"Hyper" Calvinism

[DaveXR650]

I would say salvation is not "offered to all" (so the "offer is real to all" is moot - it doesn't exist). However, everyone is called to repent and believe. That's it. Not "come to the front", "make a decision", "Christ died for you, now all you have to do is accept it", or any of that. Those who do repent and believe are the elect.

I understand. But the best spin I can put on this would be then that you are saying that calling for everyone to repent and believe is the outworking of the process of discovering the elect. Taken to it's logical conclusion then, salvation amounts to discovering you are elect. The call to everyone is charged to be bogus and false - because there is no true calling for them to anything. That is the problem with hyper-Calvinism at a practical level. All serious Calvinists believe that in a sense you are discovering the elect - but it is real because any of those preached to, should they repent and believe, will be saved and as it turns out, were indeed elect. If I understand you right, you deny that. So I say you ruin the gospel and make preaching bogus. I am not saying that Calvinists have a perfect alternative explanation for how this works. And most importantly, I am not saying that Primitive Baptists or HyperCalvinists never show interest in lost people being saved - in practice, I know that is not the case. I'm just saying that those are the obvious conclusions.

 

[deepblue]

I understand. But the best spin I can put on this would be then that you are saying that calling for everyone to repent and believe is the outworking of the process of discovering the elect. Taken to it's logical conclusion then, salvation amounts to discovering you are elect. The call to everyone is charged to be bogus and false - because there is no true calling for them to anything. That is the problem with hyper-Calvinism at a practical level. All serious Calvinists believe that in a sense you are discovering the elect - but it is real because any of those preached to, should they repent and believe, will be saved and as it turns out, were indeed elect. If I understand you right, you deny that. So I say you ruin the gospel and make preaching bogus. I am not saying that Calvinists have a perfect alternative explanation for how this works. And most importantly, I am not saying that Primitive Baptists or HyperCalvinists never show interest in lost people being saved - in practice, I know that is not the case. I'm just saying that those are the obvious conclusions.

I'm not sure what you're asking me that I deny... There is a general call to everyone but only the elect are born again and respond to that call.

"Taken to it's logical conclusion then, salvation amounts to discovering you are elect."

Yes, it would mean you discover that. Otherwise everybody would be in the dark until the final judgment.

 

[DaveXR650]

I'm not sure what you're asking me that I deny... There is a general call to everyone but only the elect are born again and respond to that call.

There is not a real call to everyone. That is the hyper-Calvinist difference. The "moderate" Calvinist, the Fullerite, the Spurgeons, and even high Calvinists like Owen, said that the general call really is to everyone and that means that anyone in that group who hears the gospel and comes to Christ will be saved. Owen goes into this in great detail. He says that he has it on authority of scripture, that anyone who comes to Christ will be saved. That is a promise that is absolute. Therefore the "offer" of salvation upon belief is real. The general call as a hyper-Calvinist understands it is not real because if you are not elect God has nothing to say to you, no call or invitation to give you. You have been created for the purpose of damnation and it is absolutely certain that that will be your end.

I will say and I see the point that non-Calvinists make - that being that in a way, all Calvinists are saying somewhat the same, and there is not a real invitation happening simply because it is already determined what the result will be. Nevertheless, that is a distinction made by non hyper-Calvinists. I can give you references should you want to follow up on this. That's why this is so confusing.

 

[deepblue]

There is not a real call to everyone. That is the hyper-Calvinist difference. The "moderate" Calvinist, the Fullerite, the Spurgeons, and even high Calvinists like Owen, said that the general call really is to everyone and that means that anyone in that group who hears the gospel and comes to Christ will be saved. Owen goes into this in great detail. He says that he has it on authority of scripture, that anyone who comes to Christ will be saved. That is a promise that is absolute. Therefore the "offer" of salvation upon belief is real. The general call as a hyper-Calvinist understands it is not real because if you are not elect God has nothing to say to you, no call or invitation to give you. You have been created for the purpose of damnation and it is absolutely certain that that will be your end.

I will say and I see the point that non-Calvinists make - that being that in a way, all Calvinists are saying somewhat the same, and there is not a real invitation happening simply because it is already determined what the result will be. Nevertheless, that is a distinction made by non hyper-Calvinists. I can give you references should you want to follow up on this. That's why this is so confusing.

Thanks for your response. If you wouldn't call it a "real call", then fair enough. There is an outward and inward call. It really depends on what you mean by the general "call", and how it is framed. I think that's the issue really.

"The general call as a hyper-Calvinist understands it is not real because if you are not elect God has nothing to say to you, no call or invitation to give you."

Well, the general call is as real as the effectual call, but only Christians experience the latter. They know they have been specially called (or "effectually called"). The rest simply don't know at the moment. They will only know if they are eventually saved, or if they die without salvation.

I would be interested if you could find a "hyper Calvinist" who denies the "general call". The general call is to repent and believe. But there is no "general offer", that is correct. Salvation is not a "well meant offer".

More on the "offer" issue can be found here: https://www.baptists.net/history/2025/10/john-gill-and-the-free-offer-of-the-gospel/

 

[DaveXR650]

I would be interested if you could find a "hyper Calvinist" who denies the "general call". The general call is to repent and believe. But there is no "general offer", that is correct. Salvation is not a "well meant offer".

I think there is the issue. If scripture says that all men everywhere are commanded to repent and believe the gospel then if men cannot truly do so they are being mocked by God when given a command they cannot possibly do. This is a problem not just for hyper-Calvinists, but Calvinists too. Calvinists get around it by saying that the issue is the person's will, that although they are unable to come the reason is that they don't want to come. If they did they would be saved and the only thing preventing them is their depraved will. Now if a Calvinist insists that the grace to come is given only to the elect then one could argue, and many do, that there is no practical difference between them and the Hyper-Calvinist. Arminians get around this by saying enough grace is given to any person who hears the gospel and those who don't come are guilty of resisting actual potentially effectual grace. And from there you can imagine and are probably familiar with all the nuanced arguments and counterarguments that are made.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

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.

I usually tell people that I am adamant about the "T" and the "P" and that the "U " and "I" follow along in their logical course and the "L" to me stands for "Leave it be!"

I consider myself to be a "moderate" Calvinist and such affects the way that I approach evangelism for the very reasons you have stated. God's sovereignty and man's responsibility are two sides of the same coin (as are repentance and faith) and both are important to factor in as we evangelize either personally or from the pulpit. I am responsible to preach and proclaim the gospel and I am responsible to present the gospel with thoroughness and clarity and having done so, it is then up to God to sovereignly draw his elect to himself. Man's responsibility falls upon the listener as well: All men everywhere (without exception might I add) are commanded to repent and believe the Gospel and they will stand before God accountable for the gospel they have either received or rejected! For those who do come to Christ, it is all of grace and none of us! I really do not try to understand things beyond this. I do believe it is proper to plead and even "beg" someone to turn to faith and trust Christ but it is not acceptable to cajole one into "praying a prayer."

"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.

I hear this all the time and hear the same thing in regards to hyper-dispensationalism. I do believe that there is a good textbook definition as well as historical precedence regarding what is and what is not Hyper-Calvinism though. Our new friend is speaking of its development in 18th Century UK but my personal understanding is that it was Beza who took Calvin's teachings a little further than what he had actually intended and such was developed into a rigid Supralapsarianism (God decreed the fall in light of his elect). Supralapsarianism became the predominant view due to the reformers suspicion of anyone not holding to such a strict view as being a ""Jesuit Infiltrator" and it took quite a bit of effort for Jacobus Arminius and the Remonstrants (cool band name if I were still gigging!) to convince the predominant Reformed Church of their day that they were not, in fact "Jesuit Sympathizers!"

Perhaps the concept of "Equal Ultimacy" was developed under the circumstances in which "deepblue" is stating? I am not sure of this history so I will leave it be for now.

But I would make the argument that there is a definite line that may be drawn delineating mainstream Calvinism from Hyper-Calvinism. just as there is between Dispensationalism and Hyper-Dispensationalism but this is an entirely different discussion.

 

[deepblue]

DaveXR650: I don't think the call to repent and believe means people are being "mocked" by God. After all, everyone (well, all the unregenerate) is obliged to obey the law 100%, but nobody can or does. For the unregenerate, they can only "repent" or "believe" under their "own steam", i.e. a kind of legal repentance and faith, which is not the same as spiritual repentance and faith.

Armchair Apologist: "God's sovereignty and man's responsibility are two sides of the same coin"
This sounds like a "balance". Hyper-Calvinism sees man's responsibility underneath, not on the same level, as God's sovereignty. Furthermore, different people are responsible for different things, depending on whether they are saved or not. The unregenerate are responsible to obey the law written on the heart. They are commanded to repent and believe but they will only show real repentance and faith if they are first regenerated by God. They are not responsible for "grasping salvation", or "making a free will decision for Christ", or attempting to "work up repentance and faith", or any of that. The saved are responsible to live according to "gospel law".

Moderate Calvinists somehow think that people are "responsible" for being saved. They are not. This is why I don't think that saying they are really makes any sense. How can one be "responsible" for such a great task, which can only be accomplished by God? It's also why I don't judge anyone regarding salvation. It's not in our hands, or theirs.

Regarding "supra" and "sub" lapsarianism, "Hyper-Calvinism" actually has both, in the 18th Century covenant framework developed by Gill and Brine (who came on the scene quite a long time after Beza). There is a good explanation of it on baptists.net.

That may all seem a bit muddled, but I know very little.

Personally I have come under "gospel preaching" a great many times, and it always left me with the impression that I had to "do something", which, despite all my efforts, I just couldn't do. Maybe I'm just a reprobate with a very good grasp of theology. Unfortunate, but there it is.

On repentance, faith, duty faith, etc, check out: https://www.baptists.net/history/2022/04/what-is-hyper-calvinism/

 

[DaveXR650]

I don't think that means they are being "mocked" by God. After all, everyone is obliged to obey the law 100%, but nobody can or does.

We are all truly guilty of not doing that, so if God chooses not to save some he is within his rights. And, should God choose to not have anything at all to say to some, or to anyone, he is within his rights. Now from scripture one can argue that that is not really God's attitude, or what he does, but he still would technically be right if he did so.

But to actually have his ministers preach a call for repentance and faith, to people having no atonement provided, and no actual possibility of them responding - is viewed by many as a "mocking" of men. Moderate Calvinism, although it has the same logical problems with God being totally sovereign in coming to Christ and man being responsible - at least insists that anyone who does come will be saved. And, the one's who don't get saved, don't get saved because God leaves them to follow their own free will. (Man's natural free will being the chief problem in the first place.) I think there is a significant difference.

 

[JonC]

It is over 3 hours long!

Yea.... that's about 181 more minutes than I'm willing to devote to anything about - for or against - calvinism.

 

[deepblue]

From that baptists.net article I referred to in my last comment:

Why Is The Doctrine Of Duty Faith In Error?

The whole issue revolves around the subject of covenants. A covenant is an agreement between two or more people with certain obligations binding them together. Every relationship is based upon the authority of a covenant—one’s responsibility in the relationship is determined by the covenantal authority of that relationship. Throughout the course of history, there have been only two perpetual covenants under which the members of the human race are held accountable unto God. There is the covenant of works, made between God and Adam, on behalf of the entire human race; and there is the covenant of grace, made between the three persons of the Godhead, on behalf of the elect. All unregenerate sinners are experientially in relationship to God under the authority of the covenant of works, whereas all regenerate sinners are experientially in relationship with God under the authority of the covenant of grace.

Under the covenant of works, unregenerate sinners are responsible to (1) believe in the one true and living God, (2) perfectly obey the law inscribed upon their hearts and (3) repent of their sins. However, unregenerate sinners are only able to exercise a natural faith, natural obedience and natural repentance, none of which is acceptable to God or possesses any saving virtue. This type of faith, obedience and repentance flows out of a sinful heart cut off from the life and graces of Christ.

Under the covenant of grace, regenerate sinners are delivered from the authority and responsibilities of the covenant of works, and are brought experientially under the authority and responsibilities of the covenant of grace. In regeneration, the Spirit of God unites the soul to the Lord Jesus Christ, as a branch is engrafted to a vine, whereby (1) the life of Christ flows into the soul, making the sinner alive unto God through the Lord Jesus Christ; and (2) the graces of Christ flow into the soul, enabling the sinner to bear the fruit of his/her new nature in Christ, among which is saving faith, obedience and repentance. This type of faith, obedience and repentance flows out of a righteous nature in Christ, and is therefore acceptable to God and is full of saving virtue.

...etc. This is the 2 fold covenant expounded by Gill, Brine and others in the 18th Century (which is now commonly known as "Hyper Calvinism") in contrast to the 3 fold covenant suggested earlier (in the 17th Century) and which the Westminster Confession (1646) and Baptist Confession (1689) are based on. This earlier "moderate Calvinism" is what the modern Reformed movement follows, and hence the "problem" it has with "divine sovereignty vs human responsibility" (i.e. they see it as inexplicable).

 

[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 activity 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.

3) Calvinism, let alone the "Hyper" variant, is false doctrine.

​

a) God sets before the lost the choice of life or death, therefore "total spiritual inability" is false doctrine.​

b) God's election into salvation is conditional, through faith in the truth, therefore "unconditional election is false doctrine.​

c) Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, therefore "limited atonement" is false doctrine.​

d) Some people were actually "entering the kingdom" when they were prevented from going in, therefore "irresistible grace" is false doctrine.​

e) OK, one out of five hits the mark, once saved, always saved, so "preservation of the saints" is valid doctrine. ​

 

[kyredneck]

We are all truly guilty of not doing that, so if God chooses not to save some he is within his rights. And, should God choose to not have anything at all to say to some, or to anyone, he is within his rights. Now from scripture one can argue that that is not really God's attitude, or what he does, but he still would technically be right if he did so.

Lol, Dave, I'm sure God is happy to know that He meets your approval...

Moderate Calvinism, although it has the same logical problems with God being totally sovereign in coming to Christ

As defined by Paul the "logical problems" are:

Romans Chapter 9

14​	What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

19​	Thou wilt say then unto me,Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?

 

[deepblue]

Well, for anyone who's interested ( ) about the development of Calvinism and the 2 branches in the 17th and 18th Centuries, check out:

29 Bible Doctrine – The Two Branches Of Hyper-Calvinism And The Weeds Of Modified-Calvinism

Has a lot of useful info with a timeline of key dates.

Further info on 17th Century Calvinism (and the modern resurgence with the "Reformed" movement and its attempts at historical revisionism): 30 Bible Doctrine – The Emergence Of 17th Century Hyper-Calvinism

And on 18th Century "Hyper" Calvinism to the present day (the "uncorrupted" Particular Baptists, "Gospel Standard", etc, in the UK, or the "Primitive Baptists" in the USA): 31 Bible Doctrine – The Emergence Of 18th Century Hyper-Calvinism

 

[DaveXR650]

Lol, Dave, I'm sure God is happy to know that He meets your approval...

That's cute. I'm sorry if I don't know how to express the point in a more eloquent manner. A lot of people would say that is far better than subscribing to a philosophy that represents God as calling on people to repent when there is no way they could because Christ has not died for them. I admit the logic is difficult, but I am satisfied as long as the "offer" is there, is real and sincere. The moderate Calvinists allow for that, and apparently Andrew Fuller explained it well. You know as well as I that non-Calvinists would make the same charge to all Calvinists, not just hypers.

For those of us living in this modern world, which is mostly pagan, I don't think these things matter much. I don't see much practical difference but it is interesting historically, and apparently they did fight about it.

 

[deepblue]

"A lot of people would say that is far better than subscribing to a philosophy that represents God as calling on people to repent when there is no way they could because Christ has not died for them."

It's your prerogative to believe what you think is right .

The "Hyper" Calvinist would just say we won't know who those people are until the last judgment. Some will repent (the elect), and the rest will not.

Personally I'm beginning to think the "Hyper Calvinist" scheme (of the 18th Century) works together properly and is self consistent, whereas the "more moderate" Calvinism of the 17th Century (and the modern "Reformed" movement) has fundamental problems with it. This is something I have recently learned which I was unaware of before.

 

[DaveXR650]

The "Hyper" Calvinist would just say we won't know who those people are until the last judgment. Some will repent (the elect), and the rest will not.

That's what everyone says who believes in predestination or individual election to salvation. The difference is that the moderate Calvinist, or even a high Calvinist like John Owen flat out said that anyone who comes to Christ will be saved - so that, when the gospel is presented to a group such an "offer" can honestly be made. And this is important - he makes sure this claim is in an absolute and over riding way - any conflict in the mind with the concept of "election" or "limited atonement" cannot have equal authority with that statement - that all who come will be saved. Thus you can have "duty faith" and have the call to repentance truly be universal.

Once again, the hyperCalvinist believes that God has nothing to say to the non-elect. No invitation is given. A "general call" is not sincerely meant as an "offer" or an invitation because there is no possible way for someone to come who Christ did not die for. Any general call to faith and repentance is designed for and only to find the elect.

The Calvinists like Owen often said that the highest insult to God and the most heinous sin possible was to refuse the invitation to come to Christ and believe. Does any hyper-Calvinist say that?

 

[deepblue]

"The Calvinists like Owen often said that the highest insult to God and the most heinous sin possible was to refuse the invitation to come to Christ and believe. Does any hyper-Calvinist say that?"

They might say Owen got it wrong. I'm not sure what to think myself. As far as I can see from scripture, God treated different people differently. e.g. the Pharisees, those who refused to come to the wedding feast, the rich young ruler, Nicodemus, etc.

From my own experience, you will have those who do "accept the invitation" because they are drawn to Christ (John 6 v 44, 65, etc), those who want nothing to do with it (outright refusal) and those who are "on the fence". They don't know what to do, because they have never felt "drawn", and all their efforts in religion have come to naught. They tried to respond but their Christianity never really "worked". What do you say to them? All the "moderate Calvinists" can do is keep saying "come to Christ".

Maybe this might shed some light: An Answer to Phil Johnson’s “Primer on Hyper-Calvinism” – CPRC. It denies an "offer" but affirms a "call to repent and believe". That's probably about where I am right now, but I do see why the Hyper-Calvinists believe what they do. To quote from the article:

"Both Arminians and hyper-Calvinists make the same basic error. They judge man’s duty according to his ability. The Arminian reasons that, if God commands sinners to repent and believe the gospel (which is true), unregenerate sinners must be able to do this by the power of free will (which is false). The hyper-Calvinist reasons that, if unregenerate sinners are totally depraved and therefore unable to repent and believe (which is true), God cannot command them to repent and believe the gospel (which is false)."

 

[David Lamb]

Well, for anyone who's interested ( ) about the development of Calvinism and the 2 branches in the 17th and 18th Centuries, check out:

29 Bible Doctrine – The Two Branches Of Hyper-Calvinism And The Weeds Of Modified-Calvinism

Has a lot of useful info with a timeline of key dates.

Further info on 17th Century Calvinism (and the modern resurgence with the "Reformed" movement and its attempts at historical revisionism): 30 Bible Doctrine – The Emergence Of 17th Century Hyper-Calvinism

And on 18th Century "Hyper" Calvinism to the present day (the "uncorrupted" Particular Baptists, "Gospel Standard", etc, in the UK, or the "Primitive Baptists" in the USA): 31 Bible Doctrine – The Emergence Of 18th Century Hyper-Calvinism

Particular Baptists, as I said before, are not Hyper-Calvinists. Spurgeon was a Particular Baptist, that is, he believed in particular redemption, but he stood firmly against Hyper-Calvinism.

 

[deepblue]

Particular Baptists, as I said before, are not Hyper-Calvinists. Spurgeon was a Particular Baptist, that is, he believed in particular redemption, but he stood firmly against Hyper-Calvinism.

A lot of Particular Baptists (Gospel Standard, etc) are Hyper-Calvinists. Spurgeon and his ilk were Particular Baptists but denied some of Hyper-Calvinism's tenets, as you said. But most of the "Particular Baptist" movement has been "Hyper-Calvinist" from the 18th Century until the mid 20th Century. The Met Tabernacle and similar places were an exception. The Baptist Union of 1813 was founded by a minority of Particular Baptist churches but later became liberal (having accepted the General Baptists in 1891). The Downgrade Controversy resulted in the Met Tabernacle leaving the Union in 1887, before the 1891 merger. Those minority Particular Baptist churches that formed the Union in 1813 later faded out, leaving the Hyper-Calvinist branch as those who were left (a few hundred churches).

16th Century - Calvinism (Calvin, Beza etc)

17th Century - "Hyper" Calvinism (Covenant theology with 3 covenants, led to 1646 & 1689 confessions, etc, "Hyper" indicating a development of Calvinism, rather than the way "Hyper" is commonly understood today)
- "Particular Baptists" formed.
- 1813 Baptist Union formed from a minority of this branch. Met Tab joined. Left in 1887, prior to the merger with General Baptists in 1891.
- Modern "Reformed" movement (1950s onwards) is based mainly on this earlier Covenant framework, including the Met Tabernacle today.

18th Century - 2nd stage of "Hyper" Calvinism (Covenant theology with 2 covenants, not 3). This is what is called "Hyper" Calvinism today.
- Most "Particular Baptist" churches adopted this, right up until the present day (Gospel Standard churches, Sovereign Grace churches, Primitive Baptists in USA, etc), but some have since dropped their "Hyperism" after infiltration from the modern Reformed movement. For example, if you look at the doctrinal basis of Gospel Standard churches it is Hyper-Calvinism. Similarly for Sovereign Grace and Primitive Baptists, etc.

That is just a general overview. Some "Particular Baptist" churches have become more "Reformed" (i.e. back to 17th Century views) but all the others remain "Hyper". The "Hypers" deny "duty faith", the "free offer" and the "law as a rule of life". Others accept "duty faith" but deny the "free offer" (the CPRC being an example, as in the link I gave in my last post). Personally I tend towards the latter but I don't really like the word "duty".

 

[David Lamb]

A lot of Particular Baptists (Gospel Standard, etc) are Hyper-Calvinists. Spurgeon and his ilk were Particular Baptists but denied some of Hyper-Calvinism's tenets, as you said. But most of the "Particular Baptist" movement has been "Hyper-Calvinist" from the 18th Century until the mid 20th Century. The Met Tabernacle and similar places were an exception. The Baptist Union of 1813 was founded by a minority of Particular Baptist churches but later became liberal (having accepted the General Baptists in 1891). The Downgrade Controversy resulted in the Met Tabernacle leaving the Union in 1887, before the 1891 merger. Those minority Particular Baptist churches that formed the Union in 1813 later faded out, leaving the Hyper-Calvinist branch as those who were left (a few hundred churches).

16th Century - Calvinism (Calvin, Beza etc)

17th Century - "Hyper" Calvinism (Covenant theology with 3 covenants, led to 1646 & 1689 confessions, etc, "Hyper" indicating a development of Calvinism)
- "Particular Baptists" formed.
- 1813 Baptist Union formed from a minority of this branch. Met Tab joined. Left in 1887, prior to the merger with General Baptists in 1891.
- Modern "Reformed" movement (1950s onwards) is based mainly on this earlier Covenant framework, including the Met Tabernacle today.

18th Century - 2nd stage of "Hyper" Calvinism (Covenant theology with 2 covenants, not 3). This is what is called "Hyper" Calvinism today.
- Most "Particular Baptist" churches adopted this, right up until the present day (Gospel Standard churches, Sovereign Grace churches, Primitive Baptists in USA, etc), but many have since dropped their "Hyperism" after infiltration from the modern Reformed movement.

That is just a general overview. A chunk of "Particular Baptist" churches now (e.g. the "Gospel Standard") are more "Hyper" than others, but others have become more "Reformed" (i.e. back to 17th Century views). The "Hypers" deny "duty faith", the "free offer" and the "law as a rule of life". Others accept "duty faith" but deny the "free offer" (the CPRC being an example, as in the link I gave in my last post).

Gospel Standard Baptists as far as I know are a very small proportion of Particular Baptists in the UK. (I don't know the precise numbers). Most Baptists in the UK were at one time Particular Baptists, as statements of faith such as the 1689 London Baptist Confession show. That 1689 Confession is not Hyper-Calvinist. General Baptists degenerated into Unitarianism for a time. (Now, it's the other way round - most Baptist churches in the UK tend to be of the "General" type.