs to be sure. I can't speak for him but I think, from knowing him for many years, that some of his comments are intended to rile in such a way as to make people consider their own views. If you get mad at him at least you will think about what he says and why. But at the same time he isn't afraid to offend those who disagree with him. I will say that Don never says anything that he hasn't studied thoroughly and come to a definite position on. Nor does he ever say anything that he hasn't considered the way folks might take it. Though I have heard him speak off the cuff in personal conversations many times I have never heard him speak off the cuff in any of his messages. He considers every word. I have never known a man to spend more time in sermon preparation than him.

While I hold to the same view of common grace as he does I would not go so far as to call them unbelievers. Nor do I think he does but he certainly believes them to be in serious error as do I.

I like Fortner, but I do notice a mocking and disdain for those involved in apologetics. I heard it many times in his sermons. Like I said, his reasoning seems to be based on the spiritual deadness of lost people. I've heard him tell the congregation several times not to waste time discussing these issues with those that disagree, or to just steer them towards some of his sermons.

What is called apologetics today is nothing more than trying to argue folks into the kingdom of God or at the very least into a different theology. It is pointless and takes the focus off the Gospel. Though I highly respect much of what someone like James Whites says I do not agree with his methods of debate and argument. Paul distinctly spoke against such things in 1Cor. 2:1-5

(1Co 2:1) And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

(1Co 2:2) For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

(1Co 2:3) And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.

(1Co 2:4) And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

(1Co 2:5) That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

So-called apologetics has little or nothing to do with gospel truth but with showing how intelligent you are and can defeat your opponent in debate.

Biblical apologetics is something altogether different. It is telling folks the reason for the hope that is in you. It is telling them about Christ.

 

[gord44]

What is called apologetics today is nothing more than trying to argue folks into the kingdom of God or at the very least into a different theology. It is pointless and takes the focus off the Gospel. Though I highly respect much of what someone like James Whites says I do not agree with his methods of debate and argument. Paul distinctly spoke against such things in 1Cor. 2:1-5

(1Co 2:1) And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

(1Co 2:2) For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

(1Co 2:3) And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.

(1Co 2:4) And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

(1Co 2:5) That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

So-called apologetics has little or nothing to do with gospel truth but with showing how intelligent you are and can defeat your opponent in debate.

Biblical apologetics is something altogether different. It is telling folks the reason for the hope that is in you. It is telling them about Christ.

I gotta agree with that!

I always found apologetics and debates pointless from a Reformed point of view of 'total depravity', etc. Preach the Gospel and leave the arguing to others. Apologetics and debate in my mind is a trap for both theists and atheists to spin their tires, draining their energy while their is more important work to be done.

 

[stenerson]

While I hold to the same view of common grace as he does I would not go so far as to call them unbelievers. Nor do I think he does but he certainly believes them to be in serious error as do I.

I'm not sure how you're defining common grace? If by that you mean Arminism, that is , that Christ died for the sins of the whole world then yes, he most certainly condemns it as damning heresy. He's made it clear in many sermons that I've heard from him. He said that those people might believe they are saved, but have no idea who God is.
But common grace has a different meaning among most Calvinist/Reformed people. He seems to lump it all together.

What is called apologetics today is nothing more than trying to argue folks into the kingdom of God or at the very least into a different theology. It is pointless and takes the focus off the Gospel. Though I highly respect much of what someone like James Whites says I do not agree with his methods of debate and argument. Paul distinctly spoke against such things in 1Cor. 2:1-5

I disagree completely there. I listen to tons of James White and he has an extremely high view of scripture. Sure he's a theology nerd/geek, what he does most and best is very careful exegesis of scripture. Paul is not saying that we shouldn't know what others believe before we carefully use scripture to dismantle their arguments. This is good, we are getting to the heart of the issue here. I think it's quite scriptural to argue people into the kingdom of God. Argue, plead, warn, beg, beseech, reason etc. The fact that only God can tear down their resistance does not mean we don't do the above. I believe we are commanded to try our best. Not like the cults that knock on our door, coldly mutter some scripture or doctrine, then check us of their list when they meet a little resistance.

So-called apologetics has little or nothing to do with gospel truth but with showing how intelligent you are and can defeat your opponent in debate.

It can be like that, but not always For example, Lane Craig, he openly uses the philosophy of men, including those of Jesuit doctrine of Molinism. Nasty stuff!

I'll confess again, because of the doctrines of grace, I came to wrong conclusions on witnessing. In the back of my mind was the negative notion of the unlikelyness of their coming to faith. It makes my witnessing cold, lazy and frankly unscriptural.
We don't witness like that to our children. Why? Because we love them a lot and are very concerned for their souls.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I'll confess again, because of the doctrines of grace, I came to wrong conclusions on witnessing. In the back of my mind was the negative notion of the unlikelyness of their coming to faith. It makes my witnessing cold, lazy and frankly unscriptural.

Sounds more like a personal issue, than an issue with the doctrines of Grace. It could just as easily give confidence to witnessing, because if they are of the elect, their drawing and calling are sure, and you could be the person God has chosen to communicate the power of God unto salvation, the pure unadulterated, uncompromised Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ!

The popular easy believism, is unscriptural.

We don't witness like that to our children. Why? Because we love them a lot and are very concerned for their souls.

Sir, I have a challenge for you. Find a more mission minded Christian than the Presbyterian evangelist Arthur T. Pierson, and while you're at it, greater evangelical preachers than Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield. Let me know when you have done so. Good day sir!

 

[stenerson]

Sounds more like a personal issue, than an issue with the doctrines of Grace. It could just as easily give confidence to witnessing, because if they are of the elect, their drawing and calling are sure, and you could be the person God has chosen to communicate the power of God unto salvation, the pure unadulterated, uncompromised Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ!

Well yeah, it is a personal issue. That was my point. I wasn't blaming the doctrines of grace, which I believe in. I was blaming my use of carnal, human logic in how I used them, or how they affected my witnessing.

The popular easy believism, is unscriptural.

That's part of my problem. My over-reaction to the easy believism, the walk the aisle or sign the card. I would shy away from presenting the gospel offer as something real and trustworthy.

Sir, I have a challenge for you. Find a more mission minded Christian than the Presbyterian evangelist Arthur T. Pierson, and while you're at it, greater evangelical preachers than Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield. Let me know when you have done so. Good day sir!

Sir! You've misunderstood my point. I'm a Calvinist, but have fallen into a hyper-Calvinistic mindset. Whitfield and Edwards are my heroes.