Quote:
Originally Posted by AV1611  Quote:
Originally Posted by FenderPriest It seems to me that if this is the distinction between High and Low that John Piper is actually a High Calvinist as opposed to what is suggested above. Is that correct? I'm basing this off of his affirmation of 7 point Calvinism. Am I off here? | I am not sure what Piper would be called. In High Calvinists in Action all of the men mentioned would be classed as Hyper-Calvinists. There does seem to be some fluidity in how the terms hyper and high are used. Boettner writes that "By a “high Calvinist” we mean one who holds the supralapsarian view." I see no reason not to go with that definition. |
Well, if you go with that definition, you make John Gill into a low calvinist because he leaned clearly on the infra view. Yet, you consider Gill to be a hyper. So this definition cannot stand. The following is a better definition:
A low calvinist is one who holds to one or more of the following:
1) The well-meant offer.
2) A definite atonement but with some universal aspects (like Charles Hodge).
3) God may "desire" to save the reprobate in some way but has chosen not to (like Piper and John Murray hold).
Most low calvinists also tend to interpret the "universal" passages the same as the Arminians like Rev. 3:20 with Jesus knocking at the door of people's hearts, or 1 Tim. 2:4. If you read Matthew Henry, John Flavel, Jonathan Edwards, C. T. Spurgeon and others, you will see what I mean. They obviously do so for emotional reasons, and so their exegesis tends to be poorer than that of the high calvinists. By the way, John Calvin would be a high calvinist because his exegesis on those passages is generally in line with that of the high calvinists like John Owen, Thomas Goodwin, John Gill, A. W. Pink. In general, I find that high calvinists are usually smarter on their exegesis since they do not let their emotions slip into the context of the passages.