Herman Hoeksema's Whosoever Will and hyper-calvinism

[yeutter]

Clark, Hoeksema and the OPC

I agree. Is the position you hold consistant with the position of the OPC congregation you attend?

 

[Learner]

I don't know where this posting should go

Wow!We are covering Hoeksema (and the PRC),Gill,Clark
etc.Now I'll add John Murray and Robert Reymond to the mix.
In Reymond's Systematic Theology he disagrees with
Dr.Murray's "The Free Offer of the Gospel"(as I do also).He
says on page 693..."All such reasoning imputes irrationality
to God,and the passages upon which Murray relies for his conclusions can all be legitimately interpreted in such a way
that the Christian is not forced to impute such irrationality to
God."
He then refers readers to a better interpretation...John
Gill's "The Cause Of God And Truth".He gives no hyper-calvin-
istic waning concerning Gill.
In A.W.Pink's works he quotes Gill quite a lot but never to my knowledge indicates a hyper-calvinistic bent to that man
of God.
I said that because Pink denounces hyper-calvinism ,especially among the Gospel Standard folks.He does this in several of his works but primarily in "Man's Total
Depravity".

 

[JWJ]

[quote:adaedfcb18][i:adaedfcb18]Originally posted by yeutter[/i:adaedfcb18]
I agree. Is the position you hold consistant with the position of the OPC congregation you attend? [/quote:adaedfcb18]

I am not sure. The congregation is rather small (a 2 year old church plant) and I have been only attending since Jan of this year. The pastor and I have not had time to discuss this issue. Though in our breif discussion of epsistemology he admits he is Van Tilian.

JWJ

 

[Learner]

I'm bringing this back up again

I thought I might as well keep it on this same thread.I wanted to make some comments on John Gill and the constant drumbeat of his supposed hyper-calvinism. Matt's article on hyper-calvinism wrongly claims that Gill and the PRC are in theological error in this regard.But for now I want to stick with Gill.At the end of his article he names a "John" Hussey.It is Joseph.Hussey was indeed a H-C.But for most of his ministry he was not.He lived from 1659-1726.Gill lived from 1697-1771.It wasn't until 1707 that Hussey released :"God's Operations of Grace:But no ofers of Grace".He was 48 then, only 19 years before his death.Gill never met him.Hussey's friend John Skepp (1670-1721) was hypercalvinistic but sparated from Hussey 1n 1709.Gill only liked some writings of his that had nothing to do with H-C.
I have to go now.More soon.

 

[Ianterrell]

I highly recommend Herman Hanko's informative defense of the biblical method of Gospel presentation. His book/tract The History of the Free Offer tracks the history of the free offer language through the Christian tradition. Very interesting piece, no matter what side you end up on.

I personally would probably be labeled a Hyper-Calvinist by some of the broader definitions.

 

[Learner]

Herman Hanko

Right you are Ian.I think the PRC are sounder on a number of biblical doctrines than many reformed denominations.Hanko has a good book on the parables of our Lord also.
And,because of your reading,you have discovered that much of what the Marrowmen taught was hollow.Hanko has some good articles on the theology of the Marrowmen on the PRC website.

 

[Learner]

Now,back to what I was discussing before...

In a book review of "The Life and times of John Gill"George Ella says that :"Gill's interest in Skeep was chiefly because of his receiving a Particular Baptist Fund grant to buy up the deceased Skeep's Hebrew grammars and commentaries."
In Dr.Tom Nettles book:"By His Grace and For His Glory"he contends that Hussey's views and methods were "completely alien to the method and spirit of Gill."(page 104).
Nettles quotes Ivimey quoting Gill around 1750:"...the harvest is great and the faithful and painful ministers are few.There are scarcely any that care for the estate and souls of men,and who are heartily concerned for their spiritual welfare:all comparatively seek their own things,their honor and applause from men,their ease,reputation,and riches;and none or few the things that are Jesus Christ's,or which relate to his honor,glory,kingdom,and interest in the world."(page 99)
Does that sound hyper-calvinistic?Far from it!
Regarding Matthew 11:28:Come unto Me.Gill says in 1746:..."By which is meant,not a local coming,or a coming to hear him preach;...nor is it a bare coming under the ordinances of Christ,the going out of the soul to him,in the exercise of grace on him,of desire after him,love to him,faith and hope in him:believing in Christ,and coming to him,are terms synonymous john 6:35.Those who come to Christ aright,come as sinners,to a full,suitable,able,and willing Saviour;venture their souls upon him,and trust in him for righteousness,life,and salvation,which they are encouraged to do,by this kind of invitation;which shews his willingness to save,and his readiness to give relief to distressed minds."(pages 101and 102).
Hypercalvinistic?No way!
Nettles says on pages 106 and 107 the following:"The nomenclature of hyper-Calvinist in speaking of Gill must be questioned seriously in light of his clear,perceptive zeal for the gospel,his earnestness of desire for the salvation of his hearers,his statements regarding the perpetuity of the law as exhibited in the gospel,and his belief concerning the blameworthiness of rejecting the gospel message and all it contains.And perhaps,rather than imputing blame upon Gill for the leanness of the times,he should be credited with preserving gospel purity,which eventuated in the efforts to use means for the conversion of the heathen."

 

[Ianterrell]

Yes my friend Eric Sigward made me aware of the Marrow Controversy. Basically its all about Limited Atonement at the end of the day. The Marrow Men like all men are fallible men. It's unfortunate their problems have seeped into so many authors ideas of preaching.

I'm thankful to God for his gifts to the church, men that are willing to stand against the tide of inconsistent Calvinism. It's very common that Calvinists will groan when they see an Arminian say "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life". Its also common for a Calvinist to preach the same thing to a sinner in so many words. We say in our systematics that "Christ died for the elect alone", and then we turn to our unregenerate neighbor and tell him that "Christ died for him".

 

[jacobiloved]

I think this is the best place to post this link ....... this is an interesting page listing all the friends and all the "foes" and the dirt keeps flying over Hyper Calvinism ......... It's interesting to see who the writer ? doesn't pick on and who he does....... this may need reading several times

http://www.evangelica.de/Hyper_Calvinism_and_the_Gospel_Call.htm

 

[yeutter]

J. C. Philpot and the Gospel Standard types seem to object to the idea that the Church has a duty to preach the Gospel to all man kind.

Am I misreading them at this point?

If I am not, then that would seem to make them hypercalvinists.

 

[jacobiloved]

Originally posted by yeutter
J. C. Philpot and the Gospel Standard types seem to object to the idea that the Church has a duty to preach the Gospel to all man kind.

Am I misreading them at this point?

If I am not, then that would seem to make them hypercalvinists.

It is true , and they have 3 articles that need an overhaul , they are perhaps the only Doctrinally hyper-Calvinist Church left , though many can be Hyper Calvinist in spirit regardless of denomination.

 

[Ianterrell]

Originally posted by webmaster
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.

Gill is my favorite Baptist preacher/theologian.

 

[polemic_turtle]

Well, I've always wondered what this would do. Light it up, throw it in, and watch what happens! ;-)

Has anyone ever read Gill's chapter on God's love in his Body of Divinity? In it, he says:

1b. All that God has made is the object of his love; all the works of creation, when he had made them, he looked over them, and saw that they were good, "very good", (Gen. 1:31) he was well pleased, and delighted with them; yea, he is said to "rejoice in his works", (Ps. 104:31) he upholds all creatures in their beings, and is the Preserver of all, both men and beasts; and is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works, (Ps. 36:6, 145:9) and particularly, rational creatures are the objects of his care, love, and delight: he loves the holy angels, and has shown his love to them in choosing them to happiness; hence they are called "elect angels", (1 Tim. 5:21) by making Christ the head of them, by whom they are confirmed in the estate in which they were created, (Col. 2:10) and by admitting them into his presence, allowing them to stand before him, and behold his face, (Matthew 18:10) yea, even the devils, as they are the creatures of God, are not hated by him, but as they are apostate spirits from him: and so he bears a general love to all men, as they are his creatures, his offspring, and the work of his hands; he supports them, preserves them, and bestows the bounties of his providence in common upon them, (Acts 17:28, 14:17; Matthew 5:45) but he bears a special love to elect men in Christ; which is called his "great love", (Eph. 2:4) whom he has chosen and blessed with all spiritual blessings in him, (Eph. 1:3, 4) and which love is distinguishing and discriminating (Mal 1:1, 2; Rom. 9:11, 12).

Surely no-one will say that he's in Hoeksema's camp on this, right? They really couldn't be further from each other on this issue, as far as I can see. From what I know, I believe Gill represents a othodox reformed view on this, at least as far as men are concerned. Read the old systematics and tell me what you find. I believe they will all admit that God has a love of benevolence toward all creatures in general, especially to rational creatures.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by polemic_turtle
...
Has anyone ever read Gill's chapter on God's love in his Body of Divinity? In it, he says:

1b. All that God has made is the object of his love; all the works of creation, when he had made them, he looked over them, and saw that they were good, "very good", (Gen. 1:31) he was well pleased, and delighted with them; yea, he is said to "rejoice in his works", (Ps. 104:31) he upholds all creatures in their beings, and is the Preserver of all, both men and beasts; and is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works, (Ps. 36:6, 145:9)

.... I believe they will all admit that God has a love of benevolence toward all creatures in general, especially to rational creatures.

I've got that section from Gill's Doctrinal Divinity - Chapter 12 "Of The Love Of God" and was looking up the verses. When I got to Ps 145:9 I read on and found Ps 145:20

Psalm
145:9 The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
145:20 The Lord preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy.

Interesting that.

I'll have to see if Gill adresses that verse.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by polemic_turtle
...
Has anyone ever read Gill's chapter on God's love in his Body of Divinity? In it, he says:

... and is the Preserver of all, both men and beasts; and is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works, (Ps. 36:6, 145:9)

.... I believe they will all admit that God has a love of benevolence toward all creatures in general, especially to rational creatures.

I've got that section from Gill's Doctrinal Divinity - Chapter 12 "Of The Love Of God" and was looking up the verses. When I got to Ps 145:9 I read on and found Ps 145:20

Psalm
145:9 The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
145:20 The Lord preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy.

Interesting that.

I'll have to see if Gill adresses that verse.

Here's Gill's commentary on verse 9:

Psa 145:9 - The Lord is good to all,.... Which is to be understood not of the general and providential goodness of God to all men, to all his creatures, and the works of his hands; but of the special goodness of Christ before mentioned, Psa_145:7; which extends to all the chosen people of God; who are all loved by Christ, redeemed by him, justified and glorified by him; and to Gentiles as well as Jews; for whom he tasted death, laid down his life a ransom for them, and became the propitiation for their sins. Hence his Gospel has been sent to both; and some of each have been effectually called by his grace, and more will. This shows this psalm belongs to Gospel times, in which the grace of Christ appears more large and extensive:

and his tender mercies are over all his works; meaning not all the creatures his hands have made; though he has a tender regard to them, and is kind and merciful to them all; but such as are made new creatures in him and by him, who are eminently called his workmanship, the work of his hands; these, all of them, share in his special mercy and goodness; see Eph_2:10.

So it seems Gill says this verse is not about God's love to all his creation, but to his creation made anew in Christ - God's choosen.

And for verse 20

Psa 145:20 - The Lord preserveth all them that love him,.... All do not love Christ, none but those that are born again, and believe in him: love to Christ is a fruit of the Spirit, and accompanies faith in him; it flows from the love of Christ shed into the heart, and from a view of his loveliness, and a sense of his benefits; and, where it is true and genuine, it is superlative and sincere, and shows itself by a regard to its truths and ordinances, to his people, ways, and worship: and such the Lord preserves often in times of public calamity; and from the evil of sin, the dominion of it; from Satan's temptations, from being devoured and destroyed by him; and from a final and total falling away; he preserves them to his kingdom and glory, which is promised to them that love him;

but all the wicked will he destroy; he will consume them from off the earth, so that the wicked shall be no more; he will destroy the man of sin, and all his adherents; all the enemies of Christ, those that do not love him, but oppose him, his Gospel, kingdom, and interest; the beast and false prophet, with all that attend them, shall be cut off; the day of the Lord, like an oven, shall burn up all that do wickedly, and shall leave them neither root nor branch: this will especially be true at the day of judgment, when the wicked shall be ordered to everlasting fire; and they shall go into eternal punishment, when they shall be turned into hell; and all the nations that forget God. Kimchi interprets this of future time, when there shall not be a wicked man left in the world, and compares it with Mal_4:1.

 

[Civbert]

Ironically, the Wikipedia article on Hyper-Calvinism lists John Gill as one ("to some extent"). It doesn't mention Hoeksema.

 

[Magma2]

Arminianism denies the Biblical picture of God’s complete sovereignty and stresses the “free-will” of man. Hyper-Calvinism stresses the complete sovereignty of God at the expense of the “free-will” man. Thus, instead of remedying the problem, they deny the doctrine instead. Though the Bible is emphatic on the responsibility of men in their duty towards God, Hyper-Calvinism would deny this out rightly.

At the risk of having another of my postings censored by the Puritan Board police (I found out the hard way that any criticism of Pastor Morecraft and his willingness to publish FV men like Richard Gaffin Jr. in his little magazine, The Counsel of Chalcedon, will not pass the censors), I have a couple of problems with Dr. McMahon’s short explanation of H-C in his piece; All house and no doors: A Brief Critique of the False Teachings of Hyper-Calvinism.

While McMahon makes a number of solid points, the piece is mixed with some, well, sloppiness, like the paragraph above. Calvinism has never defined “free-will” in the same way as the Arminian, nor is “free-will” in any sense necessary to the definition of responsibility (see Reymond’s discussion of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility in his S/T and Clark’s discussion of the same in Religion, Reason and Revelation). However, the above leaves the impression that unless one accepts the Arminian view of free-will they’re H-C and this most certainly not the case nor does it follow.

His decrees, from the foundation of world, are to damn some men and save others by His good pleasure alone. Calvinism believes this, but the “this” is qualified. Hyper-Calvinism believes this without a qualification. The qualification is this – men cannot be saved or damned without being fallen. The Hyper-Calvinist teaches that God saves and damns as a result of God’s pleasure, without consideration of man’s fallen state. This is to hold creatures responsible for sin they have not committed, or have not had imputed to them.

. . . Thus, Hyper-Calvinism teaches that men do not come to Christ because he is lost, but because He is saved. This is not the Gospel at all.

. . . The Hyper-Calvinist says that preaching to lost men is a denial of Total Depravity and the Sovereignty of God.

The above all may be true of H-Cs, but since the piece starts out accusing both Gill and the entire PRC of being H-C it would have been helpful, as well the responsible thing to do, to have shown, at least briefly, exactly where these men have taught these doctrines? A footnote or two would have been nice. I’ve read a considerable amount of PRC literature, including HH’s Dogmatics, plus quite a bit of Gill and have never read anything close to any of the above mentioned doctrines in any of their works. Now, did Gill, Hoeksema and the entire PRC teach all of the above mentioned doctrines and others mentioned in the McMahon piece? Perhaps, but not in anything I recall ever reading.

For what it's worth I’ve seen Gordon Clark and even Dr. Reymond slathered with that same tar brush. Phil Johnson was out and about some years ago trying to paint Clark’s face black as well. So, without more evidence (and, no, I’m not going to by his book), I think Dr. McMahon’s piece is more than a little irresponsible and not all that helpful (which is unusual given most of what I've read by him). I realize McMahon was just trying to just frame the issue of HC, however in my opinion that when painting trim it's better to use a trim brush rather than a roller.

 

[MW]

Good points. Arminians do not teach free-will, they teach the indifference of the will. I would only add that hyper-Calvinists believe in preaching the gospel to all men. They deny that the grace of God should be offered to the unrenewed sinner in preaching.

 

[JM]

Johnson’s definition is too broad.

[Edited on 10-17-2006 by JM]

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by armourbearer
Good points. Arminians do not teach free-will, they teach the indifference of the will. I would only add that hyper-Calvinists believe in preaching the gospel to all men. They deny that the grace of God should be offered to the unrenewed sinner in preaching.

Is "unrenewed" the same as "not regenerate"?

 

[Magma2]

Originally posted by JM
Johnson’s definition is too broad.

Indeed it is. Johnson is about the worst with the possible exception of the Amyraldian David Ponter who posts here. in my opinion there is arguably more danger coming from the anti-H-C folks then those few who may genuinely have fallen into some of the errors of H-C. Sometimes too I think there is some traditionalist and Presbyterian bigotry that goes along with some of this as well. I think it is too often just a convenient label that enemies of a consistent and coherent faith can use as a club against those they disagree. It's a lot easier than having to come up with a biblically sound argument against an opponent.

I've seen the label attached to those who teach that Arminianism is another gospel (in that regard I have to think Dr. McMahon has been the target of that tar brush). Rev. Winzer above has been accused of being H-C because he refused to bow to the anti-Christian doctrine of the so-called "Well Meant Offer" and even took John Murray to task on this score and in print. I've mentioned Gordon Clark too for refusing to bow to Van Til and associates on this same doctrinal point during the height of the Clark/VT controversy. If these men are H-C then doesn’t H-C lose all its meaning? Basically for most a denial of the WMO, with or without the additional denial of the doctrine of common grace, is tantamount to H-C. It's pure knee jerk and generally with about as much thought attached.

 

[JM]

I've been called a hyper-Calvinist because I believe in justification from eternity...these same folks that call me a hyper will not walk the streets and hand out tracts or confront people with the Gospel with me...and I'm the hyper?



[Edited on 10-17-2006 by JM]

 

[Magma2]

Originally posted by JM
I've been called a hyper-Calvinist because I believe in justification from eternity...

Which would make the originator of the modern doctrine of common grace, Abraham Kuyper, a H-C.

 

[PresReformed]

Originally posted by armourbearer
Good points. Arminians do not teach free-will, they teach the indifference of the will. I would only add that hyper-Calvinists believe in preaching the gospel to all men. They deny that the grace of God should be offered to the unrenewed sinner in preaching.

 

[PresReformed]

Originally posted by armourbearer
Good points. Arminians do not teach free-will, they teach the indifference of the will. I would only add that hyper-Calvinists believe in preaching the gospel to all men. They deny that the grace of God should be offered to the unrenewed sinner in preaching.

oops! Still new to this.

Matthew,
Isn't it more like people are labelled hypers that don't believe that grace is offered to the reprobate? That there is no offer of grace from the preacher, only an outward call? That only the inward call of the Holy Spirit is grace offered, and that only to the elect?

 

[PresReformed]

Originally posted by jacobiloved

Originally posted by yeutter
J. C. Philpot and the Gospel Standard types seem to object to the idea that the Church has a duty to preach the Gospel to all man kind.

Am I misreading them at this point?

If I am not, then that would seem to make them hypercalvinists.

It is true , and they have 3 articles that need an overhaul , they are perhaps the only Doctrinally hyper-Calvinist Church left , though many can be Hyper Calvinist in spirit regardless of denomination.

JC Philpot? I've heard him labelled a hyper before, but I've never read anything of his that would lead me to believe that that is true. Do you have any examples of his hyper-calvinism?

 

[JM]

does God see the elect as not elect until they believe?

 

[AV1611]

...does anyone know if Hoeksema was a hyper-calvinist?

Herman Hoeksema was in no way a hyper-Calvinist. What there has been in recent years is a redefinition of hypercalvinism as can be seen in Phil Johnson's Primer. Could HH have better phrased himself at times? Most probably. Was he a hypercalvinism? No! This is self evident when one reads this: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_40.html

 

[AV1611]

I would only add that hyper-Calvinists believe in preaching the gospel to all men. They deny that the grace of God should be offered to the unrenewed sinner in preaching.

Not at all! They deny that it is the duty of all to believe and so refuse to call out "repent" or "believe". As for the term offer one must define what one means by that...does it mean present and show forth as the latin means or are you pouring Arminianism into the term offer? The Banner of Truth do the latter.

 

[AV1611]

Johnson’s definition is too broad.

[Edited on 10-17-2006 by JM]

Not only that it is wholly incorrect. Historicall hyperism has only been understood as the first two points i.e. refusing to preach to all and denying duty-faith.