Hyper Calvinism Defined?

[toddpedlar]

Hyper-Calvinist are this modern ages Bigfoot. Everyone talks about them but no one shows me one.

I could show you several, but those persons would get offended and insist they are not.

Be VERY careful making such statements, Joseph. It would be best if you were a little more circumspect in your claims. I suspect from what you've posted here many of those you accuse of this would be correct in their self-defense.

 

[jogri17]

Hyper-Calvinist are this modern ages Bigfoot. Everyone talks about them but no one shows me one.

I could show you several, but those persons would get offended and insist they are not.

Be VERY careful making such statements, Joseph. It would be best if you were a little more circumspect in your claims. I suspect from what you've posted here many of those you accuse of this would be correct in their self-defense.

Well if my deffinition is right I would be right. But I have only meet one hyper-Calvinist in real life (I don't include internet) and he would be one of those types of persons who called the OPC no different than the PCUSA, most psalters song books of satan and and insisted that If God truely wants someone to be saved through the preaching of the world through providence He or she would be brought to the church, hear expository sermons (defined as almost like a commentary) and the Holy Spirit would jsut do His stuff at His own pleasure. Also just a side note: there is also a strong connection between antinomianism and and hyper calvinism.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

a fair point but I would say that
1. If the Gospel is to be offered to all and the Gospel has an objective content including the Work of Christ
2. and Then if Christ died for all sufficiently for all those who would believe
3. then logically we can tell sinners That Christ died ''so that sinners like you could be reconsilled to God and all you have to do is repent and believe the Gospel''.

Your point is taken about wording however.

I don't have any problem with your wording it this way. It is the "God desires you to be saved" that seems a bit iffy on the wording, and open to misunderstanding. Cheers

Fair enough but I do not think we have to be theologially precise in all aspects of our lives (accurate and faithful is another matter... I once saw a tract that talked about the covenant of redemption... a bit unnecessary to give to the average person on the street). I do think it is helpful to use the language of ''different senses'' in talking about God's desires. I desire Cheese cake every day but I'm not going to buy it even though I could. I know the analogy falls apart but if we can have mutiple desires and levels and types I think that is being apart of being in the image of God. Surely God did not want National Israel to reject the messiah (the individuals involved in the covenant community) but clearly God ordained that to happen by the promise of the new covenant.

This is odd. You don't want to be theologically precise regarding the nature of God's emotions and yet, on the basis of the imprecision, you are precise in defining who a hyper-Calvinist is. In other words, someone who disagrees with your imprecise understanding of God's emotions is, by definition, precisely unorthodox with respect to God's emotions and thus a hyper-Calvinist?

This gets to the point I made earlier about nailing jello to a wall. If you don't want to be theologically precise then that's fine but that also means that, at the bar of rendering judgment about the motives of others and their Evangelical zeal, the best you can offer is an imprecise critique of where they err.

Even those that fall of the deep end theologically often do so out of ignorance or being led astray. If we, who are Spiritual, have any hope of restoring them then we need to sometimes be surgical in the application of God's Word to restore a Brother.

 

[jogri17]

I don't have any problem with your wording it this way. It is the "God desires you to be saved" that seems a bit iffy on the wording, and open to misunderstanding. Cheers

Fair enough but I do not think we have to be theologially precise in all aspects of our lives (accurate and faithful is another matter... I once saw a tract that talked about the covenant of redemption... a bit unnecessary to give to the average person on the street). I do think it is helpful to use the language of ''different senses'' in talking about God's desires. I desire Cheese cake every day but I'm not going to buy it even though I could. I know the analogy falls apart but if we can have mutiple desires and levels and types I think that is being apart of being in the image of God. Surely God did not want National Israel to reject the messiah (the individuals involved in the covenant community) but clearly God ordained that to happen by the promise of the new covenant.

This is odd. You don't want to be theologically precise regarding the nature of God's emotions and yet, on the basis of the imprecision, you are precise in defining who a hyper-Calvinist is. In other words, someone who disagrees with your imprecise understanding of God's emotions is, by definition, precisely unorthodox with respect to God's emotions and thus a hyper-Calvinist?

This gets to the point I made earlier about nailing jello to a wall. If you don't want to be theologically precise then that's fine but that also means that, at the bar of rendering judgment about the motives of others and their Evangelical zeal, the best you can offer is an imprecise critique of where they err.

Even those that fall of the deep end theologically often do so out of ignorance or being led astray. If we, who are Spiritual, have any hope of restoring them then we need to sometimes be surgical in the application of God's Word to restore a Brother.

So are you saying you would talk about election, reprobation, the economies of the covenants with a person with whom God has in His providence has opened up the ability to have a conversation? We ought to feel free to use every day non-technical language when it comes to the peaching of the Gopel.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Fair enough but I do not think we have to be theologially precise in all aspects of our lives (accurate and faithful is another matter... I once saw a tract that talked about the covenant of redemption... a bit unnecessary to give to the average person on the street). I do think it is helpful to use the language of ''different senses'' in talking about God's desires. I desire Cheese cake every day but I'm not going to buy it even though I could. I know the analogy falls apart but if we can have mutiple desires and levels and types I think that is being apart of being in the image of God. Surely God did not want National Israel to reject the messiah (the individuals involved in the covenant community) but clearly God ordained that to happen by the promise of the new covenant.

This is odd. You don't want to be theologically precise regarding the nature of God's emotions and yet, on the basis of the imprecision, you are precise in defining who a hyper-Calvinist is. In other words, someone who disagrees with your imprecise understanding of God's emotions is, by definition, precisely unorthodox with respect to God's emotions and thus a hyper-Calvinist?

This gets to the point I made earlier about nailing jello to a wall. If you don't want to be theologically precise then that's fine but that also means that, at the bar of rendering judgment about the motives of others and their Evangelical zeal, the best you can offer is an imprecise critique of where they err.

Even those that fall of the deep end theologically often do so out of ignorance or being led astray. If we, who are Spiritual, have any hope of restoring them then we need to sometimes be surgical in the application of God's Word to restore a Brother.

So are you saying you would talk about election, reprobation, the economies of the covenants with a person with whom God has in His providence has opened up the ability to have a conversation? We ought to feel free to use every day non-technical language when it comes to the peaching of the Gopel.

I'm confused yet again. Where did I ever talk about how I share the Gospel?

You stated that we need not be theologically precise about the nature of God's emotions and that you believe that the lack of precision is commendatory but you are very precise about defining who is/isn't a hyper-Calvinist based upon your own view of how a person ought to be imprecise.

I'm trying to understand the basis by which you render a certain judgment of unorthodoxy upon others in this area when orthodoxy is simply your "spder sense" of how you want to describe God.

 

[toddpedlar]

I could show you several, but those persons would get offended and insist they are not.

Be VERY careful making such statements, Joseph. It would be best if you were a little more circumspect in your claims. I suspect from what you've posted here many of those you accuse of this would be correct in their self-defense.

Well if my deffinition is right I would be right. But I have only meet one hyper-Calvinist in real life (I don't include internet) and he would be one of those types of persons who called the OPC no different than the PCUSA, most psalters song books of satan and and insisted that If God truely wants someone to be saved through the preaching of the world through providence He or she would be brought to the church, hear expository sermons (defined as almost like a commentary) and the Holy Spirit would jsut do His stuff at His own pleasure. Also just a side note: there is also a strong connection between antinomianism and and hyper calvinism.

I don't think you're going to get out of your overblown rhetoric this easily.

So where are the "several" you talked about?

And why did you waste time talking about your insistence that if one refuses to say "God desires your salvation" to everyone you meet on the street, one is a hyper-calvinist?

I refuse to say that, as do many in this board. Are we all hyper-calvinists? Are we the "several" you talked about?

 

[jogri17]

This is odd. You don't want to be theologically precise regarding the nature of God's emotions and yet, on the basis of the imprecision, you are precise in defining who a hyper-Calvinist is. In other words, someone who disagrees with your imprecise understanding of God's emotions is, by definition, precisely unorthodox with respect to God's emotions and thus a hyper-Calvinist?

This gets to the point I made earlier about nailing jello to a wall. If you don't want to be theologically precise then that's fine but that also means that, at the bar of rendering judgment about the motives of others and their Evangelical zeal, the best you can offer is an imprecise critique of where they err.

Even those that fall of the deep end theologically often do so out of ignorance or being led astray. If we, who are Spiritual, have any hope of restoring them then we need to sometimes be surgical in the application of God's Word to restore a Brother.

So are you saying you would talk about election, reprobation, the economies of the covenants with a person with whom God has in His providence has opened up the ability to have a conversation? We ought to feel free to use every day non-technical language when it comes to the peaching of the Gopel.

I'm confused yet again. Where did I ever talk about how I share the Gospel?

You stated that we need not be theologically precise about the nature of God's emotions and that you believe that the lack of precision is commendatory but you are very precise about defining who is/isn't a hyper-Calvinist based upon your own view of how a person ought to be imprecise.

I'm trying to understand the basis by which you render a certain judgment of unorthodoxy upon others in this area when orthodoxy is simply your "spder sense" of how you want to describe God.

I do not have any sort of spidy sense (I just look for the batsignal in the air of my mind). Yet all my comments about tbeing theologically precise was in the context not of discussion amoung christians but in evangelism which gets to the heart of what hypercalvinism is.

-----Added 8/3/2009 at 01:56:26 EST-----

Be VERY careful making such statements, Joseph. It would be best if you were a little more circumspect in your claims. I suspect from what you've posted here many of those you accuse of this would be correct in their self-defense.

Well if my deffinition is right I would be right. But I have only meet one hyper-Calvinist in real life (I don't include internet) and he would be one of those types of persons who called the OPC no different than the PCUSA, most psalters song books of satan and and insisted that If God truely wants someone to be saved through the preaching of the world through providence He or she would be brought to the church, hear expository sermons (defined as almost like a commentary) and the Holy Spirit would jsut do His stuff at His own pleasure. Also just a side note: there is also a strong connection between antinomianism and and hyper calvinism.

I don't think you're going to get out of your overblown rhetoric this easily.

So where are the "several" you talked about?

And why did you waste time talking about your insistence that if one refuses to say "God desires your salvation" to everyone you meet on the street, one is a hyper-calvinist?

I refuse to say that, as do many in this board. Are we all hyper-calvinists? Are we the "several" you talked about?

I never said that and I will not give names unless there is a general concensus amoung mainstream reformed theologians who are able to do good historical theology. "God desires your salvation" I thought we were way past that misunderstanding. I clearly later on in the conversation what I meant by that. I will defend to the death that any sort of calvinism or reformed theology that refuses to say that God's revealed will in the Scriptures is that ANYONE WHO REPENTS AND EXERCISES SAVING FAITH will be saved.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

I wrote a paper on Hyper-Calvinism some time back. It deals with the problems of many so-called "definitions" and closes on a concise historical definition. I also interacted with Curt Daniel's definition from his PhD thesis. See here if you are interested: What is Hyper-Calvinism?

Some of the discussion above tends to stray from the defining points of historic Hyper-Calvinism in my estimation. Variations in High Calvinism addressing God's desire, the objective provisions of the atonement, or common grace do not make one a hyper-Calvinist (technically speaking).

All too often Hyper-Calvinism is used in a non-technical sense as a pejorative for anyone to the right of one's own understanding.

 

[jogri17]

I thought we were way past that misunderstanding. I clearly later on in the conversation what I meant by that.

There was no misunderstanding from our end, only poor expression from yours. You should be careful to write exactly what you mean, instead of that which gives a different impression from its intention.

I will defend to the death that any sort of calvinism or reformed theology that refuses to say that God's revealed will in the Scriptures is that ANYONE WHO REPENTS AND EXERCISES SAVING FAITH will be saved.

There is no Calvinism, nor Reformed theology that would deny that, and that's never been what our back and forths have been about.

Then I would not call you a hyper-Calvinist. Hyper calvinists is to calvinism what Baxterianism is to Calvism on the other extreme. Both are wrong and both don't necessarily damn someone in and of themselves but theologically both are inbalanced.

 

[toddpedlar]

I thought we were way past that misunderstanding. I clearly later on in the conversation what I meant by that.

There was no misunderstanding from our end, only poor expression from yours. You should be careful to write exactly what you mean, instead of that which gives a different impression from its intention.

I will defend to the death that any sort of calvinism or reformed theology that refuses to say that God's revealed will in the Scriptures is that ANYONE WHO REPENTS AND EXERCISES SAVING FAITH will be saved.

There is no Calvinism, nor Reformed theology that would deny that, and that's never been what our back and forths have been about.

Then I would not call you a hyper-Calvinist. Hyper calvinists is to calvinism what Baxterianism is to Calvism on the other extreme. Both are wrong and both don't necessarily damn someone in and of themselves but theologically both are inbalanced.

Good, then we're agreed. We all agree that any who repents and exercises saving faith will be saved. We all agree that the elect only are those who will come to Christ, and that upon meeting someone on the street we cannot know whether God intends to that person's salvation or not. We can only be faithful to the Gospel. Further, we then should agree that one should never say "God desires your salvation" in an evangelistic situation, because we cannot know that, only God can. Rather, we should say that "Christ died to save sinners, and it is only through faith in Him that one can be saved." Mucking up the works by telling people things that we cannot know is a mistake and little more than "salesmanship".

This was a lot of virtual ink spilled over what seems to be a very elementary point.

 

[charliejunfan]

"Charlie, I understand why you're saying this, but I disagree that it's silly to try and peg down a definition. I think it's very important, because true Hyper-Calvinism is a problem, just as hypo-Calvinism (i.e. semi-Pelagianism, Pelagianism, and Arminianism) is. Thus, we need to understand the errors in their teaching so as to not fall prey to the rationalism that comes with such pernicious doctrine. Any one holding denial of the following beliefs:

1. Regeneration is necessary for salvation,
2. Ministers have the obligation to preach the good news to all men indiscriminately
3. All men without exception have a duty and obligation to repent and believe the good news

... has problems with biblical revelation. As Calvinists, we believe the Bible. So Hyper-Calvinism is no Calvinism at all, since all three of the above tenants are true and Biblical."


You're absolutely right Josh

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

So are you saying you would talk about election, reprobation, the economies of the covenants with a person with whom God has in His providence has opened up the ability to have a conversation? We ought to feel free to use every day non-technical language when it comes to the peaching of the Gopel.

I know you are discussing this with Semper, but yes I would. And I have. In fact I just led someone to Christ recently with the help of a few others on this board. I did mention the Covenants and that God only gives eyes to see and ears to hear the gospel. I used everday language along with Biblical language. We discussed the Covenants and I had to do some explaining because our society is ignorant of the word but I bet you would be a bit impressed how some people do grasp the nomenclature of theology when it is explained.

In fact when I became a Christian I wasn't born again with an arminian understanding. I became a Christian by reading the scriptures. And when I read John 15:16 I believed it. I was chosen by him and ordained to go and bear fruit. It isn't that hard.

 

[Laudante]

Hyper-Calvinist are this modern ages Bigfoot. Everyone talks about them but no one shows me one.

I agree with this. Hyper-calvinism, as defined very ably by Pergamum and Joshua is certainly a major heresy, but not because it is Hyper-Calvinistic, but simply because it´s another form of antinomianism, provided there are real adherents to it. If one makes of Divine sovereignty something that annihilates any human responsibility (and it seems that the key of Hyper Calvinism lies here), he is just another antinomianist of the pile. A person who says that he doesn´t have to do anything because he is an elect, and because everything is foreordained by God (which is true, by the way), is not more calvinist than Calvin, but much less so. It is an hypo-Calivinist. And besides, you can tell 99% that he is not an elect one, indeed, or at least that his time of regeneration hasn´t come yet.

In my humble opinion, the key of the issue lies in the so-called "two wills of God". Arminianism and that that we are calling Hyper-Calvinism seem to have a common root: a marked inability to understand these "two wills". The former generates an impotent god that wills the salvation of all, but is unable to produce it, while the latter makes God the author of sin, and represent Him as delighting in the damnation of some men, as if this was an end in itself. I wrote a 12-page article in which I endeavor to solve the problems of both infra and supra schemes, but I´ll subject it to review before presenting it here. It´s not that difficult, I believe, to make a new satisfactory scheme taking the best of both sides. But what is basic, I think, is to avoid any attempt to "justify" God of His decrees, as the infralapsarian scheme usually tries to do, incurring in lots of inconsistencies, In my humble opinion.

I´ve found that there is a very lax use of the term hyper-Calvinist by all the parties. hyper-Calvinist is something no one wants to be labelled as, but that everyone feels free to apply to those He considers the ultra right-wing party in Theology. Usually, in reformed circles, it is applied to any supralapsarian, indiscriminately, but this is completely wrong. The vast majority of supralapsarians believe that:

1. Regeneration is necessary for salvation,
2. Ministers have the obligation to preach the good news to all men indiscriminately
3. All men without exception have a duty and obligation to repent and believe the good news
4. God is not the author of sin.
5. Everything that God commands should be done.
6. God has a preceptive as well as decretive will.
7. The damnation of the wicked is not a pleasure for God, nor is it an end in itself, but a means to accomplish His ultimate goal.

Outside of Reformed circles, the term is used ofter to describe anyone who dares to believe that God is something more than a mere spectator of the events. I´ve find in many websites (especially in those created by Campbellites and other sensationalists) the abusive use of Hyper-Calvinism as anything that implies even to a minimum degree that God is sovereign. Just see this example, out of many possible, taken from an article called "Hyper-Calvinism in the Church exposed":

"Sovereign", to Engedi and the PCA means that God controls each and every event. However, this is NOT a Biblical concept (!). God created humanity with a free will and no one is ever predestinated to heaven or hell. No one who sinned blamed God.

This is hyper-Calvinism for them (I wonder what simple "Calvinism" could be!)

Now, regarding the cheeskake issue and the conflict of desires in God, maybe I wouldn´t put in in those terms, but it is still important to distinguish between the preceptive and the decretive (I hope this word is correct in English) "wills". Obviously, in an ultimate sense, the decretive will is the absolute, and God has one final goal, namely, summing all things in Christ (Eph.1:10), and to accomplish this will he has decreed anything that was and is to happen in His creation, including the reprobation of some (Prov. 16:4). But it would be incorrect to say that he wants men to sin. No one here would say, I think, that it is false to tell an homosexual: "God WANTS you to stop practicing your sin", and still, in another sense, the sin of this person was decreed by God Himself, because otherwise it would have never happened. The homosexuality of this person was not an accident that occurred in the universe of God. But nevertheless God wants this person to repent and stop sinning, in His preceptive will, no matter if he is an elect or not. Now, sin is not only trangression of the law, but also lack of conformity, and in this sense it can be fair to say that since the law commands to love God, and believe in His word, you can also say to any person: "God WANTS you to love Him and believe in Christ", even if he is not an elect (a thing which none of us can know). The fact that this person fails to obey is not a failure on the part of God, of course, nor is it that the command wasn´t sincere, but simply that there is a higher end for which God decrees something different, in the case of this person, from what His preceptive will commands him to do.

WGT Shedd states about 15 reasons for which we have to preach the Gospel, and explaining why the offer is sincere, which he expunds immediately after defending the limited atonement doctrine. So one thing doesn´t hinder the other. (see Dogm. Theol. II "Vicarious Atonement")

Sorry for the long post, I´m a compulsive writer.

In Christ

 

[JM]

With all due respect here I believe 100% you are wrong here. Just because God desires in one sense that ALL HUMANITY to be saved that doesn't mean that he is obligated to save all and plan to save all in election. A special desire and love to save his elect (foreknowledge) for reasons unknown and not dependent upon us. God love all of humanity in a very real and amazing sense! Common grace is not common; Dog's don't have it! It's a special gift God has given to a sinful hummanity just for being image bearers of God (something he did to us in creation through the Federal Headship of Adam).

What God desires, He gets. Scripture teaches nothing different. God loves mankind with a general love, in that they are made in His image. But nowhere does Scripture teach that He desires all of their salvation without exception. So, then, to say to an individual, "God desires to save you," is just not something you can know, unless your privy to those secret things He has decreed long ago.

Regardless, you will stop throwing out unsubstantiated charges of Hyper-Calvinism according to your definition above.

Well written.