The problem with Hyper-Calvinism is that there is no dictionary definition as to some extent it is a term of abuse, it is hard to imagine anyone claiming to be a hyper-calvinist.

The problem of common grace is that it tends to be a catch all concept to justify all sorts of positions, some of which may not otherwise be sustainable. I suppose the best definition of common grace is to say that God has a non-salvic love for the reprobate, I do not however accept that a denial of this position is hyper-calvinism.

Hyper-calvinism in my mind is a denial that the gospel should be preached to the non-elect. This denail is an unbiblical position and is hetrodox. A denial of commmon grace or that the offer of the gospel is "well meant" has powerful biblical support and at heart is often an argument about definitions.

I cannot understand why such a position warrants the label of being apostate, but perhaps this thread will provide enlightenment.

I like Engelsma's book Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel, it suffers from a desire to defend his denomination rather than to simply present the issues but it makes a clear powerful case, even if the English can be a bit tortuous at times. I feel that some are so wedded to the doctrine of common grace (because it underpins much of what Kuyper propounded and most forms of Theonomy) that it is not given a fair hearing. Engelsma's book on common grace revisited is also excellent.

__________________
Mike
London City Presbyterian Church
London
England

"Surely, we wish to be orthodox, but we must first learn what real orthodoxy is. Surely, we wish to be progressive, but we must first have a basis to progress from."