Caners vs. Calvinism (part 2)

I noticed this morning that there is a new entry on Ergun Caner’s blog in which he defines hyper-Calvinism. I guess he felt compelled to define this term since he keeps referring to James White as a hyper-Calvinist. Caner defines a hyper-Calvinist as having two characteristics: (1) hyper-Calvinists believe in “reprobation” and (2) I quote, “If anyone believes that there is even the possibility of an infant (’non-elect’) going to hell, that would be clear hyper Calvinism.”

I don’t understand why Caner defines hyper-Calvinism this way. Historically, hyper-Calvinism has been marked by two characteristics: (1) a refusal to offer the gospel to all without distinction, and (2) a minimization of mankind’s responsibility to repent and believe the gospel. This aberrant view is associated with Strict and Particular Baptists originating in England and with Dutch-American Reformed groups (see “Hyper-Calvinism” in New Dictionary of Theology).

Thus, it’s a simple historical and factual error to identify Ascol and White as hyper-Calvinists. Yes, they are Calvinists, 5-pointers to boot. But holding to 5-point Calvinism does not mean that they don’t believe in evangelism or in mankind’s responsibility to repent and believe the gospel.

I don’t know Tom Ascol or James White, nor do I know the brothers Caner. But as an outsider looking in at this conversation, I would hope that all parties would be really careful about throwing around the “hyper-Calvinist” epithet. Five-point Calvinism does not a hyper-Calvinist make.

No comments yet.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes