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.
Enjoy!
– TurretinFan
13 responses to “Dr. James Galyon Against Hyper-Calvinism”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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?”
"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
“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
Either or God is God anddoes what He pleases so adense theology is prideful.Its fun to let the 5 Solasand T.U.L.I.P be a sourcefor contemplation but theyare the wisdom of man.We don't know what God willdo ultimately; though we might think the Bible is ultra-clearand final in it's revelationI feel like a cub in the alphalion's den with my commentbut I figure it doesn't hurtto chime in.Pete.
Either or God is God anddoes what He pleases so adense theology is prideful.Its fun to let the 5 Solasand T.U.L.I.P be a sourcefor contemplation but theyare the wisdom of man.We don't know what God willdo ultimately; though we might think the Bible is ultra-clearand final in it's revelationI feel like a cub in the alphalion's den with my commentbut I figure it doesn't hurtto chime in.Pete.
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
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
Just thought you might want to know that your link to Dr James Galyon's article is broken. WordPress.com has suspended his site “for a violation the Terms of Service.” No further information was given on the site.