When trying to understand Hyper-Calvinism, one should begin by understanding the order of God’s decrees. Go here for a quick study! Most Calvinists are Infralapsarians and many are Superlapsarian. Now while it is true that not all Superlapsarians are Hyper-Calvinists, Dr. Curt Daniels argues [in his dissertation entitled "The History and Theology of Calvinism"] that most Hyper-Calvinist are Superlapsarians.
At its root Hyper-Calvinism believes that God decrees, from the foundation of world, to damn some men and save others by His good pleasure alone. Calvinism believes this, but the “this” is qualified. Hyper-Calvinism believes this without a qualification. The qualification is this – men cannot be saved or damned without being fallen. The Hyper-Calvinist teaches that God saves and damns as a result of God’s pleasure, without consideration of man’s fallen state. This is to hold creatures responsible for sin they have not committed, or have not had imputed to them.
Dr. MacMahon notes that Hyper-Calvinism is not a movement which has withstood the test of time. It is like Dispensationalism in that it is a fairly new invention in the scheme of Church History. Hyper-Calvinism formally took shape in 1707 at the time of John Hussey and his disciple, John Skepp.
Dr. MacMahon concludes that a Hyper-Calvinist would be one who holds any of the following points due to their logical extensions:
1. That God elect or damns without considering men as fallen creatures.
2. That the mind of man, due to the fall, is utterly destroyed.
3. That fallen men have no duty to believe in the Gospel by faith.
4. That men must have a subjective theological knowledge of regeneration before they can believe the Gospel.
5. That the Gospel should not be universally tendered or offered to all men, everywhere.
6. That the Gospel should not be offered to men except they are regenerate.
7. That God does not have a general love for all men in His indiscriminate providence.
8. That Limited Atonement must be believed in order to hear the Gospel, and be saved and converted.
9. That God cannot desire things He has not decreed, or decree things He has not desired.
John Hendryx of the beloved “Monergism” website assets that most Calvinists reject as deplorable the following hyper-Calvinistic and destructive beliefs:
- that God is the author of sin and of evil
- that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect
- that the number of the elect at any time may be known by men
- that it is wrong to evangelize
- that assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith
- that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they later do
- that God has chosen some races of men and has rejected others
- that the children of unbelievers dying in infancy are certainly damned
- that God does not command everyone to repent
- that the sacraments are not means of grace, but obstacles to salvation by faith alone.
- that the true church is only invisible, and salvation is not connected with the visible church
- that the Scriptures are intended to be interpreted by individuals only and not by the church.
- that no government is to be obeyed which does not acknowledge that Jesus is the Lord, or that Biblical Law is its source of authority
- that the grace of God does not work for the betterment of all men
- that saving faith is equivalent to belief in the doctrine of predestination
- that only Calvinists are Christians
I am completely against Hyper-Calvinism — it is wrong and damaging to the church and the Great Commission — but I must admit: I don’t remember ever meeting a Hyper-Calvinist. The label is thrown around as if Hyper-Calvinism is lurking around every corner. I have seen men, good and godly men, accused of Hyper-Calvinism — by people who have less spiritual fruit hanging from the branch — if you know what I mean.
I know of many Arminians who are Wesleyan, Methodist, Penticostal, Baptist, Calvary Chapels, Community churches, Vineyard, Bible churches, etc. — the number reaches into the millions. And I know of semi-Pelagian Roman Catholics — again reaching into the millions. But how many Hyper-Calvinist do I know personally – NONE. How many have I heard of — a few, but I’m not even sure if they all have been labeled accurately.
**stay tuned for more posts on this**
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
“The label is thrown around as if Hyper-Calvinism is lurking around every corner. I have seen men, good and godly men, accused of Hyper-Calvinism — by people who have less spiritual fruit hanging from the branch — if you know what I mean.”
Yep, I know what you mean.
I’ve been accused (once) of being a HC, by an individual that bears a striking resemblance to your definition here.
Over the years I’ve met a grand total of 3 people that definitely fall into the category of HC, and even admit (proudly) that they are. Contrasting that to all the Christians I know and have known, I’d suppose the real number of HCs out there is fairly low.
I don’t know any Hyper-Calvinist either. I think Hyper-Calvinism has been popularized by Calvinists for the most part. This is the consequense of caution. A solid Calvinist sees the possibility of theological error in going past the biblical doctrines and into a perversion. Most people that accuse us of being Hyper-Calvinsit really accuse us of being Calvinist due to a lack of understanding of our position. They don’t like Calvinism and just throw the term “hyper” out as a straw man. I have had college professors say to me (and I think you may have been there in this discussion, Jason) that Calvin was anti-missions,etc. They don’t have the academic integrity to find out the truth of the matter but would rather get on the band wagon of a faulty system of theology. By the way the best book on the subject is Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism & Arminianism by Kenneth Talbot the president of Whitefield Seminary. This is where McMahon did his Ph.D. studies
I don’t think I have met any hypercalvinist personally. They are out there however. The most infamous hyper calvinist site on the internet is OUTSIDE THE CAMP http://www.outsidethecamp.org/
Check out their Hall of Shame
http://www.outsidethecamp.org/heterodoxyhall.htm
It’s true the label is thrown around. And I haven’t met any muself, that I know of, but–goodness!–I’ve found their web sites on the Internet and they sure are ugly.
I guess you’d be unlikely to meet any hypers; they’d keep themselves out of the way of sinful, ungodly wretches like us. It’s probably the best thing for them, too; I mean, goodness knows I’m a bad enough influence on myself, never mind other people.
The whole supra/infra thing confuses me. I’m kind of both and kind of neither.
I don’t personally know any Hyper Calvinists either. However I just want to point to the Fred Phelps group the “God hates fags” guys as hyper calvinists who have made a sort of name for themselves by protesting fallen soldiers funerals. The sad thing to me is that many people who don’t know what calvinism is think that they represent calvinism. So when people find out I am a calvinist they think I am on board with those fellows…
All that to say that they are out there and are noisy.
I’m new at thinking about Calvinism.
I don’t understand the stating of this view as H-C and therefore as bad:
“- that God does not command everyone to repent”.
I don’t see how any flavor of 5-point Calvinist could disagree with the above statement. Surely if only the elect are able to repent, then it does not make sense for God to command all people to repent? In fact, if it is predestined who will in fact repent, and if repentance itself is a gift of the Holy Spirit, why would God command anyone at all to repent? Sorry I just don’t see why a Calvinist who believes in Limited Atonement would dislike this statement: “- that God does not command everyone to repent”. Why would God command people to do what he knows they are unable to do? And why would he command people to do what he will in fact not allow them to do? I’m very puzzled …
I agree HC is thrown around by uninformed (sometimes I think consciously) Arminians who want brow beat true Calvinists.
I began to think that there were no real HC’s around myself till about a year ago when a real ugly one showed up in the church I pastor one Sunday. I had him and his wife to the house for lunch and I would say the majority of these characteristics defined his position. I subsequently informed him that it would be best for him to move on which he did.
I’ve been accused of being one myself, sadly the name is thrown around horribly. By ‘soft determinists’ to ‘hard determinists’ and by ‘two willers’ to ‘one willers’. Arminians throw this at all of us lol…sadly this can ruin a discussion about Calvinism once we’ve been branded its over.
Brian,
The only problem with your question is that Scripture is clear that God commands all men everywhere to repent. Just because God commands something does not mean that man has the ability — that would be the Pelagian argument. Nor does it mean that since man does not have the ability that he should not repent.
Man does not refuse to repent because he is unable, although he is unable. No, the reason man refuses to repent is because he loves his sin and hates God.
The very fact that men do not obey God and repent of their sin is why such disobedience can be called disobedience. If they aren’t commanded to repent, then disobedience would not exists in this context. God judges men because they refuse to do what God has commanded.
Limited Atonement does not change these truths at all.
If I understand Jonathan’s Edwards’ take on the matter, the fact that all men are called to repent indicates that we have a natural ability to do so (otherwise it would appear superfluous and impertinent for God to give us commands in the first place). However, due to the depravity of sin we have a moral inability to obey/ repent/ believe, etc… We have a natural inability to fly no matter how hard we may flap our arms. We cannot be held responsible for any natural inability we may have. However, because we have a natural ability to obey/ repent/ believe but are enslaved by our own wills not to do so, we are therefore held responsible for our moral inability since this stems from our wills (albeit influenced by our corrupted hearts). Subsequently, the whole point of the Gospel is that we cannot obey God’s commands from the heart because it is enslaved to sin and therefore we need Jesus to be our Savior who will rescue us from our moral inability.
Hi Jason,
Thanks very much for your response to my question. I have only recently started attending a Reformed church (which generally speaking I enjoy very much) and I’m still getting to grips with the doctrine. I found some parts quite confusing. I have been doing quite a bit of research about Calvinism on the internet, hence I came across FIDE-O. You say: “Scripture is clear that God commands all men everywhere to repent”. I agree. But a Calvinist web site I have read says that Acts 17:30 (“In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent”) is a command only to the elect, since clearly according to Calvinist teaching not everyone is able to repent and believe. The other paper that I have read makes a long argument that the word “all” in the New Testament mostly means “all types of elect people”, rather than “all people of the earth”, so by this argument it is NOT the case that “Scripture is clear that God commands all men everywhere to repent”. No, he says, it is clear that scripture only commands the elect to repent. (The text of the article is here: http://www.biblefood.com/unlimato.html) The way that article argues, if “all” means “all people of the world” in Acts 17:30, then it should also mean “all people of the world” in 1 John 2:2 which says “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” So what would you make of 1 John 2:2? If “all” means “all people” in Acts 17:30, doesn’t it mean “all people” in 1 John 2:2?
Once again, thanks for your reply, appreciate it.
I have only met one HC myself in the hundreds of churches I have attended. I know there are some out there somewhere.
Jason,
Just curious, do you consider John Gill to be hyper? I ask because MacMahon’s piece seems to indicate that he considers Gill to be hyper. If he does, then he is the only one that I personally know of who says that Gill is hyper. Everyone else seems to stop just short of it as they do with Pink (if it’s mentioned at all).
JMattC
I am not familiar with Gill, but Iain Murray in his book, “Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism” holds that Gill was an HC. He has a whole chapter on Gill. It seems he was not as extereme as others, particualrly those Spurgeon dealt with in his day. Spurgeon had high regard for Gill and recommended his commentaries although he did not agree with all he said. Murray’s book is helpful in understanding the historical roots and doctrine of HC.
It’s also worth pointing out that so many of these arguments and positions are not determined by the words used, but by what was meant by the words. For instance, an Arminian and a Calvinist might readily agree with the statement “Christ’s death was sufficient for all, but efficient only for those who believe”, but both would disagree completely on what those words meant.
In the case of the confessions of faith (Belgic, Helvetic, Westminster, Second London Confession, etc) the issues were debated for years and the terms rigorously defined so that when someone talked about Limited Atonement, it was very clear what they meant and the argument defined the terms and not the other way around.
Today, I see people taking issue with Calvinism for exactly the opposite reason. Because they don’t understand the arguments, they take issue with their understanding of the terms and say, “that’s so stupid, it can’t be right.”
Curtis Hutson’s booklet, Why I Disagree With All 5 Points of Calvinism is an excellent example of this as he often makes very similar arguments to the Calvinistic position while stating that he disagrees.
Case in point: On the list of Hyper Calvinistic beliefs is the line “that God is the author of sin and of evil”. My guess is that there are many Calvinist’s who might agree with that statement, depending on what is meant by it. “Is evil an outside force that opposes God”, “Did someone apart from God’s sovereign will create evil?”, etc.
Anyway, this has turned into a long ramble. I hope it makes sense.
Charles Churchill
http://thepreacher.cac2.net
I have met a small handful of hypers on the CARM boards, those who insist that non-Calvinists are not saved (refer to Hendryx’s hyper-Calvinist list). But you’re right, they are rare. About as rare as hyper-Arminians.