1. The OSAS mentality that states that I can act, say and think any way that I want to and God has no choice but to save my sinning butt because to let me perish would break His promise. This goes against all the commands in scripture to live careful lives. To be kind to our neighbour whether Christian or not or whether we agree with him or not. And if somethings happen in the congregation I don’t like and cannot find another one closer to MY belief. No problem! I am elect and dont need anyone besides myself and my bible.

2. A terrified sinner because he or she cannot look to Jesus crucified for any assurance. There is no way to know for sure, if Jesus died only for a few, that one is died for. The law obedience is something we desire but it also always accuses. So many Christians think that God is impressed with grand efforts and doing our best as long as we show progress. When one becomes honest with oneself and see the standard is to be holy as our Father is holy the despair and grief are overwhelming.

You do make a valid point that to always use human reason in a magesterial level rather than to be informed by scripture has and does lead to much error. It appears that it is easily forgotten that our entire existence is still spent as sinner as well as saint.

God’s peace. †

I am, of course, sympathetic to what you are saying. However, there were other factors (other than high/hyper calvinism — notice the lower case “c”!) that led to the demise of the mainline Presbyterian church(es) in the 19th century. Certainly the infiltration of revivalism did not help matters, not did the emergence of the philosophical schools of thought like Romanticism and Modernism/Naturalism. The rise of German higher criticism, for example, and then the later emphasis on a moral example theory of the atonement did more to corrupt and destroy the greater part of a denomination than the Calvinism factors you mentioned. It can be easily argued, though, that high/hyper calvinistic tendencies were probably (at least in some cases, such as with revivalism) a reaction against what were perceived to be a sub-biblical tendency infiltrating the church.

Perhaps it can be argued that this is often the Presbyterian/Calvinistic way: when we are confronted by unScriptural ideas, we tend toward overreaction (I’m thinking of Frame’s “Machen’s Warrior Children” article that you have reference elsewhere). Of course, Bucer was one of my favorite Reformers, so the peace-maker approach certainly appeals to me. But it seems to me that there were far more insidious things at work in Reformed circles that simply high/hyper approaches — and you know how much I despise hyper!

Most Calvinist Churches cease to be Calvinist through the normal erosion of time (and theology).

If Calvinists allowed and encouraged this kind of talk, it would accelerate that process.

————————-
Trey, excuse me, but you banned me once at Unchained, and you did so for my saying that Tony’s views at certain points, had the same interpretation of certain passages as Arminians. You banned me for accusing him of (being) an Arminian (something I never said btw)
You actually state in this article similar comments that I made regarding Arminianism and certain points of contact with a less particularistic understanding of the atonement!
On a personal note. Both David and Tony will not, and never have extended the courtesy of calling me a brother to this very hour, despite the courtesy from myself to them. I raise that point because it was something you had said against Dr White, and the irony caused me to squirm.
I intend to interact with some of your posts over at my blog and you are welcome to respond.

Regards
Mark

And, too, Tony, there is a real issue as to whether what is “Amyraldism” properly speaking is attributable to Amyraut himself, just for the reasons you mention through your quote.

I point out again that the Marrowmen (a group that heavily influence the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church in which i learned my Reformed Theology and which ordained me—after all, the ARP Church’s denominational seminary, at which i studied, is called “Erskine” for a reason!) were accused of Arminianism and Amyraldianism as well, yet Berkhof and others defend their orthodoxy against such scurrilous claims. I hope people will take notice.

And, Tony, your credo-baptistic humility is a credit to your creed of men.

James White is on record saying that Amyraldism is not technically four-pointism. He said the following on the Dividing Line:

“And that’s why folks who run around calling themselves four pointers who do not know who Amyraut was and cannot exactly tell you what Amyraut actually believed. That’s “Amyraldianism” and that’s not actually four pointism, by the way. Some people think it is, but… (Caller speaks for a moment)…Amyraldianism is not technically four pointism.”

Therefore, your following words are not accurate:

“…he paints the so-called “Ponterites” (in which he includes me) as being Amyraldians, or four-point Calvinists.”

He did call us “Amyraldians,” but not four-point Calvinists, that I can recall.

Also, with respect to Amyraldism and ordered decretalism, John Quick reports what the Amyraldian party said before a French Synod (probably Alencon) this way:

“2) As to making distinct decrees in the council of God, the first of which is to save all men, through Jesus Christ, if they shall believe in him, the second to give faith unto some particular persons, Amyraut, along with Testard, declared, that they did this upon no other account than of accommodating it unto that manner and order which the spirit of man observeth in his reasonings for the succour of his own infirmity; they otherwise believing, that though they considered this decree as diverse, yet it was formed in God in one and the self-same moment, without any succession of thought or order of priority and posteriority.” Quick’s Synodicon, Vol. ii. p. 355.

Also, take a look at what Brian Armstrong says about Amyraut and lapsarian speculations.

I would correct some other things in Trey’s post above with all credo-baptistic humility (to be redundant), but this will have to do for now lol

al sends

Your responses were outstanding Trey and as I was reading, from the bottom up, how all this started, I could not believe what I was reading.

I know that Dr. White knows the definition of <ad hom so his initial point really confused me. Your critique of his style and demeanor did nothing to invalidated the truth of what he may have been saying. Odd I tell ya.

Oh well, the Baptists may not like ya, but I love ya brother! Keep up the good work God has called you to.

al sends