"Hyper" Calvinism

[deepblue]

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.

They are a smaller proportion now, yes (to be fair, there are few of either type!). However there were estimated to be at least 400 "Hyper" Calvinist Particular Baptist churches in the 18th and 19th centuries. The Met Tab and some others which were based on 17th Century Calvinism were in the minority.

Yes, the 1689 Baptist Confession is not "Hyper Calvinist". It's based on the 3 covenant framework which came before the second stage development of Calvinism (in the 18th Century). The modern Reformed movement is based on 17th Century Calvinism but as I mentioned some oppose the "free offer" (along with opposing "common grace").

The Wikipedia entry for Reformed Baptists (Reformed Baptists - Wikipedia) is a misleading muddle, as it seems to suggest that Keach, Gill, etc, accepted the 1689 Confession, when in fact they opposed some of it, having formulated a 2 covenant framework for their theology, rather than the 3 covenant framework which was the basis of that and other confessions. The Wikipedia entry looks like it's trying to lump all these figures and their churches under the heading "Reformed Baptists", which is unfortunate. This just exhibits the drawbacks of trying to use Wikipedia to get accurate information! In the main it's fairly accurate, although some of it is misleading.

 

[deepblue]

In case anyone has any time and sufficient interest(!) to understand more about Andrew Fuller and his relevance in history, check out:

Andrew Fuller: Teachings And Legacy – The Reformed View (Episode 4)

 

[kyredneck]

Being the “radical Monergist” that I am, I have no problem with Acts 17:30.

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men (not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles) every where to repent:

I agree with the Primitive Baptists. The Church’s role is pastoral, not redemptive.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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 will only say that the "biography" of Andrew Fuller linked here and authored by a chap called Jared Smith, appears not to contain a single direct quotation from Fuller. I have also read George Ella's book on Fuller which is referenced by Smith, and it is another hatchet job.

Fuller, like all men, had his weaknesses, but to call him a liberal theologian is a gross libel. He called Baptists back to the theology of the 17th Century proto-Baptists like Benjamin Keach, John Bunyan and Nehemiah Coxe. Gill was a great man in many ways, but the modern Missionary movement would never have started under his leadership. It took men like Fuller, Carey, John Sutcliffe, John Ryland and Samuel Pearce to accomplish that, and to bring about the revival among the Baptists that started late in the 18th Century and continued well into the 19th.

I strongly recommend two books by Michael Haykin: Ardent Love for Jesus (Brynterion Press, ISBN: 978-1-85049-248-1) and One Heart and One Soul (Evangelical Press, ISBN: 0-85234-326-4). They will be very helpful in understanding this important period in Baptist history, when the Particular Baptists were rescued from Hyper-Calvinism and brought back to the orthodoxy of the 1689 Confession.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

A few words on "Duty-Faith."
The expression "Duty-Faith" seems to be the particular stone which is hurled against Andrew Fuller. The question is therefore, is it the duty of men and women to believe the Gospel? Let me ask another question: is it the duty of all men to believe and obey the words of God? If it is not, why is God sending people to hell (John 3:18)?
Mark 1:14-15. 'After John had been put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the Gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe in the gospel."'
To whom was our Lord preaching? To anyone within earshot, apparently. What was His command to anyone within earshot? "Repent and believe the gospel." Both verbs are in the imperative, and spoken by the Son of God. How is it not the duty of all who hear to obey?
Acts 17:30. "But now God commands all men everywhere to repent." Since these are the words of the living God, how is it not the duty of all men everywhere to repent?

For the benefit of those who may not have read my posts previously, let me say that I am a five-point Calvinist (there is no other kind), but my post is not about Calvinism, it is about the word of God and whether we, as His creatures are bound to obey it.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes, the 1689 Baptist Confession is not "Hyper Calvinist". It's based on the 3 covenant framework which came before the second stage development of Calvinism (in the 18th Century). The modern Reformed movement is based on 17th Century Calvinism but as I mentioned some oppose the "free offer"

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."
"The one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out."
'For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.'

(along with opposing "common grace").

"He [God] makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and unjust."
"For He is kind to the unthankful and evil."
'What if God....... endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction....?

The Wikipedia entry for Reformed Baptists (Reformed Baptists - Wikipedia) is a misleading muddle

A good reason for not trusting Wikipedia on theology.

 

[Ascetic X]

A few words on "Duty-Faith."
The expression "Duty-Faith" seems to be the particular stone which is hurled against Andrew Fuller. The question is therefore, is it the duty of men and women to believe the Gospel? Let me ask another question: is it the duty of all men to believe and obey the words of God? If it is not, why is God sending people to hell (John 3:18)?
Mark 1:14-15. 'After John had been put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the Gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe in the gospel."'
To whom was our Lord preaching? To anyone within earshot, apparently. What was His command to anyone within earshot? "Repent and believe the gospel." Both verbs are in the imperative, and spoken by the Son of God. How is it not the duty of all who hear to obey?
Acts 17:30. "But now God commands all men everywhere to repent." Since these are the words of the living God, how is it not the duty of all men everywhere to repent?

For the benefit of those who may not have read my posts previously, let me say that I am a five-point Calvinist (there is no other kind), but my post is not about Calvinism, it is about the word of God and whether we, as His creatures are bound to obey it.

I agree with your post, but you cannot be a TULIP 5 point Calvinist, which means thinking all people are in total depravity, thus unable to repent or believe.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I agree with your post, but you cannot be a TULIP 5 point Calvinist, which means thinking all people are in total depravity, thus unable to repent or believe.

Well, I am
Matt. 11:25-26; Luke 10:21-22; John 6:44; Acts 13:48; 16:14; Romans 11:32; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1-10 etc.
Before anyone replies to this, may I suggest reading Isaiah 55:8-9 & Romans 11:33-36.

 

[deepblue]

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."
"The one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out."
'For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.'

"He [God] makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and unjust."
"For He is kind to the unthankful and evil."
'What if God....... endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction....?

A good reason for not trusting Wikipedia on theology.

I wouldn't call the first three examples you gave the "free offer". I would see them as statements which when people hear, if they are elect and it's the "time", they will be changed and compelled to respond. It's not that they have to "work up faith", or "make a decision", or any of that, if you see what I mean. Whereas most preachers and teachers today will frame the good news as an "offer" to be "accepted", or beg people to "make a commitment", or "ask Jesus into your heart", or something. This is very different.

The second three - most "high" Calvinists would call that providence, not "grace".

I probably tend towards what's written here, rather than being fully "hyper": An Answer to Phil Johnson’s “Primer on Hyper-Calvinism” – CPRC, but I'm not "creedal". Creeds can become a problem when they are put on a pedestal instead of scripture.

 

[DaveXR650]

I wouldn't call the first three examples you gave the "free offer". I would see them as statements which when people hear, if they are elect and it's the "time", they will be changed and compelled to respond. It's not that they have to "work up faith", or "make a decision", or any of that, if you see what I mean. Whereas most preachers and teachers today will frame the good news as an "offer" to be "accepted", or beg people to "make a commitment", or "ask Jesus into your heart", or something. This is very different.

Judge for yourself. This is John Owen, definitely a "High-Calvinist":

"This is the language of the Gospel, of all that the Lord Christ did or suffered, which is recorded therein; - this is the divine testimony of the "three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost;" and of the "three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood:" all give their joint testimony, that the Lord Christ is ready to receive all sinners that come to him."...
"Nothing but cursed obstinacy in sin and unbelief can suggest a thought unto our minds that he is not willing to receive us when we come unto him."

And here's Jonathan Edwards in a sermon, using a passage as an invitation that drives a lot of Calvinists nuts:

"Salvation is ready brought to your door; and the Saviour stands, knocks, and calls that you would open to him, that he might bring it in to you. There remains nothing but your consent. All the difficulty now remaining is with your own heart. If you perish now, it must be wholly at your door. It must be because you would not come to Christ that you might have life, and because you virtually choose death rather than life."

The truth is, these guys invited people to come to Christ about as much as one has warrant to do. Both firmly believed that all those who did come would be "elect" and that they were predestined to be so. That doesn't work logically, for everyone though.

 

[deepblue]

Judge for yourself. This is John Owen, definitely a "High-Calvinist":

"This is the language of the Gospel, of all that the Lord Christ did or suffered, which is recorded therein; - this is the divine testimony of the "three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost;" and of the "three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood:" all give their joint testimony, that the Lord Christ is ready to receive all sinners that come to him."...
"Nothing but cursed obstinacy in sin and unbelief can suggest a thought unto our minds that he is not willing to receive us when we come unto him."

And here's Jonathan Edwards in a sermon, using a passage as an invitation that drives a lot of Calvinists nuts:

"Salvation is ready brought to your door; and the Saviour stands, knocks, and calls that you would open to him, that he might bring it in to you. There remains nothing but your consent. All the difficulty now remaining is with your own heart. If you perish now, it must be wholly at your door. It must be because you would not come to Christ that you might have life, and because you virtually choose death rather than life."

The truth is, these guys invited people to come to Christ about as much as one has warrant to do. Both firmly believed that all those who did come would be "elect" and that they were predestined to be so. That doesn't work logically, for everyone though.

Edwards was a man of his time. I wouldn't agree with his phrasing.

 

[DaveXR650]

Edwards was a man of his time. I wouldn't agree with his phrasing.

That's rather dismissive of someone with the status of Edwards but that attitude is typical for men of our time.

 

[DaveXR650]

I agree with your post, but you cannot be a TULIP 5 point Calvinist, which means thinking all people are in total depravity, thus unable to repent or believe.

I also find that a logical difficulty. I guess the difference is that I think that what they do and how they preach means more to me than a theological acronym. I'm OK with anybody who believes in a real offer of salvation to all who come. That is essential because it is stated in scripture in multiple places. I think Calvinist theology is very good at showing the absolute depravity and dependence we all have on God for our salvation, not just in Christ's work but even in our believing. I'm not so sure about the determinism part, which I don't see emphasized so much in the Puritan era writings for sure.

 

[Ben1445]

Being the “radical Monergist” that I am, I have no problem with Acts 17:30.

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men (not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles) every where to repent:

I agree with the Primitive Baptists. The Church’s role is pastoral, not redemptive.

That’s nice, now do everywhere.

And don’t leave anywhere out or it won’t be everywhere.

 

[kyredneck]

That’s nice, now do everywhere.

Hosea Chapter 1

10​	Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass that, in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

And don’t leave anywhere out or it won’t be everywhere

Acts Chapter 1

8​	But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.