Calvinism: more evangelistic?

[preacher4truth]

I do not deliberately post false information. To say that I do is to call my integrity into question which is against the bb rules. It is an infraction worth calling another mod's attention to.
My research led me to many who put him in the "hyper-cal" camp. In this I do not believe I am wrong. Even Spurgeon believed he was hyper-calvinistic. If numbers are everything why isn't Joel Oesteen <sic> a Calvinist then? Or, why aren't you part of his flock, since the numbers indicate he must be right. That is your reasoning isn't it?
The misrepresentation is a figment of your imagination.
And you are misrepresenting Joe Oesteen by the same logic??
Even if you don't say anything about him, you should be a follower of him, because he has the numbers to prove it??
Or is it Spurgeon that you misrepresent who also stated that he was hyper-Calvinist? You can't have it both ways.
Good. But I imagine you hold on to quite a bit also.
But I didn't. In my last post I didn't lay such a charge. I retracted anything that was false, but let the truth stand. And yet your thin skin is still hurt and offended so easily.
Then don't make false accusations; infer false accusations; or accuse others of such. This conversation was between you and I. I told you outright that I do not believe in easy-believism. So why are you bringing it up inferring that I do believe in it, accusing me falsely so. I don't believe that, nor does our church practice it. I made that point clearly. You are preaching to the wind.
And just pray tell, who does this?
And who are you talking about??
I really don't know who or what you are talking about. You are not specific. You are making up stories. What you are doing is simply hear-say. According to the Bible that is wrong. Unless you have a specific accusation to make, keep quiet.

A fool opens his mouth and lets everything out of it.
You have done a good job.

Go for it, call the mods and give me one, I'm not going to be intimidated by you in open forum as this is another thing you resort to. This is nothing more than bullying, and within the same thread you also use name calling. Wow. Totally unnecessary. Nothing in the rules says a thing about someone who posts false information is not to be called on it. You posted something without considering whether it is factual. When you posted it without taking into consideration whether it was true or not, it was then deliberate. You've also admitted to this, but now want me to have an infraction. Nothing but an attempt to intimidate yet again. It certainly wasn't accidental, the only accidental part was you believing a lie. Like I told you, look well to your way before you take something as factual. I called you on this false information, next time don't post these things and you won't need to recant.

You've resorted to name-calling? Congrats! I knew you could do it!

How did Joel Osteen get in this conversation? Oh, I see, now you're playing both sides. At first, small numbers were condemning to a Cal Preacher via your false information. NOW that he actually grew, large numbers are proof of not being true. So you go hustle in Joel Osteen to your rescue, then place a snide comment in there that I should maybe join him? When are you going to stop with such ugly tactics DHK? Is it really necessary?

Your first response to mine? Caustic in nature and accusatory. This response? Name-calling. This is the downward spiral oft taken by you. We all know what this means when one resorts to these worldly and fleshly tactics. That's right, the person has lost the battle.

You're minus one today, and losing it also over in your covenant theology argument with Ruiz and Iconoclast. You should really practice this verse: :The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." Proverbs 14:15

Maybe you should actually know the theology you pretend to know and argue against?

Obviously in several threads you argue against things that you do not understand at all. Quit pretending to have knowledge you don't possess, only the imprudent do this and this is exactly what you are doing. Many have schooled you on theological debates where you don't even understand what the theology teaches, yet you fight against it oblivious to the fact you're fighting something it doesn't teach whatsoever.

Whenever you get beyond the name-calling tactics, I'd perhaps engage with you in dialogue, but then again, perhaps not.

- Peace to you

 

[Ruiz]

I do not deliberately post false information. To say that I do is to call my integrity into question which is against the bb rules. It is an infraction worth calling another mod's attention to.
My research led me to many who put him in the "hyper-cal" camp. In this I do not believe I am wrong. Even Spurgeon believed he was hyper-calvinistic.

While I have some reservations on Gill's theology, I am interested in your source and rationale.

 

[DHK]

While I have some reservations on Gill's theology, I am interested in your source and rationale.

There are a number of Reformed sites that treat Gill like a saint, and so have a bias for him right away. There are a few historians that I believe are a bit more objective. Here is what J.M. Cramp says in his " "Baptist history ... to the close of the eighteenth century" He may be overstating his case somewhat, but as to his theology, I do believe that Gill was what one would call "hyper-Calvinist" today.

You can read it and judge for yourself.

A sad degeneracy had taken place among the General Baptists (called Free-will Baptists in the United States), who, as the reader is doubtless aware, adopt Arminian views, the Particular Baptists being denominated Calvinistic. Arianism had crept in among them, and with it certain other errors. The loss of life followed the obscuration of light. Anti-Evangelical sentiments and practices prevailed to such an alarming extent, that the sound-hearted of that denomination felt the necessity of withdrawment. They peaceably withdrew in the year 1770, and formed the " New Connexion of General Baptists." The blessing of God followed the movement. The new body thus constituted is now the General Baptist Denomination, the Arianised churches having for the most part fallen into Socinianism, or become extinct.

I have remarked that the denomination had evidently fallen into a state of religious declension almost immediately after the restoration of freedom. The statistics prove this. To whatever other causes the condition of affairs may be ascribed, there can be little doubt that the paralysing influence of the doctrinal sentiments entertained by many of the ministers must be regarded as mainly contributing to the result. John Brine and Dr. Gill were chief men in the denomination for nearly half a century. They were Supralapsarians, holding that God's election was irrespective of the fall of man. They taught eternal justification. Undue prominence was given in their discourses to the teachings of Scripture respecting the Divine purposes. Although they themselves inculcated practical godliness, and so were not justly liable to the charge of Antinomianism, there is reason to fear that numbers of those who imbibed their doctrinal views kept out of sight or but feebly urged the obligation of believers to personal holiness. And this is certain, that those eminent men, and all their followers, went far astray from the course marked out by our Lord and His Apostles. They were satisfied with stating men's danger, and assuring them that they were on the high road to perdition. But they did not call upon them to "repent and believe the Gospel." They did not entreat them to be "reconciled unto God." They did not "warn every man and teach every man in all wisdom." And the churches did not, could not, under their instruction, engage in efforts for the conversion of souls. They were so afraid of intruding on God's work that they neglected to do what He had commanded them. They seem to have supposed that preservation was all they should aim at; they had not heart enough to seek for extension. No wonder that the cause declined! The backsliding and coldness had affected all religious communities in England. Had it not been for the merciful revival which accompanied the labours of Whitefield and the Wesleys, evangelical truth would have well nigh died out.

http://books.google.com/books?id=J8wCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA478&dq=baptist+magazine&lr=&output=text

 

[Ruiz]

There are a number of Reformed sites that treat Gill like a saint, and so have a bias for him right away. There are a few historians that I believe are a bit more objective. Here is what J.M. Cramp says in his " "Baptist history ... to the close of the eighteenth century" He may be overstating his case somewhat, but as to his theology, I do believe that Gill was what one would call "hyper-Calvinist" today.

You can read it and judge for yourself.


http://books.google.com/books?id=J8wCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA478&dq=baptist+magazine&lr=&output=text

Gill had some troubling theology and among several Reformed Theologians I know, take exception to Gill, as do I. Usually his supralapsarian views are a point of contention.

However, to frame Gill as a hyper-calvinist is probably not true. Tom Nettles and Timothy George have both written on this issue and are confident Gill was not a hyper-calvinist. Both of these books are in storage, but I found this link which explains in more detail their findings.

I have not read anything from Gill that would lead me to believe he was a hyper-calvinist. Are there issues I take with his theology? Yes, but I do not see him as a holding to that specific doctrine.

 

[JesusFan]

There are a number of Reformed sites that treat Gill like a saint, and so have a bias for him right away. There are a few historians that I believe are a bit more objective. Here is what J.M. Cramp says in his " "Baptist history ... to the close of the eighteenth century" He may be overstating his case somewhat, but as to his theology, I do believe that Gill was what one would call "hyper-Calvinist" today.

You can read it and judge for yourself.


http://books.google.com/books?id=J8wCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA478&dq=baptist+magazine&lr=&output=text

i am not familiar with John Gill theology regarding salavtion...

Know his name, thats about it!

did he teach/believe in JUST God has a single Will, that he determined all things period, and that One would get saved regardless if we preached Gospel or not to them?

 

[preacher4truth]

There are a number of Reformed sites that treat Gill like a saint, and so have a bias for him right away. There are a few historians that I believe are a bit more objective. Here is what J.M. Cramp says in his " "Baptist history ... to the close of the eighteenth century" He may be overstating his case somewhat, but as to his theology, I do believe that Gill was what one would call "hyper-Calvinist" today.

You can read it and judge for yourself.


http://books.google.com/books?id=J8wCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA478&dq=baptist+magazine&lr=&output=text

You're incorrect, as Gill was evangelistic in his efforts, and also I've shown you his congregation grew, which show he was no hyper-calvinist.

Here is more proof:

It is interesting to note that the modern critics of Gill quoted above, invariably follow Fuller`s misunderstanding of Gill’s theology of evangelism. A case in point is Robert Oliver`s recent censure of Gill where he states: “Gill made his own position quite clear in 1752, when he wrote:- ‘. . . that there are universal offers of grace and salvation made to all men, I utterly deny’.”

This short quote, removed from its contextual and even syntactical position, has been passed on from writer to writer and has been used as the major, and in most cases the only, proof that Gill was a Hyper-Calvinist with a false view of evangelism, causing him never to exhort sinners to repentance and faith. The words so chosen are used to suggest that Gill left possible reprobates out of his general offers of grace but Gill is not arguing in that direction at all. He is claiming that saints and sinners alike are never called universally, en bloc, to salvation or judgement but always particularly, in God’s good time. Given the wider context, Gill’s words can hardly be used as evidence that he had left the realms of orthodoxy. Rather than denying evangelism, Gill is actually emphasising its importance and scope within the world-wide strategy of the Holy Spirit. The pastor-scholar thus says:

‘The gospel is indeed ordered to be preached to every creature to whom it is sent and comes; but as yet, it has never been brought to all the individuals of human nature; there have been multitudes in all ages that have not heard it. And that there are universal offers of grace and salvation made to all men, I utterly deny; nay, I deny that they are made to any; no, not to God`s elect; grace and salvation are provided for them in the everlasting covenant, procured for them by Christ, published and revealed in the gospel, and applied by the Spirit .’

The context is very important and very particular. Gill is here defending Christ’s effectual call of His sheep and writing specifically against Whitby’s and Wesley’s teaching concerning a universal atonement and their theory that all have been atoned for and thus all are in a position to respond to the Gospel when this is indiscriminately offered on a take it or leave it basis. Gill rejects this kind of evangelism, saying that though we are ordered to preach the Gospel to every creature, the Spirit guides us to His own and these are effectually called. The Spirit speaks to particular sinners, at particular times and in particular places, making them ‘sensible’ to their lost situation and draws them to Himself. The Spirit, however, moves where He will at the time He determines. This means that even the elect must await their turn before being effectually called.

In The Cause of God, Gill makes it quite plain that the Gospel is to be preached to all, as the Spirit leads, but it comes as ‘a savour of death unto death’ for some and ‘a savour of life unto life’ for Christ’s Bride. Gill specifically emphasises that he is not denying the use of ‘calls, invitations, and messages of God to men by his ministers’ but maintaining that such calls, etc. are ‘not sufficient in themselves, without powerful grace, to produce true faith in Christ, evangelical repentance towards God, and new spiritual obedience, in life and conversation.’ Gill can argue in this way because he believes that there is a two-fold call in evangelism. First there is the internal effectual call which is the ‘powerful operation of the Spirit of God on the soul’ which cannot be resisted, then there is the external call by the ministry of the Word which, ‘may be resisted, rejected, and despised, and become useless.’ Such teaching, when compared with Calvin’s exposition of God’s call in Book II, Chapter XXIV of his Institutes reflects fully the heart of Calvinism. Even Andrew Fuller acknowledged Gill’s evangelistic outreach at times, in fact modern Fullerites tend to be far more critical of Gill than Fuller himself.

We can see, as is typical, non-cals/anti-cals love to take a statement out of context and run with it as proof. This method also is used by the same with Scriptures via proof-texting. This is unwise. Proverbs 14:15 is still in order: "Then naive believes everything, But the sensible man considers his steps." NASB...or as the KJV puts it: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going."

By the way, none of the biased anti-cal accusatory sites I've visited who slam Gill have any form of credibility. None who accuse Gill of being hyper-cal have any real evidence. By Gills own words he preached the Gospel evangelistically.

- Peace

 

[JesusFan]

You're incorrect, as Gill was evangelistic in his efforts, and also I've shown you his congregation grew, which show he was no hyper-calvinist.

Here is more proof:



We can see, as is typical, non-cals/anti-cals love to take a statement out of context and run with it as proof. This method also is used by the same with Scriptures via proof-texting. This is unwise. Proverbs 14:15 is still in order: "Then naive believes everything, But the sensible man considers his steps." NASB...or as the KJV puts it: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going."

By the way, none of the biased anti-cal accusatory sites I've visited who slam Gill have any form of credibility. None who accuse Gill of being hyper-cal have any real evidence. By Gills own words he preached the Gospel evangelistically.

- Peace

isn't "hyper cal" basically a theology that states God foreordain and caused ALL that has even happened directly, that there is double predestinating, God directly elects saints/sinners, and that elect willget saved regardless if Gospel preached or not?

 

[Jerome]

also I've shown you his congregation grew, which show he was no hyper-calvinist.

How have you shown that his congregation grew?

 

[preacher4truth]

How have you shown that his congregation grew?

Obviously you haven't read back far enough. :love2:

 

[Jerome]

In 1757 his congregation needed larger premises and moved to a Carter Lane, St. Olave’s Street, Southwark

Is this what you are referring to?

 

[DHK]

Gill had some troubling theology and among several Reformed Theologians I know, take exception to Gill, as do I. Usually his supralapsarian views are a point of contention.

However, to frame Gill as a hyper-calvinist is probably not true. Tom Nettles and Timothy George have both written on this issue and are confident Gill was not a hyper-calvinist. Both of these books are in storage, but I found this link which explains in more detail their findings.

I have not read anything from Gill that would lead me to believe he was a hyper-calvinist. Are there issues I take with his theology? Yes, but I do not see him as a holding to that specific doctrine.

I see the various terms thrown around quite a bit: hyper-Calvinist, high Calvinist, etc. How would you define a "Hyper-Calvinist", just for the sake of clarity?

 

[JesusFan]

I see the various terms thrown around quite a bit: hyper-Calvinist, high Calvinist, etc. How would you define a "Hyper-Calvinist", just for the sake of clarity?

Am of the "moderate" cal persuasion myself, but do think that High cals/Hypers would agree on much of the theology, except that High campers would still see it a necessity to preach the Gospel and have Giod use that to "wake up" His elect to get saved, while Hypers see God able to regenerate/save His pwn period!

 

[DHK]

Dr. Laurence M. Vance, in his “Introduction to Calvinism” says:

“To say that Charles Spurgeon was a moderate Calvinist and his predecessor John Gill was a hyper- Calvinist is to say that Spurgeon did not put the emphasis on Calvinism that Gill did. Spurgeon was just not as consistent as Gill, although he admits they were united in most of their beliefs:”

And then quotes Spurgeon:

“Now I, who am neither an Arminian nor a hyper-Calvinist, but a Calvinist of Calvin's own stamp, think I can stand between the two parties. Believing all that the hyper-Calvinist believes, and preaching as high doctrine as ever he can preach, but believing more than he believes; not believing all the Arminian believes, but still at the same time believing that he is often sounder than the hyper- Calvinist upon some points of doctrine.”

(Charles H. Spurgeon, in “The Two Wesleys”)

--It seems that Spurgeon is saying that he is a Calvinist after Calvin, knowing more than the Arminian, and believing all that the hyper-Calvinist believes, but knowing more than he knows. He actually sounds a bit arrogant. It also indicates that he would label Gill as an hyper-Calvinist.

 

[Tom Butler]

I've always heard that Hyper-Calvinism holds that God can save the elect independently of the gospel. This is, I believe, the view of our Primitive Baptist brethren.

 

[preacher4truth]

Dr. Laurence M. Vance, in his “Introduction to Calvinism” says:
And then quotes Spurgeon:
(Charles H. Spurgeon, in “The Two Wesleys”)

--It seems that Spurgeon is saying that he is a Calvinist after Calvin, knowing more than the Arminian, and believing all that the hyper-Calvinist believes, but knowing more than he knows. He actually sounds a bit arrogant. It also indicates that he would label Gill as an hyper-Calvinist.

This is going around in circles. What is a hyper-calvinist in your definition?

Gill’s Presumed Lack of Vigour in Evangelism.

It is very difficult to conceive that anyone familiar with the ministry of John Gill could accuse him of being without vigour in preaching the Gospel to sinful man. Gill’s church at Carter Lane was renowned throughout the country for the power of Gospel preaching which was maintained in it and John Rippon, who succeeded Gill in the pastorate and William Button who published his sermons tell of the influence of his message of joyful Christian experience which spread far and wide amongst the Baptists and influenced “all the evangelical denominations at home and abroad”. Furthermore Gill was one of the very few Baptist preachers who took a very active part in working with Anglican Calvinists who were pioneering the Great Awakening in the middle 18th century. James Hervey, who is attributed with pastoring the first evangelical Anglican parish in the Midlands, received ever new impulses from Gill`s sermons and theological works and snatched up his books with the print fresh on them whenever he could. To him, Gill`s message was ‘such a rich and charming displays of the glories of Christ’s person, the freeness of his grace to sinners, and the tenderness of his love to the church, as cannot but administer the most exquisite delight to the believing soul.’ Hervey highlights the beauty of Gill’s language in spreading the good news of Christ’s love for sinners. Judging by the way modern writers speak of Gill one would imagine that he was as dry as dust and boringly analytical and systematic. Nothing could be further from the truth! Gill’s language is indeed often a warm, even poetic, appeal to the heart. Reading his exposition of The Song of Solomon is a transportation into the heavenly language of true love full of vigour and commitment. Gill lived this language and commitment out in his sermons, preaching so energetically and emotionally that those sitting near his pulpit regularly passed handkerchiefs up to their pastor during his sermon so that he could wipe away his profuse perspiration.

 

[Van]

Reply to Ruis,

Van,

Disagreeing with Calvinism is expected. However, your attack on Calvinism in such a manner is more ad-hominem.

For the most part, those of us who are Calvinists have turned to this belief after years of research. While there are great men who are not Calvinistic, most of histories greatest theologians were Calvinists. You seem to question Calvinists' serious intellectual study of the Scriptures. Can you doubt the serious studies Hodge, Edwards, Owens, Whitfield, Spurgeon, Bauckus, Schaeffer, Kennedy, Warfield, and others engaged in during their lifetime? Our rich heritage can be attacked because of honest disagreements, but implying we are anti-studious is intellectually dishonest. There is not a man on this board who has the intellectual gravitas of any one of these men.

Men of "intellectual gravitas" do not defend their views with logical fallacies like an argument from authority. I have said, repeatedly, that Calvinism is based on shoddy bible study. Show me a verse where any Calvinist presents support for the T,U,L, or I, including any of these listed men. But to speak in generalities, that is just more sand being thrown up to hide the truth.

Did they rightly understand that choice means choice, or did they add to scripture that choice can mean non-choice? Did they understand foreknowledge to refer to knowledge of the past or of the future? I could go on, but Calvinism is a fiction and until or unless you defend your views based on scripture rather than logical fallacies like an argument from authority, I will continue to consider your bible study shoddy.

 

[12strings]

Show me a verse where any Calvinist presents support for the T,U,L, or I,

"T"

-Eph. 2:1-3 - And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
-John 6:44 - No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
-Romans 3:10-11 - As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.”


"U"

-Ephesians 1:4-5, & 11 - Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will. …11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.
-Acts 13:48 - And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
-Romans 9:9-16 - For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

"I"

-John 10:27-29 - My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
-Phil. 1:6 - And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
-John 6:37 - All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.


All of these verses have been interpreted by various scholars in various ways, however, It is my contention that it is AT LEAST feasible for any thinking person to look at these verses and think, "It sounds like God chooses people. These verses seem to make that a real possibility." What exactly is shoddy about at least being open to that possibility?

 

[JesusFan]

Men of "intellectual gravitas" do not defend their views with logical fallacies like an argument from authority. I have said, repeatedly, that Calvinism is based on shoddy bible study. Show me a verse where any Calvinist presents support for the T,U,L, or I, including any of these listed men. But to speak in generalities, that is just more sand being thrown up to hide the truth.

Did they rightly understand that choice means choice, or did they add to scripture that choice can mean non-choice? Did they understand foreknowledge to refer to knowledge of the past or of the future? I could go on, but Calvinism is a fiction and until or unless you defend your views based on scripture rather than logical fallacies like an argument from authority, I will continue to consider your bible study shoddy.

Are you REALY going to try to come from the posotion that men like calvin/augustine/packer/hodge/erickson etc are ALL using "shoddy" work in their theologies?

Think that the calvinists of the past/present have done some of the best scholarship, you can say that you would disagree with their conclusions, but that would be just "their interpretation vrs theirs"

Think that you need to understand van that we cals here do take the Bible on a serious basis, as we do use logic and HS illumination, as well as study tools and the Greek/Hebrew texts to come to the views on Sotierology that we glean form the scriptures themselves!

Did they rightly understand that choice means choice, or did they add to scripture that choice can mean non-choice? Did they understand foreknowledge to refer to knowledge of the past or of the future? I could go on, but Calvinism is a fiction and until or unless you defend your views based on scripture rather than logical fallacies like an argument from authority, I will continue to consider your bible study shoddy.[/QUOTE]

You also do realise that God foreknowledge can and does involve more than just "seeing the fuure", as he also causes/determines things that will come to pass, as in His saving of the Elect!

 

[Ruiz]

Men of "intellectual gravitas" do not defend their views with logical fallacies like an argument from authority. I have said, repeatedly, that Calvinism is based on shoddy bible study. Show me a verse where any Calvinist presents support for the T,U,L, or I, including any of these listed men. But to speak in generalities, that is just more sand being thrown up to hide the truth.

Did they rightly understand that choice means choice, or did they add to scripture that choice can mean non-choice? Did they understand foreknowledge to refer to knowledge of the past or of the future? I could go on, but Calvinism is a fiction and until or unless you defend your views based on scripture rather than logical fallacies like an argument from authority, I will continue to consider your bible study shoddy.

Van,

An argument from authority is not a logical fallacy. In fact, if it is a rightful authority it is supported and encouraged. Working in Academia, if you cite an authority it is accepted. Please cite me one logician who says that a mere argument from authority is improper? Of course, if you do then you are violating what you call "argument from authority" and if you don't then you show that you are the lone exponent. Thus, you are in a quandary philosophically.

 

[Ruiz]

I see the various terms thrown around quite a bit: hyper-Calvinist, high Calvinist, etc. How would you define a "Hyper-Calvinist", just for the sake of clarity?

Hyper-calvnism would be the same as fatalism. Calvinism proper rejects fatalism.

For the record, most of the arguments against Calvinism is actually against Hyper-Calvinism.