Saturday, April 10, 2010

Dr. James Galyon Against Hyper-Calvinism

Dr. James Galyon has an interesting post on the topic of Hyper-Calvinism. He provides a long list of items that he views as Hyper-Calvinism, many of which I would agree with. I may not agree with him in every last detail in his definition. For example, he includes as one form of hyper-Calvinism: "Scripture is to be interpreted only by individuals, not by the Church." While that position is wrong, I wouldn't necessarily see it being an error under the umbrella of hyper-Calvinism.

Here's his post.

Enjoy!

- TurretinFan

6 comments:

Rev. said...

Thanks for the link. Just for the sake of clarification... not all hyper-Calvinists would say, "The Bible is to be interpreted by individuals, not by the Church," but that very thought seems to flow within the current of some hyper-Calvinistic thought. On the other hand, I believe one who declares justification to be eternal as an automatic hyper-Calvinist. I may need to rearrange my list a bit... Thanks again for the link.

Turretinfan said...

Notice that his list say eternal and "not in time." While there may be a sense in which justification is "eternal," one kind of hyper-calvnist error lies in relegating justification entirely to eternity.

Publius said...

Some of these errors are obscure.

1.) Not believing in evangelism is a straw man used against Calvinists.
2.) Who believes that one must believe in Limited Atonement before he can "hear the gospel and be saved?"
3.) Who believes that "saving faith is equivalent to believing predestination?"
4.) Who believes that if "if you preach the gospel to the wrong person, the wrong person might get saved?"

Turretinfan said...

"1.) Not believing in evangelism is a straw man used against Calvinists."

Agreed... it's a hyper-Calvinistic error, not a Calvinism.

"2.) Who believes that one must believe in Limited Atonement before he can 'hear the gospel and be saved?'"

Hopefully few people. There are some who in essence seem to believe this.

"3.) Who believes that 'saving faith is equivalent to believing predestination?'"

That's similar to (2). The wording may be a bit off. There are some people believe that if you reject predestination you lack saving faith.

"4.) Who believes that if 'if you preach the gospel to the wrong person, the wrong person might get saved?'"

I don't know anyone who thinks that. It sounds like a bizarre combination of Arminianism and Calvinism.

- TurretinFan

Pete Hoge said...

Either or God is God and
does what He pleases so a
dense theology is prideful.

Its fun to let the 5 Solas
and T.U.L.I.P be a source
for contemplation but they
are the wisdom of man.

We don't know what God will
do ultimately; though we might
think the Bible is ultra-clear
and final in it's revelation

I feel like a cub in the alpha
lion's den with my comment
but I figure it doesn't hurt
to chime in.

Pete.

Turretinfan said...

Pete:

Naturally, Holy Scriptures ought to be our source. Nevertheless, it is proper to contemplate the wisdom and power of God.

The five solas and TULIP are some ways that people honor God by glorifying His power and wisdom.

- TurretinFan