I have cited from Dr. McMahon in my book on "The Hardshell Baptist Cult." He has written some good words against the Hyper Calvinists. In the following citation, Dr. McMahon clearly includes the idea of "regeneration before faith" in the category of Hyper Calvinism.
"Since the Noetic influences of sin are so complete in the mind of men, Hyper-Calvinism says that preaching must come after regeneration, not before. Thus, Hyper-Calvinism teaches that men do not come to Christ because he is lost, but because He is saved."
See here
It is the Hyper Calvinist who says that regeneration occurs before "coming to Christ," making coming to Christ a post regeneration experience.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I wonder if you could help me to clarify in my own mind and understand hyper-calvinism. I've found a wikipedia definition which reads: "Hyper-Calvinism is ...a theological position that denies that the call of the gospel to repent and believe is universal - that is, for every person. Hyper-calvinism also asserts that ...a person who is not influenced by the Holy Spirit does not have the ability to believe in Christ."
My position is that salvation results from a free will response by a man to the call of the Gospel. Until the Gospel is preached to him, he has nothing to respond to. The Gospel can only be preached by the Holy Spirit, but it is preached to every man. Do you consider this position to be Hyper-Calvinism?
Dear Jeff:
One of the elements of Hyper Calvinism is the denial that all men are called to faith and repentance. There are other elements, however. There are lots of resources on defining Hyper Calvinism (some here in the Gadfly archives). There is general agreement, but some disagreement also.
What you say about the ability of a sinner, apart from the Holy Spirit, is not Hyper Calvinism but is what is viewed by all Calvinists as well as classical Arminians.
I cannot respond to your reference to the "free will response" since I do not know how you are defining or using the term "free will."
Certain men are saved by faith in Christ through the gospel.
I do not believe the Holy Spirit preaches to anyone except through the word proclaimed by messengers sent by the Spirit.
Again, what do you mean by the Holy Spirit preaching to sinners?
Blessings,
Stephen
Daar Stephen,
I appreciate the time you took to answer my question.
Again, what do you mean by the Holy Spirit preaching to sinners?In general, I mean it the same way you have described it, "through the [W]ord proclaimed by messengers sent by the Spirit" - through men called and set apart for this purpose, though I don't put the Spirit in a box; He will do whatever He needs to ensure the Gospel is preached to everyone. Who, for example preached the Gospel to Saul of Tarsus?
By "free will", I mean the man to whom the Gospel is preached is free to accept or reject it.
Can you point me to the resources that you have here on your site regarding Hyper-Calvinism?
Do you consider yourself in alignment with either Calvin or Arminius in this matter?
Thank you again for your time,
Jeff
Dear Jeff:
I also appreciate your time and spirit in discussing this topic.
What I am against is the view of some Hyper Calvinists, like the Hardshells and some Reformed folk, who say the Holy Spirit preaches the gospel personally to sinners, especially to heathen who cannot hear the gospel. I have some articles here on that topic also.
As far as the various postings over the past three years on defining Hyper Calvinism, I don't have the time to search the archives for those posts. However, you can do a google search at the bottom of my web page and find all the postings. Just use these terms in the search - hyper calvinism, definition.
Yes, in one sense, a man who hears the gospel is "free" to accept or reject, yet in another sense, he is not "free." The word "free" like the word "independent" is always relational to particular objects. Only God is perfectly and absolutely free and independent. Man, especially sinful man, is not, but is represented as being a "slave" to sin, therefore, not "free."
Man, on his own initiative, cannot free himself. God must take the initiative.
I believe that common grace is resistable but that uncommon grace is not.
I believe that I cannot claim that I am "different" from others, in believing and repenting, because of my free will and efforts, or because I took the initiative. "Who makes you to differ from another?" God or yourself? (I Cor. 4: 7)
I give the Lord the sole credit for my believing the gospel. Faith is God's sovereign gift to the elect. That is my view and is historic Calvinism.
I think Calvin and Arminius agreed on the gospel being a means in regeneration and that it is effected "by faith" just as is justification. The disagreement between them was over the nature of man's depravity and inability and what was required to overcome it.
Of some it was said - "therefore they could not believe." (John 12: 39)
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that man's will is in any sense a slave or bound to sin?
God bless
Stephen
My position is that man is free to will, or want. It is self-evident that I will. It is also self-evident that I do not always have to power to accomplish what I want. A man may will to be saved, but he is unable to accomplish this. He has not the power.
Dear Jeff:
The scriptures teach that the will of man is in bondage to sin. He is enslaved to sin and Satan. Salvation is the liberating of the will and causing it to fix on Christ.
"No man can come unto me."
"You will not come to me that you might have life."
"For it is God who works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."
I believe in "total depravity," and that includes the will.
Blessings,
Stephen
I experience willing all day long. I will do this, and I will do that. Do you not experience that? Is willing an illusion?
Best regards,
Jeff
Dear Jeff:
No, willing is no illusion. I never said it was.
The question is, both theologically and psychologically, "how free are any of my choices"?
Also, the choice of what food to eat for breakfast is a different kind of choice than choosing God, grace, and salvation.
Blessings
Stephen
My position is that all of our choices of will are free. But note that simply because I will something to be so does not mean I have the power to make it happen.
And what is exactly is the difference between willing what one wants for breakfast and willing salvation. In either case, it is some one either wants or doesn't want. What distinguishes in the sense of what I may will?
I am earnestly trying to understand this issue of free will & salvation, in particular as it applies to Calvinism and those who oppose Calvinism. So far, I gather it boils down to how one defines glory. Those who assert that man is not free to will his salvation seem to believe that to allow man his freed on this point would damage God's glory. In other words, if God doesn't absolutely do it all in the matter of salvation, then His glory is diminished. On the other side, those who assert that free will is real in the case of salvation, are asserting that without man's free will, God is NOT glorified. A coerced salvation is not sincere or real. Forced love is not real love. So the matter rests on what truly glorifies God, for that is surely the path God will take. Do you agree that I have stated the problem correctly?
Dear Jeff:
Very few Libertarians would affirm that man always acts freely. Even they recognize that men lose freedom as they become, more and more, slaves to sin.
Is a demon possessed soul's will free? A heroin addict?
Are you wanting to debate this with me? There are lots of good material out there on this topic, so I wonder why you keep coming back here to engage me on this.
I do disagree with a lot of your assertions, especially about love and salvation.
Did God create Adam with a heart of love for him? Can God not demand love from his creatures?
Yes, I do believe that God alone is to receive all the credit and glory for salvation.
"It is not of him who wills or of him who runs but of God who shows mercy." Rom. 9: 16
Blessings
Stephen
I don't know enough to debate you. I am trying to get a clear definition and the supporting evidence for Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism. If you know of the resources for this, please point them to me. I'm looking for something clear and straightforward not circuitous.
I'm not sure I grasp the purpose of your website if you're not willing to address the assertions of your posts.
Best regards,
Jeff
Dear Jeff:
I don't think you will get a "clear definition" of either Calvinism or Hyper Calvinism.
Again, there are postings here in the Gadfly where I help spell out the differences between Calvinism and Hyperism.
But, concerning "free will," most Calvinists, Hyper included, deny sinful man freedom to choose Christ.
I am willing to address my assertions and debate them as I have time. What assertions are you talking about?
Blessings
Stephen
Post a Comment