tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post3091344296586194231..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: God moves in mysterious waysRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43807443732846749542015-09-26T00:52:20.314-04:002015-09-26T00:52:20.314-04:00i) Phil does many useful things. However, he's...i) Phil does many useful things. However, he's a popularizer of popularizers (MacArthur, Spurgeon). It's not as if that's an authoritative definition of hyper-Calvinism.<br /><br />ii) It's worse than useless to have a term that's stretched to cover several miscellaneous issues. That's just a pretext to create guilt-by-association.<br /><br />iii) It's a stimulative definition by critics. The whole tendentious exercise is a well-poisoning. <br /><br />iv) Labeling doesn't make something true or false. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79159082915423096762015-09-26T00:44:48.760-04:002015-09-26T00:44:48.760-04:00I'm not here to play 21 questions. Moreover, I...I'm not here to play 21 questions. Moreover, I've already addressed my stance on these issues over the years. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-14781203871291219372015-09-25T13:23:56.305-04:002015-09-25T13:23:56.305-04:00In his A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism, Phil Johnson s...In his <a href="http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm" rel="nofollow">A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism</a>, Phil Johnson states:<br /><br /><i>A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:<br /><br />1 Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR<br /><br />2 Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR<br /><br />3 Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR<br /><br />4 Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR<br /><br />5 Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect. </i><br /><br />Before the list he wrote the following caveat.<br /><br /><i>The definition I am proposing outlines five varieties of hyper-Calvinism, listed here in a declining order, from the worst kind to a less extreme variety (which some might prefer to class as "ultra-high Calvinism"):</i><br /><br />Steve, maybe in the future you could write a blog that quickly addresses your stance on each of those 5 points.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-75446058567797774282015-09-24T23:29:21.026-04:002015-09-24T23:29:21.026-04:00I take the position of Paul Helm and William Young...I take the position of Paul Helm and William Young:<br /><br />http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2009/02/language-and-theology-of-free-offer.html<br /><br />http://reformedpresbyterianveritasdocuments.blogspot.com/2009/01/free-offer-of-gospel-dr-william-young.html<br /><br />I hold Carson in high esteem, but I think his analysis is flawed in this instance by his failure to take adequately into account the ethical connotations of kosmos in Johannine usage. I think Andrew Lincoln is better than Carson on Jn 3:16, and I prefer Karen Jobes on the parallel passages in 1 John. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-60337498258539198192015-09-24T18:56:18.685-04:002015-09-24T18:56:18.685-04:00Lots of good points here, but I have a bone to pic...Lots of good points here, but I have a bone to pick with your last one. As a Calvinist, I object to your characterization of Calvinism as holding that God doesn't love everyone. I was pretty sure that was one of the theses classically held to be part of hyper-Calvinism, but I don't see any mention of that in the Wikipedia entry. I'm not going to take the time now to look further than that.<br /><br />Do you really think there's no sense in which God loves everyone? Carson makes a pretty good case in <i>The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God</i> that there are different sense of the terms for love as used in scripture and that on at least one of them scripture teaches that God loves everyone, even if that's not so for every sense of the term. I would have expected you to hold a similar view. Or are you just simplifying things in this post?Jeremy Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441308872350317672noreply@blogger.com