V - HYPER-CALVINISM
Therefore we need to ask, what is a "Hyper-Calvinist"?
The word "Hyper" indicates a "going beyond", "further than the proper bounds"; it indicates an extreme, beyond the norm; and indeed there is such a thing as Hyper-Calvinism, but this can hardly be an acceptance and preaching of the "5 points", for looking historically and accurately at Calvinism the "5 points" are the norm.
In a very real sense Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism share a basic factor in common. They both try to apply human logic to the divine revelation. The Arminian reasons this way - "because men are commanded to repent and believe the gospel, they must therefore have the ability within themselves to do so" (they fail to apply the same logic to God's command to men to keep His law). From this bad logic they derive their doctrine of free will. The Hyper-Calvinist reasons this way - "because men do not have the ability within themselves to repent and believe the gospel, therefore there is no point in commanding them to do so". Both these groups are correct until they get to their "therefore", and then human logic and deduction takes over; but unfortunately they go beyond what is revealed in the Scriptures.
The Calvinistic, Biblical position takes the truth from both these statements and holds them both without trying to make them "logical". Men are commanded to repent and believe the gospel, and they are responsible to God to do so; men are unable in and of themselves to repent and believe because of their sinful nature. This is the dilemma into which the grace of God enters, according to His purpose of election, and by the mighty power of the Spirit, those for whom Christ died are made alive, and brought by the gospel to repentance and faith in the Saviour. This is the miracle of God's salvation!
The Hyper-Calvinist grasps the truth of man's inability, and the truth that God will certainly save His elect, but he wrongly deducts from that there is no necessity therefore to preach the gospel to every creature, and to engage in efforts to reach the lost.
His "logic" in going beyond the Scriptures brings him into an unbiblical position where he ceases to see the necessity of using God-ordained "means" to produce the God-ordained goals. This sad fact often produces a lack of evangelistic zeal and missionary activity among Hyper-Calvinists, and a lack of compassion for the lost.
Coupled with this fact we may say that the Hyper-Calvinist not only does not see the necessity for preaching the gospel to every creature, but considers it wrong to urge repentance and faith upon sinners indiscriminately. It is sometimes expressed this way, that the Hyper-Calvinist does not believe in "duty faith" and "duty repentance"; he does not believe that all men should be invited to come to Christ. In contrast to this, the historic Calvinist does most certainly believe that it is the duty and responsibility of all men to repent and believe even though they have, through sin, lost the ability to do so; and the Calvinist does not hesitate to bid all men everywhere to repent, and to invite every man to trust the Saviour.
True Calvinism therefore is not opposed to evangelism and missionary activity for it recognizes that the elect must be saved through the gospel, and like Paul the Calvinist puts the question "how shall they hear without a preacher"? Again, if it is the duty of all men to repent and believe, then all men must be told of this responsibility. The fact that true Calvinism is not opposed to evangelism and missionary work is attested to by the great names of history who have gone to the ends of the earth to proclaim the gospel and who were Calvinistic in their theology. The names of John Eliot, David Brainerd, John Paton, William Carey and George Whitefield suffice to make the point.
Hyper-Calvinism is also characterised by the view that God's decree of election is viewed without reference to the Fall of man, that is, the Hyper-Calvinist believes that God created some men with the express purpose of damning them simply as creatures, not as sinful, fallen creatures.
Historic Calvinism, on the other hand, has always presented God's decree of election as a most gracious decree against the background of the Fall of man. Out of a race already on the way to hell because of its own sin. God graciously wills to choose a great multitude out of sheer mercy and grace. God does not damn men for nothing says Calvinism. He damns them because of their sin.
Another characteristic that has been seen in some (though not all) Hyper-Calvinists is "Antinomianism". The word means "against or opposed to the law". It represents the idea that the moral law is not binding on the Christian, and some have indeed claimed to be God's elect, and on the basis of his claim have then proceeded to live as they pleased, disregarding the Word of God and bringing great reproach on the cause of Truth.
Historic Calvinism, following the Bible as its guide, has also insisted that the fact of election is always revealed in holiness of life, and has strongly condemned the Antinomianism of some Hyper-Calvinists.
Other factors might be added, but enough has been said to show that Hyper-Calvinism is as distinct from Historic Calvinism as is Arminianism. They are both extreme positions, though of course opposite extremes; they are both departures from the Biblical position, and both suffer from the insistence of applying human logic where human logic has no right to be!
I think both sides of the C/A debate have extremes... even verging on heretical. I won't say that I have a clear understanding of HC, but I have studied denominations that hold to some of it's views, and it sure makes me search out the scriptures.