What is Hyper-Calvinism?

[Tom Butler]

We have some Primitive Baptist brothers (and maybe sisters) here at the BB. They may properly be called Hyper-Calvinists. They will, of course, reject that description. I disagree with them, but they are not heretics.

 

[Iconoclast]

Well, like Paul Newman said in Cool Hand Luke after the warden beat him over the head, and then explained to the other convicts that he did it for Luke's own good,

"I wish you didn't care about me so much boss!"

I have been showing scripture for nearly two years that I believe clearly refutes Calvinism, haven't you noticed?

Well....I know you post alot....but have I noticed anything you posted that

that I believe clearly refutes Calvinism, haven't you noticed?

No....I can say there has not been one that does that. I will say that i believe that you think they clearly refute the truth of God's grace....and many times I have held back from responding because in some of those posts you present ideas that I do not find in scripture.
Sometimes when you think you are posting something of value...it is contrary to scripture.

I have never been big on reading theologians,

we have noticed this....yes

I have owned one commentary in my life, Matthew Henry, and that was a gift.

Matthew Henry is very good.

I used to read it some, but I misplaced it about 20 years ago and have never been able to find it. I have moved several times in those years, maybe it is packed away in a box somewhere.

Ok....we will pray that you find it and receive help for your condition.

Since coming to BB and debating Calvinists I have read many articles, MOSTLY written by Calvinists. You will get angry, but it is these articles written by Calvinists that provide me with much ammunition to debate against it.

No...I am not angry at all. Understanding of scripture comes from God.Why would I get angry with you? This suggests to me that you have read some bad articles....or you are not understanding what those articles are saying.


I will say this, according to those articles, most Calvinists here are Hypers. I see the over-emphasis of God's sovereignty and the minimalization of man's responsibility often here.

I have only seen a few statements that were mis-guided in the hyper direction. It can happen as we are all learning and many times on a message board many of us are somewhat self taught and might be prone to mistakes that more learned persons might avoid.
Again...a non -cal thinks anyone who believes the scripture on God's decree, predestination, election, are hyper.
Winman...when was the last time you refered to yourself as one of God's elect? have you ever used the language about yourself?
Winman,
good movie reference:thumbs:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

We have some Primitive Baptist brothers (and maybe sisters) here at the BB. They may properly be called Hyper-Calvinists. They will, of course, reject that description. I disagree with them, but they are not heretics.

Well Tom, than you seriously dont understand the differences between PB & Hypercalvinists. Perhaps you should get together with Kyredneck since he lives in Kentucky so he can address this with you up front & personal.

 

[JesusFan]

I hope you enjoy my attempt at humor here!!!!




- This would make the JW's, Mormons, and a whole slough of Believers hyper-calvinists!!!! :thumbsup:




- This too could also make many hypers that are not!!!! :smilewinkgrin:

Also, what exactly is a hyper-calvinist, by definition?

I really should read Calvins works. But, I'd rather read the Bible so I'll pass for now.

My definition on one being a hyper cal is that person will believe that God determines directly ALL events, has a single Will, no determinitive/permissive Will going on

person will say "elect get saved/period" no need to evn witnes/evangelise/missionaries!

 

[JesusFan]

Most calvinists on the BB are "hyper"? There are terms to describe something as false and erroneous and as egregious slander . . but am amazed that any would willingly state such openly.

Sorry that elevating salvation to GOD'S work alone and standing up for HIS sovereignty is so offensive to some.

Reminder: This subject is fraught with more heat than light and while we might deperately like to use it, words like "heresy" are not allowed (unless dealing with a "heresy" acknowledged by the Church (like Arian or Pelagian or Mormon or such).

Agreed...

Hyper cals/Arms drift either into heresy or REALLY close to it...

believe that cals 'see things" better from the scriptures, more true to Biblical theology, but that Arms are also able to contribute to discussions with some valid points, and both sides preach the same Christ and Gospel.....

 

[preacher4truth]

Sorry that elevating salvation to GOD'S work alone and standing up for HIS sovereignty is so offensive to some.

This is it in a nutshell. Unwillingness is what I see here, and among God's people, unwilling to give Him all the Glory? This is quite perplexing, especially when the honor and "rights" of man is fought for v. Gods Glory.

 

[kyredneck]

We have some Primitive Baptist brothers (and maybe sisters) here at the BB. They may properly be called Hyper-Calvinists. They will, of course, reject that description. I disagree with them, but they are not heretics.

The PBs I'm associated with agree with Benjamin's definition (post #8), "My definiton of a hyper-Calvinist is a "Hard Determinist".

On the other hand, if you believe those that hold to 'immediate regeneration' are 'hyper', then yes, PBs fit your definition.

[edit] As someone else said (might've been you), "Everybody to the right of me is 'hyper'.

 

[webdog]

Here's a quick definition of Hyper-Calvinism:

God elects, and the elect will be saved whether they ever hear the gospel or not.

I know of no Calvinist who believes God saves anyone independently of the gospel.

Good cliff notes version :thumbs:

The irony is...there are those who maintain God will save an infant or baby (sans faith) in some other way (another dispensation of salvation)...yet vehemently deny the hyper label.

Anyone who holds to Augustinian original sin while maintaining God saves all infants would fall into this camp, no? It appears this is the majority of calvinists I have come across.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Agreed...

Hyper cals/Arms drift either into heresy or REALLY close to it...

believe that cals 'see things" better from the scriptures, more true to Biblical theology, but that Arms are also able to contribute to discussions with some valid points, and both sides preach the same Christ and Gospel.....

You really do think so? I remain unconvinced that the vast majority of Arms dont blend divine sovereignty with human capability evidenced by their complete belief that the efficacy of the atonement does not rest on Christs saving work alone but also on the sinners faith & repentance. Although Gods grace is attractive and persuasive, it is not powerful enough to triumph over those who stubbornly resist His love. Then add to that that it's questionable whether or not a saved Christian will preserve to the very end.(RIGHT!) Although these are distinct doctrinal issues, they are linked by a common concern to downplay predestination so as to allow human beings to determine their own spiritual destiny.

Now with Calvinists, the starting point for any system of doctrine is the greater glory of God. Our soteriology is to glorify God for His sovereign grace.

See the differences?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Good cliff notes version :thumbs:

The irony is...there are those who maintain God will save an infant or baby (sans faith) in some other way (another dispensation of salvation)...yet vehemently deny the hyper label.

Anyone who holds to Augustinian original sin while maintaining God saves all infants would fall into this camp, no? It appears this is the majority of calvinists I have come across.

Yes indeed ....through Mercy!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The PBs I'm associated with agree with Benjamin's definition (post #8), "My definiton of a hyper-Calvinist is a "Hard Determinist".



[edit] As someone else said (might've been you), "Everybody to the right of me is 'hyper'.

You need to define that better IE "Hard Determinist".

 

[JesusFan]

Good cliff notes version :thumbs:

The irony is...there are those who maintain God will save an infant or baby (sans faith) in some other way (another dispensation of salvation)...yet vehemently deny the hyper label.

Anyone who holds to Augustinian original sin while maintaining God saves all infants would fall into this camp, no? It appears this is the majority of calvinists I have come across.

Nope....

Hypers would say that the infant is regenerated by act of God elective grace applied to them...

others would see it as God "by passing" them in the sense that the death of Christ reconciled them back to God, paid for their state of being found in 'original sin" but that until they reach age of accountibility to God, he will not hold that against them... So the Cross has atoning power to forbade them until personally responsible to god, then need to personally place faith in Jesus Christ!

 

[quantumfaith]

You really do think so? I remain unconvinced that the vast majority of Arms dont blend divine sovereignty with human capability evidenced by their complete belief that the efficacy of the atonement does not rest on Christs saving work alone but also on the sinners faith & repentance. Although Gods grace is attractive and persuasive, it is not powerful enough to triumph over those who stubbornly resist His love. Then add to that that it's questionable whether or not a saved Christian will preserve to the very end.(RIGHT!) Although these are distinct doctrinal issues, they are linked by a common concern to downplay predestination so as to allow human beings to determine their own spiritual destiny.

Now with Calvinists, the starting point for any system of doctrine is the greater glory of God. Our soteriology is to glorify God for His sovereign grace.

See the differences?

EWF,

Unashamedly, I don't blend it, I say it. Salvation (IMO) is a blending of God's offer of grace and our response to that offer in faith. And I will state again, this in NO WAY impugns the sovereignty of God (again IMO).

 

[Allan]

This has been defined by known and respected Calvinists from Mongerism and Spurgeon.com and been talked about in this thread

 

[JesusFan]

This has been defined by known and respected Calvinists from Mongerism and Spurgeon.com and been talked about in this thread

This is what confuses me in this discussion!

I hold that faith itself is NOT a work we add to salvation, thats it required by God...

its just that man is NOT able to provide that as part of what God requires, so he enables us to be in a state/condition where we can receive the Gospel message and exercise saving faith in Christ,,,

Ist that the standard cal way of viewing it then?

 

[Iconoclast]

Good cliff notes version :thumbs:

The irony is...there are those who maintain God will save an infant or baby (sans faith) in some other way (another dispensation of salvation)...yet vehemently deny the hyper label.

Webdog .....salvation is the covenant mercy of God, granted and graced by God to his elect...whereby the guilty sinner [romans5] chosen by By God is covered by the blood of the cross.
The normal means that God has ordained is the preaching of the gospel[rom10]. That being said we also have persons born mentally handicapped, we have other persons who physically die in the womb shortly after conception.
God is God...and not us WD. if in His eternal electing love he chooses to have mercy on any ,or all of them it is only His mercy that has in infinite wisdom determined to do this.
Your faulty understanding of salvation[ where man must do something] ie,
believe, make a decision, accept Jesus by an intellectual process, co-operate in some way with God......leaves you unable to deal with these persons who cannot become believers by ordinary means. A biblical view of the grace of God would help with this.:type:


Anyone who holds to Augustinian original sin

I do not think that Augustine wrote Genesis, or Romans 5. he might have read the same truths that most of us have and believed them as they were taught.


while maintaining God saves all infants would fall into this camp, no? It appears this is the majority of calvinists I have come across.

Here is what the majority of calvinists believe on this;

Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling
1._____ Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
( Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3; Song of Solomon 1:4 )
2._____ This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
( 2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:5; John 5:25; Ephesians 1:19, 20 )

3._____ Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. ( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )

4._____ Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.
( Matthew 22:14; Matthew 13:20, 21; Hebrews 6:4, 5; John 6:44, 45, 65; 1 John 2:24, 25; Acts 4:12; John 4:22; John 17:3 )

 

[Allan]

This is what confuses me in this discussion!

I hold that faith itself is NOT a work we add to salvation, thats it required by God...

its just that man is NOT able to provide that as part of what God requires, so he enables us to be in a state/condition where we can receive the Gospel message and exercise saving faith in Christ,,,

Ist that the standard cal way of viewing it then?

I'm not sure 'why' you asked the question but ... yes, it is the common view that faith is not work. I'm lost though as to what you question is specifically remarking to.?

 

[Allan]

Here is what the majority of calvinists believe on this;

I'm not sure I'm following you.. are you saying that we are 'not' saved by faith.. ie.. faith has nothing to do with our salvation.

Additionally, please note that the blood of the Cross in not imparted to anyone apart from faith for it is by faith the propitiation is applied man - Rom 3:25 (maybe I misunderstood you there as well)

 

[Dr. Bob]

"We" [who can understand words/faith] are saved by God's grace alone. Part of the "salvaiton package" is our response to regeneration = repentance and faith.

But there are some elect who cannot understand, who are mentally incapable or, an infants, not developed yet to know the left from the right.

They, too, are saved by God's grace alone. Their response will, of course, be different than the "we" who can repent/believe. But they are nonetheless regenerated and bound for eternity with God.

 

[psalms109:31]

Hebrews 5:
13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.