Herman Hoeksema's Whosoever Will and hyper-calvinism

Status
Not open for further replies.
sastark

sastark

Puritan Board Graduate
I was reading through [color=blue:234e5dc39d]Phil Johnson's links to "Bad Theology"[/color:234e5dc39d] sites and saw that he had put "Whosoever Will" by Herman Hoeksema under bad theology and claimed it taught hyper-calvinsim. I have never read the book, but I have linked to it from my [color=blue:234e5dc39d]webpage[/color:234e5dc39d].

I know Hoeksema was invloved in the "common grace" controversy in the CRC in the 1920s and that he ended up leaving the CRC and founding the Protestant Reformed Church, but does anyone know if Hoeksema was a hyper-calvinist? Should I remove this link from my webpage? :puzzled:
 
check out Matt's review of pro. Englsma book on hyper calvinism he9matt) I blieve has stated that the http://prca.org has 'hyper' tendecies that I do not know Matt would know it better,there site is good nonethe less.

Also matt has an article on hyper calvinism also check out http://www.monergism.com Im sure John has a wealth of articles dealing on these subjects.

bladestunner316:wr6:
 
On his webpage, in regard to the PRC, Phil Johnson writes:

There are some helpful, even excellent, resources linked here. I deliberated long and hard about whether to put this in the "Helpful Resources" category. The problem is that the PRC holds to an extreme Calvinism that denies God's common grace and the free offer of the gospel. This is a form of hyper-Calvinism, and is fraught with many dangerous ramifications. I could not with good conscience give it a thumbs up. Not a few people have written to ask how I could class a denomination that adheres to the Three Forms of Unity in this category. But the PRC's denial of the gospel's free offer is, after all, bad theology.
 
If after one thoroughly reads and studies both sides of the whole controversy of common grace and the "free offer" and rightly defines hyper-Calvinism, they will conclude that Herman Hoeksema and the PRC are not hyper-Calvinist. As a matter of fact, the absurdity of the notion to claim Hoeksema was a hyper-Calvinist is on par with the absurd notion that Calvin was an Arminian!

JWJ
 
JWJ,
Whether the PRC position is hyper-calvinist, or (as I have heard them describe it) "high" calvinist depends on your definition of hypercalvinism.
A few years ago, I was thrashing out some sort of a position on the issue, and in the course of my reading, I came across a list- I think it was written by Johnson- giving 5 flavours of hypercalvinist.
According to this list, hyper-calvinism does one or more of the following...
1. Denies that the gospel call is to be given indiscriminately.
2. Denies duty-faith and/or duty-repentance
3. Denies the free offer of the gospel.
4. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace".
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

The PRC would restrict this list probably to numbers 1 and 2, possibly only to number 1.
I listened to tapes of a debate between Ron Hanko (a PRC pastor of some standing) and another man on the doctrine of common grace. In this debate, Hanko denies common grace, and clearly states that God only and always has love for the elect, and only and always has hatred for the non-elect. The logic of his position leads him to conclude that
a) God is giving the non-elect good gifts in order to increase their damnation, because God hates them.
b) The rich young ruler who went away sad and (presumably therefore) unrepentant must definitely have been elect because Jesus loved him.
c) The phrase children of Jerusalem must refer only to the elect within Jerusalem's walls.

-basically any passage where God appears to view anyone in a benevolent fashion must be refering to the elect.
Whether or not this defines him as a hypercalvinist, it is certainly interpreting scripture through a prejudicial filter, which almost always leads to false conclusions.

James.
 
I believe todays reformed churches could use more dedicated men like Pastor Hoeksema, who's dedication and strong unwavering stance toward what he believed, and love for the doctrines of the reformed faith are truly commendable.

I wish there were more pastors and theologians like him today.
 
I have just read through the article, I did not find it to be hyper-calvinist, as matter of fact, the following quote from the article in regards to the responsibility of man seems to be right in line with historic reformed calvinism.

[quote:ce064f3048]What is responsibility? It is the state in which I am under obligation to God. And man is for ever under obligation to love the Lord his God with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his strength. It is the state in which man stands in judgment before God, and is answerable to Him for his deeds. And that answerability God never destroys. Whether He hardens a man or irresistibly draws him by His grace and saves him, God always deals with man as a rational moral being. When he stands in judgment before God, and is called to account for his sin, the most hardened sinner will have to admit that he sinned because he loved iniquity and hated God and His righteousness, and that, therefore, he is worthy of damnation. [b:ce064f3048]When through the gospel he was called to repentance, he refused. When through the same gospel he was brought into contact with Christ, he would have none of Him and crucified Him afresh[/b:ce064f3048]. And yet, with all his sin and rebellion against God he can only be subservient to God's sovereign counsel. God is the Lord, not man. Nor is it thus that the sinner is not conscious of this absolute Lordship of God. On the contrary, his own responsibility and the absolute sovereignty of God are indelibly written in his consciousness. And even in hell all the devils and the ungodly will forever have to admit, that they never prevailed against His will, that He is absolute Lord and does all His good pleasure, and that He is righteous when He judgeth! The voice of rebellion will then forever be silenced.[/quote:ce064f3048]

Blessings,
Terry :)

[Edited on 7/13/2003 by terry72]
 
Hoeksema

Alot of stones are cast at Hoeksema and if the accusations were true of him then they may be justified. But I think much of the objections to him are more semantics than anything. He did not oppose the "free offer" in the sense that the gospel should be preached to all and that all who hear are responsible to obey. He rejected the Arminian use of the term "free offer." In the controversy in which he was booted from the CRC they were teaching in the "free offer" that God is somehow striving to save those He has reprobated. It is this interpretation that he rejects. I would encourage you to read his arguments in his Reformed Dogmatics.
It is the same with his opposition to common grace. The CRC was teaching that God somehow has a lesser love to the reprobate and gives them good things in accordance with that love. Hoeksema rejected that interpretation because grace is not common, it is particular to the elect in their salvation. He said that God is good, kind, and longsuffering toward the reprobate but he does not give grace to them, only to the elect.
This does not mean he is perfectly orthodox because he does have I think an incorrect view on the covenant but read his arguments a little closer before you cast him aside to the Hyper camp.

As a side note it seems to me that hyperCalvinism is a combination of two things. 1) A belief that you are to only preach the gospel to the elect and 2) Antinomianism in the form of fatalism regarding conversion (God will convert me when he's ready too, until then I'll do whatever I want) or in the form of liscence (I'm elect, I can do whatever I want).

[Edited on 7-13-2003 by puritansailor]
 
I am not with a PR church but...

I do think they are very helpful in a number of areas.I just
want to give some quotes by Herman Hoeksema.

...so not misunderstand me,the particular gospel must be proclaimed within the hearing of all...it is the will of God that even the reprobate shall hear the gospel of salvation...the
gospel in its preaching must be general.

The above is from "The Gospel"page 15

The following are from his book called "God's Eternal Good Pleasure".

The gospel,therefore,must be preached to all nations without distinction;and the promise of the gospel is for all that believe on Him and call upon His name.

That is from page 166,chapter 12, regarding Romans 10:11-13:"The Universality of Salvation".


The following two quotes are from chapter 13 entitled "The Mission of the Preacher"which regards Romans
10:14-15A.They are found on pages 177&178.

So the gospel of God concerning His Son must be universally disseminated,must be preached to all nations.

The preaching of the gospel is extended to all the nations of the world.
 
[b:4b7c04fdea]Amen Greg![/b:4b7c04fdea]

The church needs more men like H. Hoeksema today! May God be pleased to raise them up to His glory!

Grace,
Dwayne
 
What in the world is a hyper-Calvinist? I think I know of one--R.C. Sproul Jr. See [i:9b4e84017d]Almighty Over All[/i:9b4e84017d] He boldly goes where no theologian has dared to go. Probably over his dad's objections, but he's just carryihg things to their logical conclusion.

[Edited on 4-17-2004 by mjbee]
 
[quote:0ade119726][i:0ade119726]Originally posted by mjbee[/i:0ade119726]
What in the world is a hyper-Calvinist? I think I know of one--R.C. Sproul Jr. See [i:0ade119726]Almighty Over All[/i:0ade119726] He boldly goes where no theologian has dared to go. Probably over his dad's objections, but he's just carryihg things to their logical conclusion.

[Edited on 4-17-2004 by mjbee] [/quote:0ade119726]

Melissa, can you provide some quotes that demonstrate the above?
 
[quote:7cbe626aa0][i:7cbe626aa0]Originally posted by mjbee[/i:7cbe626aa0]
What in the world is a hyper-Calvinist? I think I know of one--R.C. Sproul Jr. See [i:7cbe626aa0]Almighty Over All[/i:7cbe626aa0] He boldly goes where no theologian has dared to go. Probably over his dad's objections, but he's just carryihg things to their logical conclusion.

[Edited on 4-17-2004 by mjbee] [/quote:7cbe626aa0]

I probaly misunderstood read you, But are inferring that hyper-calvinism is a logical conclusion?
 
hypercalvinism and the free offer

I have read the webmasters review of the work and know he does not think Englesma escaped the charge that he and Hoeksema and the Protestant Reformed Churches are hypercalvinist. I was impressed by the forward that John H. Gerstner wrote to Prof. David Engelsma work on the free offer. Is the position Dr. Gerstner held hypercalvinist?

[Edited on 10-16-2006 by yeutter]
 
Webmaster, thanks for the link. I'm not in the mood, nor do I have the time to read it. When I referred to Sproul Jr., I was wondering about his theory (?) that if God created mankind, as in Adam and Eve, and pronounced His creation "good", but man subsequently fell, then God must have changed man's inclination from good to evil, just as He now changes man's inclination from evil to good at regeneration. Otherwise how could man have fallen? Unless the Arminians are right.... Would it be wrong for God to do that, I mean change man's inclination from good to evil, if He had before ordained that man would fall and He would redeem some of the fallen and condemn the rest? In order to show His wrath and make His power known? Why can't God do what He wants with what is His own? Our ideas of what is right for God to do might not match His.(Isaiah 55:8,9) Actually, theology isn't as hard as y'all want to make it. Supralapsarians and infralapsarians and hyper-Calvinists and lions and tigers and bears...oh, my!

Melissa
 
[quote:cd60cded04][i:cd60cded04]Originally posted by mjbee[/i:cd60cded04]
Webmaster, thanks for the link. I'm not in the mood, nor do I have the time to read it. When I referred to Sproul Jr., I was wondering about his theory (?) that if God created mankind, as in Adam and Eve, and pronounced His creation "good", but man subsequently fell, then God must have changed man's inclination from good to evil, just as He now changes man's inclination from evil to good at regeneration. Otherwise how could man have fallen? Unless the Arminians are right.... Would it be wrong for God to do that, I mean change man's inclination from good to evil, if He had before ordained that man would fall and He would redeem some of the fallen and condemn the rest? In order to show His wrath and make His power known? Why can't God do what He wants with what is His own? Our ideas of what is right for God to do might not match His.(Isaiah 55:8,9) Actually, theology isn't as hard as y'all want to make it. Supralapsarians and infralapsarians and hyper-Calvinists and lions and tigers and bears...oh, my!

Melissa [/quote:cd60cded04]

Melissa writes"
"When I referred to Sproul Jr., I was wondering about his theory (?)"

One's theory about theology, is one's theology!

Melissa adds:
".....then God must have changed man's inclination from good to evil, just as He now changes man's inclination from evil to good at regeneration."

Based upon this, God would then be the catalyst and the responsible party for sin. Not so:

1Jo 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Melissa adds:
".......if He had before ordained that man would fall "

Ordaining something/allowing something to happen, does not make one responsible for that which happens. God just allowed for the fall.

Melissa writes:
"just as He now changes man's inclination from evil to good at regeneration. Otherwise how could man have fallen? "

Men still fall. Believers daily rebel and sin. The scripture shows the choice to sin.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, [i:cd60cded04]she took [/i:cd60cded04]of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Melissa, even now, my inclination is bent towards righteousness, yet, I still rebel at times.

And finally:
"Would it be wrong for God to do that, I mean change man's inclination from good to evil, if He had before ordained that man would fall and He would redeem some of the fallen and condemn the rest? In order to show His wrath and make His power known?"

Nothing God does is wrong. Everything He does is good and right. However, your outcome is correct, but the idea that God was involved _actively_ in the fall is erred.

In regards to what the Arminian believes. They have confused "choice". Their god is not the God of the scriptures, he is the god of their futile minds. Men indeed have choice. Adam had choice, Eve had choice, I have choice. But, in regards to salvation, God chooses. There is a big difference to what occurs before salvation and after salvation in regards to the choices we make. But wheb it comes to the salvific miracle, God chooses.

Jon 2:9 But I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay that that I have vowed. Salvation is of the LORD.

Joh 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Joh 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.


[Edited on 4-19-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
WSC
Q13: Did our first parents continue in the estate wherein they were created?
A13: Our first parents, being left to the freedom of their own will, fell from the estate wherein they were created, by sinning against God.

WLC
Q21: Did man continue in that estate wherein God at first created him?
A21: Our first parents being left to the freedom of their own will, through the temptation of Satan, transgressed the commandment of God in eating the forbidden fruit; and thereby fell from the estate of innocency wherein they were created.
 
[quote:a94c022440]
I'm not in the mood, nor do I have the time to read it.
[/quote:a94c022440]

When you are in the mood to learn something, read it.
 
I read your critique Matthew

I read the entire article.I have done so several times in the past also.I still do not believe that the PR church is
hyper-calvinistic based on what you wrote.Near the end of your article you list 9 points which indicates hyper-calvinism
or a tendency in that direction.At most only two of them apply to the PRC;points 7&9.That is hardly condemning.But
the main charge put to h-c's by many is that they do not preach to all and have no heart for missions.That simply won't stick to the PRC.Did you note my Hoeksema quotes?
Regarding John Gill:you didn't make a case there either.
Citing Murray on the issue is not a relable guide. Gill's "The
Cause of God and Truth"was one of hyper-calvinism's greater works you say.Do you also believe it is one of Christianity's greater works?It contained "unbridled hyper-calvinism"?That is quite a statement.Can you give some specifics?James Hervey and A.Toplady had a lot of praise for
Gill's works.Those were stalwart figures of the faith.Charles Spurgeon gave each of his twin sons copies of TCofGodand
Truth.Sounds like recommended reading to me.
Take a look at Gill's 1729 Particular Baptist Confession and
see if that is hypercalvinistic.If Dr. Gill was so saturated with that ill theological distortion it should show up in his confession.
I'm all for a discussion on these things.But please be careful in labeling some with an undesirable theological name without a fair examination first.
 
Before I cite Gill, Engelsma and the Standard Bearer on their HyperCalvinism, what did YOU think when you read Gill's, "Cause of God and Truth?" And have you followed the Standard Bearer (the official PRC newsletter)? Have you read Iain Murray's "Sprugeon vs. Hyper Calvinism" which documents some of Gill's mishaps in this way?

As to the points at the end of the article, you do not have to hold to all of them to be HC. Like with the PRC you just have to hold to one or two of them, and then base everything you say about the Gospel around those points (which is they do all through their Standard Bearer.)

Let me know, first, what you thought of those works when you read them....
 
Well...

....Thanks for the quick reply Matthew.When I read Gill I am
blessed.The entire Christian world would be edified to read him.Though I do think he is very wordy(the earlier Puritans
were also).He had a giant intellect and ardent love for the Lord.
I am a regular reader of the Standard Bearer on the web.I
think the articles are excellent.They are clear,reverent,and most of all biblical.However I am baptistic by conviction so I
do not follow them blindly in all particulars.
Mr.Murray did not establish his case in his book "Spurgeon
vs.H-C".Check out George M.Ella's website http://www.evangelicade Look at his open letters to the Founders.
You tell your members to get the Baker version of Pink's book.Mr.Murray was the main Banner man responsible for
removing one third of A.W.'s material.He employed the same tactics in S.vs.H-C.He uses quotes in a unique manner to support his theme.I know Mr.Murray personally.I think he is a gracious Christian gentleman.I admire him in many ways.But I can not agree with him in certain things.
 
Richard J. Mouw and Englelsma

In Sept of 2003 Richard J. Mouw, President of Fuller, and David Engelsma, Professor of theProtestant Reformed Theological School, debated issues related to Common Grace. I found it note worthy that Mouw did not even hint that the Engelsma/Hanko/Hoeksema position was hypercalvinistic.
 
Evangelical not hypercalvinist

Perhaps the easiest way to see that the position held by Hoeksema and the Protestant Reformed is evangelical and not hypercalvinist is to go to their website and click on phamphlet listing:
http://www.prca.org/

[Edited on 4-20-2004 by yeutter]
 
Learner -

Have you read "the Cause of God and Truth?"

I agree with you that there is much in Gill that is helpful, especially his hebrew work in his OT commentaries.
 
Dr.Gill

I have not read it in its entirety,no.But,earlier I asked you
if you are familiar with his 1729 Confession.Does it smack of
hyper-calvinism?Gordon Clark quotes Gill in positive ways in his books.I am a fan of Clark too,not Van Till.

~Learner,
You have a u2u.
Scott

[Edited on 4-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
Yes. Clark destroys Van Tillian epistemology and logic :gunfire:

I too believe the PRC cannot be labeled as hyper-Calvinism. Granted they often focus and emphasize the compound sense, but this is not hyper-Calvinism. I can play the same game with many of today's Reformed churches (especially those who teach a double will in God and the doctrine of common grace) that focus and emphasize the divided sense by labeling them as hypo-Calvinist.

JWJ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

moral necessity
  • Locked
Calvinism and Hyper-Spurgeonism - ?
Replies
6
Views
3K
MW
M
Y
  • Locked
Hyper-Calvinism
Replies
6
Views
1K
yeutter
Y
Scott Shahan
  • Locked
Hyper-Calvinism
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
AV1611
A
JM
  • Locked
Hyper Calvinism Defined?
2 3
Replies
73
Views
11K
JM
JM
Machaira
  • Locked
Historic Calvinism Versus Hyper-Calvinism
Replies
8
Views
3K
Machaira
Machaira
Back
Top