I want to begin a post series trying my best to answer some objections to the doctrines of Grace that I have encountered over the last two-plus years. The ones that I will attempt to answer are these: Election leads men to be proud and arrogant because they are “elect;” Why should I pray according to Calvinism; Why should I evangelize; Why should pursue holiness. I will take them in the order listed.

But before I get into the objection of pride because of election (I haven’t really heard this objection personally, unlike the other three, but I know it is out there), I to address an historical issue. Namely, the difference between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism. The last three objections–prayer, evangelism, and holy living–stem out of an apparent failure to distinguish Hyper-Calvinsim. The following is based off of the discussion of Hyper-Calvinism at Theopedia.com.

Hyper-Calvinism is characterized primarily (at least by Reformed Critics) by denying both: “the call of the gospel to repent and believe is universal, i.e. for all alike” and “the unregenerate (natural) man has a duty to repent and believe in Christ for salvation.”

Monergism gives the following list as Hyper-Calvinist positions:

• that God is the author of sin and of evil
• that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect
• that the number of the elect at any time may be known by men
• that it is wrong to evangelize
• that assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith
• that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they later do
• that God has chosen some races of men and has rejected others
• that the children of unbelievers dying in infancy are certainly damned
• that God does not command everyone to repent
• that the sacraments are not means of grace, but obstacles to salvation by faith alone.
• that the true church is only invisible, and salvation is not connected with the visible church
• that the Scriptures are intended to be interpreted by individuals only and not by the church.
• that no government is to be obeyed which does not acknowledge that Jesus is the Lord, or that Biblical Law is its source of authority
• that the grace of God does not work for the betterment of all men
• that saving faith is equivalent to belief in the doctrine of predestination
• that only Calvinists are Christians (Neo-gnostic Calvinism)

Calvinists would stand with Arminians and denounce theology that embraces these statements. Calvinism affirms that: God is not the author of sin; men have a compatible will; no one knows who is elect except God; election is confirmed by faith and repentance; men and women must persevere in faith and holiness to be saved; God is not racist and does not base his election upon human distinctives; Calvinism would not necessarily say that babies are certainly damned but that God is free to save however he pleases (although some would say babies go to hell); sacraments are not obstacles to salvation; God’s command to repent and believe is universal (Acts 17:30) and not limited to only the elect; the Lord knows who are his (2 Timothy 2:19); all governments are ordained by God and should be obeyed when not contradicting the clear teachings of Scripture; God’s grace benefits all men, though not in a saving fashion; one does not have to hold to the doctrine of predestination to be saved; one does not have to be a Calvinist to be a Christian.

Some have argued that if one follows Calvinism to its logical conclusions, he or she will arrive at Hyper-Calvinism. That may or may not be true. But Calvinism is not bound by logic but rather Scripture. The Scripture commands our humility, prayer, evangelism, and for saints to live holy lives. This is why Calvinists like Whitefield, C. H. Spurgeon, Andrew Fuller, William Carrey, Adoniram Judson, Jonathan Edwards, and David Brainard were also evangelists. It is why Edwards and John Owen preached on holiness; John Owen wrote a book called Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers. It is why Edwards would pray for hours alone in the wilderness as a young man.

If I were to play the game of logical conclusions with Arminianism, I would have to arrive at Pelagianism which says there is no need for grace and Christ for salvation because God has given all men the ability to achieve righteousness on their own. Pelagius argued that the fall did not affect man so as he did not need the grace of God to grant him the ability to seek him. He believed that man was able to seek God on his own. But this led him to deny the need for grace and the atoning death of Christ. As a result he was condemned as a heretic, and rightfully so in denying the centrality of Christ’s death. But I would never equate Arminianism and semi-pelagianism with the heresy of Pelagianism. I ask the same of my Arminian brothers as well, do not assume that Calvinism is Hyper-Calvinism.

I like how Theopedia helps explain the difference between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinsim,

Wayman contends that saving faith was not in the power of man at his best before the fall and therefore makes the following deduction, “What Adam had, we all had in him; and what Adam lost, we all lost in him, and are debtors to God on both accounts; but Adam had not the faith of God’s elect before the fall, and did not lose it for his posterity; therefore they are not debtors to God for it while in unregeneracy.” Lewis Wayman, A Further Enquiry after Truth, (London: J & J. Marshall, 1738), p. 51.

John Brine gives some insight into Wayman’s statement. Brine taught that every duty incumbent on Adam in his unfallen state he also had the ability to perform, and this duty extends to all men in their fallen state regardless of their lack of ability. Brine maintained that a lack of ability does not release a man from duty (with which most Calvinists would agree). Yet, somehow he sees salvation in a different category; for “with respect to special faith in Christ, it seems to me,” says Brine, “that the powers of man in his perfected state were not fitted and disposed to that act.” John Brine, A Refutation of Arminian Principles (London, 1743), p. 5.

Accordingly, saving faith lay not within the powers of man in his unfallen state, because there was no necessity for it. Since, therefore, it was not part of his powers in his unfallen state, it could not now be required of him in his fallen state. On this basis, duty-faith and duty-repentance are denied by the hyper Calvinist.

Cross Posted at Think Wink.