A Quest for God’s Glory Makes the Supralapsarian

Scott Price

Throughout recorded theological history nicknames have been created, some good and others bad. When asked if I am a “Calvinist” I must be careful how to answer because they may be wondering if I am a Calvinist in my view of baptism or church government. On the other hand they may think that Calvinism is

The Golden Idol of Free-Will by Augustus Toplady (video)

The Golden Idol of Free-Will by Augustus Toplady (video)

Tolerant Calvinists With Their Own Brand of “Hyper-Calvinism”

By Scott Price

I’ve lost count of the times the accusation “Hyper-Calvinist” was hurled at me over the years. But it’s weird how the label has never ever been applied to me concerning any lack of zeal for evangelism. Quite the opposite to be more precise. Let me get more specific and hopefully this will cause some to think in areas you haven’t before.

The Label of Hyper

First, let me say that John Calvin is not my standard for doctrine or practice. Concerning grace or the sovereignty of God, Calvin did not come up with anything new, nor did Luther or Augustine. The gospel of God’s free and sovereign grace is an ancient truth, even an eternal truth, flowing from the mind and mouth of God Himself. The Old Testament Prophets, Christ and the Apostles all believed and taught sovereign grace. The Reformers did not come up with anything new at all.

Some of us who hold to the Doctrines of Grace are not “Reformed”, in that, we didn’t claim the Roman Catholic Church as our Mother, we don’t sprinkle babies, don’t hold to Covenant Theology, are not Sabbatarians nor practice Reformed liturgy. So, technically the label sticks since we are in disagreement with many of Calvin’s beliefs. Again, he’s not the standard.

The Classic Fatalist or Hyper-Calvinist

Historically, the label was meant for those who were anti-evangelistic or anti-missionary. To put it in more simply – they didn’t believe there was a need for the gospel as part of salvation. Some “High-Calvinists” may have been accused of this in the past but some of the reason was the compromise in doctrine they saw among the missionary societies.

But some the Primitive Baptists have been the torch bearers in the area of Hyper-Calvinists. Those who have been called “Non-Absoluters” and hold to what’s called “Conditional Time Salvation” or “Two Salvations”. The Non-Absoluter part means they do NOT believe in absolute predestination. They reject the predestination of events or actions and they also reject Double Predestination.

These Primitives believe God has two salvations, one eternal and the other in time that is conditioned on man’s faith. Since they hold to eternal salvation they think they can reject the means of the gospel. Why preach or why pray?, since they thought the elect were eternally saved no matter what. That “no matter what” part meant even if they never were converted to Christ. They believe there is no need for the sheep to know their Shepard, for Christ to be glorified in their hearts.

The Primitives are the worst of the Tolerant Sovereign Grace folks, saying they believe Arminians are saved. They believe WHEN God uses the gospel it can be a false gospel. So they believe God can either use no gospel or a false gospel, since they think the elect only are guaranteed eternal salvation not salvation in time, conditioned on faith.

A Comparison

The typical Evangelical Calvinist or Reformed person isn’t too far from the Conditional Time Salvation Primitive Baptist. They tolerant a false gospel for various reasons and at the same time, either make salvation conditional themselves or tolerate the conditionalism of Arminianism. Whenever I react to their compromise or they react to my articles or posts, then comes the charge of Hyper-Calvinism.

1) I stand dogmatically for the biblical truth that God uses gospel as a means in salvation (John 3:36, James 1:18, I Peter 1:23-25), which He calls the power of God unto salvation (Rom 1:16), therefore the gospel MUST be preached to call His sheep. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word (Rom 10:17)

2) That gospel has to be the REAL gospel or true gospel (John 17:3, I John 5:20). Arminianism is full of lies, works, conditions, perverting the Person and the work of Christ as well as making a mockery of the Father and Spirit (I John 2:21, Gal 1:6-9, II Cor 11:3-4, Matt 7:15, Matt 24:24).

Question

So, why the accusation against me for demanding, as the Bible does, that the one and only gospel must be preached, when those who are tolerating a false gospel should be the ones wearing the label of Hyper-Calvinist for saying a false gospel will work just fine?? It’s beyond label of Hyper, it’s a bold faced lie and blasphemy against God.

Taken from my Face Book “Notes” section 12/27/16

3 Sermons (YouTube) on Romans 9 in a series called – Unconditional Double Predestination

Unconditional Double Predestination #1 of 3

Unconditional Double Predestination #2 of 3

Unconditional Double Predestination #3 of 3

God Shows the Death of Christ Actually Accomplished What He Intended

By Scott Price

Let us be very much crystal-clear on whether there was ever any value in the death of Christ for the non-elect. The death of Christ has ZERO value, in any sense for, or towards, the non-elect. Not in purpose, will, effect, nature, scope or any other thing under the sun having to do in connection with value for the non-elect, at all, or at any time, in this world, or the world to come. This includes sufficiency. His death has ZERO sufficiency, in any sense for, or towards, the non-elect. Not in purpose, will, effect, nature, scope or any other thing under the sun having to do in connection with sufficiency for the non-elect, at all, or at any time, in this world, or the world to come.

I hope you don’t scratch your head with any doubt in these things if you claim to believe the gospel of His accomplished redemption for His sheep. His death was a glorious success! The gospel of God’s free and sovereign grace shows that Christ’s death is the DIFFERENCE MAKER. His death is what does the saving. It’s not what you do with His death that makes it work. It works all by itself. Simply put, it’s sufficient in and of itself. This is the wisdom of God in showing He is, both, a just God and a Savoir. Any Redemption that is merely hypothetical or potential, and not actually effectual, it is a imagined attempt to compete with God using the wisdom of the wicked, religious world. 

Wesley, Hater of Clear Doctrine

God and Evil

By Michael Trevino

God’s Sovereignty, a Round Table Talk with Scott Price

//percolate.blogtalkradio.com/offsiteplayer?hostId=522975&episodeId=9590789