Greetings me fellow theologians;
For the past several weeks I have been reading articles from Southern Baptist circles on "Hyper Calvinism", and to tell you the truth I am sick and tired of all the crap that gets to pass for honest scholarly essays. I honestly can not help but ask myself after I read some of these articles, "Where in the world did this asinine jacka-nape get his T.H.D. from?" It seems as if some of these professional theologians can not even use a term properly, nor can they read the plain black and white pages that are in every historical theology text book. Dr. Caner of Liberty University is a chief example of this foolishness. He wrote an article in the Liberty newspaper entitled, "Predestined not to be a Hyper-Calvinist." In this article he uses two terms to describe the modern day Calvinist movement in Southern Baptist circles as, "Hyper-Calvinist" and "Neo-Calvinist". Perhaps it is slightly un-orthodox but I shall start with the latter term and then the former. A great example of a "Neo-Calvinist" would be Francis Schaeffer. The term applies to a movement started principally in the Dutch church in the 19th century that tried to be "Reformational" instead of "Reformed". What that means is that Neo-Calvinist are trying to take the principles of Scripture and apply them to every area of their life. Christ is Lord over all of life. Though I do not agree with Schaeffer when it comes to Christians being active in political circles, I do agree with many of the philosophical principles about the Bible affecting all points of the believers life that he espouses.( I really do not see how Calvinist and Neo-Calvinism differ philosophical speaking. In practice Calvinist are not very politically active unlike Neo-Calvinist, but that is practice not belief.) When Caner uses this term he completely changes the meaning. He defines a Neo-Calvinist as "
A Hyper Calvinist with a twist. He cannot discuss anything without referencing Calvinism. For the "Neo-Calvinist," you are either Reformed, or you are teaching heresy. It is the prism through which every doctrine is filtered." Now, the reference that these Neo-Calvinsts filter all doctrines through the Calvinist system could be some very, and I repeat, very vague reference to the actual meaning of the term. However, I must say that it is both wrong and slanderous to equate Neo-Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism. They are two separate ideologies all together. Perhaps I am being to hard on Dr. Caner, and maybe he will accurately define Hyper-Calvinism and salvage some of his theological dignity. Not quite the case. He defines Hyper-Calvinism as: 1. Double Predestination,2.Not all babies who die go to heaven., 3.GodÂs "love for mankind" must be redefined; 4. Invitations are an insult to the sovereignty of God; 5.Calvinism is the only Gospel.
This definition of Hyper-Calvinism is hardly what I would expect from thepresentt of a Seminary.Hyper-Calvinsim is when someone takes the points of Calvinsim andpervertss them into some very unbiblical doctrine i.e. because God is sovereign their is no need for evangelism. The first point of double predestination is not unique to Hyper-Calvinsim, it is a part of any form of Calvinsim. Point two is some what of anenigmaticc statement. The full text of point two is: "
They do not say outright that "non-elect babies who die go to hell." They simply say that they leave such issues to the sovereignty of God. This raises the issue of the very nature of God, doesnÂt it? Thankfully, most theologians through the centuries have denied this teaching." Hm... that is a contradiction. First Caner accuses thessooe called Hyper-Calvinists of saying the not all babies go to heaven, and then he says that they do not out right say it but just leave to up to God. If these so called Hyper-Calvinist say not all babies go to heaven, why then would they say that they do not know and that they will leave that question up to the sovereignty of God? Oh foolish Caner, they can not possibly say both ideas for they contradict one another. I, and I am no Hyper-Calvinist, believe that God is not required to send all babies who die to heaven on the grounds that upon the moment of their conception they become fully human individuals. As such they are slod under sin and are liable to thjudgmentnt of God. Yet, the Scripture does not plainly say where they go. I must therefore declare that I do not know, but shall leave that decision to the wisdom and mercy of God. Point three is once again an improper description of HypeCalvinismsm. personallyly do not believe that God loves everyone. I do believe that He loves people out of every tribtonguege and nation (For God so loved the World). I also believe that several verses state that God has a general benevolence, and does not take improper pleasure in the death of a sinner like the proverbial spectator in thecoliseumum. (To be continued...)