WLC statement "Calvin was a hyper-Calvinist"

William Lane Craig did say he thinks Calvin was a hyper-Calvinist.  (see Defenders Podcasts section 17 The Doctrine of Man, lesson 13).  Dr. White pokes fun at this statement in his intro to "Radio Free Geneva" and recently someone cited this as evidence that Dr. Craig does not understand Calvinism.  While Dr. Craig was speaking loosely, I am sure if pressed on the point he would agree there are differences between John Calvin and say Vince Chung or David Englesma’s (or if you disagree they are hyper-Calvinist, insert your favorite hyper-Calvinist).  Rather, he's saying Calvin was equally deterministic as Chung and Englesma. 

The context of Dr. Craig's statement was an extended discussion on if Calvinism paradoxicly asserts both libertarian freedom and divine determinism.  Some of Dr. Craig's students were arguing both are true and somehow it all works out.  As a response to show that Calvinism is fully deterministic and does not include libertarian freedom, Dr. Craig said:

"I think Calvin was a hyper Calvinist, as I read Calvin I think was a hard line, strong Calvinist and the people who say I am a Calvinist, but not a hyper-Calvinist, I don't see the distinction in Calvin between those two.  And I don't say that to be critical, but to understand the man's view.  I think his view was that God determines everything that happens even sinful actions."  - in the podcast, start at 20 minutes in, though this statement happens at about 27 minutes in.

In other words, Dr. Craig was using hyper-Calvinism in a non-technical sense, that God is the source of all sin and evil, in that He causally determines it.  And his point was "you think Calvinism doesn't include this idea - but it does.  I do not think Dr. Craig was saying Calvinists don't evangelize and if asked, I am guessing he would say so.

Comments

Anonymous said…
IT remembers me the Laurence Vance's advice: A hyper-calvinist is just a 'persoh who is more Calvinist than me'. A completely subjective matter.

In fact I think Cheung is hypercalvinist even that he said that we need to preach the Gospel message (a type of 'God will kill you' fear message, but doesn't matter...)
November 7, 2012 at 9:43 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,
Read more

Hodge on Ephesians 1:17-19

Hodge argues for effectual calling based on Ephesians 1:17-19. He claims that the passage teaches the regeneration is monergistic , so it proves God's call is effectual. Here's the passage: Ephesians 1:17-19 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, 18 the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power. Hodge has several problems. First, the passage teaches sanctification, not regeneration. It's dealing with living the Christian life and growing in grace, not conversion. Second, even if the passage were teaching that regeneration is monergistic , this wouldn't prove that God's call is effectual. I agree regeneration, strictly defi
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens
Read more