Thursday, February 26, 2009

Hybridism's abuse of terms


The Reformed Hybrid Calvinists of this day and age have hijacked several terms under which they are in the habit of propagating their evoluted theological views.

For example, terms such as --

"Calvinism," "Monergism," "Classical Calvinism," "Historic," "Founders," "Doctrines of Grace," etc. are all frequently used by the Hybrids as if to imply that Hybrid Calvinism is an expression of the views implied by those terms.

This is one of the greatest misconceptions on the theology market of this age. To buy into this is to by-pass what is taught in the standard theological sources of original Calvinism.

Hybrid Calvinism is not taught in the standard creeds and confessions of the past. It is a later development, as admitted by writers such as Shedd, Berkhof, and Packer. We have cited these references before, but here they are again, evidence of what we have stated:

This heart of Hybrid Calvinism is what they call the "ordo salutis," and its evolution is traced by Dr. Shedd to Pedobaptist Francis Turretin.

W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, pages 492-494:

The divines of the seventeenth century very generally do not distinguish between regeneration and conversion, but employ the two as synonyms. Owen does this continually: On the Spirit, III. v. And Charnocke likewise: Attributes, Practical Atheism. The Westminster does not use the term regeneration. In stead of it, it employs the term vocation, or effectual calling. This comprises the entire work of the Holy Spirit in the application of redemption. . . . But this wide use of the term regeneration led to confusion of ideas and views. As there are two distinct words in the language, regeneration and conversion, there are also two distinct notions denoted by them. Consequently, there arose gradually a stricter use of the term regeneration, and its discrimination from conversion.

Turretin (XV. iv. 13) defines two kinds of conversion, as the term was employed in his day. . . . After thus defining, Turretin remarks that the first kind of conversion is better denominated 'regeneration,' because it has reference to the new birth by which man is renewed in the image of his Maker; and the second kind of conversion is better denominated 'conversion,' because it includes the operation and agency of man himself. . . . We shall adopt this distinction between regeneration and conversion. . . . Regeneration is a cause; conversion is an effect."

J. I. Packer :

Many seventeenth century Reformed theologians equated regeneration with effectual calling and conversion with regeneration . . . LATER REFORMED THEOLOGY has defined regeneration more narrowly, as the implanting of the "seed" from which faith and repentance spring (I John 3:9) in the course of effectual calling.

Louis Berkhof also acknowledged that the theory had post-Creedal development:

It is true that some Reformed authors have occasionally used the term 'regeneration' as including even sanctification, but that was in the days when the ORDO SALUTIS was not as fully developed as it is today" (Systematic Theology, page 468).

These are well-known "Reformed" Pedobaptist sources, and they are revealing that the "ordo salutis" of modern Reformed theology, which puts "regeneration" prior to faith, is in fact a hybrid development which arose "later" than Calvin, Owen, Watson, Sibbes, and the seventeenth century divines (Puritans) who regarded regeneration and conversion as synonymous.

It should be significant for a Baptist to take note of the fact that many, if not most, of the current notable advocates of Hybrid Calvinism are from the Reformed Pedobaptist (baby baptizers) camp. And even those who are not Pedos generally have been significantly impacted in their thinking by the influence of Pedobaptists. Hybrid Calvinist advocates have never been especially noted for emphasis upon evangelism, soul-winning, and witnessing, but they have made reputations for themselves via their academic writings and "registration fee required" conference appearances.



    Bob, though you're too Calvinistic to suit me, I want you to know that your recent post about "hybrid Calvinism's" misleading terminology reminded me you are doing a great service to the Lord's people through your writings. Keep 'em coming!


    To Brother Oyen and any other interested parties:

    Ever since I started blogging on The Calvinist Flyswatter, I think you will notice, Bruce, that it has not been my purpose to promote Calvinism, but rather to simply reveal the distortion and perversion of CREEDAL Calvinism.

    The Flyswatter blog was Charles' blog, and Charles never gave any indication that he was a Calvinist, and it would have been an unethical imposition on my part to try to promote that theoretical system on Charles' blog. If you will carefully read what I have written the past three years, I do not believe you will find me "beating the drum" in the promotion of Calvinism, but rather I have sought to demonstrate the MISREPRESENTATION of Creedal Calvinism by the likes of the Flounders, the Reformed, and the Internet pseudo theologians who promote HYBRID CALVINISM.

    Furthermore, I have deliberately focused upon the Hybrid Calvinism heresy of "born again before faith" since this is currently the "common denominator" of those who promote this perverted view under the guise of "Calvinism."

    And the fact is, I have been accused of being "Arminian" due to the fact that I do not endorse the Pedobaptist Reformed Hybrid Calvinism which teaches "pre-faith regeneration."

    If it were simply a matter of promoting Calvinism per se, I would not be blogging. I am blogging to oppose the heresy which teaches that sinners are born again before they have been effectually called to faith in Christ by by the Word of God as the instrumental cause and the Spirit of God as the efficient cause.

    The heresy of Hybrid Calvinism is the unscriptural separation of the Word as the instrument in regenerationn from the Holy Spirit who is the agent of regeneration.


    Bob, I have never thought you were using either Flyswatter to promote Calvinism, but to do just what you pointed out in your response to my post.

    I said what I did in that previous post to let readers know what page I'm on, so to speak. Personally, Bob, I think you're predestined to become, just like I already am, an Arminian that believes in eternal security! Miracles still happen, you know!

    BOB'S NOTE: Well, Bruce, I suppose I would prefer being "an Arminian that believes in eternal security" than be a Reformed Hybrid Calvinist, if I was forced to be either of those two.

    Reading Spurgeon sort of helps keep me "in line" from falling into either of those categories. Spurgeon seemed to have more friends among the "Arminians" than he had among the Hybrid Calvinists of his time.

    In my book store, it seems that the
    "Arminians" and "non-Calvinists" are the ones who are most inclined to obtain Gospel tracts and go out into the "highways and hedges" to spread the Word and thereby bring in those whom the "Calvinists" say are the "elect." Some of the "Calvinists" seem to be more interested in converting the "elect" (won by the "Arminians") to "Calvinism" than they are interested in converting them to Christ. Some of them seem to be content to leave the witnessing and evangelizing to the "non-Calvinists."


    You have made a good point, Bob, about which of the two groups might do most of the evangelizing. Some Calvinists might be afraid the non-elect will get saved (just kidding!), some are too afraid of false conversions, and other Calvinists have been put to sleep evangelistically by all the attention they have given to the order of salvation, God's secret decrees, and what-have-you.

    Let's assume, for the sake of argument, the apostles of Christ were, as you call it, hybrid Calvinists. They still had a lot of active concern for the unsaved. How about present-day hybrid Calvinists? I don't know the answer to the question, so I'm not passing judgment. But I'm interested in knowing what the answer is.

    BOB: If you find the answer, Bruce, please post it here!

    No less than Iain Murray has emphasized the lack of evangelism and soul winning by the Hybrids. HERE