Having just posted the entry about Elder Jeremy Sarber and his observations on Hyper Calvinism, it is a good time to post this article wherein I critique the views of Elder David Pyles, son of Elder Sonny Pyles, who pastors a large "Primitive Baptist" church in Pearl, Miss. (See their web page here). I have had this in a draft form for some time and made effort to finish it since posting the post concerning Elder Sarber on the subject.
The writing I will be analyzing is titled "Hyper-Calvinism?" by Elder David Pyles (pdf here).
Wrote Pyles:
"So it appears that “hyper Calvinism” is sometimes an insult that non-Calvinists and pseudo Calvinists cast against those who are simply Calvinists. The prefix “hyper” is added to stigmatize them as extreme. However, sometimes even Calvinists accuse others of “hyper-Calvinism.” In
what follows, I will assume the definition that these usually intend."
Assume what definition of hyper Calvinism? He does not give it. He tells us that many have used it in different ways (and that is true), but which way is he using it? In the sense of Calvinism? That Hyper Calvinism is the same as Calvinism? Or, that Hyper Calvinism is extreme Calvinism? Okay, but what is extreme Calvinism? Which definition is "usually intended"?
Pyles writes (emphasis mine):
"The core issue here is whether gospel preachers are agents or
instruments in the eternal salvation of those who hear them.
Arminians and Calvinists, notwithstanding all their differences, are
agreed that preaching and belief of preaching are means to being
born again, to being rendered righteous before God, and therefore
to being eternally saved. The difference is that Calvinists think the
process operates under the forces of election and predestination,
and therefore under Divine decision and direction, whereas
Arminians believe the outcome finally swings on human decision.
Now the much-maligned hyper-Calvinists agree with Calvinists
that salvation is a sovereign act of God, but they disagree with both
Arminians and Calvinists about the instrumentality of preachers."
Hyper Calvinism was never, till the rise of the Hardshell anti means faction in the mid to late 19th century, a dispute about means in regeneration. In the 17th through the 19th century "Hyper Calvinism" was never about means in regeneration. It was about the well meant offer of the gospel. The rejection of means did not become a part of Hyper Calvinism till the rise of the Hardshells. Even those Calvinists who denied that means were used in initial regeneration (narrowly defined), men such as W. G. T. Shedd in his Systematic Theology, did not deny that means were used after regeneration in conversion, sanctification, or "broad regeneration," perseverance, and eternal salvation. Only the Hardshells took Hyper Calvinism to its logical conclusion in denying that the word of God is a means in any aspect of eternal salvation.
Denial of means was NEVER a "core issue" in historic Hyper Calvinism in regard to eternal salvation. The Hyper Calvinists of the 18th century did not deny that all the elect needed to be converted as well as regenerated, and they saw the gospel as a means in being converted. John Brine, in that century, was a Hyper Calvinist although he believed, like his father in the ministry John Gill, that God used the preaching of the gospel in the regeneration of the elect. Brine was Hyper in the sense that he denied offers of grace to the unregenerate in gospel addresses.
Notice that Pyles speaks of "the much maligned Hyper Calvinists." This is the way he sees his own group of Hardshell Baptists. But, the Hardshell version of hyperism is an extreme of the extreme.
If both Arminians and Calvinists agree on the means of the gospel, and only a small group, such as the Hardshells, disagree, then surely anyone must wonder how 99%+ of bible believers could all read the bible and fail to see what the Hardshell few see. Such an extreme minority view requires that the Hardshells be required to show the super majority how all the prima facie evidence for the means position is to be set aside. I would be careful about taking such an extreme minority view on such an important issue. They have surely done a poor job of convincing that 99% of their error!
He continues:
"They say that preaching and belief of preaching are the means of
certifying that a man is eternally saved, and serve to bring him into
the temporal benefits of this fact, and serve to glorify God for what
He has done, but that one man is not in any sense the cause or
means to the eternal salvation of another. Rather, they say eternal
salvation is the sovereign, irresistible, irreversible and direct act of
God alone."
Well, I am willing to stand upon the propositions highlighted and call upon brother Pyles to come and defend his denial of them. His proposition says that no human means are used in the eternal salvation of any person. Have we not destroyed this proposition many times? Who can read the bible and come away saying "God never used human means to save anyone"? Not a single person saved by a human means! Someone has to come along and deceive bible readers into thinking this way. Was Mary a human being? Was she not a means in salvation? The wicked who crucified Christ, were they not means, although unwilling and unknowing means? Please, brother Pyles, come here and show us how we are wrong to see preachers of the word as means too!
Pyles writes:
"The accusers claim
that their assets and actions are instrumental in delivering their
fellow men from hell to heaven, yet the same accusers oftentimes
possess many worldly goods and spend much time in leisure. They
can live in domiciles far more luxuriant than those of the poor
souls they purport to eternally save. Some have laid up for
themselves large retirement accounts and other investments.
Indeed, even their places of worship are oftentimes extravagant,
and seem to compete with each other to catch the impressionable
eye. Add to this that some of them take lengthy vacations, spend
much time watching television and commonly attend sporting
events. One must wonder how many poor souls will spend eternity
in a miserable, burning hell on account of such indulgences? Are
we not compelled to conclude that such accusers of hyper Calvinists do not truly believe what they claim or else they have
the hearts of crocodiles?"
Against this so called "argument" against means I wrote a chapter in my book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult." It is chapter eleven and titled "Saved by Money?" (See here) Here is what I wrote about this argument in that chapter.
"Our eternal salvation cannot have any means that involve money in any sense." Why not? They will say that God's doing so puts the heathen in a helpless condition, dependent upon missionaries and preachers, and make saviors of men, and takes glory away from God. But, it is a false conclusion to say that because God has made certain acts of men, both saved and unsaved, to be a means in the plan of salvation, then salvation is uncertain, haphazard, and outside the sovereign control of God, and takes away from the glory due only to God.This is similar to the other false premise I dealt with in the preceding chapter on Hardshell "logic", the premise that affirmed -- "No aspect of eternal salvation can be certain if based upon any kind of human means."
It is interesting that Pyles and his forefathers who made this argument have no problem believing that converting the elect and the already regenerated heathen does in fact depend upon preachers: And preachers require money to travel and eat. Further, did not Joseph and Mary spend money to buy food for our Lord so that he could grow up? In that same chapter I wrote:
Money (or its equivalent) was involved in getting Christ from the cradle to the cross. Money was involved in getting Christ crucified. All the money and goods that Joseph and Mary spent to raise Christ, to send him to school, to buy him food and clothes, was that not all made necessary by the will of God? Did not the money that Christ himself gave to the temple, his own tithes and offerings, as a law abiding Jew, part of the law he had to keep in order to become perfect and be "without sin"?
Such arguments as these are designed to remove guilt from the Hardshell conscience for their failures to use every effort to see that others hear the word of God. Don't they spend money to worship God in a building? So, that means God is dependent upon money for obtaining worship?
Further, all the money is the Lord's! Wrote Haggai the prophet:
‘The silver is Mine, and the gold is Mine,’ says the LORD of hosts." (Hag. 2: 8)
Pyles writes:
"However, all but the alleged
hyper-Calvinists assert that human preaching is a means to this
end. Now if the elect are predestined to heaven, and if human
preaching is the means by which they are to get there, this would
imply that God has predestined all elect to hear preachers. Most
Calvinists concede that this conclusion is a consequence of their
system because they commonly say that if God has predestined the
end then He must have also predestined all means to that end."
Notice how the words of Pyles lead one to believe that all Hyper Calvinists believe Hardshellism, that they all deny that the gospel or word of God is a means in the eternal salvation of the elect. But, as we have stated, that was not the view of the Hyper Calvinists who preceded the Hardshells. In fact, as I have shown in my historical writings on the history of the Hardshells, the first generation of "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists did not take this position. They did show some reluctance to "offering" Christ to sinners, but they did not reject gospel means. They believed, contrary to Pyles and today's Hardshells, that God had in fact "predestined all elect to hear preachers." We have proven that in this blog using the scriptures as our proof.
Pyles writes:
“Hyper-Calvinism” is a loathsome label that no Christian should
want to wear, but the simple facts are that the accused hyper Calvinists: 1) give more glory to God and Christ for the work of
eternal salvation than is done in any other Christian system, 2) are
not guilty of the hypocrisy commonly seen in those who represent
themselves as being the instruments of eternally saving others, and
3) take responsibility for the commandment to preach the gospel
and do not dismiss their failures at such to lack of divine
predestination. If this is what is meant by “hyper-Calvinist,” then
call me whatever you will, I resolutely declare that I intend never
to be anything else! “Let us go forth therefore unto him without
the camp, bearing his reproach,” (Heb 13:13)"
This is ironic. Pyles on one hand does not want to be called a "Hyper Calvinist," it being "a loathsome label that no Christian should want to wear," but then he intends to be such! It seems the term "Hyper Calvinist" is like the label "Hardshell."
If Pyles thinks his proposition is so eminently scriptural, why does he not come and show us the bible texts that uphold his proposition? And, show us how the texts that we believe prove human means do not do so?
