Hyper-Calvinism and it's beliefs

I want to start off by saying (as most already know) that I do not hold to the theological view of the Sovereign grace doctrines (also nicknamed Calvinism).

However I would also like to say that many of my Non-Cal brethren do not understand the difference between Hyper and historical Calvinism. But just to set the record straight neither am I an expert either. I wanted to do this because I feel it is somewhat needful. It might have been done before but oh well

First, one of the reasons for this thread is that I have noticed many who hold to the Soveriegn grace doctrines state some things that 'seem' to reflect a distinctive hyper view. I'm not implying they are or any such thing but I would like to set the record here for what 'truly' constitutes a Hyper view in contrast to the 'historical' view.

I'll start with this quote from Phil Johnson at Spurgeon.org called "A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism:

In this he states:
A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

Please read the article to understand the intent of basic 5 views and not leap to assuptions before you type. Remember this is NOT discussing Calvinism but HYPER- Calvinism.

One does not need to adhere at all of the 5 basic views in order to have Hyper tendencies, but if one holds to one of these tendencies it is very easy to graduate (so to speak) to the others.

Again from Phil Johnson regarding the 'definition of a Hyper-Calvinist':

One thing I have found is that many Cals who do not consider themselves Hyper do in fact hold or at least advocate two of the 5 positions he set forth. Most notably numbers 3 (denial of the gospel offer) and 5 (denial of Gods love toward the reprobate). There have been a few on before (but they have not been on here in a while) that hold to number 4 (Denial of common grace).

Here is what Phil states regarding #3 - Denial of the gospel 'offer':

In point #5 he states regarding the love of God toward the reprobate:

Here is an additional listing set forth by Mongerism.com on hyper-calvinism.

Found here

This is set forth to give to better understanding of not only the differences between historic and hyper and of course Debate!

 

Both sites reference one another as additional information regarding the subject so it would appear that these two calvinistic sites presume they have much in common one with another. Did you notice that? There are actually quite a few more sites which I will later add if this becomes as active thread that also reference both sites as informative on the issue of hyper-Calvinism and speak to the issues of the "subtle trends that seem to signal a rising tide of hyper-Calvinism, especially within the ranks of young Calvinists and the newly Reformed".

Editted in...
Not sure if I understood you correctly. Are you stating that the 'free offer' aspect (an offer to the non-elect) is unbiblical??
"IF" so the what about what the Westminister Standard:

or how about J. I. Packer view - though not born in the 16th or 17 th century but born 1926 I can't discount his thoughts here :

or what about John Howe The Goodness of God, Part II preached in 1691:

 

Huh??
A site refers one to another site which speaks about the same issues but in fact will have nothig to due with issue the other is speaking of??

I have spent the last hour and a half tracing many links and reading many writtings of the Preby's in 16 and 17 hundreds which 'affirm all five of the points Phil listed as a part of historical Calvinism but which the H-C denies.

Another site Purtin mind also speaks of or affirms each of the 5 as being part of the historic Calvinism.

Secondly...

The both lists refer to the same aspects though said in in differing ways.
The #1 in Phils list corrisponds to the other on no evangelism

The #2 corrisponds to the one about having 'assurance' of your election before repentence and faith.

The # 3 corrisponds to the one about commanding all men everywhere to repent

The #4 corrisponds to the one about Gods grace does not work for the better of all men.

The #5 corrisponds to about 3 in monergism list (grace and betterment for man, Children dying in infancy, and choosing certain races.)

So I'm not understanding how you figure they have nothing in common with one another.

 

And that is the very reason he wrote the article, even though you're not so young or new
He is revealing/expounding on the differences in Historical and Hyper Calvinism.

According to his own writing I'm pretty sure he would place you in that catagory though not stating you are an absolute adhereent to all the Hyper views. As you stated though, you hold 3 out 5 which places you squarely in that catagory.

You're like Charles Ryrie, your a 3 pointer :laugh:

 

Another interesting point made from both sites is that most of the Calvinists who hold to one or more of these points most times don't even realize they are holding to or adhering to a Hyper view but assume or presume it is historic Calvinism.

(This has NO specific bearing or intent with respect to mine and Rippons previous discussion but was something I forgot to put into the OP)

And yes, this can be said with respect to any view point/belief that has variations to it.

 

Then I take it you didn't actaully read the article by Phil, remember it is a "Primer" on Hyper-Calvinism. In the beginning of the article he states:

All bolding, underlining and italisizing done by me.

He does 'flesh out' the definitions he sets forth and they 'are' in line with those of monergism.com as seen in the articles that monergism gives to elaborate on the issue. Phil just condenses them down to 5 basic types of views corrisponding to the Hyper view.

 

I just e-mailed John at Monergism asking him about the two lists and if 'they' say the two are similar or not at all. That will at least let the issue rest on what they agree with or not As soon as he returns my e-mail, I'll post it.

 

There is no blanket statement that can properly address your question because there are to many types of Calvinists.

IOW- The SBC Calvinists are not a group that only holds to one version of Calvinism, but are as diverse a baptists themselves.

With due respect to "Calvinism kills evangelism":
No, a person with a proper or historical view of Calvinism does not and will not kill evangelsim. However, to quote Phil Johnson in his opening statement:

 

Thank you Tom, I do appreciate that.

I put this thread together for 2 purposes.
1. To help my group better understand the distinction, and not just throw out empty accusation. This will at least give each side a thread to refenence if they want.

2. Because I have seen and heard quite a few Calvinists (remember this is regarding my personal experience) claim either one or more of these views and not even know these views are contrary to true historic Calvinism but that they in reality hold to aspects of Hyper-Calvinism. Thus when the term is used properly toward that aspect they assume it is an empty accusation and that I (or others) don't know actaully know the difference.

I also know many (of the above group I mentioned) who believe that Hyper-Calvinism is ONLY the belief that evangelism isn't needed and anything else is the non-cals misunderstanding of true Calvinism. So I'm trying to set the field for a middle ground in which both sides can appeal to the other to re-evalute their understanding of what 'truly' constitutes a hyper view point, historically and not pejoratively.

 

Well please feel free to be involved here TCG.

That is the whole purpose for putting this out here for BOTH sides.
I 'hate' it when my view is misrepresented, willfully. And I am quite sure I'm not alone in that so I wanted to do a thread that speaks of a decidedly unbiblical view in which both sides agee but that it is still somewhat of a foggy area (misunderstood) to the majority on both sides.

I really would like to hear some of your thoughts if you choose to become involved.

Editted in...
And it is due to those misrepresentations that I am using well known and grounded Calvinists to set forth the view of of hyper-Calvinims in contract to what is historical Calvinism.

 

Ok, great.

Do you agree or disagree with 5 types of hyper views in which Phil discribes?
Or
Some of them?
Or
How about Monergism's list?


And yes, I'm proding you. :laugh: