God Loves… Himself

In the last BLOG on Pelagianism, Hyper-Evangelism, and Hyper-Calvinism a quote, taken from John MacArthur’s Ashamed of the Gospel, made and makes an important (vital) point. “Finney did not distinguish between Calvinist orthodoxy and hyper-Calvinism.” “But the doctrines Finney enumerates are not doctrines unique to hyper-Calvinism; they are simply Calvinist orthodoxy—and in most cases, plain biblical teachings. Finney jettisoned them all—and thus repudiated the heart of biblical theology.” That teaches us that we must be careful to make an accurate distinction between orthodox Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism. If not, we will do what Charles Finney did and cast out orthodoxy in the name of hyper-Calvinism. We may also cast out the heart of Reformed thinking if we erroneously identify the heart of Calvinism as hyper-Calvinism. That is exactly what I am claiming is being done. Warfield stated that the heart of Calvinism is really irresistible grace and not election. What many have done is throw out the real meaning of irresistible grace while adhering to the words. That leaves them with a form of orthodoxy with practical Pelagianism at the heart of their system. With practical Pelagianism at the heart of their practice of evangelism and preaching, they can join hands in agreement with Pelagians on many points. When they do that, orthodox Calvinists see that as wrong but their protestations are dismissed with the pejorative “hyper-Calvinist.”

The above quote from Finney should awaken many from their slumbers and their witch hunts on hyper-Calvinism. While many are out to get hyper-Calvinists, in doing so they have cast out orthodox Calvinism. Real and true hyper-Calvinism is quite a different thing than what many are calling it today. A person who is a Pelagian will think that virtually all Calvinism is hyper-Calvinism. So when one that thinks of himself as a Calvinist has a form of Pelagianism at the root of his system of evangelism, that person will automatically think that true Calvinism is hyper-Calvinism. Thus making an accurate distinction is vital. We speak of those who have a historical faith in the Gospel which is to hold to the facts without the whole soul being changed by them. In our present discussion a person can be blinded to true Calvinism by holding to the historical facts about Calvinism.

Compared with our actual thoughts about Him, our creedal statements are of little consequence. Our real idea of God may lie buried under the rubbish of conventional religious notions and may require an intelligent and vigorous search before it is finally unearthed and exposed for what it is. Only after an ordeal of painful self-probing are we likely to discover what we actually believe about God…It is my opinion that the Christian conception of God currently…is so decadent as to be utterly beneath the dignity of the Most High God and actually to constitute for professed believers something amounting to a moral calamity (A.W. Tozer).

If our real idea of God can lie buried under the rubbish of conventional religious notions and as such requires us to make an intelligent and vigorous search to unearth and expose it, then the heart of Pelagianism may be in us and stay there unless we make an intelligent and vigorous search for it. However, we live in a day which prefers to hear a teaching and accept it as true of false based on the intellect alone. For example, Jeremiah 17:9 can be accepted as true and yet there be no deep understanding of our own heart because of it. “The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?” We may even think of that verse when we have differences with others, and yet apply it to them and never even think that we may be deceived.

Hodge’s third point (Pelagianism): Hence every man has always the plenary power to do all that it is his duty to do.
Pelagians believe in the free-will of man and will not relinquish that. They believe that man has all the power that is needed to do all that is his duty to do. Compare that with the Augustinian (Calvinism) view: “Which was adopted by all the original Protestant Churches, Lutheran and Reformed. (a.) Man is by nature so entirely depraved in his moral nature as to be totally unable to do any thing spiritually good, or in any degree to begin or dispose himself thereto.” All the original Protestant Churches adopted this? How many really believe that today? Now if we compare those two statements with the way Calvinists are teaching and preaching today, what would we conclude? My conclusion is that most Calvinists preach or teach more in line with the Pelagians on this matter. While they may deny the creed of the Pelagians, yet in practice they are practical Pelagians. Put in a different way, the difference between how a Pelagian and a Calvinist speak of grace is telling. If deep in our souls we believe that a person is entirely depraved that s/he is totally unable to do anything spiritually good, or in any degree to being or dispose him or herself to do so, then we must tell the person of the need for grace to bring him or her to Christ. The failure to do that is practical Pelagianism. Calvinism speaks of irresistible grace in doctrine, but if we hold back and don’t tell people that grace is needed to apply grace to them, our practice is not treating people as totally depraved.

This entry was posted on May 8, 2010 at 10:25 am and is filed under Hyper-Calvinism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.