# Theological's new "Word of the Day" Hyper-Calvinism



## Spinningplates2 (Nov 6, 2008)

Hyper-Calvinism | Theological Word of the Day
As someone who has been called a Hyper-Calvinist many times I thought some of you would be interested to see if you fall into many of it's so called flaws.

What about this part, "the belief in meticulous sovereignty (that God is the immediate cause of all things)?" This is the part that I believe that let's people end the discussion by saying, "Well, I can't talk to you because you're a hyper-calvinist. I also believe in superlapsarianism and that God's love is only for the Elect.
My feeling is that most Calvinist would fit inot some of these groups.


----------



## A5pointer (Nov 6, 2008)

That is not the historic definition. Modern critics such as Geisler have invented a definition that fits their agenda to cast pegorative doubt on those who hold to historic Calvinism.


----------



## BertMulder (Nov 6, 2008)

(tongue in cheek):

guilty as charged...


----------



## panta dokimazete (Nov 6, 2008)

Sam Storm does a good job defining


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 6, 2008)

Spinningplates2 said:


> Hyper-Calvinism | Theological Word of the Day
> As someone who has been called a Hyper-Calvinist many times I thought some of you would be interested to see if you fall into many of it's so called flaws.
> 
> What about this part, "the belief in meticulous sovereignty (that God is the immediate cause of all things)?" This is the part that I believe that let's people end the discussion by saying, "Well, I can't talk to you because you're a hyper-calvinist. I also believe in superlapsarianism and that God's love is only for the Elect.
> My feeling is that most Calvinist would fit inot some of these groups.



The notion that God is the _immediate_ cause of all things is not Reformed. That is not the same thing as saying He superintends all but to state that He is the immediate agent of all thoughts/intentions is not Calvinistic.



> I. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, *nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.*


----------



## panta dokimazete (Nov 6, 2008)

Thought this was also good:



> It is quite true that archetypal hyper-Calvinism first appeared among the early English Strict and Particular Baptists. It can be seen, for example, in the teachings of men like Joseph Hussey (d. 1726), Lewis Wayman (d. 1764), John Brine (d. 1765), and to some extent in John Gill (d. 1771). 7 However, the theological extreme held by these men, properly denoted as hyper-Calvinism and properly denoted as error, is rather distinct and certainly deserves a more explicit definition than merely an "over-emphasis of irresistible grace which undermines evangelism." And it certainly deserves to be defined in a way that does not confuse it with legitimate 5-point Calvinism. David Engelsma does just that in the following.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Full article here

Both articles found at monergism.com


----------



## panta dokimazete (Nov 6, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Spinningplates2 said:
> 
> 
> > Hyper-Calvinism | Theological Word of the Day
> ...



I think the problem originates from the blurring of distinctions by hyper-Calvinists:

"of God"

"not of God"

An evil action is "not of God", but God will use evil actions/activities toward and by His elect to accomplish His ultimate plan to their benefit and the glory of His grace.

Activities and actions that are "not of God" I believe are superintended by Satan, but do not all originate from or caused by the Enemy as humans have self-contained yet corrupted moral agency.

my


----------



## panta dokimazete (Nov 6, 2008)

I also believe there is a distinction between "from God" - and "of God"/"not of God".

That is - Satan is "from God", but not "of God". (see Job)

The elect's evil actions are not "from God" and not "of God".

The elect's good actions are "from God" and "of God".

Both actions are used to the ultimate good of the elect and the glory of God's grace.

The reprobate's actions can be "from God" and not "of God" (very rare and only when used in relation to the elect) or not "from or of God". (Pharaoh)

All reprobate actions are to the glory of God's justice.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing (Nov 6, 2008)

I thought Spurgeon was the first to introduce the term, or at least was one to explain it...

He said that "hyper-calvinism" was sitting back in the church believing God would bring His elect to the church to hear the gospel, and that missions and public preaching were not only unecessary but in the hyper-calvinists mind; sin.

There is more to it than that?


----------



## Spinningplates2 (Nov 6, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Spinningplates2 said:
> 
> 
> > Hyper-Calvinism | .
> ...




Let's talk about this part of the quote, "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:" and agree that if god id the Author who "wrote the end from the beginning," he would have had to know about much evil that was going to take place. In the example of Joseph and his trip to Egypt we can see many people acting evil but the plan was still "meant for good."

We know God can do no wrong and in no way is the "author of sin" but when all paths lead back to God it is not enough to tell the unsaved world, "Yeah God is in control of everything except evil people and the things they do." Because let's not forget; this whole world and everyone in it is for God's Glory and should be looked at as closer to a object lesson for Angels in Heaven than a fight against Satan. There is no fight against Satan for God! God could kill Satan with a word at this very second.
But that only my opinion.


----------



## JWJ (Nov 6, 2008)

Semper Fidelis;490304
The notion that God is the [I said:


> immediate[/I] cause of all things is not Reformed. That is not the same thing as saying He superintends all but to state that He is the immediate agent of all thoughts/intentions is not Calvinistic.
> 
> 
> 
> > I. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, *nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.*



With all due respect if what you mean by "immediate" is "directly" then you are mistaken for God must directly cause all events by His providence otherwise there is independent forces in the cosmos. The 16th century Reformer Jerome Zanchius said something that would astonish most evangelical Christians today and many 21st Reformers: “That God either directly or remotely excites bad men as well as good ones to action cannot be denied by any but Atheists” 

I do understand that the framers of the WMCF were thinking in causation mode—i.e., God is not the the author in the sense of secondary cause. However, I think that this distintion does really nothing in the end and only confounds the matter. For example, if God is the ultimate cause of all things (which is very reformed) then surely He is active in all secondary causations. The point is much of today's reformed camp has refused to say that God is the ultimate cause of all things, including sin and evil. In this sense, and this sense alone God is the author of sin and evil and evil. The framers of the confession should have done a better job defining what they mean by author and got right to the heart of the matter, i.e., metaphysical picture. 

To further shed further light on what is truly reformed allow one more quote from this same reformer that Calvin and Luther agreed with. Jerome Zanchius (1516-1590), “The will of God is so the cause of all things, as to be itself without cause, for nothing can be the cause of that which is the cause of everything... Hence we find every matter resolved ultimately into the mere sovereign pleasure of God. He did not therefore will such things because they were in themselves right and he was bound to will them; but they are therefore equitable and right because he wills them.”

In short, if the framers of the WMCF did not think that God was the ultimate cuase of all things or that God did not directly and remotely move men, then they were not as "reformed" as some of the early Reformers. The bottom line is this truth of God being the ultimate cause and mover of sin and evil and God directly moving and causing sin and evil is not a 16th century reformed doctrine but is the heart biblical theism and the Christian worldview. To deny this, even in a round about way, is the same as professing atheism or deism 

Jim


----------



## panta dokimazete (Nov 6, 2008)

Moral evil is not of God - that is - not caused by God - but not independent from His sovereign plan/will/decree.

A simple illustration (with the understanding that all analogies are weak) - these words that I type are "of me", that is - my thoughts and reasoning, the words are also "from me", that is - I own them completely. 

However, the spaces in between are not "of me", yet the spaces are under my sovereign control, thus "from me". Icanremovethemandthesentencewouldbeonly"ofme"withnospacestomarmyperfectthoughts, but my ultimate plan - that of clearly communicating my thoughts and reasoning - is not carried out unless I include the spaces.

This is probably as clear as mud, but it makes sense to me


----------



## pm (Nov 6, 2008)

*Dr Curt Daniels*

I believe Dr Curt Daniels defines a hyper-Calvinist as one who does not believe in presenting or offering the Gospel.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 6, 2008)

Spinningplates2 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Spinningplates2 said:
> ...




I didn't state that God doesn't ordain evil things. What I stated was that He is not the _immediate_ cause of all things. The Reformed Confessions and Reformed writing are very specific that secondary causality exists and, by implication, this means that God is not the immediate cause of all things.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 6, 2008)

JWJ said:


> Semper Fidelis;490304
> The notion that God is the [I said:
> 
> 
> ...



Jim,

Let me get this straight. That which is "Reformed" is not defined by the Confessions but by your quoting of Zanchius. Do I have that correct?


----------



## Spinningplates2 (Nov 6, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Spinningplates2 said:
> 
> 
> > Semper Fidelis said:
> ...


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 6, 2008)

Part of the problem is the distinction between mediate and immediate causes. We don't use "mediate" too often in our daily parlance, so it's possibly difficult to understand. That God is not the _immediate_ cause of evil is simply a statement that he uses means to accomplish his decrees. God used Satan to try Job. God was not the immediate cause, though he ultimately decreed every action with which Satan tried to crush Job. God used the direct and willful actions of Satan to serve His ends.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 6, 2008)

Spinningplates2 said:


> I did not understand the difference between causing and "immediate" cause. I have had it explained before and to me it still sounds as if we (Calvinist) are saying, "Yes, God planned everything to happen that ever happened but we (Calvinist) are worried about His reputation with the world, because evil exists and God made everything. People in the world and other Christians are as lost with the logic as I am, they (and I) simply want us to give the same answer we give when the ask, "How did God make everything when there was nothing to start with?" We give a simple answer, "We can't be sure but His Bible is true and we trust it to be true when God says He hates evil but still uses it.



I don't mean to be flippant but if you are still trying to understand these things then I would not be too quick to try to explain them to others.



> VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.



Not all things in the Scriptures are plain unto themselves and the mysteries of Divine Providence are, perhaps, among the most profound. I doubt not that God uses the agency of even the demons toward His holy ends but I would not presume the mechanism by which He does it. The bottom line, however, is that I believe the Scriptures are clear that He utilizes instrumentality in carrying out His decree. 

If I am tempted by Satan to commit a sin, that temptation was by the ordination of God but that is far different than stating that God Himself was the agent of temptation even though He decreed it and uses it toward His holy ends.

Consider Calvin on the objection that God is the author of sin:


> 4. In the same way is solved, or rather spontaneously vanishes, another
> objection--viz. If God not only uses the agency of the wicked, but also
> governs their counsels and affections, he is the author of all their
> sins; and, therefore, men, in executing what God has decreed, are
> ...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 6, 2008)

The Belgic Confession:


> Article 13: Of Divine Providence.
> We believe that the same God, after he had created all things, did not forsake them, or give them up to fortune or chance, but that he rules and governs them according to his holy will, so that nothing happens in this world without his appointment: nevertheless, God neither is the author of, nor can be charged with, the sins which are committed. For his power and goodness are so great and incomprehensible, that he orders and executes his work in the most excellent and just manner, even then, when devils and wicked men act unjustly. And, as to what he doth surpassing human understanding, we will not curiously inquire into, farther than our capacity will admit of; but with the greatest humility and reverence adore the righteous judgments of God, which are hid from us, contenting ourselves that we are disciples of Christ, to learn only those things which he has revealed to us in his Word, without transgressing these limits. This doctrine affords us unspeakable consolation, since we are taught thereby that nothing can befall us by chance, but by the direction of our most gracious and heavenly Father; who watches over us with a paternal care, keeping all creatures so under his power, that not a hair of our head (for they are all numbered), nor a sparrow, can fall to the ground, without the will of our Father, in whom we do entirely trust; being persuaded, that he so restrains the devil and all our enemies, that without his will and permission, they cannot hurt us. And therefore we reject that damnable error of the Epicureans, who say that God regards nothing, but leaves all things to chance.


The Canons of Dordt


> Article 15: Reprobation
> 
> Moreover, Holy Scripture most especially highlights this eternal and undeserved grace of our election and brings it out more clearly for us, in that it further bears witness that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God's eternal election-- those, that is, concerning whom God, on the basis of his entirely free, most just, irreproachable, and unchangeable good pleasure, made the following decision: to leave them in the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves; not to grant them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but finally to condemn and eternally punish them (having been left in their own ways and under his just judgment), not only for their unbelief but also for all their other sins, in order to display his justice. And this is the decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin (a blasphemous thought!) but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing (Nov 6, 2008)

God works Objectively, and Subjectively. I would say, Both for the believer, and the other for the sinner...God needs not that anyone be forced to sin by Him, and He would not force one to sin anyway. Since Adam we haven't need that anyone cause us to sin. Now whether God stops an act of sin in the wicked, is another matter, as well as with His Elect children.

Adam an Eve, as we know, were created mutable. Eve was decieved and Adam heeded to the voice of Eve, RATHER than heed to God's direct command. The only freedom of the will men had was in them, and now, we as fallen and depraved by nature do nothing but sin, but for the grace of God.

So, what does God do in the affairs of men? He called nations against Israel to destroy them, capture and enslave them, and to just generally rule over them. He used wicked men to destroy wicked men. Did He this by subjectively working in them? Not HE...but, as in the case of Saul, the Spirit of the LORD left him, and an evil spirit FROM the LORD came and vexed him. He ended up throwing a spear at the LORD'S servant David, and from then on sought to destroy him.

With all that, God preserved David's life, and in time ended Saul's reign and Saul's life, as Saul was, as Scripture never gives details to the contrary, relieved of this evil spirit from the LORD.

God commands all things...and Satan is His subject whether he knows it or not...and I say not, for he is reprobate and believes to this day he can thwart God's eternal decrees.

Anyway, I could probably type a book report...and I asked earlier if Hyper-calvinism was MORE than just sitting in your church waiting for God to send His Elect to hear the gospel, rather than going into all the world preaching it. I thought that was the discussion; at least in it's simpler form.


----------



## Spinningplates2 (Nov 6, 2008)

Sounds flip to me. Are you saying that you have the answer that satisfies all Christians.? Or that presenting confession chapters is enough for the Lost. What parts of the Gospel do you want me to constrain myself? I was being honest when I admitted my limits. Guess what, when you start a sentence, with, "I don't mean to sound flip." it really means "shut up stupid." If they confessions were so clear all Christians would agree to them. I accept them because what light God has given me shows they are true. So you have given your thoughts and I still am too dumb to know what you are trying to help me with. I felt like I was learning and enjoying this Thread until you decided to settle it for me. Thanks Rich.


----------



## yeutter (Nov 6, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> Sam Storm does a good job defining


Storm does a good job of defining hypercalvinism. I would have expected him to also mention the Gospel Standard Baptists, J. C. Philpot, and William Gadsby. 
Toplady and Gill believed in the preaching the Gospel to all of the lost. Gadsby and Philpot seem to want to discern wheather or not a person is elect before deciding to preach the Gospel to an individual.


----------



## yeutter (Nov 6, 2008)

*Gospel Standard Article of Faith that is Hyper*

an example of a hypercalvinist article of faith can be found here


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 6, 2008)

Spinningplates2 said:


> Sounds flip to me. Are you saying that you have the answer that satisfies all Christians.? Or that presenting confession chapters is enough for the Lost. What parts of the Gospel do you want me to constrain myself? I was being honest when I admitted my limits. Guess what, when you start a sentence, with, "I don't mean to sound flip." it really means "shut up stupid." If they confessions were so clear all Christians would agree to them. I accept them because what light God has given me shows they are true. So you have given your thoughts and I still am too dumb to know what you are trying to help me with. I felt like I was learning and enjoying this Thread until you decided to settle it for me. Thanks Rich.



And I was noting your limits. Perhaps you might learn how to take correction about your limits instead of reacting emotionally. If you cannot then this forum might not be for you. I didn't say you were stupid. There is a difference between stupid and mature, just as there is a difference between foolish and mature. The Scriptures do not consider the simple-minded or the weak to be wicked but they can become fools if they despise correction.

For the record, you admit to having been called a hyper-Calvinist before. You have it in your signature. You then start a thread about hyper-Calvinism where you state that you think the author has a poor definition of what it is. The one thing that you point out is most clearly not Reformed - the idea that God causes all things immediately.

When I pointed this out you noted that you didn't understand the distinction. Why are you criticizing the author of the article if you don't understand this very important distinction?

Thus, you have a choice to make: you can continue to be angry over no intended offense or you can try to learn what the Reformed position is.

I assumed that when you clicked "I agree" and listed the WCF as your subscribed Confession that you subscribed to it. Either you subscribe to it or you don't. If you do then you should not be complaining about me quoting Confessions or even portions of the 3 Forms of Unity. If you would like me to explain them because you don't understand them then I'm happy to do so.

One thing you should not be doing: coming on to a Reformed board and criticizing another man for his weak understanding of what hyper-Calvinism is and then expecting to be treated with kid gloves. If you're man enough to throw down then gird up your loins.


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 6, 2008)

"the belief in meticulous sovereignty (that God is the immediate cause of all things)?" 

I didn't read all the comments, so maybe someone already said this. Don't you mean that nothing happens outside of God's will? 

So I sin: God has allowed me to sin but hasn't caused me to sin. 

Why: He uses my sin for my good and His glory. 

Take Job for example. Those who destroyed all his earthly possessions were allowed to do so by God's decree, but God did not destroy Job's earthly possessions Himself. Although the men who destroyed Job's possessions most likely did not learn anything godly from their sin, God was glorified by what they did to Job because God proved to Satan that Job was a righteous servant.


----------



## kalawine (Nov 7, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> Sam Storm does a good job defining



Thanks. I enjoyed the article by Storm. I have believed for a long time that someone needs to point this out (that we should drop the term "hyper-calvinist"). People do tend to use it to insult one another.


----------



## kalawine (Nov 7, 2008)

A5pointer said:


> That is not the historic definition. Modern critics such as Geisler have invented a definition that fits their agenda to cast pegorative doubt on those who hold to historic Calvinism.



I totally agree.  The guy who wrote the "word of the day" needs to go back and read Calvin's Institutes doesn't he?


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 7, 2008)

pmkadow said:


> I believe Dr Curt Daniels defines a hyper-Calvinist as one who does not believe in presenting or offering the Gospel.



I LOVE Curt Daniel's survey of Calvinism as a masterpiece of concision and a _tour de force_ in saying something intelligent about just about everybody who ever wore the label "Calvinist." However, it seems to me that in common usage the term "hyper-Calvinist" gets abused as a pejorative for ANYONE slightly more Calvinist than yourself. 

For someone like Geisler, all of us PBers are hyper Calvinists. For an infralapsarian or Amyraldian, supralapsarians and 5 pointers are all hyper-Calvinists. For Curt Daniel, people like John Gill are hyper-Calvinists. In the mind of Ergun Caner, just about anyone who does not agree with him is a hyper-Calvinist!

It is also curious that most people who dub others "hyper" prefer to appropriate for themselves the descriptor "moderate." Even Geisler has been known to claim that he is a "moderate" Calvinist!

I would love to see Ergun Caner and James White get in the ring and spar a few rounds. Now THAT would be hyper entertaining.


----------



## Spinningplates2 (Nov 7, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> One thing you should not be doing: coming on to a Reformed board and criticizing another man for his weak understanding of what hyper-Calvinism is and then expecting to be treated with kid gloves. If you're man enough to throw down then gird up your loins.



What are you talking about? You did not answer my post, you took it over. Is this your board? If not then tell me what I said that got you involved in this discussion and what I said that was wrong about God. 

My previous post are there for anyone to read. Do you have a problem with what I said about God? If you do tell me where and we will have a starting point. 

Who was I criticizing for a weak understanding of hyper-Calvinism?


----------



## kalawine (Nov 7, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> pmkadow said:
> 
> 
> > I believe Dr Curt Daniels defines a hyper-Calvinist as one who does not believe in presenting or offering the Gospel.
> ...



As one who considers himself supralapsarian (and in the minority ) I would have to say  to Mr. McFadden's post. Many people don't realise that even though most (all?) "hyper-Calvinists" are supralapsarian, not all supralapsarians are "hyper-Calvinists." 

DMcFadden wrote, "I would love to see Ergun Caner and James White get in the ring and spar a few rounds. Now THAT would be hyper entertaining." 

Also, give it up Spinningplates2. The guys who wrote the creeds spent much time in prayer, fasting and study before any of us were dreamed of. I believe that Calvin would have been very happy with the Westminster Divines and their (our/my) Confession.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 7, 2008)

Spinningplates2 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > One thing you should not be doing: coming on to a Reformed board and criticizing another man for his weak understanding of what hyper-Calvinism is and then expecting to be treated with kid gloves. If you're man enough to throw down then gird up your loins.
> ...


Yes, it is, in part. Yes, I answered your post.


> If not then tell me what I said that got you involved in this discussion and what I said that was wrong about God.
> 
> My previous post are there for anyone to read. Do you have a problem with what I said about God? If you do tell me where and we will have a starting point.
> 
> Who was I criticizing for a weak understanding of hyper-Calvinism?



Yes, you are correct. Folks can read this thread, except that I'm curious that you state I have not answered your post. In the OP you wrote:



Spinningplates2 said:


> What about this part, "the belief in meticulous sovereignty (that God is the immediate cause of all things)?" This is the part that I believe that let's people end the discussion by saying, "Well, I can't talk to you because you're a hyper-calvinist. I also believe in superlapsarianism and that God's love is only for the Elect.



To which I replied:


> The notion that God is the immediate cause of all things is not Reformed. That is not the same thing as saying He superintends all but to state that He is the immediate agent of all thoughts/intentions is not Calvinistic.



I have answered your post. Do you see the bit about "immediate" agent in my response? What you disagreed with in the author's definition is, in fact, not Reformed. Now, I might have interacted with other portions but, primarily, I was correcting you for correcting the site on that point. It's what the Canons of Dordt calls blasphemous to say that God is the immediate cause of all things for that would make Him the author of sin. 

I'm not proposing that the entire definition is adequate but, on this point, you don't seem to grasp what immediate causation is enough to say that it's a poor definition. If you do grasp immediate causation and believe God immediately causes all things then we'll need to evaluate your membership on the basis of Confessional requirements, which you responded to sharply when I quoted. Calm down and read carefully.


----------



## yeutter (Nov 12, 2008)

*Peter Toons treatment of hypercalvinism online*

Anglican Church historian, Peter Toon, has a treatment of hypercalvinism that is now online here.


----------

