A Few Thoughts on Hyper Calvinism

[wildboar]

What those disciples of John had not received yet was Holy Spirit manifestation, Holy Spirit baptism. This they received when Paul laid hands on them. It does not say in the context that they were unregenerates or unbelievers etc. They were believers in the Messias, but were without Holy Spirit baptism.

It does not appear from the text that they knew who Jesus was.

Acts 19:2-5 he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" So they said to him, "We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." 3 And he said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?" So they said, "Into John's baptism." 4 Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Paul assumed that they were believers when he addressed them, but Paul had to tell them about Christ. There are various ways of reading the aorist participle, but it seems most likely to me that we should read it as most versions do, as 'when they heard this'. It does not say after they heard this or that when they heard this they went and found a lake somewhere, but when they they heard this they were all baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. How could he have immersed them all at once while he said this?

It seems perfectly fitting that while explaining to them what John's baptism pointed to, they should receive the baptism of Jesus.

Matthew 3:11 "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Look in the Greek text, verse 2, and learn what "pneuma hagion" (2 x) without the article means here.

Please explain what you believe it means.

Also it does not say what you stated that upon hearing Paul's words they were baptized by regeneration.

But that's one of the things that baptism is a picture of and the word baptism is often used interchangably with it.

Titus 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

And after this Paul laid hands on them and at this point they received Holy Spirit baptism,

It does not say they received Holy Spirit baptism, it says they received the gift of the Holy Spirit. The Bible does not speak of a separate baptism of the Holy Spirit.

The KJV says "devout", the Greek has "eusebês". This is a word which in the NT is never, as far as I know, used with reference to unregenerate people.

The verb form of the word is used in Acts 17:23 to speak of those who worship an idol. "eusebes" is only found a couple of times in the Bible, it does not occur often enough to think that each time it occurs it must be referring to a regenerate person. Most translations translate it as devout in this passage, which is probably the best way to go. The word is used in a great deal of Greek literature to speak of people who diligently carried out sacrifices to their gods.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[disciple]

But that's one of the things that baptism is a picture of and the word baptism is often used interchangably with it.

Titus 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

just a note: neither BAPTIZW nor any of its cognates are used in Titus 3:5. in fact, it is highly doubtful that Titus 3:5 is even speaking of water baptism as the language here is metaphorical to speak of our salvation (by way of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit...not by way of literal water regeneration unless one adopts the sacramentalist and sacerdotalist argument of the early church fathers who introduced water regeneration).

[whs1]

Marc Carpenter states:
What Marc and his supporters do not realize is that many of us support these propositions with a hearty amen! It is not that we disagree on these specific points. We disagree on a host of other points!

What are the "host of other Points" Bill???

[wildboar]

just a note: neither BAPTIZW nor any of its cognates are used in Titus 3:5. in fact, it is highly doubtful that Titus 3:5 is even speaking of water baptism as the language here is metaphorical to speak of our salvation (by way of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit...not by way of literal water regeneration unless one adopts the sacramentalist and sacerdotalist argument of the early church fathers who introduced water regeneration).

Baptizw is used figuratively in the Scriptures as well. The passage is certainly not saying that we are regenerated by water baptism, but it is alluding to water baptism as other passages do and holding the picture of water baptism before us to help us understand.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, F7 he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Hebrews 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

[disciple]

Baptizw is used figuratively in the Scriptures as well. The passage is certainly not saying that we are regenerated by water baptism, but it is alluding to water baptism as other passages do and holding the picture of water baptism before us to help us understand.

but you said:

But that's one of the things that baptism is a picture of and the word baptism is often used interchangably with it.

and none of the examples you have given thus far do not contain the word BAPTIZW nor any of its cognates. if you're going to make a statement with a verse to back it up, i would think it would be good to give a verse which contains unequivocal evidence of what you are attempting to prove. thus far, there has not been a verse given where baptism is used interchangably with regeneration.

[wildboar]

thus far, there has not been a verse given where baptism is used interchangably with regeneration.

Very well, forget I said it. I'll blame it on my head cold. However, I believe the rest of what I said is still true.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[yoyogeezer]

With all this hubub going I cannot help but wonder if this has occured to anyone but me. Perhaps these guys are just an elaborate hoax...sort of a calvinist version of "The Onion"if you will. I mean come on, if they are for real they have excommunicated everyone from Calvin to Augustine and a whole bunch between and after. Who's next the apostle Paul? Surely, surely these clever folks are just "pulling our chains" for laughs at anyone who takes them seriously. Do outsidethecamp people even gather for public worship? I find it hard to believe there is a church "pure" enough for them...that is if they are for real.

[Ivor Thomas]

With all this hubub going I cannot help but wonder if this has occured to anyone but me. Perhaps these guys are just an elaborate hoax...sort of a calvinist version of "The Onion"if you will. I mean come on, if they are for real they have excommunicated everyone from Calvin to Augustine and a whole bunch between and after. Who's next the apostle Paul? Surely, surely these clever folks are just "pulling our chains" for laughs at anyone who takes them seriously. Do outsidethecamp people even gather for public worship? I find it hard to believe there is a church "pure" enough for them...that is if they are for real.

Hello YoYo could you define what a Hyper calvinist believes and what a calvinist like yourself believes, and do you think that these guys who you mention are regenerate.And if you think them regenerate or could be are you not sinning against the Elect look forward to your reply.Thanks Ivor Thomas.

[disciple]

here is a pretty extensive audio series on the subject of calvinism (i've only begun to listen to the first session...there are 75!!!).

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.as...sermonsspeaker

anyway, i think the guy did his dissertation on the subject of calvinism:

http://www.gbibooks.com/final.asp?id=37506

perhaps it would help frame the question of definitions. i've come to learn that the calvinist camp is a lot broader than i thought.

[Brandan]

perhaps it would help frame the question of definitions. i've come to learn that the calvinist camp is a lot broader than i thought.

Yep, it's pretty fascinating if you ask me. A couple years ago I thought there were just arminians and calvinists while thinking that almost all calvinists were nearly identical and arminians were the ones that varied. I've now come to the conclusion that there is definitely more variety amongst those who are not of the "arminian" or pelagian persuasion.

Anyway, I'm getting tired of labels like hyper-calvinist, hypo-calvinist, "tolerant" calvinism, and the calvinism label in general. I mean, labels are quite helpful at times, but these days it seems they are used quite a bit for demeaning or berating a theological opponent. It seems there is quite a bit of shock value in the term "tolerant calvinist" or "hyper-calvinist" and that often times seems to be the purpose in using such language. I must admit I'm guilty of employing the jargon myself and only recently have I come to see my sins of broadbrushing individuals with labels so quickly.

Anyway, I would say I lean toward the so called "hyper-calvinist" position, and I hesitate to make fun of the folks at OTC too quickly. It is quite easy to judge MC and this group, but I believe them to be misguided believers that have been sidetracked from the gospel message just as almost all those in the "calvinist" camp seem to be... It's quite a destructive position in my opinion, and very sad to observe. It seems those of us who emphasize God's sovereignty in salvation sometimes have a tendency to elevate a secondary (and not necessarily unimportant) issue above all other secondary issues as well as the primary issue of the Gospel. For OTC they seem to me to elevate the important topic of judging who is saved over the very Gospel they claim to love itself. This saddens me because I think if they would step back and tack a long look at their actions with fresh eyes they might have a different perspective. At any rate, God has a reason for raising up outside the camp and I'm sure He'll work it all out, their "positives" as well as their "negatives" for His Glory.

Doug probably can attest to my ignorance in elevating an issue above the Gospel when I was caught up in the house church movement a couple years ago. I was so obsessed with "house churches" that I didn't want anything to do with "institutional churches", and unfortunately my extreme accute focus on what I still believe is an important ecclesiological topic overshadowed my focus on the very Gospel itself. Sadly at this point in my life I was very much ignorant of all that Christ had accomplished for me and much of this ignorance was due to my extreme focus on this secondary issue.

Today you hear from society and the various church organizations that when studying anything and particularly theology you need to "stay balanced..." While I agree that we must be balanced in our approach, that is we must equally study soteriology, hamartiology, eschatology, ecclesiology, pneumatology, anthropology, etc... all of these important topics in my opinion must be related and indeed be rooted in Christ and Him crucified... The Gospel. If we fail to elevate the Gospel as primary we have indeed become unbalanced, something I've done many times and to my shame, even recently. Praise God for saving His people particularly from themselves.

[Skeuos Eleos]

Yep, it's pretty fascinating if you ask me. A couple years ago I thought there were just arminians and calvinists while thinking that almost all calvinists were nearly identical and arminians were the ones that varied. I've now come to the conclusion that there is definitely more variety amongst those who are not of the "arminian" or pelagian persuasion.

Couldn't agree more! Occasionally I can find it almost overwhelming when I am unable to discern between the different, opposing positions of great Christian writers on a particular topic and I just can't be sure what to believe. But then perhaps the Lord would use such times to remind me that I should depend upon no one man but look, first and foremost, unto Him and to the Holy Spirit to enlighten me. For we have nothing but what we receive.

Anyway, I'm getting tired of labels like hyper-calvinist, hypo-calvinist, "tolerant" calvinism, and the calvinism label in general. I mean, labels are quite helpful at times, but these days it seems they are used quite a bit for demeaning or berating a theological opponent. It seems there is quite a bit of shock value in the term "tolerant calvinist" or "hyper-calvinist" and that often times seems to be the purpose in using such language. I must admit I'm guilty of employing the jargon myself and only recently have I come to see my sins of broadbrushing individuals with labels so quickly.

Again, 100% agreement. How quick we are to allow the 'sectarian' spirit to prosper! If only we could always critically examine our motives before we put pen to paper, fingers to keyboard or open our big mouths!

Anyway, I would say I lean toward the so called "hyper-calvinist" position, and I hesitate to make fun of the folks at OTC too quickly. It is quite easy to judge MC and this group, but I believe them to be misguided believers that have been sidetracked from the gospel message just as almost all those in the "calvinist" camp seem to be... It's quite a destructive position in my opinion, and very sad to observe. It seems those of us who emphasize God's sovereignty in salvation sometimes have a tendency to elevate a secondary (and not necessarily unimportant) issue above all other secondary issues as well as the primary issue of the Gospel. For OTC they seem to me to elevate the important topic of judging who is saved over the very Gospel they claim to love itself. This saddens me because I think if they would step back and tack a long look at their actions with fresh eyes they might have a different perspective. At any rate, God has a reason for raising up outside the camp and I'm sure He'll work it all out, their "positives" as well as their "negatives" for His Glory.

O well, 100% agreement again. This is getting a bit tedious - I'll have to find something to disagree with you over!

I think you have it right here. We all get our priorities wrong - in all honesty probably most of the time.

Yes all things will ultimately be for His glory, but I am also convinced that God allows such diversity of beliefs for our good as well - perhaps to keep us from following any one man/small group of men and to keep us alert, grounded in all scripture since all scripture is useful. If you think about it most of us over-emphasize one thing at the cost of something else at some time or other - and probably different things at different times. Often the teaching that one-group over-emphasizes or takes too far has some truth mixed in within it that we might otherwise have neglected. I think this is true of OTC.

However, as with all teaching, when a correct biblical balance is not maintained, the potential for some to be deceived into thinking they are regenerate when they are not increases and OTC is no different in this respect.

Today you hear from society and the various church organizations that when studying anything and particularly theology you need to "stay balanced..." While I agree that we must be balanced in our approach, that is we must equally study soteriology, hamartiology, eschatology, ecclesiology, pneumatology, anthropology, etc... all of these important topics in my opinion must be related and indeed be rooted in Christ and Him crucified... The Gospel. If we fail to elevate the Gospel as primary we have indeed become unbalanced, something I've done many times and to my shame, even recently. Praise God for saving His people particularly from themselves.

I agree with what I think you're trying to say here - that is to say, that I think we should be "determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" from this all other doctrines do flow.

The other comment I would make is the ever-present danger that, no matter what important doctrine we rightly be studying, we elevate the acquisition of knowledge and (especially) the correction of those who do not share our understanding, above our desire to be transformed to become more Christ-like people. Sadly, I find the example of my life trails a long way behind what I profess to believe and seek to defend.

Praise God indeed for saving us from ourselves! O that I might always set my mind on things above, at all times putting on tender mercies and above all love! (Col 3:2; 12-14)

Martin

[Ivor Thomas]

Martin Quote, However,as with all teaching, when a correct biblical balance is not maintained, the potential for some to be deceived into thinking they are regenerate WHEN THEY ARE NOT increases and otc is no different in this respect. Martin you are saying those in otc are lost by this quote, I believe God has raise up such men as those of otc in these dark days where truth has fallen in the streets men of truth have always been persecuted they used to burn such ones at the stake, men who will not compromise one word of the truth.Ivor Thomas..

[Ivor Thomas]

here is a pretty extensive audio series on the subject of calvinism (i've only begun to listen to the first session...there are 75!!!).

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.as...sermonsspeaker

anyway, i think the guy did his dissertation on the subject of calvinism:

http://www.gbibooks.com/final.asp?id=37506

perhaps it would help frame the question of definitions. i've come to learn that the calvinist camp is a lot broader than i thought.

Disciple this man believes in common Grace amongst other glaring errors like selection number 18 for common Grace. Ivor Thomas.

[Skeuos Eleos]

Martin Quote, "However,as with all teaching, when a correct biblical balance is not maintained, the potential for some to be deceived into thinking they are regenerate WHEN THEY ARE NOT increases and otc is no different in this respect." Martin you are saying those in otc are lost by this quote

No, I mean exactly what I said. In the above re-quote I have emboldened some words/phrases that may help to understand it as I intended.

Note also that prior to this I had just given 100% agreement with what Brandan had said i.e. "I believe them to be misguided believers that have been sidetracked from the gospel message ..." so I'm not sure why you read that into it. Their error, whilst serious, is not one that (on its own) in any way shows one as being unregenerate.

As further clarification, I believe the Word of God makes clear that, not only will there be deceived unregenerates and reprobates mixed in with God's elect but some of the deceived ones will seem so much like the real thing that it will not be possible to tell them apart until the final harvest when the wheat and tares are separated. Therefore it follows that there may be some who are deceived in any assembly. My contention is simply this: the greater the degree of doctrinal error, the greater the potential for SOME to be deceived becomes. Just because some may hold to a doctrinal error does not automatically mean that all who hold to that particular error are unregenerate. It depends upon whether that error is an "essential" gospel truth which, in this case, it is not but, as Brandan points out, is rather a matter of priority or balance. (What those "essential" truths are is of course a different matter that has been raised and not resolved on more than one occassion here - and will probably never be resolved here if the way past discussions went are anything to go by! )

It is also worth noting that the apostolic remedy to cases which gave them cause for concern seemed not to be to attempt to divide between sheep and goats or regenerate/unregenerate but to warn, admonish and re-proclaim the gospel. This is contrary to the position that I think OTC take which seems to elevate judging between regenerate/unregenerate, even in unclear cases, above the proclamation of the gospel and apostolic warnings.

I believe God has raise up such men as those of otc in these dark days where truth has fallen in the streets

well, in giving my 100% agreement I was also agreeing with this: "God has a reason for raising up outside the camp and I'm sure He'll work it all out, their "positives" as well as their "negatives" for His Glory."
Of course, all groups, good or evil, are ultimately raised up by God. So just because God has raised a group up does NOT mean that their message must be entirely biblical since God works all things after the counsel of His own will and has made even the "wicked for the day of evil".

men of truth have always been persecuted they used to burn such ones at the stake, men who will not compromise one word of the truth.Ivor Thomas..

Indeed, anyone who desires "to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution". However, I would not hold OTC in the same regard as men such as John Bradford. This is a slightly misleading point since I would very much doubt that any martyr was burned for holding to the distinct beliefs of OTC.

Martin

[disciple]

men of truth have always been persecuted they used to burn such ones at the stake, men who will not compromise one word of the truth.Ivor Thomas..

Indeed, anyone who desires "to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution". However, I would not hold OTC in the same regard as men such as John Bradford. This is a slightly misleading point since I would very much doubt that any martyr was burned for holding to the distinct beliefs of OTC.

we need to be very careful here as this does not determine the "rightness" of anything/anyone. many people were persecuted throughout history. this is the type of argument that mormons use to "prove" that they are on the side of truth. this is a logical fallacy.

[disciple]

Just because some may hold to a doctrinal error does not automatically mean that all who hold to that particular error are unregenerate...Of course, all groups, good or evil, are ultimately raised up by God. So just because God has raised a group up does NOT mean that their message must be entirely biblical since God works all things after the counsel of His own will and has made even the "wicked for the day of evil".

i have one word for all of this--humility. much of what i see going on in Christian forums today is a bunch of "i-am-of-paul" sectarian tactics. we try and figure out what box we can place people in, and if it's not exactly like ours, we plug our ears and call them unregenerate or some other silly nonsense. we all need to remember from whence we came and allow opportunity for growth in others and ourselves (not assume we are "the standard"). the following articles provide much wisdom. i would recommend a hearty read with an open mind. now many OTC groupies will probably do exactly what the articles say not to do (e.g., they'll refuse to listen because the authors are unregenerate heretics or some such label they can think up) and that's their prerogative. though perhaps these articles will be helpful to those here who are willing to humbly listen with an open mind. again, i feel that what often is very lacking in Christian forums (including this one and sometimes especially this one) is humility. happy reading...

http://www.batteredsheep.com/sticking.html
http://www.churchinfocus.org/modules...=article&sid=5

[yoyogeezer]

Hello YoYo could you define what a Hyper calvinist believes and what a calvinist like yourself believes, and do you think that these guys who you mention are regenerate.And if you think them regenerate or could be are you not sinning against the Elect look forward to your reply.Thanks Ivor Thomas.

If you are asking me to lay down the details of the "Hypers Creed" I dont think I can. But when someone comes to town (usually "town" being a message board) and the first thing out of their mouth (er keyboard) is something to the tune of blah blah blah speaking peace to arminians blah blah I generally have a pretty good idea that a hyper has come to town to instruct and enlighten. Secondly there seems to be an obsession on who is or who ain't "regenerate." Last time I checked regeneration was the work of the Holy Spirit. We on the other hand, not being omniscient cannot determine someone's regeneracy. True, there are certain things that can bring about church discipline that culminate in excommunication, but that is not the same as steppping up to presume to measure someone's "regeneracy" with the slide-rule of the 5-points of calvinism (or for those truly obsessed, the 5-points of christianity, having excommunicated Calvin himself).

If the 5-points of calvinism represented the sum of salvic knowledge, how come the apostles didn't get into teachings on election until they were writing to people already in the church? I challenge anyone to read the book of Acts and find the apostle Paul (or Peter or anyone else) preaching the gospel as the 5-points of calvinism. What you will find is a) Proclamation of the facts of who Jesus is (son of God, Lord of all, the one going to judge the world) what he did (was righteous, crucified, dead, put in a tomb, resurrected, seen by witnesses and ascended to the right hand of the Father) followed by the command to repent with the promise that all who believe receive forgiveness of sins.

And back to the issue of being regenerate, I have to wonder, are those who act and believe like those outsidethecamp site seems to be so cleverly making fun of through satire belong to a local church? If not is it because they are under church discipline?

Who did I say was regenerate? Only God knows the heart.

[Ivor Thomas]

You are right Yo Yo the Holy Spirit is the one who regenerates,He also and importantly is the teacher of truth ,when we where dead in sin we could not recieve truth the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, we are taught truth from regeneration as we recieve it we can know it to be Gospel truth and not deny it.As for the 5points they run like a gold or siver thread through the new testement. You say you are a calvinist but seem to have a problem with them could you explain, for instance are you a 5 pointer.thanks. Ivor Thomas.

[disciple]

If you are asking me to lay down the details of the "Hypers Creed" I dont think I can. But when someone comes to town (usually "town" being a message board) and the first thing out of their mouth (er keyboard) is something to the tune of blah blah blah speaking peace to arminians blah blah I generally have a pretty good idea that a hyper has come to town to instruct and enlighten.

i would have to admit that issues such as these are hard to nail down but there are definitely obvious ear-marks to OTC groupies (perhaps more appropriately called "carpenterites"...though i'm reluctant to use this name since he may take it as a compliment). in general they are somewhat of a broken record or a one-show-pony. i think when any one doctrine (or system) is held up as the end-all-be-all of Christianity, that it is probably safe to say that you have entered the arena of sectarianism. again, one word...humility.

Eph 4:1 I, therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, urge you to walk worthy of the calling you have received, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, accepting one another in love, 3 diligently keeping the unity of the Spirit with the peace that binds [us]. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope at your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.

Phil 2:4 Do nothing out of rivalry or conceit, but in humility consider others as more important than yourselves. 4 Everyone should look out not [only] for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.

[Ivor Thomas]

Disciple going back through the thread you have not replied to sermon 18 the man you reccomended perhaps you have not heard it its about common grace if you have not got to it yet I can wait. Ivor Thomas.