As we know, hyper-Calvinism is a heinous error, one which by God's providence I have had occasion to deal with about a month ago in the controversy with P-Net. In this light, Dr. James Galyon has given us a succinct definition as to what hyper-Calvinism is, which is defined as holding to any one of these beliefs:
- God is the author of sin and evil
- Human beings have absolutely no will whatsoever
- Individuals are not responsible for their own decisions and actions
- Justification occurs in eternity, not in time
- God does not command all people to repent of sin
- Not everyone is required to believe upon Christ Jesus for salvation
- God creates unbelief in the hearts of the non-elect
- Assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith
- Election is evident simply by a profession of faith, regardless of sanctification(antinomianism)
- Saving faith is equivalent to believing predestination (only “Calvinists” are Christians)
- Limited atonement must be believed in order to hear the gospel and be saved
- Evangelism is unnecessary, or even wrong
- God has no love whatsoever for humanity in His providence (common grace)
From my interaction with the hyper-Calvinists at P-Net, I would like to offer this additional point:
- There is no real fundamental difference between God's decrees and their executions
For more info, see also:
All House and No Doors by C. Matthew McMahon
The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism by Peter Toon
[HT: Turretinfan]
4 comments:
"God is the author of sin and evil"
Questionable... depending on how you define author of sin and evil. If you define it the way the Westminster defines it then yes. But if you as the average person what he understands when he hears the phrase "author of evil", the predominant understanding is that God "is the ultimate cause".
It is in this light that Cheung's definition and use of the word makes more sense since it is the instinctive understanding of most people who first hear the phrase "author of sin".
@Joel:
well, as defined by the WCF. =P
I've actually done a very informal survey among friends both Christians and non-Christian asking them how they understand the phrase "author of sin"... and majority of the time, they actually understand it to mean "ultimate cause of sin" rather than the WCF definition.
Like I mentioned before, perhaps the definition in the earlier baptist confession is more useful when it writes that God is not the [chargable] author of evil. That would give them impression that God is the ultimate cause of Sin (or author of sin in most people's understanding) but yet cannot be charged with evil.
@Joel:
ok.
Post a Comment