Apr 21, 2008

More Examples of Hyperism?

"If you tell them that there is no such thing as decisional regeneration they will call you a heretic." (abclay)

In writing to agree with such statements by brother Clay, Todd Pruitt writes:

"In fact, as I have preached from such passages as John 3 I have lamented to my congregation that I grew up being taught that the new birth was the result of something we do. "If you want to be born again then do these three things." What a distortion of Jesus own words! Instead, I preach to them that the only reason we repent and have faith is because of the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. Your point is important because Southern Baptists will proclaim "amazing grace" all day but ultimately make man the decisive factor in his salvation."

http://www.founders.org/blog/?ext-ref=comm-sub-email

It is these kinds of remarks that are doing more, I believe, to hinder any "resurgence" of genuine Calvinism (of the kind Spurgeon believed and taught) rather than promoting or 'recovering' it! It is truly ironic! These comments were made in the "Founders Blog," the blog of Tom Ascol. They followed my comments there and which I have posted here in the Baptist Gadfly.

First, most of the "Reformed Baptists" and "Founder's" friendly churches, it seems to me, are not promoting or recovering Calvinism but Hyper Calvinism. If one would simply take time to collect all the anti invitation writings and all the writings condemning the calling upon people to be saved, or born again, and other such writings, written by these brethren, it would become apparent that they are nothing like Spurgeon and the real Old Baptists of the order of Bunyan, Kiffin, and Keach, etc. If these Calvinists were alive today I am sure that their evangelistic appeals to the lost would likewise be ridiculed by the "Reformers" in the Southern Baptist churches.

So, what is wrong with what the brethren wrote above?

First, it shows how they have drifted towards Hyper Calvinism. It shows they accept ideas about regeneration and the new birth that is exactly what the Hardshell Baptists teach. If you go to a Hardshell Baptist Church you will hear all kinds of statements like those made by brothers Clay and Todd above.

It shows that these brethren do not understand how salvation is both conditional and unconditional, a major misunderstanding among Hyper Calvinists.

I have a series planned for my ongoing book on "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" where I plan to deal with this important issue. Our Baptist forefathers taught that regeneration was both conditional and unconditional, although in different senses. They certainly did not believe that the sinner did not act at all in his resurrection and rebirth! They certainly did not exclude the sinner coming to a decision about Christ in that work!

Will the Hyperists tell us that they believe there is no decision for Christ in regeneration? That seems to be exactly what they are saying!

The passage that says - "thy people will be willing in the day of thy power" has always been interpreted by Baptists, Calvinist or otherwise, to be words describing the regeneration and rebirth of the sinner. Will they now say that to preach this is to preach what they decry as "decisional regeneration"?

Believing is a decision! Have we forgotten that? Will these Hyperists become full blown Hardshells and say that there is no decisions made by the sinner in regeneration?

Do these brethren actually believe that the sinner does not "DO" anything in regeneration? Who is born or who comes forth from the grave of sin? Does God do this for them? Is God born or resurrected? Who is it that "comes forth"? Is "coming forth" not activity? Who believes and repents, God or the sinner?

Besides, is not "coming to Christ" equated with "believing in Christ"? And, is not "believing" in Christ not the same as "deciding" for Christ?

If one will look at some of the chapters in my book, especially in that series "Addresses to the Lost," he will see that the scriptures are filled with gospel commands and invitations that call upon the sinner to "make himself a new heart," and to "come forth from the dead," and such like.

The problem with the Hyperist is that he wants to make the sinner wholly passive in regeneration. I also plan to have a series dealing with this issue also, perhaps in the series on "Paradigm Problems."

I would ask the Hyperist in the "Reformed" camp, just as I do the Hardshells, - "when Christ calls men to come to him, is he not calling upon them to be saved and born again?"

In closing, let me say that the error of Arminians, in the Southern Baptist churches, in giving "invitations" (often after the order of the "Campbellites" with their "five step plan"), is not in what they say, but in what they generally do not say. They would do well to follow Spurgeon just as well as the Hyperist.

Spurgeon would call upon the dead to live, to decide for Christ, but he would always warn the sinner to always look to Christ for the power to do as the gospel demands. This is where many Arminian Baptists are erring perhaps. Yes, command the sinner to do! But, tell him also that he cannot do without Christ. That is a method that truly "works"!

7 comments:

SS&SG said...

Stephen,
You have written, "First, most of the "Reformed Baptists" and "Founder's" friendly churches, it seems to me, are not promoting or recovering Calvinism but Hyper Calvinism. If one would simply take time to collect all the anti invitation writings and all the writings condemning the calling upon people to be saved, or born again, and other such writings, written by these brethren, it would become apparent that they are nothing like Spurgeon and the real Old Baptists of the order of Bunyan, Kiffin, and Keach, etc. If these Calvinists were alive today I am sure that their evangelistic appeals to the lost would likewise be ridiculed by the "Reformers" in the Southern Baptist churches.

You are not sufficiently understanding the "anti-invatation" writings (as you have put it). The founders movement is not against calling men to repent and believe in Christ. Instead what they have pointed out is that the "invatation system or alter call" is probably not the best litergical practice nor is it the best evangelistic practice. You seem to admire Spurgeon, however Spurgeon did not include a alter call as part of his litergical practice. You have snuck in an assumption that hyper-calvinism = an alter call litergical practice. This is patently false. If you did not know that before you know that now.

You seem to interpret their writings in the most unsympathic manner. For the sake of proper interpretation and Christian charity you should probably give the benefit of doubt to the person writing rather than slander them by calling them hyperist.

You have also claimed that "believing is a decision." This is patently false. Right now believe that you are on Alpha Centauri (the nearest planet outside of the solar system). Can you do it? Why can not you just decide too... isnt it a matter of mere decision?
Ok another example. Decide right now that you are going to believe yourself Zeus or Thor. Can you do it. Your idea of belief is a decision is rather simplistic. It becomes even more false when we consider the addition of the doctrine of original sin. Faith is a gift and this is not of ourselves.

Stephen Stanford

Stephen Garrett said...

To SS & SG

I think I do understand the "anti invitation" propaganda that has been published, including Murray's book.

Brother, Spurgeon's sermons are nothing but one long altar call!

Spurgeon did not have to wait till the end of his sermons to give a "call" to the altar, for his entire message was one long call to sinners!

As far as my being uncharitable and unsympathetic, well I will just be happy to let others, and the Lord, to judge this matter. Perhaps you should look in the mirror? Were you being charitable to me?

Brother, your illustrations about believing to create things is nonsense.

Besides, when God says to sinners that if they will believe they will be created in Christ, this is truth whether you ridicule it or not. He also says that faith can say to a mountain to be removed and it will be removed.

Brother, I have been a Calvinist all my Christian life and I know that faith is God's creation and his gift. But how does this exclude him using the command to sinners to believe as a means to make them believe? And will their believing not make them sons of God?

Again, your rantings are just what kinds of things I heard among the Hyperists Hardshells.

SS&SG said...

I agree that Spurgeon's sermons were evangelistic. None of those who support the Founders movement deny that we should be evangelistic. Hypercalvinist deny that we should exhort the unbelievers to believe. Those who support Founders are not saying that we should not tell unbelievers to believe.
The issue about altar calls is this: Is the present manner of doing alter calls sound? What does it say about our theology of Service.
To give you a little understanding about my own position, I do not think that all alter calls are bad. I think that we need to make clear that we are not justified on the account of our decision but rather on account of Christ righteousness. That is one of the problems many SBC people have they treat the alter call like a Roman Catholic sacrament.
I do not think that it is right to call Ascol a hypercalvinist. Perhaps I have misinterpreted you. However if you meant that it is wrong.
Stephen

Stephen Garrett said...

Dear SS & SG:

Perhaps we should define the elements of Hyperism or Hyper Calvinism?

If anyone looks over my writings or of Brother Ross's, we are criticizing those who attack the knds of invitations that we have called attention to.

It is the Hypers who say

1) It is not a gospel invitation to ask Jesus to come into your heart, and
2) It is not a gospel invitation to call upon dead sinners to believe and repent, and
3) It is not scriptural for a sinner to be told to "give their heart to Jesus" and,
4) It is not scriptural to say that men decide to be be saved (or born again), and
5) It is not scriptural to call upon those who no ears to hear, and
6) People must be born again before they believe and repent, and
7) It does not produce real converts to tell sinners that all they have to do is to believe in Jesus,
8) And so on and so forth.

We say to sinners in the gospel - "Arise thou that sleepest and arise from the dead and Christ shall give thee light."

We say this realizing that the words of the gospel alone will not resurrect the dead, but still we say it with the same confidence as did Ezekiel when he preached to the "dry dead bones."

Stephen

Anonymous said...

I think one of the biggest problems here is that you are misunderstanding the difference between "anti-invitation" and "anti-Finney's altar call".

Honestly, if you cannot tell the difference between the 2, please do not pass yourself off as some sort of expert on these issues. That is an easy one.

Do you really believe that the writings and practices of a 19th century heretic are the baseline for evangelism that we MUST practice??? NO ONE did altar calls before that...did that mean that no one did evangelism or honestly called sinners to salvation before Finney?? Of course not.

Please do not mistake evangelism for an altar call. That is a HUGE mistake. And to say that is one of the main evidences that Reformed Baptists and Founder's churches are evidencing "hyperism" and "hypercalvinism"...yikes! If they denied the need to call sinners to repent, ok. But because some of them frown on the altar call?? Come on.

If you can find any Founders guy that "condmen(s) the calling upon people to be saved or born again" I would be shocked. Don't worry about compiling ALL of it, find one. You make a huge accusation, but something tells me you cannot back it up.

Now, your other point about the "Drift toward hyper"
- Are you actually going to show that their view of regeneration is wrong biblically, or are you just going to say that it's too much like hardshell therefore it is wrong? Your bias leads you to poor arguments.
- Prove they are wrong biblically or stop complaining.
- Considering you posted one paragraph from one guy...I'm not sure how you could prove that they misunderstand and do not believe that salvation is both unconditional and conditional. Please prove that point.
- Your misunderstanding of what they are saying does not mean they are in error. The discussion of regeneration and faith is an interesting one, and not as simple as you make it out to be...especially considering your lack of biblical exegesis. (BTW, here is an example of how you have been arguing: "since Stephen does not ever reference Scripture in making these theological conclusions, he must not believe the Bible. Why do you hate the Bible? How can you be a believer and not believe the Bible?" Pretty dumb, huh? Yep. Take a logic course and learn how to make an argument without using logical fallacies.)
- You say the problem is that the hyperist makes the sinner passive in regeneration...but I turn you again toward John 3. What does Jesus say about regeneration? What does Jesus say man's role in regeneration is? Do you think you may be confusing faith with regeneration????
- I have yet to hear anyone deny that Christ is calling people to believe (be saved, be born again). Never. Please show me someone who actually says you are claiming Founders guys to say. Just one.


JG

BTW, do you know you over use italics and bold?

Anonymous said...

Stephen,

In reference to your post in the comments (the one that lists the 8 things "hypers" say)...I don't think you'll find disagreement that hyperCalvinists may make those claims. But the discussion is over, do Calvinist Southern Baptists ("Founder's guys") make those statements...and unless you have proof otherwise, I have never heard any Reformed person say any of those things, much less Reformed SBCers.

Please prove your assertions.

And, no, posting 1 paragraph from some guy that may or may not be int he context and amy or may not be what he fully believes or fully representative of his thoughts does not count.

You are arguing against hyper-calvinists...but I've never met one. I read about them and hear about them, but I am yet to have met the Reformed SBC guy who denies the free offer of the Gospel to all sinners and says any of the things you are saying. I'd also bet I have met and know a whole lot more of them then you do.

Stop arguing against the boogey man , the straw man, the man under your bed, and your past...make honest claims and let's discuss this fairly....without the hyperbole and misrepresentation.

JG

Stephen Garrett said...

To all the above commenters I have these things to say.

1) It takes longer to clean up a mess than it does to make one and for me to take the time now to respond to all the points, counterpoints, accusations, and inuendos and criticisms would take time away from other things that I feel are more important.

2) Did I really think that there was a gentle spirit of enquiry manifested in the writings of some of you, I would seek to invest the time.

3) I do not think that some of you are acting charitably in this discussion. I have been belittled and spoken to in an unbecoming manner and I do not intend to wrestle with such folks.

4) I have already announced my future chapters on unconditional versus conditional salvation and you might want to check back here periodically to ready what I will say on that topic. I do plan to deal with it theologically and biblically and also to show how my views are in agreement with Bunyan, Kiffin, and Keach and the Old Baptists.

5) Critical of my highlighting? Why take the discussion to such levels? Anyone who is willing to get down and dirty and critical about such things is not worthy to enter into discussion with.

6) I will post comments here as long as they do not go much further than what is demonstrated above.

7) I see all kinds of contradictions in the comments above. Perhaps I will find the time soon to demonstrate it. Since when did I even define "altar call" or mention Finney? I was responding to various writers on the internet who condemn the gospel type of invitations I have mentioned. Look, brothers, just do an internet search using these words - ask Jesus into your heart scriptural. See if you do not get all kinds of people decrying these invitations! Who are these people? Are they Arminians? Calvinists like Spurgeon? Or perhaps they could be Hypers?

Stephen