"Hyper" Calvinism

[deepblue]

I've been reading up about this, and there are websites with a lot of content, e.g. baptists.net.

This theology has acquired a bad rep from the "Reformed" camp, but maybe things are not always as they initially appear:

5 Umasking The Myths Of The Reformed Baptist Movement

I was aware of the Strict Baptist tradition and the Gospel Standard churches, but not clued up much on the history. This and other websites provide a lot of useful info.

"Hyper" Calvinists believe in evangelism just as much as any other church stream.

Here is a (rather long!) explanation of what Hyper Calvinism is:

Hyper-Calvinism: Defined By A Hyper-Calvinist

I'm sure anyone who takes the time to watch this will find it fascinating and informative.

 

[atpollard]

I'm sure anyone who takes the time to watch this will find it fascinating and informative.

It is over 3 hours long!

 

[360watt]

There is the logical conclusion of the teachings that you can come to, that maybe different to what people say it is.

 

[deepblue]

It is over 3 hours long!

Yes, about 4 hours in total

It's a useful video as it covers the historical development of Calvinism to the present day. Then the series continues:

Part 2 (about Modern definitions of H-C): Hyper-Calvinism: Modern Definition – Theological Framework (Episode 2)

Part 3 (Historical Controversy): Hyper-Calvinism: Modern Definition – Historical Controversy (Episode 3)

Part 4 (More on Andrew Fuller): Andrew Fuller: Teachings And Legacy – The Reformed View (Episode 4)

and again, the foundational (4 hour long!) video: Hyper-Calvinism: Defined By A Hyper-Calvinist

 

[Armchair Apologist]

I'm sure it is quite informative for those who have four hours to spend listening to all of this.

But in two or three sentences, how would you describe "Hyper" Calvinism? and how would you distinguish this from the more mainstream variety?

 

[deepblue]

I'm sure it is quite informative for those who have four hours to spend listening to all of this.

But in two or three sentences, how would you describe "Hyper" Calvinism? and how would you distinguish this from the more mainstream variety?

"Hyper Calvinism" is a development of Calvinism in the 18th Century that was adopted by the Particular Baptist denomination in the UK. Moderate Calvinism (now the Calvinism of the "Reformed" movement) is based on an earlier stage of the development of Calvinism in the 17th Century. Both types operate from within a different framework of Covenant theology.

* 17th Century Covenant framework = development of Calvinism after Calvin that posits 3 different covenants. This is what the 1689 Baptist Confession is based on. This is what the modern Reformed Baptist movement is also based on. In historical terms, this could be called the "first stage of Hyper-Calvinism", since it introduces new things on top of what Calvin believed, but it's mainly known as "Moderate Calvinism" today.

* 18th Century Covenant framework = a further development of Calvinism by men such as John Gill and John Brine. This is a very different Covenant framework, with 2 covenants. This is what the Particular Baptist denomination was based on for most of the 18th, 19th and 20th Centuries. Historically, this is a "second stage of Hyper Calvinism" because it's a further development of Calvinism, and is what is known as "Hyper Calvinism" today.

Because the Reformed movement today is based on the earlier Covenant framework (17th Century), it tends to define "Hyper Calvinism" based on their own acceptance of this framework. It therefore believes that "divine sovereignty" and "human responsibility" are in tension or in contradiction to each other. They think "Hyper Calvinism" emphasizes divine sovereignty over and above human responsibility, and therefore is an error to be rejected.

However, because they are operating within this earlier Covenant framework, they haven't grasped fully what Hyper Calvinism actually is. In "Hyper Calvinism", there is no contradiction or tension there because the underlying Covenant framework is very different (it's the 2 covenant framework of the 18th Century, not the 3 covenant framework of 17th Century).

This is all explained nicely in the second, shorter video on the website: Hyper-Calvinism: Modern Definition – Theological Framework (Episode 2).

The first video of the series (the 4 hour one) basically covers all the history from Calvin onwards, and the development of the first (17th Century) and second (18th Century) Covenant frameworks.

 

[Van]

Rather than address various definitions of "Hyper-Calvinism," let's address biblical doctrines.

1) Has God predestined everything, or has He predestined some things, while allowing other things, like our choice to sin, according to our autonomous choice. Scripture says God sets before us the "choice" of life or death, NOT life only for some, and death only for the rest. If our "choice" was predestined, then it would NOT be our choice as no alternate outcome was possible.

2) Similarly, if we engage in Evangelism, that NEVER results in bringing lost individuals to Christ, but only results in meaningless active in accordance with God's command, have we really helped win some? The answer is NO. Calvinism teaches that no lost individual is able to understand the gospel unless and until they are "enabled" by "irresistible grace" and then they are irresistibly brought to faith.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Rather than address various definitions of "Hyper-Calvinism," let's address biblical doctrines.

1) Has God predestined everything, or has He predestined some things, while allowing other things, like our choice to sin, according to our autonomous choice. Scripture says God sets before us the "choice" of life or death, NOT life only for some, and death only for the rest. If our "choice" was predestined, then it would NOT be our choice as no alternate outcome was possible.

2) Similarly, if we engage in Evangelism, that NEVER results in bringing lost individuals to Christ, but only results in meaningless active in accordance with God's command, have we really helped win some? The answer is NO. Calvinism teaches that no lost individual is able to understand the gospel unless and until they are "enabled" by "irresistible grace" and then they are irresistibly brought to faith.

Let's just argue about whatever you want to argue about rather than remaining on actual topic here?

 

[deepblue]

Re your statements, I'm thinking...

(1) It was both predestined and also your choice. Furthermore, to "choose life" is only possible if one is regenerated first.
I don't believe "libertarian free will" exists. The will operates according to the desires of the heart. It doesn't exist in a vacuum.
(2) Yes, "irresistible grace" is correct but it's not so much "irresistible" as the heart being changed first so that faith follows. In the elect, any resistance is overcome. The use of the word "irresistible" is unfortunate because it more often than not results in a misunderstanding.
If "we engage in evangelism that never results....", then that is not up to us, but God.

For more info on the two different covenant frameworks for "moderate Calvinism" and "Hyper Calvinism", check out: Hyper-Calvinism: Modern Definition – Historical Controversy (Episode 3)

 

[kyredneck]

Recovering the Primitive Baptist Doctrine of Justification from Eternity​

The Primitive Baptist doctrine of “justification from eternity” holds that God’s act of justifying the elect is not a work that begins at the moment of faith, but one that is efficacious from eternity past. This view is rooted in radical monergism — the belief that God alone accomplishes salvation, and human will plays no role in the process Mercy Upon All+1.

Historical Context​

Before the 19th century, several Baptists — including English Particular Baptists like Samuel Richardson and John Gill — defended this position. They saw justification as the necessary result of God’s covenantal work in Christ, executed before the elect even come to faith Mercy Upon All. This stood in contrast to the later dominant evangelical view that justification is a present act tied to repentance and “saving faith.”

Theological Basis​

Primitive Baptists, such as those in the National Primitive Baptist Convention, affirm:

• Eternal and particular election of a definite number of people before the foundation of the world (Article V) National Primitive Baptist Convention.
• Effectual calling and regeneration of the elect (Article V) National Primitive Baptist Convention.
• Justification as the imputation of Christ’s righteousness by faith, but as a work that is already accomplished for the elect (Article V) National Primitive Baptist Convention.
• Preservation of the saints — no final loss of salvation (Article IX) National Primitive Baptist Convention.

The Primitive Baptist Library further teaches that justification is the result of Christ’s perfect work — His death and resurrection — which met God’s justice and delivered the elect from wrath to come Primitive Baptist Library.

Criticisms and Responses​

Critics argue that “justification from eternity”:

• Minimizes the role of the law and repentance.
• Risks anti-nomianism (disregarding God’s law).
• Reduces history to a mirror of eternal truths, potentially undermining evangelism Mercy Upon All+1.

Steenbuch’s recovery of the doctrine suggests that it can be understood without classical theism’s metaphysics of time, allowing for a “non-particularistic” framework that still affirms God’s sovereignty while preserving the importance of evangelism as the revelation of truths already true for the elect Mercy Upon All.

Practical Implications​

• Mission theology: Evangelism is not about “earning” justification but about revealing the gospel to those already in God’s plan.
• Law and gospel: The law remains important as a standard, but its role in justification is secondary to Christ’s work.
• Hope: The doctrine affirms God’s faithfulness and the certainty of salvation for the elect, while still calling all to repentance and faith.

In sum, the Primitive Baptist doctrine of justification from eternity is a sovereign, Christ-centered, and eternal work of God that precedes human response, rooted in covenant theology and radical monergism, and can be reimagined to support both God’s eternal plan and the urgency of the gospel message.

Recovering the Primitive Baptist doctrine of ‘Justification From Eternity’ in a non-particularistic framework – mercyuponall.org

www.mercyuponall.org

 

[DaveXR650]

I'm sure it is quite informative for those who have four hours to spend listening to all of this.

Agreed. Personally, I think Calvinism has something to say in explaining how dependent we are on God's grace, not just for what Jesus did but grace in our actual coming to belief. It is in my opinion "weak" in some of the logical claims that result from strict predestination. And most importantly, I simply do not believe in a limited atonement, for several reason. I have no problem with Calvinists who believe that if they believe in a true and real and actual "offer" of salvation to everyone who hears the gospel. If you believe that, as far as I am concerned you can be a 5 point Calvinist. So obviously, I like Fuller.

"Hyper-Calvinism" usually refers to anyone more Calvinist than me. As a side note, I know some Primitive Baptists. There is a church near us, and we had some connections and used some of their young guys to fill in as substitutes. I found them very sound and very nice, and I wish we would have copied them more in the area of music, for sure.

 

[deepblue]

Recovering the Primitive Baptist Doctrine of Justification from Eternity​

The Primitive Baptist doctrine of “justification from eternity” holds that God’s act of justifying the elect is not a work that begins at the moment of faith, but one that is efficacious from eternity past. This view is rooted in radical monergism — the belief that God alone accomplishes salvation, and human will plays no role in the process Mercy Upon All+1.
...

Useful info, thanks. The Primitive Baptists would correspond to what the Particular Baptists/Gospel Standard Baptists are here in the UK (those that have not succumbed to the Reformed proselytizing but who still hold to Gill's (and others) Covenant framework).

Regarding Fuller, he went liberal on the atonement which is something some Reformed people haven't discovered yet. This might be why you will have heard some well known Reformed people praising Fuller (e.g. Tim Keller, John Piper, etc). They could do with doing a bit more research!

 

[kyredneck]

"Hyper-Calvinism" usually refers to anyone more Calvinist than me.

Zactly. "Everyone to the right of me is Hyper".