tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7075511948303765981.post8103585060699356546..comments2024-03-11T03:12:59.749-04:00Comments on Iron Sharpens Iron: DAVID CHANSKI: HYPER CALVINISM: Contrasting Historic Reformed Theology with its CounterfeitsJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7075511948303765981.post-22076396720210660242009-08-06T05:38:24.331-04:002009-08-06T05:38:24.331-04:00When addressing this controversial subject, it is ...When addressing this controversial subject, it is important to appeal to authoritative sources on the history. I didn't hear any of that during this interview, unfortunately. Since you recommended Iain Murray's book on hyper-Calvinism at the end, you could have used that good historical source to get at the nature of subject. For example, <a href="http://theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/2008/11/iain-murray-on-love-of-god-and-hyper.html" rel="nofollow">Murray addresses how they deny God's universal love for all</a> [Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching (Carlisle, Penn.: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), 98]. We know that <a href="http://theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/2009/07/dr-sam-waldron-on-rationalism-and-hyper.html" rel="nofollow">Dr. Sam Waldron would agree</a> with Murray on that point. <a href="http://theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/2008/11/iain-murray-on-spurgeon-hyper-calvinism.html" rel="nofollow">Murray makes very strong points on the hyper-Calvinistic denial that God desires and wishes the salvation of all men</a>, since it is "the real point in dispute in connection with the free offer of the gospel" [Ibid., 88-91]. In fact, Murray summarizes his book as follows: "The book is intended to show the momentous difference between evangelistic Calvinistic belief and that form of Calvinism which denies any desire on the part of God for the salvation of all men" [Iain H. Murray, "John Gill and C. H. Spurgeon," Banner of Truth 386 (November 1995), 16].<br /><br />Given this interview, one is left with the impression that one is only a hyper-Calvinist if:<br /><br />1) One denies human responsiblity.<br />2) One denies that the Gospel should be preached to all, or<br />3) One denies that Arminians [or anyone denying any of the TULIP points] are regenerate.<br /><br />First, those who historically denied "duty-faith" did not deny human responsiblity altogether. They just denied that all men were responsible to believe in an evangelical sense, as not all have that ability. Since responsiblity entails ability, they argued, not all could be responsible to believe the gospel in the supernatural sense. They're only responsible to believe it in the legal, civil or natural sense. Again, <a href="http://theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/2006/09/iain-murray-on-gill.html" rel="nofollow">Iain Murray makes this point in his book</a> [see Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching (Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 2000), 127-129]. <a href="http://theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/2006/09/oliver-on-nettles-and-john-gill.html" rel="nofollow">Robert W. Oliver also deals with the issue</a> as it relates to John Gill [The Banner of Truth 284 (May 1987) 30-32].<br /><br />Secondly, classic hyper-Calvinists were not against preaching to all. They were against indiscriminate or free offers. Iain Murray makes this point [see source above], <a href="http://theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/2006/06/caricatures-of-hyperism.html" rel="nofollow">as well as Dr. Curt Daniel in his doctoral dissertation</a> on the subject [see Curt Daniel, Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1983), 448-449.<br /><br />Overall, I was disappointed with this interview, due to the lack of an appeal to the historic sources. As a result of this lack, the definitions used for hyper-Calvinism during the show seemed to be merely grounded in Chanski's [and Arnzen's] own subjective opinion. It was as though Chanski was postmodern on the subject, i.e. as though he has his relative opinion, others have theirs, and it may not be possible to get at the objective facts of what a hyper-Calvinist is historically.<br /><br />Also, if one uses Calvin, the other Reformers, and the Puritans on such subjects as the love of God for all, the will of God that all be saved by the free offer, the general grace of God for all and the duty of all to believe savingly, then the historic lights are turned on, and we can see who goes beyond even the high supralapsarian Calvinists in the past, i.e. those who are hyper on those points.<br /><br />Grace to you,<br />TonyTony Byrnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02102293843397809802noreply@blogger.com