What is Hyper-Calvinism?

I'm starting this thread because we as members have completely derailed a thread in "General Baptist Discussions" regarding reading materials purchase and use, and I didn't want to further drag that thread down into the dust. So I begin with a statement from Rippon regarding an ongoing exchange on that thread, followed by a question Yehsua1 asked me, and continue the discussion here.

I said four of the five points as understood by hyper-Calvinists were unbiblical, not that all or a majority of the five points are. However, I have an issue with "Limited Atonement" when it is interpreted as meaning some were chosen for destruction. That's utter nonsense completely outside the character of God.

Stay tuned. Here it comes.

Hyper-Calvinism, to me, is a doctrine that emphasizes the divine sovereignty of God while completely denying any form of human responsibility. It isn't "Calvinism" at all, due to its rejection of historic Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism entails a denial of what is taught in both Scripture and the major Calvinistic creeds, substituting instead an imbalanced and unbiblical notion of divine sovereignty. Rippon, this would be what I call an "ultra-5-pointer."

There are several extremes of what I consider unbiblical and non-historical Calvinism. I'm not alone in that assessment. Hyper-Calvinists put great weight on the secret, or decretive (decreasing), will of God over "His revealed, or preceptive, will." That is, His will as an act of authoritarian rule. When a hyper-Calvinist discusses the will of God, he/she literally conceals any distinction between God's will as reflected in His commands and His will as reflected in his eternal decrees. Yet that distinction is an essential part of historic Reformed theology. In essense, hyper-Calvinists abandon Reformed thinking when it conflicts with their ultra-legalistic view of their focal points of Calvin's teachings.

I'll give an example of others who have identified another trait of those who have departed from Calvin and the Bible in embracing extreme thought. Peter Toon, on hyper-Calvinism, in The Dictionary of Theology (Leicester: IVP, 1988), 324.) [Note: There is no link I could find, sorry], writes:

Toon hits on the crux of the issue that separates the ultra-5-pointer, or hyper-Calvinist, from the reality of biblical and Calvinistic teaching. "Hypers" deny that the gospel message includes any sincere proposal of divine mercy to sinners in general, which any extensive study of God's word will reveal as an absurdity. Much of what is posted on this board fits neatly into this category.

Finally, hyper-Calvinists find solace and comfort -- how, I cannot imagine -- in entering into a brooding meditation over whether or not they, but more often, whether others, are elect or not. In fact, most I have known rarely question their own "election" but certainly are quick to question that of those around them, and particularly with those who disagree with them. For these brooding Calvinists, the concepts of the teacher "degenerate into a cold, lifeless dogma." This leads to churches and denominations that embrace this ill-conceived form of theology becoming either non-productive and ineffective with the gospel, or (as we also see on this board) militant and elitist, as though standing guard at the wall to prevent the barbarian horde from storming the gates and occupying -- what? Heaven? Unlikely. They aren't guarding those gates. I'm not sure what they are guarding.

Now, prepare to pull apart all I've written, but you should know, it is a summary of an article by Phil Johnson in summarizing the thoughts of Spurgeon on this brand of Calvinism. Where comments are in quotations marks, they are direct quotes from Johnson, a Calvinist who summarizes much of what is said on this board -- my perception, obviously, not his -- as unbiblical and un-Calvin, and therefore a "Hyper-Calvinist" who:

• Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
• Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
• Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
• Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
• Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

I literally despise these discussions, I should know better than to get into them, and I'm sorry I got into this one -- but then again, that other thread in "General Baptist Discussions" is completely derailed, as it had nothing to do with Calvinist thought. For that, I apologize to Evangelist, who had no intention of starting this thread to discuss the differences of opinion on this doctrine.

 

No one has said salvation is available to the unrepentant. This is like saying "There is air."

Nonsense. This is not preaching universalism. It is preaching evangelistic outreach, even though the call may not be effectual for any one individual. Why that call is ineffectual is also up for debate.

Never said they could be found in Scripture, but the presence of a "common grace" teaching cannot be denied. The doctrine of common grace pertains to the sovereign grace of God bestowed upon all of mankind regardless of their election. It means that God displays a favorable attitude toward all His creatures, restrains sin in the life of the individual and in society. Scripture records God directly intervening and restraining individuals from sinning. In Genesis 20, God restrained Abimelech from touching Sarah, Abraham’s wife, and affirmed it to him in a dream. By the same token, He can unleash it for His purposes, as when hearts harden, God releases His restraint on their hearts, thereby giving them over to the sin that resides there. Finally, God, without renewing the heart, exercises such influence that even the unsaved man is enabled to perform good deeds toward his fellow man. These are the main characteristics of God's common grace.

And again, nothing has been said to oppose that.

 

Most on this board will deny there is any call of any sort to the "unelect." Note what I said, "why that call is ineffectual is up for debate," not that the issue of evangelism to the general population itself was up for debate.

No, in other words, considering the context, God loving Jacob and hating Esau has nothing to do with the human emotions of love and hate. It has everything to do with God choosing one man and his descendants and rejecting another man and his descendants. God chose Abraham out of all the men in the world.

The Bible very well could say, “Abraham I loved, and every other man I hated.” God chose Abraham’s son Isaac instead of Abraham’s son Ishmael. The Bible very well could say, “Isaac I loved, and Ishmael I hated.” Romans chapter 9 makes it abundantly clear that loving Jacob and hating Esau was entirely related to which of them God chose, and only regarding what He chose Jacob for. It has nothing to do with the overall methodology or theology of "election." God doesn't eliminate half of humanity form the ability to hear and receive the gospel message, but He knows that the hardening of men's hearts is such that many will not heed the draw and call of the Holy Spirt.

By the way, hundreds of years after Jacob and Esau had died, the Israelites and Edomites became bitter enemies. The Edomites often aided Israel’s enemies in attacks on Israel. Esau’s descendants brought God’s curse upon themselves. God knew what He was doing in rejecting these individuals.

Which is the exact same thing. Putting it another way doesn't change the fact that He limited their behavior.

Consider Balaam. Then get back to me.

So now you contradict yourself from your point regarding Romans 8:28-30 above. Can't have it both ways.

You're adding a concept to TULIP that isn't there.

True. But it has nothing to do with the point of discussion.