# What is Hyper-Calvinism?



## Civbert (Jan 24, 2006)

What is Hyper-Calvinism?

Is a 5-point Calvinist a hyper-Calvinist?


----------



## ReadBavinck (Jan 24, 2006)

Phillip Johnson: A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism



> A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
> "¢ Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
> "¢ Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
> "¢ Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
> ...


----------



## ReadBavinck (Jan 24, 2006)

I've heard some people call a 5-point Calvinist a hyper-Calvinist. But these same people refer to themselves as 4- or 3-point (etc.) Calvinists, a label that is unhelpful at best.


----------



## yeutter (Jan 24, 2006)

Prof. David Engelsma's book HyperCalvinism and the Call of the Gospel gives a definition that differs from the one offered by Johnson


----------



## Mike (Jan 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by CJ_Chelpka_
> I've heard some people call a 5-point Calvinist a hyper-Calvinist. But these same people refer to themselves as 4- or 3-point (etc.) Calvinists, a label that is unhelpful at best.



Indeed. Mr. Johnson points out in the article you linked:
<blockquote>Finally, some critics unthinkingly slap the label "hyper" on any variety of Calvinism that is higher than the view they hold to. Arminians like to equate all five-point Calvinism with hyper-Calvinism (as Calvary-Chapel author George Bryson does in his horrible little book, <i>The Five Points of Calvinism: "Weighed and Found Wanting"</i> [Costa Mesa: Word for Today, 1996]). That approach lacks integrity and only serves to confuse people.</blockquote>

Those who do so are not using the traditional meaning of the term and indeed seem to serve no really worthwhile purpose except maybe to malign or accuse by association perhaps.


----------



## ReadBavinck (Jan 24, 2006)

I always appreciate the thoughts of our own Dr. McMahon. I hope you don't mind me posting this Dr. McMahon.

Please read A Critique of Hyper-Calvinism to better understand these points, they are the conclusion.




> Conclusion: who is a Hyper-Calvinist?
> 
> In summary, a Hyper-Calvinist would be one who holds any of the following points due to their logical extensions. (Those points with asterisks are those who are slowly leading themselves into Hyper-Calvinism.)
> 
> ...



[Edited on 1-24-2006 by CJ_Chelpka]


----------



## Civbert (Jan 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by CJ_Chelpka_
> I always appreciate the thoughts of our own Dr. McMahon. I hope you don't mind me posting this Dr. McMahon.
> 
> Please read A Critique of Hyper-Calvinism to better understand these points, they are the conclusion.
> ...



Thanks. I found some of these article searching the PB. I give them a read. 

I'm wondering though, if anyone has any clearly hyper-calvinist quotes? I don't know many who hold to many of these "hyper-calvinist" teachings - yet the label seems popular. Basically, who are the hyper-calvinists?

Something to consider: Christ's death on the cross forgives sins that have not been committed yet.


----------



## Archlute (Jan 24, 2006)

> Conclusion: who is a Hyper-Calvinist?
> 
> In summary, a Hyper-Calvinist would be one who holds any of the following points due to their logical extensions. (Those points with asterisks are those who are slowly leading themselves into Hyper-Calvinism.)
> 
> ...



This sounds more like a jab against the supralapsarian order of the decrees than any real evidence that this order actually leads one to hyper-calvinism.


----------



## Archlute (Jan 24, 2006)

BTW, that last post was not meant for an engagement in debate, merely pointing out what seems to be a fallacious/unproven connection.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> Basically, who are the hyper-calvinists?



The term or label, "Hyper-Calvinist" is used more as an accusation rather than a badge. Not too many people will gladly call themselves a Hyper-Calvinist; most 'hypers' will deny the accusation.

If you want to see some Hyper-Calvinists in action visit www.5solas.org.


----------



## Civbert (Jan 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Civbert_
> ...



Would that be due to Brandan Kraft's position on Absolute Predestination, or something he has blogged?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by CJ_Chelpka_
> I always appreciate the thoughts of our own Dr. McMahon. I hope you don't mind me posting this Dr. McMahon.
> 
> Please read A Critique of Hyper-Calvinism to better understand these points, they are the conclusion.
> ...



Please - always - quote away! I'm glad it can be useful.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Archlute_
> 
> 
> > Conclusion: who is a Hyper-Calvinist?
> ...



While I disagree with the supra position altogether, I must say I thought the same thing when reading that point, as one in fact cannot be a consistent supra _without_ affirming it.


----------



## Civbert (Jan 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Archlute_
> ...



So then a supralapsarian is a hyper-calvinist?


----------



## yeutter (Jan 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



The Johnson's definition would not deliniate all supralapsarians as hypercalvinist. Abraham Kuyper was supra and would not be hypercalvinist by the Johnson definition.

Would Schilder be hypercalvinist by the Johnson definition?


----------



## Magma2 (Jan 30, 2006)

I'm tempted to say hyper-calvinism more often than not just a big stick for little men. It's used to brow beat those who reject the idea that God desires the salvation of those whom He predestined to perdition and above it was asserted that supralapsarians are hyper-calvinists, which would include everyone from Theodore Beza to Robert Reymond. Above it was even suggested that those who argue for eternal justification are well on the road to hyper-calvinism. With a definition as mailable and amorphous as this it is the perfect weapon. Touching on the question of eternal justification, would anyone consider the following hyper-calvinistic and why? 




> It is also evident that the sinner's justification need not wait until he is converted, nor until he has become conscious, nor even until he is born. This could not be so if justification depended upon something within him. Then he could not be justified before he existed and had done something. But if justification is not bound to anything in him, then this whole limitation must disappear, and the Lord our God be sovereignly free to render this justification at any moment that He pleases. Hence the Sacred Scripture reveals justification as an eternal act of God, ie., an act which is not limited by any moment in the human existence. It is for this reason that the child of God, seeking to penetrate into that glorious and delightful reality of his justification, does not feel himself limited to the moment of his conversion, but feels that this blessedness flows to him from the eternal depths of the hidden life of God. It should therefore openly be confessed, and without any abbreviation, that justification does not occur when we become conscious of it, but that, on the contrary, our justification was decided from eternity in the holy judgment-seat of our God.



Just curious.

[Edited on 1-31-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 30, 2006)

Amazing what one can do with selective quotation. How about this:



> But-and this should not be overlooked-this publishing in the consciousness of the person himself must necessarily follow, and this brings us back again to the special work of the Holy Spirit. For if in God's judiciary it is more particularly the Father who justifies the ungodly, and in the preparing of salvation more particularly the Son who in His Incarnation and Resurrection brings about justification, so it is, in more limited sense, the Holy Spirit particularly who reveals this justification to the persons of the elect and *causes them to appropriate it to themselves. It is by this act of the Holy Spirit that the elect obtain the blessed knowledge of their justification, which only then begins to be a living reality to them.*
> 
> For this reason Scripture reveals these two positive, but apparently contradictory truths, with equally positive emphasis: (1) that, on the one hand, He has justified us in His own judgment-seat from eternity; and (2) that, on the other, *only in conversion are we justified by faith*.
> 
> And for this reason faith itself is fruit and effect of our justification; *while it is also true that, for us, justification begins to exist only as a result of our faith*



I guess I'll stick with:



> WCF 11:4 God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect; and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.



[Edited on 1/31/2006 by fredtgreco]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Archlute_
> ...



It would be wrong to label all supralapsarians as Hyper-Calvinists. They are not. But I believe that it would be correct to observe that all Hypers are also supralapsarians.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



Oh, I agree - but as Adam seemed to have been noting, the first point in Matt's list _does_ seem to imply a belief on his part that all supralapsarians are hypers...or rather, at least that all supralapsarians are "slowly leading themselves into Hyper-Calvinism."

Could you clarify on that point, Matt?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 30, 2006)

All Hyper-Calvinists are Supralapsarian, but not all Supralapsarians are Hyper-Calvinists.


----------



## Magma2 (Jan 31, 2006)

> It would be wrong to label all supralapsarians as Hyper-Calvinists. They are not. But I believe that it would be correct to observe that all Hypers are also supralapsarians.



How would you know, since it seems there is absolutely no agreement as to what a hyper-Calvinist is? A hyper-Calvinist is whatever anyone says it is, or at least what Phillip Johnson says it is (that big stick in the hands of a little man). Case in point. Johnson asserts:



> Type-3 hyper-Calvinism is based on a denial that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect. An alternative of this view merely denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal. For an excellent discussion of this issue, see "The Free Offer of the Gospel," by John Murray and Ned B. Stonehouse (also available at the Orthodox Presbyterian Church's Web site).



In my experience to even suggest that Murray and Stonehouse are not the final word on whether or not God desires the salvation of the reprobate through the preaching of the gospel will quickly mark a person as a hyper-Calvinist. Yet, Robert Reymond said that Murray´s exegetical sloppiness as it relates to the so-called Well Meant Offer imputes irrationality to God. Matthew Winzer states:

"œThose who reject Prof. Murray´s predication of a desire in God for the salvation of all men, do so for this very reason: because his report does not give proper regard to the anthropomorphic language of Scripture. Consequently, it represents God, not as incompetent to obtain what He desires, but as unwilling to have what He apparently desires and is fully competent to obtain. Hence, the rejection of Prof. Murray´s formulation proceeds, not on the basis that it contradicts the light of nature, but that it contradicts the light of Scripture. Moreover, the Scriptural references which Prof. Murray has alleged in favour of his formulation, do not teach what he has endeavoured so earnestly to extract from them." http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/Murray-Free-Offer-Review.htm 

Yet, if one accepts Johnson´s broad bush "œbut not quite precise" definitions of hyper-Calvinism not only are Reymond and Winzer hyper-Calvinists, but arguably so was Calvin. Raymond Blacketer writing in the Calvin Theological Journal concludes:



> Calvin later expanded his refutation of Castellio's antipredestinarian views in a treatise on the Secret Providence of God (1558). Here again, Calvin makes it clear that the proposition in 1 Timothy 2:4, that God desires the salvation of all persons, must be qualified. "Since no one but he who is drawn by the secret influence of the Spirit can approach unto God, how is it that God does not draw all men indiscriminately to himself, if he really 'wills all men to be saved'?"94 For Calvin, this passage can mean that God wants all kinds, races, and classes of people to be saved; or it can mean that God wills that if anyone is to be saved, that person must repent and believe, and that this preceptive will of God is to be preached indiscriminately to all. But it does not mean that God earnestly desires the salvation of all who hear the preaching of the gospel. http://www.prca.org/articles/ctjblack.html



Also, good call on the above quote from Kuyper´s piece, Justification from Eternity (http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/akjust2.htm ) which is more proof that ambiguous and imprecise definitions are dangerous, particularly in the hands of theological bigots -- which of course excludes everyone here. 



[Edited on 1-31-2006 by Magma2]

[Edited on 1-31-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 31, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> > It would be wrong to label all supralapsarians as Hyper-Calvinists. They are not. But I believe that it would be correct to observe that all Hypers are also supralapsarians.
> ...



Sean,

I think you raise an excellent point on the Murray/Stonehouse piece. I have seen some pretty weird things defended simply by citing that book. Not Murray's best work, in my opinion.


----------



## AV1611 (Nov 20, 2006)

*What is hypercalvinism?*

Neither holding to supralapsarianism or eternal justification makes one a hypercalvinist. If Dr. C. Matthew McMahon is correct that Gill was a hyper (which I do not) then we have a problem...Gill was an infralapsarian who agreed with common grace.


----------



## JOwen (Nov 20, 2006)

Civbert said:


> So then a supralapsarian is a hyper-calvinist?



If this has been said already please excuse...

All supralapsarians are not hyper Calvinists, but all hyper Calvinists are supralapsarians.

Blessings!


----------



## reformedman (Nov 20, 2006)

Civbert said:


> 7. That God does not have a general love for all men in His indiscriminate providence.



"general"?
I understood God to love all men--namely Christians, out of all the world.
God is shown to hate Esau and the Amelikites, Is it wrong to say God hates certain people and does not love those that he hates.
I hope I'm not stepping wrongly here, I'm being sincere with this question because I guess I always assumed that God loved His people and hated his enemies.

Sincerely,
Frank


----------



## AV1611 (Nov 21, 2006)

JOwen said:


> all hyper Calvinists are supralapsarians.



So you accept that Gill was not a hyper-calvinist?


----------



## AV1611 (Nov 21, 2006)

reformedman said:


> Is it wrong to say God hates certain people and does not love those that he hates.



Not at all.

[/QUOTE]I hope I'm not stepping wrongly here, I'm being sincere with this question because I guess I always assumed that God loved His people and hated his enemies[/QUOTE]


----------

