Thursday, May 14, 2009

An Examination of Tulip: The Five Points of Calvinism

While unpacking some boxes of books recently I came across a small, 23-page booklet titled, An Examination of Tulip: The "Five Points" of Calvinism!, authored by Robert L. Sumner. The booklet was published by Biblical Evangelism Press, Brownsburg, Indiana, with a copyright date on the inside cover of 1972. The booklet is available through Sumner's website.

I do not recall where I acquired the booklet, nor do I recall having read it previously. As I read through it, I found much to disagree with; my purpose in this article is to critique the arguments Sumner puts forward in his examination of Calvinism.

The booklet is divided into four sections with a short introduction and conclusion. The sections are titled:

1. What are the "Five Points" of Calvinism? (pages 4-11)
2. How Does This Position Effect Evangelism? (pages 11-12)
3. What Is Wrong With the "Five-Point" Position? (pages 12-19)
4. The "Five Points" Effect on Other Doctrines (pages 19-22)

He begins the second paragraph of his introduction by writing:
Those who hold to five-point Calvinism teach that God, in a sense, really doesn't want all men to be saved or to come unto the knowledge of his truth. (3)
and ends the paragraph with the following:
…what they teach amounts to His actually wanting the majority of souls to perish in Hell eternally. (3)
Sumner's objection here is a fairly common objection to Calvinism. What is fascinating to me is that I have never heard or read any Calvinist who would agree with Sumner's representation of Calvinism. Charles Spurgeon, in his Defense of Calvinism, answers the first statement:
Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they say, "It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all men; it commends itself," they say, "to the instincts of humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty."

...If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into this world…

...Once again, if it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed…

...That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!
In the same article, Spurgeon spoke to the issue of the number of the elect:
Think of the numbers upon whom God has bestowed His grace already. Think of the countless hosts in Heaven: if thou wert introduced there to-day, thou wouldst find it as easy to tell the stars, or the sands of the sea, as to count the multitudes that are before the throne even now. They have come from the East, and from the West, from the North, and from the South, and they are sitting down with Abraham, and with Isaac, and with Jacob in the Kingdom of God; and beside those in Heaven, think of the saved ones on earth. Blessed be God, His elect on earth are to be counted by millions, I believe, and the days are coming, brighter days than these, when there shall be multitudes upon multitudes brought to know the Saviour, and to rejoice in Him. The Father's love is not for a few only, but for an exceeding great company. "A great multitude, which no man could number," will be found in Heaven. A man can reckon up to very high figures; set to work your Newtons, your mightiest calculators, and they can count great numbers, but God and God alone can tell the multitude of His redeemed. I believe there will be more in Heaven than in hell. If anyone asks me why I think so, I answer, because Christ, in everything, is to "have the pre-eminence," and I cannot conceive how He could have the pre-eminence if there are to be more in the dominions of Satan than in Paradise. Moreover, I have never read that there is to be in hell a great multitude, which no man could number.
Loraine Boettner, in his book The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (also available here), discusses the same objection:
When the doctrine of Election is mentioned many people immediately assume that this means that the great majority of mankind will be lost. But why should any one draw that conclusion? God is free in election to choose as many as He pleases, and we believe that He who is infinitely merciful and benevolent and holy will elect the great majority to life. There is no good reason why He should be limited to only a few. We are told that Christ is to have the preeminence in all things, and we do not believe that the Devil will be permitted to emerge victor even in numbers. (130)
And further:
There is, however, a very common practice among Arminian writers to represent Calvinists as tending to consign to everlasting misery a large portion of the human race whom they would admit to the enjoyment of heaven. It is a mere caricature of Calvinism to represent it as based on the principle that the saved will be a mere handful, or only a few brands plucked from the burning. (131)

...In answer to those who are inclined to say, "According to this doctrine God alone can save the soul; there will be few saved," we can reply that they might as well reason, "Since God alone can create stars, there can be but few stars." The objection is not well taken. The doctrine of Election taken in itself tells us nothing about what the ultimate ratio shall be. The only limit set is that not all will be saved. (131)
In the opening paragraph of Section 1 Sumner, in an attempt to be "objective, not objectionable, (4)" states:
Opponents usually describe it as hyper-Calvinism, a term which greatly agitates the advocates of five-pointism because "hyper" means "to go beyond the ordinary or norm." While we feel "hyper-Calvinism" is an honest and fair appraisal, since it goes beyond the position of Calvin himself, we will refrain from using the term here. (4)
The Canons of Dordt define Calvinism, not John Calvin's specific writings. Furthermore even though the term "hyper" may be defined in the manner Sumner does, when that term is prefixed to Calvinism it actually has a distinct meaning and Calvinists are as much opposed to hyper-Calvinism as they are opposed to Arminianism.

In a Reformed Perspectives Magazine article titled, What is Hyper-Calvinism?, Jim Ellis writes:
Hyper-Calvinism is a term of derision that today is often used to negatively label anyone with a strong theological view of God's sovereignty in the affairs of men. A legitimate understanding of hyper-Calvinism, in its technical sense, appears to be lost today. It seems as if anyone to the right of one's own theological position is fair game to be labeled a hyper-Calvinist.

...They [the hyper-Calvinists], like the Arminians, mistakenly assume that if it is the duty (responsibility) of fallen man to believe and God indeed calls him to believe, then he must have the natural ability to do so. The Arminian conclusion is that man has a free will and Christ has made an atonement for all alike. The hyper-Calvinist, based on the same assumption, concludes that it is not the duty of fallen man and that God in the gospel does not indiscriminately offer Christ to all men alike; that is in reference to the "outward call" of the Gospel. Thus, in trying to protect the Calvinist doctrines of total depravity and particular redemption (a noble endeavor), the hyper-Calvinist has thrown out the baby with the bath water; namely, the universal call to faith to all who hear the gospel, reprobate and elect alike.
Ellis ends his article by stating that:
...I hope it is clear that hyper-Calvinism is not to be considered a legitimate form of Calvinism, for it is not. By the same token, however, it should also be clear that honest theological discussion should refrain from labeling legitimate variations within orthodox Calvinism as "Hyper-Calvinism."
Phil Johnson, in his Primer on Hyper-Calvinism, defines it as:
…a doctrine that emphasizes divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility. To call it "hyper-Calvinism" is something of a misnomer. It is actually a rejection of historic Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism entails a denial of what is taught in both Scripture and the major Calvinistic creeds, substituting instead an imbalanced and unbiblical notion of divine sovereignty.
Due to the fact that Sumner does not distinguish between Historic Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism, some of his arguments against Calvinism are actually arguments against hyper-Calvinism.

What are the "Five Points" of Calvinism?

Total Depravity
To the fact of man's total and complete depravity, as stated in Sacred Scripture, we heartily concur. Man is completely corrupt from the crown of his head to the soles of his feet. (4)

…we readily acknowledge also that man's depravity is such that he cannot and does not initiate any move towards God and redemption on his own. (4)
His statements so far are in complete accord with Calvinism. It is in the next paragraph that Sumner sides with the Arminians, though I am fairly confident he would reject the label.
The Word of God teaches that while man is totally depraved and totally unable to help himself, our Lord draws every man sufficiently and enlightens every man as much as necessary for that individual to make a decision of his own free will. (4)

…It is certainly true that no sinner can come to Christ unless drawn by the Spirit of God; but the blessed Holy Spirit draws every man (John 12:32), giving man enough light so that he is, as Romans 1:20 says, "without excuse." (5)
Jeff Paton, in his article on Prevenient Grace, shows that:
The Spirit is given to all men as the fruit of atonement, and grace works in all, works toward salvation. This holds good of all without exception, has held good since the beginning. It holds good of the unconverted before conversion, of those who never are converted, of the heathen who have never heard of Christ. Anticipating human desire and effort (hence called prevenient grace), it checks and counteracts sin, inspires and fosters good inclination, and allures to the search for more grace. This universal divine working is the source of moral good and beauty in the irreligious. When welcomed and followed up, it passes into saving grace.
J.C. Thibodaux, in an article titled Prevenient Grace and Libertarian Free Will, wrote:
This grace which can overcome the innate sinful desires of men and allow them to receive the gospel message and believe in Christ as Savior is sometimes called 'preventing grace' or 'prevenient grace;' literally, grace that precedes our faith and conversion. This is a prime tenet of Arminianism and has been so since its early days as a theological system.
In John 6:35-44 we read of the Father giving and drawing the elect to His Son:
35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

41 So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." 42 They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" 43 Jesus answered them, "Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
This passage shows that not every individual is drawn by the Spirit, because if they were, every individual would be saved. Verses 39, 40, and 44 all speak of raising up on the last day. Those who are given by the Father in verse 37 are those who look on the Son and believe in verse 40, and are those drawn by the Father in verse 44. No one can be drawn by the Father and yet not come to the Son, and all those drawn will come to the Son and will never be cast out.

Unconditional Election
The "U" in Tulip stands for "unconditional election." By this is meant that the decision which determines the individual's destiny is wholly and entirely God's decision, not in the slightest degree that of the sinner. (5)

…This kind of theology simply makes a taunting of the Savior's charge to the people of His day; "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life" (John 5:40). According to the philosophy of five-point Calvinism, it is not that these sinners would not, but rather that they could not. (6)
When one's theology begins with the idea that man is capable of responding to the call to repent, it logically must conclude that God in some way prohibits certain individuals from responding. The idea Sumner presents is that there are individuals who have a real desire to be saved and they cannot be saved solely because God has not elected them.

Since Calvinism affirms that unregenerate man will not respond to God's call to repent, God must do everything with regard to salvation. God's work begins with regeneration, wherein he removes the "heart of stone" and replaces it with a "heart of flesh" (Ezekiel 36:26). This work of God is accomplished by means of the preached Gospel.

Lazarus is a great example in the physical realm of what God does in the spiritual realm. Lazarus, being dead, had no awareness of his deadness, and his physical body was decaying in the grave. The command of Jesus to "come out" (John 11:43) included with it the regeneration of his physically dead body. Upon coming to life he leaves the darkness of the cave and joins the living.

Spiritually dead men have no capacity to regenerate themselves. As the Holy Spirit, through the preaching of the Gospel, opens their hearts, unstops their deaf ears, and gives sight to their blind eyes, they repent and trust Christ. God is in no way obligated to save any and that, in His mercy and grace He saves many, does not make him unjust in not saving all.
…How deadening five-point Calvinism is to evangelism (6)
Here is where Sumner confuses Calvinism with hyper-Calvinism. Calvinists on the whole reject the kind of evangelism that affirms something along the lines of God-loves-you-and-has-a-wonderful-plan-for-your-life. Sadly, much of what passes for evangelism in our day results in many professors of salvation, but few who actually live a "new creation" life (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Limited Atonement
The "L" stands for "Limited Atonement." By this the five-point Calvinist means that Jesus Christ only died at Calvary for the elect - none of the billions of non-elect was included in the provision through the shedding of His blood. (7)

…They argue that if Christ died for all, then, unless His work was a failure, all must be forgiven and taken to Heaven. (7)

…In the dictionary of the "tulip" man, "world" does not mean world; "all" does not mean all; "whosoever" does not mean whosoever; and a brand new language must be understood which, in turn, makes the Bible a hopeless mass of confusion for the average reader - even though he be a child of God. (8)
This is an all-too-common charge against Calvinism, which is answered simply by showing that the immediate context will always determine who is included in the words world, all, and whosoever. James White, in his book The Potter's Freedom, commenting on John 12:32 - "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself (NASB)." - states that:
Reformed exegetes believe that "all men" refers to Jews and Gentiles, not to every individual person, and the context points this direction. (164)
The Second Head of Doctrine of the Canons of Dordt deals specifically with the death of Christ and redemption of man.
Article 3
The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.

Article 6
And whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.

Article 8
For this was the sovereign counsel, and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation: that is, it was the will of God, that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to Him by the Father; that He should confer upon them faith, which together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, He purchased for them by His death; should purge them from all sin, both original and actual, whether committed before or after believing; and having faithfully preserved them even to the end, should at last bring them free from every spot and blemish to the enjoyment of glory in His own presence forever.
Roger Nicole, in his article The Case for Definite Atonement, shows that:
The doctrine is not concerned with the intrinsic value of the sacrifice of Christ. It is freely granted by all parties to the controversy, and specifically by the Reformed, that the death of our Lord, by virtue of His divine nature, is of infinite worth and therefore amply sufficient to redeem all mankind, all angels and the whole world, even a thousand worlds besides, if He had so intended. Rather the point at issue here concerns the chief purpose of the Father in sending the Son and the chief intention of Christ in laying down His life in sacrifice.

…The point at issue here is simply this, whether the Father is sending the Son and the Son in offering Himself did intend to, provide salvation for all men and every man, or whether they intended to secure the salvation of all those and those only who will in fact be redeemed.
In the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 8, Section 5, we read:
The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself which He, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up to God, has fully satisfied the justice of God, has procured reconciliation, and has purchased an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of Heaven for all those whom the Father has given to Him.
On Monday, May 4, 2009, Lee Shelton posted an article on his blog titled Let's Rap About Limited Atonement. It contains a YouTube video by Shai Linne. The lyrics are available through Shai's blog, Lyrical Theology.

Irresistible Grace
Proponents mean by this expression that God's grace, when presented by the Holy Spirit, is of such a nature that it is impossible for the sinner to resist or refuse. (9)

…the five-point Calvinist has invented two calls. One is described as a "general" call, which every sinner is able to hear, and the other is supposed to be an "effectual" call, which only the elect can hear. (9)
Once again, we look to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 10, Section 1, where we read that:
Those whom God has predestinated to life, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time to effectually call by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death which they are in by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ. He enlightens their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God. He takes away their heart of stone and gives to them a heart of flesh. He renews their wills, and by His almighty power, causes them to desire and pursue that which is good. He effectually draws them to Jesus Christ, yet in such a way that they come absolutely freely, being made willing by His grace.
With regards to Lazarus, it must be noted that Lazarus was incapable of resisting the command of Christ to "come out." After all, it was God in the person of Jesus Christ who issued the command. But if he could have resisted the command, would he have? The answer must be an empathic no! The command included regeneration, and he would not have freely chosen to remain in the tomb with the dead. The command was that which he could freely and eagerly obey.

Some who reject Calvinism mistakenly speak of individuals who desire to come to repentance but cannot, because God has not elected them. Then there are others whom God has elected, but have no desire for repentance and God must forcibly bring them to salvation. That is a preposterous notion! All men who come in repentance to Christ come absolutely freely and willingly, because the Holy Spirit has regenerated their hearts. Praise be to God for His mercy and grace in granting repentance and faith to multitudes from every tribe, tongue, and nation!

Perseverance of the Saints
By this the five-point Calvinist means that the saints are eternally secure in Christ and that once in grace, they are always in grace. This is truly in accord with scriptural teaching, although the terminology here is most unfortunate. As ones who magnify God's grace, surely five-point Calvinist should know that it is not the saints who persevere, but the blessed Holy Spirit. It is His "holding out," not that of the saints! (10)
Gise J. Van Baren, in Chapter 5 of The Five Points of Calvinism, discusses the Perseverance of the Saints.
When one speaks of the perseverance of the saints, there is one element that renders this perseverance of the saints absolutely sure, an element which may never be forgotten. One always perseveres because he is preserved by the living God - and there is no other possible reason for perseverance.

…This truth of the perseverance and preservation of the saints is exactly the truth which is an incentive to the child of God to walk in all godliness and holiness before God. That is a fact. No child of God would ever say that he can sin as he pleases - for he will be preserved anyway. One who says that he may sin as he will is no Christian and gives no evidence of Christ's work in his heart. The Spirit just does not work that way.
The article on Perseverance on the website A Puritan's Mind explains that:
Perseverance of the saints teaches that once God has renewed the heart of a sinner through the application of the redemption wrought by Christ upon the cross, he will continue to be saved and show forth the fruits of that salvation. The sinner perseveres because of Christ, but he continually shows himself as one who has been changed by Christ.
How Does This Position Effect Evangelism?

Here is where Sumner confuses Calvinism with Hyper-Calvinism.
Why waste time, spend money and expend labor for something you cannot change? (11)

…Five-point Calvinism curtails missions, wrecks revivalism and destroys personal soul winning! And if those who hold the "tulip" position are right, why should we get excited about evangelism. (11)

…The whole idea of individual responsibility in soul winning is annihilated in the "tulip" view. (11)
In an article titled Calvinism and Evangelism, Bill Welzien writes:
Many people think that "Calvinist evangelist" is an oxymoron. What do you think? Can someone be seriously Calvinistic and at the same time seriously evangelistic?

…The Calvinist believes that every last one of those who were chosen in Christ before time will by the end of time be brought to saving faith and a vital relationship with God through the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ!

At this point, the non-Calvinist infers that the impetus and urgency to proclaim the gospel is gone, or diminished at best. After all, if God knows who is going to be saved, and if he will save his elect no matter what, why waste our time evangelizing?

But it is important to recognize that the God of the Bible ordains not only the end (salvation) but also the means to the end (the proclamation of the gospel).

…Does Calvinism take the wind out of the sails of evangelism? Properly understood and sincerely believed, it does exactly the opposite. Believing that God has a sovereign plan to bring all his elect to himself actually encourages evangelism.
What Is Wrong With the "Five-Point" Position?

In this section Sumner looks at five New Testament passages that are "used by the five-point Calvinist," and shows "how they have been taken out of context." Those passages are: Romans 9:10-13; John 15:15-16; 2 Timothy 2:9-10; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14; and Romans 8:28-31.

With regard to the Romans 9 passage, Sumner states:
…the whole issue is a national issue, which pertains to governments, not a personal matter dealing with the salvation of individuals.
I wish Sumner had not stopped with verse 13!

Romans 9:14-18
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, in his commentary on Romans, has this to say about the passage:
…why is it interesting to note the way in which the Apostle presents this difficulty, this objection, that arises in the minds of certain people? It is because the very form in which he puts the objection helps us to decide whether our exposition up to date has been the wrong one, because it is quite clear that the objection with which the Apostle is going to deal is one which arises as a direct result of what he has been saying; and as I have indicated, if our exposition of what has gone before does not lead to this objection, then of necessity it has been wrong. (139)

…There are those who say that the Apostle, in this whole section from verse 6 onwards, is really dealing with the problem not of individual salvation but of nations - that his only interest is in the position of the Jews as a nation. (140)

…No, what the Apostle is saying from verse 6 to verse 13 is that God, of His own eternal and sovereign will in the carrying out of His own great and eternal purpose, chooses some to salvation and rejects others. That is the conclusion at which we have arrived. That is the only conclusion that leads to this particular difficulty, this charge that people feel in their hearts against God. (144)
James Montgomery Boice, in his commentary on the passage, shows that:
All human beings deserve hell, not heaven. We are not talking about whether all actually end up in hell or whether only some end up in hell and some in heaven. We are talking about what all deserve, and what they deserve is condemnation.

…Deserving is based upon what people have done. Mercy has nothing to do with what people have done but is something that finds its source in the will of God only. (1070)
The "Five Points" Effect on Other Doctrines
In truth and in fact, "tulip" views of election have a deadly detrimental effect on a number of other important Bible truths. (19)
In this section Sumner lists two: prayer and "the biblical teaching regarding training children. (19)" Regarding prayer Sumner declares:
If five-point Calvinism teaching be true, why pray for the lost? Since the matter would have already been arbitrarily settled in eternity past, prayer could not have any possible effect whatsoever on an individual's conversion. (19)
John Piper, in an article titled The Sovereignty of God and Prayer, shows that:
The implicit argument here is that if prayer is to be possible at all man must have the power of self-determination. That is, all man's decisions must ultimately belong to himself, not God. For otherwise he is determined by God and all his decisions are really fixed in God's eternal counsel.

…What I am saying is that it is not the doctrine of God's sovereignty which thwarts prayer for the conversion of sinners. On the contrary, it is the unbiblical notion of self-determination which would consistently put an end to all prayers for the lost. Prayer is a request that God do something. But the only thing God can do to save a lost sinner is to overcome his resistance to God.

…Only the person who rejects human self-determination can consistently pray for God to save the lost.
As to the training of children Sumner, quoting Proverbs 22:6 - Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it. - states that:
…when parents train their children in obedience to Christ and His Word, God has an obligation to save them, help them live victoriously, and take them to heaven when they die. (20)
I would disagree with Sumner about God's obligation. If the children he is referring to do not come in personal repentance, trusting Christ for their salvation, God is in no way obligated to make an exception for them because of the training of their parents.

The remainder of the booklet has a few personal illustrations that I found distasteful. They seemed to be told in a manner that gave prominence to the writer, at the expense of the other party in the illustration.

Sumner closes the booklet by encouraging believers to "…get busy reaching sinners, (23)" which is commendable. We should all heed that encouragement, whether we affirm or reject Calvinism.

All scripture quotations are from the
English Standard Version, unless otherwise noted.

Links in this article are provided solely for information purposes,
and do not in any way imply full and complete endorsement.


Pastor Bob said...

Great stuff! Well put together and well thought out information. Thank you sir.

Les Spires said...

Nice Blog! You are now a "Professional Blogger!: :-) Seriously...Good Job! Now, if all of us would just go tell someone about Jesus today!!! We might forget what we were arguing about! Amen!

J. Brian McKillop said...

Today I came across an article titled, Hyper-Calvinism: A False Doctrine written by John R. Rice.

In the article, Rice refers to those who affirm the Five Points, as hyper-Calvinists.

You may read his article here:

J. Brian McKillop said...

I have linked to this article on Sharper Iron. You can follow the discussion there by pasting this link into your browser: