Hyper-Calvinism

[Scott Shahan]

How do I know if I have turned into a hyper-calvinist? What does a hyper-calvinist look like? Is it easy to become a hyper-calvinist? I read a book back in the 90's titled "Spurgeon V. Hyper-Calvinism", I went and found it on my bookshelf and plan to reread it over Christmas break.

 

[MrMerlin777]

Here is a brief treatment of the subject by Phil Johnson.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm

 

[ChristopherPaul]

You are a Hyper-Calvinist if upon discovering and embracing the doctrines of grace you immediately make it your life ambition to convert every Christian you know to your newly discovered world view.

When you calm down you are a Presbyterian.

 

[BertMulder]

I believe you would be better of reading this pamphlet:

http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_94.htm#II.1

.1. What is ‘ hyper-Calvinism ‘? ‘ Hyper-Calvinism ‘ is a term that has been bandied about a great deal` especially in recent years. ‘ Hyper-Calvinism ‘ is sometimes applied to those` strangely enough` who hold firmly and uncompromisingly` to the five points of Calvinism: total depravity` unconditional election` limited atonement` irresistible grace` perseverance of the saints: those who hold firmly to these are sometimes branded as ‘ hyper-Calvinists ‘. Then again sometimes the term ‘ hyper-Calvinism’ is applied to those who hold to double predestination: that is` not only election` but also sovereign` unconditional reprobation. Such are also branded as ‘ hyper-Calvinists ‘ ; in which case` of course` Calvin himself would have been the leading proponent of ‘ hyper-Calvinism ‘. If you read his pamphlet “ A Treatise on the Predestination of God “` you will find the doctrine of reprobation outlined carefully` and sharply` in all of its biblical truth. Sometimes supralapsarians are branded as ‘ hyper-Calvinists ‘. The term is used in many instances.



II.2. Nevertheless` I’m not interested in all those misuses of the term. ‘ Hyper-Calvinism ‘ is something that is` in the history of the church` a reality. If you go all the way back to the beginning of the eighteenth century and the Marrow Controversy` the Marrow Men` whom` from a certain point of view` are really the chief proponents of the ‘ Well Meant Offer ‘ and those who made the ‘ Well Meant Offer ‘ popular in the church` nevertheless were objecting to what was a ‘ hyper-Calvinism ‘ in the ‘ Scottish Presbyterian Church ‘. There was such a thing in the church at that time` a genuine ‘ hyper-Calvinism ‘. Their objection to that was valid` although their solution to it was invalid. Since the time of the Marrow Controversy` periodically` there have been those in the history of the church here in the British Isles who have indeed been ‘ hyper-Calvinists ‘. There are those today` if I am not mistaken` they are called here in the United Kingdom` primarily` ‘ Strict Baptists ‘. We have some of them in our own country too` but in our own country they go under the name ‘ Primitive Baptists ‘. They are ‘ hyper-Calvinists ‘. I have in my library at home` a few books written by their leading theologians.



II.3.‘ Hyper-Calvinism ‘ has also been a characteristic of some in the history of the church of Wales` especially in Welsh Calvinistic Methodism and its controversies. Let me give you a quote from one of these ‘ hyper-Calvinists ‘, who was a leading figure in the ‘ Church of Wales ‘. This quote is by a book entitled ‘ Atonement Controversies in Welsh Preaching and Literature ‘ by Owen Thomas. A rather important book` by the way` and I recommend it. Although the author himself` Owen Thomas` was what I would call a mild or weak Calvinist. Nevertheless` the historical data in that book is valuable. This is what a genuine ‘ hyper-Calvinist ‘ wrote: “ There was no true sufficiency in the atonement for anyone but the elect “ [and I’d like to have you notice that because the question of the ‘Well Meant Offer of the Gospel ‘ is closely connected to the question of the sufficiency of the atonement ] “ and no true universality in the call of the gospel. “ That God Himself did not call everyone and that the general call of the preacher was justified only [because ] his ignorance of the identity of the elect is something which cannot be avoided. One old minister declared plainly` “ If I knew who here today were predestined to eternal life` I would not say one word to the rest. “ That’s a classic ‘ hyper-Calvinist ‘ statement.



II.4.That means that ‘ hyper-Calvinism ‘ teaches that the gospel` in its address` must be addressed only to the elect. That the preacher` who is a minister in the ‘ Church of Jesus Christ ‘` may` under the solemn injunction of God Himself` preach only to the elect` and address what he has to say` only to the elect. He knows not who they are` in the nature of the case` but if he knew` he would limit his address to them` and he would drive out from the auditorium` or the meeting place of the congregation` all those who were not elect. He would tell them` “ This is not for you` you must leave. You must depart. I have no word for you. “ On the other hand` from the view point` now` of the hearer` ‘ hyper-Calvinism ‘ teaches that one who is in the pew` and listening to the preaching` has no right to say` “ This gospel is for me. “ Unless he knows with the certainty in his heart` that he is the elect. Or` if I may put it a little differently` He must himself become assured of his election` before he can say` “ This gospel is for me. “: that is ‘ hyper-Calvinism ‘.The ‘Protestant Reformed Churches’ do not` and never have` taught that.

 

[Scott Shahan]

You are a Hyper-Calvinist if upon discovering and embracing the doctrines of grace you immediately make it your life ambition to convert every Christian you know to your newly discovered world view.

When you calm down you are a Presbyterian.



Can one over emphesis the Sovereign Will of God? What did you take to calm down?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

If your Calvinism makes you content with people going to hell or if it takes away your zeal to evangelize, then you are a HyperCalvinist.

 

[Average Joey]

You are a Hyper-Calvinist if upon discovering and embracing the doctrines of grace you immediately make it your life ambition to convert every Christian you know to your newly discovered world view.

When you calm down you are a Presbyterian.

I myself am a Baptisterian.

 

[yeutter]

I believe you would be better of reading this pamphlet:

http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_94.htm#II.1

Thanks for the link Burt

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Here is a brief treatment of the subject by Phil Johnson.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm

 

[ChristopherPaul]

You are a Hyper-Calvinist if upon discovering and embracing the doctrines of grace you immediately make it your life ambition to convert every Christian you know to your newly discovered world view.

When you calm down you are a Presbyterian.



Can one over emphesis the Sovereign Will of God? What did you take to calm down?

Well, when I lost all my friends of course.

 

[Scott Shahan]

Well, when I lost all my friends of course.

Have you ever heard of Latiudinarian before? I have never heard about this and do not really know what it is, a friend of mine sent this link to me

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitudinarian

 

[PresReformed]

I read a book back in the 90's titled "Spurgeon V. Hyper-Calvinism", I went and found it on my bookshelf and plan to reread it over Christmas break.

I was just thinking about listing this book in the "Worst Books" thread. This book doesn't address hyper-calvinism, just Iain Murray's version of hyper-calvinism. I wouldn't suggest reading this or Phil Johnson's article. Both come from a hypo-calvinist, semi-amyrauldian viewpoint. I think David Engelsma's book HyperCalvinism & the Call of the Gospel http://www.rfpa.org/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=1 is an excellent rersource on the subject myself.

 

[Scott Shahan]

I was just thinking about listing this book in the "Worst Books" thread. This book doesn't address hyper-calvinism, just Iain Murray's version of hyper-calvinism. I wouldn't suggest reading this or Phil Johnson's article. Both come from a hypo-calvinist, semi-amyrauldian viewpoint. I think David Engelsma's book HyperCalvinism & the Call of the Gospel http://www.rfpa.org/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=1 is an excellent rersource on the subject myself.

Your right it is Iain Murray's viewpoint...............You think Iain Murray is a poor author? I tended to think that the chap wasn't that bad of a guy I will check out the article that you suggested, thanks, Scott

 

[PresReformed]

Your right it is Iain Murray's viewpoint...............You think Iain Murray is a poor author? I tended to think that the chap wasn't that bad of a guy I will check out the article that you suggested, thanks, Scott

Iain Murray tends to rewrite history and doctrine to his viewpoint so that others get the titles of unorthodox and hyper. His scholarship is questionable at best. He butchered A.W. Pink's Sovereignty of God because he thought Pink was a hyper-calvinist in sections of the book. His attack on EP and his book praising John Wesley are quite disturbing too.

 

[AV1611]

If your Calvinism makes you content with people going to hell or if it takes away your zeal to evangelize, then you are a HyperCalvinist.

A good theological definition

 

[AV1611]

Iain Murray tends to rewrite history and doctrine to his viewpoint so that others get the titles of unorthodox and hyper. His scholarship is questionable at best. He butchered A.W. Pink's Sovereignty of God because he thought Pink was a hyper-calvinist in sections of the book. His attack on EP and his book praising John Wesley are quite disturbing too.

 

[Arch2k]

He butchered A.W. Pink's Sovereignty of God because he thought Pink was a hyper-calvinist in sections of the book.

All too true. In this case, the Baker edition is far superior.

 

[Bandguy]

What does a hyper-calvinist look like?

Fred Phelps.

 

[No Longer A Libertine]

Fred Phelps.

Why does that man even waste his breath? What a perverse ego trip he derives from his tasteless and infuriating practices.

If he is as hyper as claimed why doesn't he sit pat and watch it happen without rubbing it in and being eternally hateful to this sinful world as if he is not a member of it himself and a sinner that has harmed others?

He's a donkey rectum.

 

[Kaalvenist]

I would personally recommend Iain Murray's book. I don't see why the Protestant Reformed would be against it, since its primary subject is Spurgeon's interaction with the "Strict Baptists" referred to by Prof. Hanko.

I do believe in the free offer of the gospel. The Marrow-Men (and the Covenanters with them) were good Calvinists; they were not "Semi-Amyraldians" or "Hypo-Calvinists" -- and I regard most who use such phrases against regular ol' Calvinists as "Hyper-Calvinists."

 

[Blue Tick]

Why does that man even waste his breath? What a perverse ego trip he derives from his tasteless and infuriating practices.

If he is as hyper as claimed why doesn't he sit pat and watch it happen without rubbing it in and being eternally hateful to this sinful world as if he is not a member of it himself and a sinner that has harmed others?

He's a donkey rectum.

That's funny!

 

[PresReformed]

I do believe in the free offer of the gospel. The Marrow-Men (and the Covenanters with them) were good Calvinists; they were not "Semi-Amyraldians" or "Hypo-Calvinists" -- and I regard most who use such phrases against regular ol' Calvinists as "Hyper-Calvinists."

That's all the Reformed Church needs...another incorrect definition of Hyper-Calvinism to bring further confusion to the issue. I did not mention The Marrow Men or the Covenanters, only Iain Murray and Phil Johnson. The Bible does not teach that God desires, wishes, or tries to do anything. God does whatever He wills. To say that God desires the salvation of everyone (including the reprobate), but doesn't save them, is not biblical or Calvinistic.

 

[JOwen]

I would personally recommend Iain Murray's book. I don't see why the Protestant Reformed would be against it, since its primary subject is Spurgeon's interaction with the "Strict Baptists" referred to by Prof. Hanko.

I do believe in the free offer of the gospel. The Marrow-Men (and the Covenanters with them) were good Calvinists; they were not "Semi-Amyraldians" or "Hypo-Calvinists" -- and I regard most who use such phrases against regular ol' Calvinists as "Hyper-Calvinists."

 

[Magma2]

That's all the Reformed Church needs...another incorrect definition of Hyper-Calvinism to bring further confusion to the issue. I did not mention The Marrow Men or the Covenanters, only Iain Murray and Phil Johnson. The Bible does not teach that God desires, wishes, or tries to do anything. God does whatever He wills. To say that God desires the salvation of everyone (including the reprobate), but doesn't save them, is not biblical or Calvinistic.

 

[AV1611]

I would personally recommend Iain Murray's book. I don't see why the Protestant Reformed would be against it, since its primary subject is Spurgeon's interaction with the "Strict Baptists" referred to by Prof. Hanko.

I do believe in the free offer of the gospel. The Marrow-Men (and the Covenanters with them) were good Calvinists; they were not "Semi-Amyraldians" or "Hypo-Calvinists" -- and I regard most who use such phrases against regular ol' Calvinists as "Hyper-Calvinists."

I found this interesting. I have been doing some work experience at a library within a university which meant I could access it at lunchtimes and read the whole thing

 

[Reformingstudent]

Hypo-Calvinist?

I would personally recommend Iain Murray's book. I don't see why the Protestant Reformed would be against it, since its primary subject is Spurgeon's interaction with the "Strict Baptists" referred to by Prof. Hanko.

I do believe in the free offer of the gospel. The Marrow-Men (and the Covenanters with them) were good Calvinists; they were not "Semi-Amyraldians" or "Hypo-Calvinists" -- and I regard most who use such phrases against regular ol' Calvinists as "Hyper-Calvinists."

Can you eplain to me what a "Hypo-Calvinist" is as I have heard the term before but am not sure what it means. Thanks

 

[Kaalvenist]

Can you eplain to me what a "Hypo-Calvinist" is as I have heard the term before but am not sure what it means. Thanks

You'll have to ask those who have coined the phrase -- it has no basis in history whatsoever.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally Posted by PresReformed
That's all the Reformed Church needs...another incorrect definition of Hyper-Calvinism to bring further confusion to the issue. I did not mention The Marrow Men or the Covenanters, only Iain Murray and Phil Johnson. The Bible does not teach that God desires, wishes, or tries to do anything. God does whatever He wills. To say that God desires the salvation of everyone (including the reprobate), but doesn't save them, is not biblical or Calvinistic.

Greg, Sean (great name by the way!), you're both Presbyterians. Have you never read The Sum of Saving Knowledge? Will you deny it to be either biblical or Calvinistic, in the following passage (The Westminster Confession of Faith, FPP edition, 2001 reprint, p. 332):

The first whereof is God's hearty invitation, holden forth, Isa. lv. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money: come ye, buy and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money, and without price. Ver. 2. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? Hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Ver. 3. Inclince your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. Ver. 4. Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people, etc.

Here (after setting down the precious ransom of our redemption by the sufferings of Christ, and the rich blessings purchased to us thereby, in the two former chapters) the Lord, in this chapter,

1. Maketh open offer of Christ and his grace, by proclamation of a free and gracious market of righteousness and salvation, to be had through Christ to every soul, without exception, that truly desires to be saved from sin and wrath: "Ho, every one that thirsteth," saith he.

2. He inviteth all sinners, that for any reason stand at a distance from God, to come and take from him riches of grace, running in Christ as a river, to wash away sin, and to slocken wrath: "Come ye to the waters," saith he.

3. Lest any should stand aback in the sense of his own sinfulness or unworthiness, and inability to do any good, the Lord calleth upon such persons in special, saying, "He that hath no money, come."

4. He craveth no more of his merchant, but that he be pleased with the wares offered, which are grace, and more grace; and that he heartily consent unto, and embrace this offer of grace, that so he may close a bargain, and a formal covenant with God; "Come, buy without money, (saith he,) come, eat:" that is, consent to have, and take unto you all saving graces; make the wares your own, possess them, and make use of all blessings in Christ; whatsoever maketh for your spiritual life and comfort, use and enjoy it freely, without paying any thing for it: "Come, buy wine and milk without money, and without price," saith he.

5. Because the Lord knoweth how much we are inclined to seek righteousness and life by our own performances and satisfaction, to have righteousness and life as it were by the way of works, and how loath we are to embrace Christ Jesus, and to take life by way of free grace through Jesus Christ, upon the terms whereupon it is offered to us; therefore the Lord lovingly calls us off this our crooked and unhappy way with a gentle and timeous admonition, giving us to understand, that we shall but lose our labour in this our way: "Wherefore do ye spend your money (saith he) for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not?"

This document is admittedly not one of the Westminster Standards, and had no official sanction by the Church of Scotland or any descending churches. But, (1.) It was written by two known, recognized, orthodox ministers and theologians of the Church of Scotland, James Durham and David Dickson. (2.) It has been, for several hundred years, printed together with the Westminster Standards, with no apparent incongruity between the Standards and The Sum of Saving Knowledge ever demonstrated. This demonstrates that, (1.) The free offer of the gospel is, at least, consistent with historic, orthodox Calvinism. (2.) The free offer of the gospel, as set forth in The Sum of Saving Knowledge, comes just shy of creedal sanction by historic Presbyterian churches, which contain that document together with their creedal documents.

 

[PresReformed]

Greg, Sean (great name by the way!), you're both Presbyterians. Have you never read The Sum of Saving Knowledge? Will you deny it to be either biblical or Calvinistic, in the following passage

Yes Sean, I am a Presbyterian. In fact, I've been one longer than you've been alive. Nowhere in your quote from The Sum of Saving Knowledge does it say that God desires or wishes the salvation of all mankind. I believe that the Gospel is to be preached to all mankind, but that the outward call in no way reflects a desire on God's part to save everyone. The outward call is the means by which the Holy Spirit quickens the elect accompanied by the inward, effectual call. If there is no inward call the outward call falls on deaf ears. If you believe that the outward call is grace offered to all, then you must believe in resistible grace which is the fourth point of Arminianism. If you believe that salvation is offered to the reprobate then you must believe in universal atonement which is the third point of Arminianism. There is no hope of salvation for the reprobate because Christ did not die for them, there is no atonement made on their behalf. The Isaiah passage qualifies those who shall come...those who thirst (the elect). If you have read and understand Iain Murray's position then you could clearly see that what he is preaching is another gospel and not Calvinism.

 

[JOwen]

Yes Sean, I am a Presbyterian. In fact, I've been one longer than you've been alive. Nowhere in your quote from The Sum of Saving Knowledge does it say that God desires or wishes the salvation of all mankind. I believe that the Gospel is to be preached to all mankind, but that the outward call in no way reflects a desire on God's part to save everyone. The outward call is the means by which the Holy Spirit quickens the elect accompanied by the inward, effectual call. If there is no inward call the outward call falls on deaf ears. If you believe that the outward call is grace offered to all, then you must believe in resistible grace which is the fourth point of Arminianism. If you believe that salvation is offered to the reprobate then you must believe in universal atonement which is the third point of Arminianism. There is no hope of salvation for the reprobate because Christ did not die for them, there is no atonement made on their behalf. The Isaiah passage qualifies those who shall come...those who thirst (the elect). If you have read and understand Iain Murray's position then you could clearly see that what he is preaching is another gospel and not Calvinism.

It might be helpful to the debate if you were to find s few quotes from Murray to prove your assertions. Oh, and by the way, every redeemed soul is reprobate when the gospel call comes, so salvation is offered to sinners as sinners.