Variety of Salvation Views Categorized

This list was gathered and edited by David Bishop

I. Hyper-Calvinism –
A. Beliefs – the Gospel should only preached to the elect; usually anti-missionary
B. Proponents – Joseph Hussey, John Skepp, some English primitive Baptists.

II. Ultra High Calvinism –
A. Beliefs – that the elect are in some sense eternally justified. Denies the Well– Meant Offer, Common Grace, and the idea that God has any love for the non-elect.
B. Proponents – John Gill, Herman Hoeksema

III. High Calvinism –
A. Beliefs – most deny the Well-Meant Offer, Common Grace and the idea that God has any love for the non-elect. Most are Supralapsarian. All believe redemption is applied by legal imputation.
B. Proponents – Theodore Beza, John Owen, Augustus Toplady, Gordon Clark, Arthur Pink

IV. Moderate Calvinism –
A. beliefs – that God does in some sense desire to save the reprobate. Most affirm Common Grace. Most are infralapsarian. Most believe redemption is applied by faith
B. Proponents – John Calvin, John Murray, RL Dabney, James White

V. Low Calvinism –
A. beliefs – that Christ died for all in a legal sense, so one can speak of Christ dying for the non-elect. That God has two distinct wills. Affirms the Well-Meant Offer and Common Grace
B. Proponents: Amyraldrians , RT Kendal, R C Sproul, John Piper, Paul Washer

VI. Lutheranism –
A. beliefs – that Calvinist over emphasize God Sovereignty over man’s responsibility. That Christ died for all in legal sense, that some are predestined on to life but none are predestined onto death. That the sacraments are means of grace regardless of one’s faith.
B. Proponents – Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, Rod Rosenbladt

VII. American Baptist –
A. beliefs – that God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. Once a persons believes the gospel, he is eternally secure. Rejects Calvinism, some would even call it heretical.
B. Proponents – Jerry Falwell, Adrian Rogers

VIII. Arminianism –
A. beliefs – that God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is solely based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. A person can fall from the state of grace i.e. lose ones salvation, since it is our free will that chooses Christ at conversion.
B. Proponents: Jacob Arminius, John Wesley, some Methodists, Chuck Smith

Advertisements

30 Responses to “Variety of Salvation Views Categorized”

  1. David Bishop Says:

    If I could make a change it would be to drop White down to Low Calvinism since he has recently come out in favor of the Freewill Offer.

  2. statelinegunner Says:

    Thanks Scott for this blog. I was wondering would you not also put Dr. John W. Robbins in the High Calvimism group as well. I would know anything of Dr Clark if it had not been for John Robbins and the Trinity Foundation. Both Dr Clark and John Robbins teachings have been an anchor in my growth in the Scriptures. Just thought I would throw that out there. Lord bless you brother for your defense of the Faith.

  3. Thanks for the chart, found something similar here: http://reformedforhisglory.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/types-of-calvinism-a-comprehensive-list/

    which mentions otherthings as well like duty faith, Determinism (Double Predestination) etc the two dovetail either way.

  4. I tend to go to Gospel Standard churches in the UK, which I believe are the “English primitive Baptists” being mentioned here. And I know that they don’t believe that, “the Gospel should only preached to the elect”. They say, rather, that the gospel doesn’t contain any offers of salvation. If your definition of the gospel is ‘Christ offers you salvation today. Will you take it?’ then they don’t believe your gospel at all.

  5. John, It will only take you a few minutes to see in my articles on this blog that I am very much against”Christ offers you salvation today. Will you take it?” Look.
    Scott Price

  6. john7777777 Says:

    Ok Scott. I was just pointing out that I don’t think its fair to say that the, “English primitive Baptists” (if by that you meant, Gospel Standard Strict and Particular Baptists) believe the Gospel should only preached to the elect. Maybe some of them do, but if so I don’t know which ones you were referring to. As for whether Joseph Hussey and John Skepp believe the gospel should only be preached to the elect, you’ll know better than I will.

  7. Hoyt Sparks Says:

    Your first error is in trying to define the various groups or thoughts and beliefs on Calvinism, your definitions have been conjured up by the prejudiced thoughts of a single person. As an example: Hyper-Calvinism is NOT a belief that the Gospel should only be preached to the elect: truth is, the Gospel ought to be preached to all that are gathered as Paul did and those who believed wanted to hear more, while those who did not believe went away. Also, Hyper Calvinism is NOT “usually” anti-mission; they are always anti-mission. Hyper Calvinism is a belief that is “above” Calvinism, in that it does not take into consideration tenants of Calvinism in defining or evaluating the truth, as it is in Christ Jesus. The Bible(KJV) is the only rule of faith and practice. The next time you compile or create a list of categories of beliefs of those who “profess” to be “Christian”, try including and define “OLD SCHOOL PREDESTINARIAN PRIMITIVE BAPTISTS”.

    • Hello Hoy,

      The problem with “Hyper-Calvinism” as a term, is that it doesn’t mean much. At least with “Calvinism” you can say that it means something like “whatever Calvin believed” or alternatively one might go with “the main features of what Calvin believed”. But popularly Calvinism means “those who accept the 5 points of Calvinism”.

      Hyper-Calvinism, on the other hand, means, as you pointed out, “beyond” or “above” Calvinism. But as we all know, “hyper-Calvinism” in the popular mind means above and beyond those elements of Calvinism that are *distinctive to Calvinism*, namely absolute predestination and limited atonement.

      But this definition means that “hyper” must refer either to going beyond Calvin himself with respect to predestination or atonement, or, and I suspect this is what most people mean by it, going beyond what *most Calvinists believe* with respect to predestination and limited atonement. There is no fixed definition, then, to this term “hyper-Calvinism”. It is used in a multitude of ways and differently depending on Context.

      So your statement that “Hyper Calvinism is NOT “usually” anti-mission; they are always anti-mission” depends on the sense in which your using the term “Hyper-Calvinism”.

      • Hoyt Sparks Says:

        John:
        Obviously, your definition of “hyper Calvinism” is different than mine. In your definition you retain some of Calvin’s tenants as if he was the author or creator of those tenants found in Scripture. My definition of “hyper Calvinism” is in totality leave Calvinism behind, that is, ignore it completely. In leaving Calvinism behind, that is, to not accept any of his teachings, because he mixed Scripture and humanism, while we know that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump! Why do you hang on to any precept of “Calvinism”? Why not simply cling to the Bible(KJV) as rule of faith and practice? Calvin was a murderer, and hid behind Scripture to try and justify his desire to be “head” of all religion classified as “Christian”. History shows us that Roman Catholicism is as blood thirsty as any thing that has been upon this earth; and today we have the Muslims; and in the same thread Calvin was willing to use any method to try and conquer all.

      • I said “There is no fixed definition, then, to this term hyper-Calvinism. It is used in a multitude of ways and differently depending on Context.”

        You said, “your definition of hyper Calvinism is different than mine”

        I said, “There is no fixed definition”

        You said “your definition…is different than mine”

        I said “Hyper-Calvinism, on the other hand, means, as YOU POINTED OUT, beyond or above Calvinism”

        You said, “Hyper Calvinism is a belief that is ‘above’ Calvinism”

        You said, “your definition…is different than mine”

        I am not following you, to say the least.

        You said, “Why not simply cling to the Bible(KJV) as rule of faith and practice?” What a good idea. That’s what I try to do.

      • Except that I read the Darby Bible, as its better than the King James.

      • Hoyt Sparks Says:

        If you read and follow Darby, then you make yourself in the Arminian camp. The KJV (1611 or 1769) only rule of faith and practice.

    • David Bishop Says:

      Hoy, by Hyper-Calvinism I refer specifically to the idea that the gospel is not the means of salvation, and that some of the elect will remain in unbelief their entire lives. In other words, I am referring to Hardshell and many Primitive Baptists today. Not all Primitive Baptists are anti-missional. I refer you to some links:

      http://hardshellism.blogspot.com/2008/10/chapter-one-primitive-baptist-church.html

      https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/imh/article/view/11698/17103

      http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2012/03/studying-hardshell-history.html

      http://www.sovgrace.net/theological-essays/39-salvation/59-born-again-the-doctrine-of-effectual-calling

      • Hoyt Sparks Says:

        In your latest you wrote:
        David Bishop

        May 24th, 2016 at 12:30 pm

        Hoy, by Hyper-Calvinism I refer specifically to the idea that the gospel is not the means of salvation, and that some of the elect will remain in unbelief their entire lives.

        (HOYT WRITES: YOU DO NOT HAVE SCRIPTURE TO HOLD UP YOUR CONTENTION THAT SOME OF GOD’S CHILDREN WILL REMAIN IN UNBELIEF ALL THEIR LIVES. I AM AWARE OF THOSE WHO PROFESS TO BE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST OF ONE SORT OR THE OTHER AND WHO BELIEVE IN MISSIONISM. I HAVE ALSO GONE TO THE LINKS YOU POSTED AND IT IS OF CERTAIN THAT THERE ARE A VARIETY OF BELIEFS BY THOSE WHO PROFESS TO BE P.B. IT IS EVIDENT THAT YOUR DEFINITION OF HYPER-CALVINISM IS NOT MY DEFINITION. I FREELY ADMIT THAT THERE HAVE BEEN AND WILL BE UNTIL THE END OF TIME, THOSE WHO PROFESS TO BE P.B. BUT IN REALITY THEY ARE WOLVES IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING; AND THEY WENT OUT FROM AMONG US BECAUSE THEY WERE NEVER A PART OF US TO BEGIN WITH. DECEIVERS THEY ARE FROM START TO FINISH! IT DISTINCTLY APPEARS TO ME THAT YOUR BELIEF IS NOT THAT OF MINE: YOURS APPEARS TO BE MORE IN THE ARMINIAN, FREE-WILL, WORKS DOCTRINE, AND NOT THAT OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN ALL THINGS AT ALL TIMES. ALL OF GOD’S ELECT WILL HEAR THE GOSPEL IN THEIR LIFE TIME: NOT NECESSARILY IN THE SAME ORDER OR FASHION, BUT THEY WILL HEART THE TRUTH, AS IT IS IN CHRIST JESUS. NONE CAN COME TO CHRIST EXCEPT THOSE THAT ARE DRAWN BY THE FATHER, AND HE DOES NOT DRAW ANYONE BECAUSE THEY EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO BE DRAWN. WHEN DRAWN BY THE FATHER, THEY WILL NEVER BE LOST—NO ONE CAN PLUCK THEM OUT OF THE FATHER’S HAND. WITH THIS TRANSMISSION, I’LL SIGN OFF BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR EITHER OF US TO GIVE UP WHAT WE PROFESS TO BELIEVE….)

        In other words, I am referring to Hardshell and many Primitive Baptists today. Not all Primitive Baptists are anti-missional. I refer you to some links:

        http://hardshellism.blogspot.com/2008/10/chapter-one-primitive-baptist-church.html

        https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/imh/article/view/11698/17103

        http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2012/03/studying-hardshell-history.html

        http://www.sovgrace.net/theological-essays/39-salvation/59-born-again-the-doctrine-of-effectual-calling

  8. I will say a bit more, actually. Calvin was not a murderer. But he did report a lying heretic and a wicked liberal to the authorities, and they decided to put this evil man to death. Calvin had a very hard and trying life. He was greatly tried of the Lord. Through much tribulation we must enter the kingdom, and Calvin suffered through the death of his first wife, the death of his child, and was thrown out of Geneva practically on the run for his life. He was a very poor man when he arrived in Geneva and did not even own a chair to sit on. such was his poverty. The Genevans treated him terribly. He was scoffed at and scorned in the streets. When he was in church christening little babies (and he was wrong on that), the libertines would call their children by the names of foul words just so that Calvin would have to pronounce them in church. They once tried to come to communion and Calvin screamed that he would never give it to them. He was ousted from the city. He never wanted to go back. But the Lord directed him by a right way, not a way he wanted to go, but a narrow path. He wrote wonderful letters and beautifully encouraged the Lord’s people. His books and commentaries were masterful, so great in fact that they are still used today (probably by YOU too, I’m guessing!).

    So then, Calvin was a man of God. He had, as we all have, many, many faults. But this man has been slandered and berated enough. We don’t need you parroting some Catholic propaganda about him or trying to pretend that he had some master plan to take over Geneva. They didn’t even let the man vote for the city elders. He didn’t even have as much power over the church as a typical pastor has.

  9. He was used of the Lord to proclaim the everlasting gospel. Election, redemption, faith and justification, the second coming, the Kingdom. He proclaimed and vigorously fought for the truth of absolute predestination. The Muslims believe in free will. They say god looked down the corridor of time to see what men would choose of their own free will, and then predestined only those choices he liked, so that everything is predestined, but we still have free will. But scripture says OF HIM, and through Him, and for Him, are all things, to whom be glory forever, amen. And here you go comparing the man Calvin to a Muslim, comparing him to a pagan. The writer to the Hebrews has only good things to say about the faithful men of old, even Barack. But you have only bad things to say about them.

    • Hoyt Sparks Says:

      Calvin taught on some good points of doctrine, as do all those who profess to be “Christian”. But all those who proclaim to be of us are not of us. Calvin believed and taught the spiritualism of the truth is a function and condition of the human mind; while my Bible tells me the Spiritualism of Christ Jesus is completely the operation of the Holy Spirit and it is not of anything the human thinks, says or does that even helps in the process of the Spiritual birth. Humans have as much to do with their Spiritual birth as they did with their natural birth. By Calvin teaching it is all of the human mind, he thereby completely destroys all functions of the Holy Spirit.

  10. I’m sorry. I feel I went too far in my criticism of you.

    • Hoyt Sparks Says:

      No problem. No offense taken. To me it is important that I clarify to anyone and everyone that the Bible(KJV) is the sole rule for faith and practice: and not any precept or advocacy that is in whole or in part the rudiments out of the canyons of the human (natural) mind.

      • Ok. I’m not going to defend Calvin’s view of the new birth. I don’t know what quotes you are referring to. He wrote so much that he probably said various things about the new birth, and I expect some of them were incorrect. In truth, what he said probably doesn’t matter that much. Whether or not he missed the boat in accurately describing it is of less importance than whether he was actually born anew, and from his life and teaching I can only conclude he was. But who am I to judge? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t. God knew his heart.

        Onto more interesting things…”If you read and follow Darby, then you make yourself in the Arminian camp.” Oh really!

        Exactly what do you know about J.N.Darby? Not much, I’m assuming.

        J.N. Darby said, “This fresh breaking out of the doctrine of freewill ministers to the pretension of the natural man not to be entirely lost, for that is just what it amounts to. All who have never been deeply convicted of sin, all those with whom this conviction is based on gross and outward sins, believe more or less in free-will. You know that it is the dogma of the Wesleyans, of all reasoners, of all philosophers; but it completely changes the whole idea of Christianity, and entirely perverts it.” (http://bibletruthpublishers.com/the-doctrine-of-free-will-real-communication-of-life/john-nelson-darby-jnd/letters-1/la63442)

        Being a man with some strange ideas on eschatology, he got invited to speak at various eschatology conferences around the world. One such invitation came from D.L. Moody (an Arminian). Darby upon arrival had a heated discussion about human depravity. The session ended when Darby, in disgust with Moody, closed his Bible and walked out; and he never returned. (Dorsett, Passion, p. 137.) Darby also said that Americans know nothing about grace except a few Presbyterians.

        Darby held to an inaccurate view of limited atonement. He, like John Piper today, believed that Christ died in one sense for the elect and another sense for everybody. This is a great pity.

        As for that KJV that you like so much, and your condemnation of Darby, how about Erasmus how compiled the Textus Receptus? He was a Catholic who specifically departed from Luther on the subject of free will. Erasmus defended free will where Luther condemned the doctrine.

        So your good old King James seems to have somewhat of a dodgey history. And you know what? That’s Fine!

        I mean it. I like the King James, even if it does contain errors (such as including the word Easter, at King James’s behest). God uses a mucky, messy world. If He didn’t work in fallen men who make mistakes, he wouldn’t work in anyone.

        His word has been perfectly preserved throughout the generations in many marvelous ways. But its not a SIMPLE matter! There is simplicity in Christ, but there is also being a simpleton, and those who want a perfect translation are being simple. They are ignoring the wonderful story that God is telling in this universe. He confounds the wisdom of men, who would say that His word must be perfectly preserved in a single document. In fact, they are doing exactly what the Muslims do! The muslims are the champions of saying that their Koran has been perfectly preserved in a single document even though there is mountains of evidence to show this to be untrue.

        So, God’s word is perfect. It has been preserved throughout the generations in ways that man would never have been able devise.

      • Hoyt Sparks Says:

        The Doctrine of Free Will;
        Real Communication of Life;
        Man Lost Already;
        Total Ruin of Man;
        Wesleyan Doctrine;
        Total Depravity

        By: John Nelson Darby
        From: Notes, Letters And Other Darby Writings
        From: Letters 1

        Very Dear Brother:
        Through the multitude of my occupations, I had rather overlooked an important subject in your letter. This fresh breaking out of the doctrine of freewill ministers to the pretension of the natural man not to be entirely lost, for that is just what it amounts to. All who have never been deeply convicted of sin, all those with whom this conviction is based on gross and outward sins, believe more or less in free-will. You know that it is the dogma of the Wesleyans, of all reasoners, of all philosophers; but it completely changes the whole idea of Christianity, and entirely perverts it. (Hoyt writes: A child of GOD who has been born again is convicted of sin, and there is NOT any “degree(s)” of conviction, that is, they are NOT lightly convicted, mediumly convicted, or deeply convicted of sin. After the Spiritual birth they are made to realized that they are of fallen Adam’s offspring, polluted from the top of their heads to the bottom of their feet! Darby is wrong in asserting any degree or level of conviction of sin the child of GOD is in by nature; and there is not difference between levels of sin, especially in comparing “gross and outward sins” to sinful thoughts of the mind that are never put into action. Natural man, aka the “old man” is steeped in humanism and they do not “more or less believe in free-will”: they a engrossed totally in sin and humanistic free will!)
        If Christ came to save that which is lost, free-will has no mere place. Not that God prevents man from receiving Christ far from it. (Hoyt writes: GOD “does” prevent any person from receiving Christ if such is the will of GOD; and those chosen “in” Christ before the foundation of the world are those who are born again solely by the operation of the Holy Spirit while they live upon this earth. By Darby writing that GOD does not prevent man from receiving Christ shows that Darby is of a works doctrine, that is, he is classified as an Arminian.) But even when God employs all possible motives, everything that is capable of exerting influence over the heart of man, it only serves to prove that man will have none of it, that his heart is so corrupt, and his will so determined not to submit to God (however much it may be of the devil who encourages him in sin), that nothing can induce him to receive the Lord, and to forsake sin. (Hoyt writes: Darby was certainly blinded to the truth, as it is in Christ Jesus, by asserting that any man is more powerful than GOD. That is, Darby wrote that man’s natural heart is capable of resisting GOD’s will, even though after GOD employs all possible motives the individual will so determine not to submit to GOD. Such folly to even suggest that man is more powerful than GOD and man can, at man’s volitions, resist GOD after GOD employs all possible motives. We find in “Isaiah 14:27 For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?” There is no one capable of resisting or changing GOD’s will: HIS will “shall” be done. The natural heart of man (aka the “old man”) is totally polluted, it will always remain totally polluted even after the Spiritual birth. Clearly, nothing of the “old man” is changed in the Spiritual birth, but it is affected, and no longer remains dominate. The natural heart is not that of which is employed by GOD in the process of the Spiritual birth; but, instead, it is the circumcised heart, which in essence is the Spiritual birth, that is a gift of GOD.) If, by liberty of man, they mean that no one forces him to reject the Lord, this liberty exists in full. But if it is implied that, on account of the dominion of sin of which he is the slave, and that voluntarily, he cannot escape from his condition, and choose the good—even while acknowledging it to be good, and approving of it—then he has no liberty whatever. He is not subject to the law, neither indeed can be; so that, they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
        And this is where we touch most closely upon the root of the question. Is it the old man that is changed, instructed and sanctified; or do we, in order to be saved, receive a new nature? (Hoyt writes: In the process of the Spiritual birth, the “new man”, that is, the Spirit of Christ, is superadded to them. The “old man” is not changed but no longer is dominate, having been put into remission. That’s not to say the “old man” does not raise his ugly head from time to time, but in the realm of GOD’s will the “old man” disturbs at times. In all this, man does not have the prerogative of free will acceptance or rejection of Christ in the scheme of salvation. HE speaks and it is done, or things are made to hold fast. A born again child of GOD does not fall from Grace, nor of those who draw back: “Hebrews 10: 38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. 39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.) The universal character of the unbelief of the present day is this: not formally denying Christianity, as in former times, or rejecting Christ openly, but receiving Him as a Person—they will even say divine, inspired (but as a matter of degree) -who re-establishes man in his position as a child of God. The Wesleyans, as far as taught of God, do not say that; faith makes them feel that without Christ they are lost, and that it is a question of salvation. Only their fear with regard to pure grace, their desire to gain men, a mixture of charity and of the spirit of man; in a word, their confidence in their own strength makes confusion in their teaching, and leads them not to recognize the total ruin of man.
        As for me, I see in the word, and I recognize in myself, the total ruin of man. I see that the cross is the end of all the means that God has employed to gain the heart of man, and, consequently, that it proves the thing to be impossible. (Hoyt writes: GOD does not employ means to “gain the heart of man”. Such implies that man is able to reject and disannul the workings of the Holy Spirit. GOD’s elect children are manifestly assured after the Spiritual birth that “Ph. 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.” The Holy Spirit does not seek after the uncircumcised heart of man, but does circumcise the heart which makes a born again child of GOD to never draw back to perdition and be lost eternally. There has never been, and there will never be, a time in which GOD has exhausted all HIS resources. To proclaim that GOD has exhausted all HIS resources is borderline blasphemy, if not full-blown blasphemy!) God has exhausted all his resources; man has shown that he was wicked, past recovery; the cross of Christ condemns man—sin in the flesh. But this condemnation having been expressed in that another has undergone it, it is the absolute salvation of those who believe, for condemnation, the judgment of sin is behind us; life came out of it in resurrection. We are dead to sin (Hoyt writes: The born again child of GOD is not dead to sin. Sin remains as long as one lives upon this earth.), and alive to God, in Jesus Christ our Lord. Redemption, the very word, loses its force when we entertain these ideas of the old man. It becomes an amelioration, a practical deliverance from a moral state, and not a redeeming by the finished work of another. Christianity teaches the death of the old man (Hoyt writes: The Bible(KJV) does not teach that the “old man” died. Instead the “old man” remains, is not affected, and causes trouble from time to time as long as the born again child of GOD lives upon this earth.), and his just condemnation, then redemption accomplished by Christ, and a new life, eternal life, come down from heaven in His Person, and which is communicated to us when Christ enters into us by the word. Arminianism, or rather Pelagianism, pretends that man can choose, and that thus the old man ameliorated by the thing it has accepted. The first step is made without grace, and it is the first step which truly costs in this case.
        I believe that we ought to keep to the word; but, philosophically and morally speaking, free-will is a false and absurd theory. Free-will is a state of sin. Man ought not to have to choose, as being outside of good. Why is he in that state? He ought not to have a will, any choice to make—he ought to obey, and enjoy in peace. If he has to choose good, then he has not got it yet. He is without that which is good in himself, at any rate, since he is not decided.(Hoyt writes: To say that a man has not decided is to say man has a free will that enables him to choose. But such is not the case with man.) But, in fact, man is disposed to follow that which is evil. What cruelty to propose a duty to man who is already turned to evil! Moreover, philosophically speaking, to choose, he must be indifferent, otherwise he has already chosen as to his will—he must then be absolutely indifferent. Now, if he is absolutely indifferent, what is to decide his choice? A creature must have a motive; but he has none, since he is indifferent; if he is not, he has chosen. (Hoyt writes: No human chooses to do evil, as if he had a choice to do good or evil. ALL humans are naturally born with corruption throughout that was inherited from the first Adam. Therefore, it is beyond the capability and capacity of any man to choose to do good or evil. Natural man does evil according to his only nature that was naturally in him by that inherited from his first parents.)
        But, in fact, it is not so; man has a conscience, but he has a will and lusts, and they lead him. Man was free in paradise, but then he was in the enjoyment of good. He made use of his free-will, and consequently he is a sinner. (Hoyt writes: Adam was NOT free in the Garden. He did not choose to be there, nor did he choose to be in the situation GOD put him in the Garden to dress it. After the sin of Adam, by eating the forbidden fruit, sin entered that Grace may more so abound. That is, if there had never been a need for a “cure”, then the glories of Jesus Christ would never have been manifest in time.) To leave him to his free-will, now that he is disposed to do evil, would be cruelty.(Hoyt writes: Man, in his natural state, “thinks” he has a free will.) God has presented to him the choice (Hoyt writes: By Darby writing that GOD presented to man a choice, shows that Darby is Arminian works doctrine.), but it was to convince the conscience (Hoyt writes: The natural conscience of man is incapable of comprehending anything of the Spirit of Christ. “Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind (aka the natural mind or conscience) is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.”) of the fact that, in any case, man would have neither good nor God. I have been somewhat oppressed with sleep while writing to you, but I think you will understand me. That people should believe that God loves the world is all right(Hoyt writes: GOD does not love the whole global world. The world that GOD loves is the world of HIS elect children. “John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Again, the world of John 3:16 is the world of HIS Church, that is, HIS chosen generation who were chosen “in” Christ before the foundation of the world: “Ephesians 1:3-6 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.” There is nothing in Scripture to indicate that a person has the ability to accept or reject Christ Jesus. HIS elect children are made accepted in the beloved, and with this they do not have a desire or the ability to draw back after they have been Spiritually born. Those who are wolves in sheep’s clothing do make a hollow profession, pretending to be a “Christian”, and these nominal professors do flee from the flock when exposed and draw back to perdition, falling from the grace of the congregation of believers they initially deceived.); but that they should not believe that man is in himself wicked beyond remedy (Hoyt writes: Man in himself is wicked beyond remedy. They do not have the ability to accept Christ or do anything good in order to become a “Christian”. It is ONLY by the Grace of GOD that HE implants the “new man” and such manifests that the Holy Spirit has born them again without any human means or efforts employed by any human. As I understand the life of Darby, he was much involved in the Church of the Breathren(Dunkards), and it is well known that these are of a free will or works doctrine.) (and notwithstanding the remedy) is very bad. They know not themselves, and they know not God. The Lord is coming, dear brother; the time for the world is passing away. What a blessing! May God find us watching, and thinking only of one thing—of Him about whom God thinks—Jesus, our precious Savior.
        Elberfeld,
        October 23rd, 1861.

  11. Hello Hoyt,

    Oh dear me. I think your interpretation of Darby is very uncharitable. That is to say, you are imputing the worst possible meaning to the things he says. You do not appear to even be attempting to understand him. You are just trying to find fault, and are making yourself look silly. For example, usually when we talk about preventing people from doing something, we mean by coercion. Presumably we both agree that God does NOT prevent the lost from repenting or receiving Christ by coercion. Rather, He prevents them by hardening their hearts. As it is written, “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, that they may not see with their eyes, and understand with their heart and be converted, and I should heal them.” (John 12:40 Darby).

    So actually what Darby said was not so bad. God does implore and call out to the wicked, “How long, simple ones, will ye love simpleness, and scorners take pleasure in their scorning, and the foolish hate knowledge? Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour forth my spirit unto you, I will make known to you my words. Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no one regarded; and ye have rejected all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh in your calamity, I will mock when your fear cometh” (Proverbs 1).

    In this sense God OUTWARDLY presents the wicked with every possibility to repent, like God did with Pharaoh, smiting him 7 times before He eventually killed him. And one would have thought that would be enough times for Pharaoh to get the message (!), nevertheless, the heart of Pharaoh was utterly wicked and he did not repent, for God hardened his heart. So then “even when God employs all possible motives, everything that is capable of exerting influence over the heart of man [in an outward sense], it only serves to prove that man will have none of it, that his heart is so corrupt, and his will so determined not to submit to God.” This is entirely true. In fact, given that Darby believed firmly in *irresistible* grace, he *DID* believe and accept that God could have given repentance to Pharaoh but chose not to. That is to say, Darby did *not* think that God employed all possible motives *inwardly* to change man, for he believed that God had the power to, by His Holy Spirit, change the hearts of men.

    It is better to be slower to speak. Be sure that what someone is saying is wrong before you criticism them for it. It may be that Darby did have the wrong doctrine on this matter. But we can’t know that from his words here.

    You did the same thing when you commented later on Darby’s words. Darby said, “I see that the cross is the end of all the means that God has employed to gain the heart of man; God has exhausted all his resources; man has shown that he was wicked, past recovery” which seems fine to me. It almost certainly didn’t mean anything you said it meant. Darby was not limiting God’s power to do anything. He was saying that, consistent with God’s nature and character, God had to send Jesus to die for men’s sins, so as to, in justice, regenerate them by His Holy Spirit, which is entirely right.

    Darby, by your harsh standards, which can never be met, is not even allowed to say that Adam was free in the garden. Well, of course he was free: free from original sin, free from a wicked heart, free from human total depravity (which is what Darby was talking about) and also obviously free from coercion. And yet you won’t allow it. You won’t allow yourself to dare interpret Darby in anything other than a negative light. You just want to attack, attack, attack.

    My original point was that you were wrong to call Darby an Arminian. You would have known what I meant by that if you’d been paying attention. I don’t want to get into a dispute over words here. If Darby is an Arminian (according to your definition), then at least you’d have to admit he’s a pretty strange one. An Arminian who believes in election and predestination, and a form of limited atonement, and says free will entirely distorts the whole idea of Christianity…yeah…that kind of Arminian.

    Well, just like Erasmus before him, God raised up John Darby for a purpose. To translate the Bible into English. It was God who gave Darby a special ability to spot distinctions and delineate between concepts. Unfortunately Darby ended up using that mind wrongly, coming up with ‘Dispensationalism’ and mixing in various Arminian notions with the truth. That was wrong of him.

    But if God can give excellent abilities in Mathmatics and Linguistics to non-religious people, He can give excellent abilities in translation to John Darby, and indeed He did. Darby was a very smart man. He translated the Bible into multiple languages including French and German. Darby’s translation is by far and a way the most accurate translation of the Bible into English. Comparing it to Green’s Literal (KJ3) it is less wooden and more careful. Comparing it to the King James, Darby only improved upon it. Check for yourself any difference between the two (I challenge you to check out any one) comparing Darby to KJV, looking at the Greek or Hebrew to see their roots and meanings in the original (using Strong’s Dictionary or whatever lexicon/Greek/Hebrew dictionary you have). You will find Darby refreshingly accurate.

    Darby’s translation is not perfect. It could be improved. But it is excellent.

    As I said before, Darby had a false understanding of Limited Atonement, and correspondingly of passages like John 3:16, which also people like John Piper misinterpret.

    The worst thing about your whole rant was that you even began getting your own language in a muddle. For example, you said, “No human chooses to do evil, as if he had a choice to do good or evil.” Of course men have a choice to do good or evil. They choose evil because they want to. And they want to because their hearts are deceitful above all things and incurable. But they have a choice to do good. Having a choice (or option) to do good doesn’t imply that they have any capacity to do good, or that they are able to do good, or that they will ever do good.

    So, in conclusion, I believe you are downright sinning, can’t see the wood for the trees, like a bull in a china shop, you are ranting and raving and seem unable to be corrected or take criticism without trying to find fault with others. I believe you need to repent.

  12. P.S. it is irrelevant what the Plymouth Brethren ended up believing. We were talking about Darby, not what the Plymouth Brethren ended up believing fifty or a hundred years later. Talking about what the Brethren believe and imputing that to Darby is like saying the Lutherans hold to is what Luther believed, or the Catholics hold to what Augustine believed. In truth, whenever you’ve had these movements, they’ve almost always gone bad.

  13. P.P.S. please if you would like to respond, would you mind formatting your paragraphs in a way that makes them a little more easy to read? Its just a courtesy, for us modern readers, who are used to reading paragraphs.

    • Hoyt Sparks Says:

      I don’t see a need to rehash what I have written or go into trying to once again counter what you have written. It is obvious that you believe in a works doctrine, and I do not even attempt to try and persuade anyone who believes in human efforts to convince them otherwise to the truth, as it is in Christ Jesus. Simply put, GOD chose HIS elect children before the foundation of the world. They do nothing to get or help in getting the new birth, it is GOD who superadds the Spirit of Christ within without any aid or means from anyone. Those who have their eyes blinded to the truth, even thought they are of HIS chosen elect ones or they are of the reprobate, can do NOTHING in “accepting Christ”, “getting saved”, etc., etc.

      Again, you define hyper-Calvinism differently that what I do. You define “regeneration” differently than I do. You believe everyone has a chance to be saved; I don’t believe such tom-foolery simply because your doctrine is man-made, unable to be supported by the Bible(KJV).

      Good by,

      • You said, “Simply put, GOD chose HIS elect children before the foundation of the world. They do nothing to get or help in getting the new birth, it is GOD who superadds the Spirit of Christ within without any aid or means from anyone. Those who have their eyes blinded to the truth, even thought they are of HIS chosen elect ones or they are of the reprobate, can do NOTHING in “accepting Christ”, “getting saved”, etc., etc.”

        I agree with all of that.

        So, what is the beef here? Why do you say I believe in a works doctrine?

        I never said God offers Jesus’ blood to people, or that God offers people forgiveness on the basis of Jesus blood.

        People cannot repent because it is not in their nature to want to repent. But if they wanted to repent, they could repent, obviously.

      • Stands back from the keyboard in ameemaznt! Thanks!

  14. I believe that the new man is a new and spiritual man, not the old man who is and always has been and always will be totally depraved.

    I do not believe anyone chooses to be saved.

    I do not believe God offers men either election or redemption or regeneration.

    I do not believe that I or anyone else ever ‘accepted Christ’ to be saved.

    I believe God puts faith in the hearts of His people, and reckons their faith as righteousness. Repentance, faith, forgiveness, and indeed all the blessings of God are given on account of the redemption.

    You are in attack mode, and you need to stop. You are not being quick to hear or slow to speak.

    • There is a ‘legal’ offer. God offers men forgiveness on the basis of their repentance.

      God does not need the blood of Jesus to offer men forgiveness in a legal manner. He (in justice/in accordance with His own nature and character) needs the blood of Jesus to GIVE men repentance, forgiveness and remission of sins if they fail to repent.

      It just so happens that man is totally depraved, and so nobody accepts God’s ‘legal’ offer of forgiveness.

      Why on earth would Christ have to die if men repented of their own nature? He would not have needed to die. You seem to think that if men repented, God would reject their repentance until He received blood, like some blood-thirsty vampire.

      • Apologies, that last paragraph went too far. I should not have said, “You seem to think that if men repented, God would reject their repentance until He received blood, like some blood-thirsty vampire.”

        I suspect you had not considered the matter of ‘legal repentance’ or ‘legal forgiveness’ before.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: