• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

"Hyper" Calvinism

D

deepblue

New Member
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.
 
Last edited:
360watt

360watt

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

deepblue

New Member
atpollard said:
It is over 3 hours long!
Click to expand...
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
 
Last edited:
D

deepblue

New Member
Armchair Apologist said:
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?
Click to expand...

"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.
 
Last edited:
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
 
A

Armchair Apologist

Active Member
Van said:
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.
Click to expand...
Let's just argue about whatever you want to argue about rather than remaining on actual topic here?
 
D

deepblue

New Member
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)
 
Last edited:
kyredneck

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

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:

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 www.mercyuponall.org
 
DaveXR650

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
Armchair Apologist said:
I'm sure it is quite informative for those who have four hours to spend listening to all of this.
Click to expand...
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.
 
D

deepblue

New Member
kyredneck said:

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.
...
Click to expand...
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!
 
Last edited:
atpollard

atpollard

Well-Known Member
So let’s hit the issue head on …

Let’s assume that R.C. Sproul is a reasonable source to begin a discussion on the definition of “What is Hypercalvinism”. Here is a (less than 1 minute) quote from Ligonier Ministries:
Dr. Sproul helpfully described hyper-Calvinism this way: when it comes to double predestination, hyper-Calvinism is positive-positive. Dr. Sproul, on the other hand, spoke of double predestination as positive-negative. So, what does that mean?

Positive election is election unto salvation, by which God brings us to Himself out of Adam’s sinful lump of condemnation and damnation. What R.C. described as negative is not damning people to hell, because we were all sinners destined for hell; it’s that God overlooks those who are not elect. That is why he referred to it as positive-negative. A way to summarize hyper-Calvinism is positive-positive. This way of looking at the decrees of God is not represented biblically.

The other problem with hyper-Calvinism is that it can lend itself to not evangelizing. That has happened in the history of Calvinism, but that’s not Calvinism. Calvinism does two things for a person. It gives them a deep humility and changes their whole life. From that point forward, they must be a humble person because they truly know how sinful they are and how necessary God’s work is. A humble person who wants to share the gospel of Jesus Christ—that’s a Calvinist.
Click to expand...

Using Dr. Sproul’s explanation of “positive-positive” and “positive-negative” as the yardstick and the 4 hour video as the “Authority” … Does God actively create and select people for damnation? [Sproul claims that is the litmus test for HYPER in “Calvinism”.]

The London Confession (Baptist Confession of Faith 1689) clearly claims “no” … what does this “Second wave” of the 18th, 19th and 20th century say?
 
David Lamb

David Lamb

Well-Known Member
deepblue said:
"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.
Click to expand...
I assure you that by no means all Particular Baptist in the UK followed Hyper-Calvinism. We only have to think of somebody like Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the Victorian Baptist preacher and pastor, to see this. He and the church of which he was pastor, were certainly Particular Baptists, but they were not Hyper-Calvinists. In a description of the book "Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism" by Iain H. Murray, the publish says:

"A man of great natural gifts, charm and wit, Spurgeon’s master passion was evident in everything he did – to preach Jesus Christ to all as the only Saviour. But as early as 1855 this brought him into a serious and prolonged doctrinal controversy with Hyper-Calvinism."
 
D

deepblue

New Member
David Lamb said:
I assure you that by no means all Particular Baptist in the UK followed Hyper-Calvinism. We only have to think of somebody like Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the Victorian Baptist preacher and pastor, to see this. He and the church of which he was pastor, were certainly Particular Baptists, but they were not Hyper-Calvinists. In a description of the book "Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism" by Iain H. Murray, the publish says:

"A man of great natural gifts, charm and wit, Spurgeon’s master passion was evident in everything he did – to preach Jesus Christ to all as the only Saviour. But as early as 1855 this brought him into a serious and prolonged doctrinal controversy with Hyper-Calvinism."
Click to expand...
I don't know how much Spurgeon actually knew about the movement but he was a supporter of Fuller, although maybe not acquainted with all his writings. The group he was a part of, which supported Fullerism, ended up with the Down Grade controversy and the Met Tabernacle leaving the Baptist Union.
Source: Andrew Fuller: A Liberal Theologian

Sproul was operating from within his own system, which probably coloured his views on "Hyper Calvinism".

I don't know what the "Hyper Calvinists" think about double predestination, so will have to find out.

To quote Jared Smith's words on Hyper-Calvinism:

"Historically and doctrinally, a hyper-Calvinist is one who rejects (1) the doctrine of duty faith, (2) the well-meant offer of the gospel and (3) the moral law as the rule of conduct for the believer’s life. A rejection of one or more of these doctrines is enough to earn from detractors the label hyper-Calvinist. So long as this remains the definition, I am not bothered by the label. However, it is common for people to attach much more to the name, which only creates a caricature of hyper-Calvinism. For instance, based on the foregoing three-part definition, Arminians and moderate-Calvinists speculate that the hyper-Calvinist must not nurture a passion for the lost, or does not preach the gospel to the non-elect, or does not actively evangelize in the community, or does not live a godly life in Christ Jesus. The only time I have met such people is when the Arminians and moderate-Calvinists talk about them—I have never met one in person. This is because they exist only in the imagination of those who theorize. If you would like to know what a hyper-Calvinist believes, then ask a hyper-Calvinist. Don’t waste your time listening to those who specialize in guessology. You will discover we are not the scary monsters they make us out to be."
 
DaveXR650

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
deepblue said:
"Historically and doctrinally, a hyper-Calvinist is one who rejects (1) the doctrine of duty faith, (2) the well-meant offer of the gospel and (3) the moral law as the rule of conduct for the believer’s life. A rejection of one or more of these doctrines is enough to earn from detractors the label hyper-Calvinist.
Click to expand...
Are those 3 things incorrect?
 
DaveXR650

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
deepblue said:
I would say so but they have to be understood, as on a surface view they might appear correct, or seem to imply things that aren't the case.
Click to expand...
You can dance around forever with these views. It looks to me, and is stated in Murray's book "Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism" that the general consensus was that Spurgeon had gone with Fuller and more importantly, with Bunyan, and Jonathan Edwards and John Owen, who all believed that the offer of salvation was true and real to everyone who hears the gospel. So pointing out aberrations in Fuller's atonement theology, which I doubt from other things I have read, but even if conceded as true, doesn't show anything because Bunyan, Owen, and Edwards, and as it is claimed in the book - all the Puritans, believed in an offer of salvation to all who hear the gospel.

Where we go around forever is that Calvinism itself doesn't fully satisfy most people in explaining how it is that Christ died only for a select and predetermined group of people and yet the offer is real to all. Non-Calvinists just say Christ died for all, and hyper-Calvinists say salvation is not offered to all and that's that. Calvinists usually end up saying that this is one of God's secret and internal items which he has not explained to us. That sounds like what we used to call a "cop-out" but if you think about it makes sense. God cannot not know all along who will be saved and cannot not have had only those in mind when Christ died. To get around that God has to not really know who will respond, which goes against our view of God's knowledge.

So, hyper-Calvinism is totally logically consistent. The only problem is that it goes against clear scripture and most of church history. If you are satisfied with that anyway, go with hyper-Calvinism.
 
D

deepblue

New Member
DaveXR650 said:
You can dance around forever with these views. It looks to me, and is stated in Murray's book "Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism" that the general consensus was that Spurgeon had gone with Fuller and more importantly, with Bunyan, and Jonathan Edwards and John Owen, who all believed that the offer of salvation was true and real to everyone who hears the gospel. So pointing out aberrations in Fuller's atonement theology, which I doubt from other things I have read, but even if conceded as true, doesn't show anything because Bunyan, Owen, and Edwards, and as it is claimed in the book - all the Puritans, believed in an offer of salvation to all who hear the gospel.

Where we go around forever is that Calvinism itself doesn't fully satisfy most people in explaining how it is that Christ died only for a select and predetermined group of people and yet the offer is real to all. Non-Calvinists just say Christ died for all, and hyper-Calvinists say salvation is not offered to all and that's that. Calvinists usually end up saying that this is one of God's secret and internal items which he has not explained to us. That sounds like what we used to call a "cop-out" but if you think about it makes sense. God cannot not know all along who will be saved and cannot not have had only those in mind when Christ died. To get around that God has to not really know who will respond, which goes against our view of God's knowledge.

So, hyper-Calvinism is totally logically consistent. The only problem is that it goes against clear scripture and most of church history. If you are satisfied with that anyway, go with hyper-Calvinism.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top