What is a hyper-Calvinist? How do we sustain our strong Calvinistic convictions without slipping into hyper-Calvinism?

[Alan Dale Gross]

What is a hyper-Calvinist?
Is that what you are being accused of? When does Calvinism go wrong?
How do we sustain our strong Calvinistic convictions — to the nth degree! — without slipping into hyper-Calvinism?”

(The Transcript, or Audio is available at this link).

"Let me state the absolutely crucial thing here first, and then back up to the specific question,
and then circle back again at the end and end on the absolutely crucial thing. In my judgment,
the absolutely crucial thing is that we submit all of our thinking to what the Bible teaches — all of the Bible,
not just select parts of it, but all of it, rightly understood: the whole counsel of God.

"When I say “submit our thinking to what the Bible teaches,” I include bringing our thinking into biblical balance as well as biblical truthfulness.

"Wherever someone stands on any issue, it is possible to emphasize that issue to the exclusion of other issues.

"In that sense, any issue may become a hyper-issue,
meaning an overemphasis on some part of the Bible that silences other important parts of the Bible.

"That’s hyper — hyper-anything.

"That’s the absolutely crucial thing: believe and teach what the whole Bible, rightly understood, teaches,
and believe it and teach it in biblical proportion — biblical balance —
so that no Scripture is used to silence the meaning and importance of other Scriptures.

The Indiscriminate Nature of The Gospel and Gospel Preaching.​

"Now to the specific question, What is hyper-Calvinism?

"I think probably the most common historic meaning for the term is that hyper-Calvinism refers to a distortion of historic Calvinism,
and the distortion says it is inappropriate and unbiblical to invite people to Christ unless they give some evidence of being among the elect.

"That’s a distortion. That’s a falsehood.

“The absolutely crucial thing is that we submit all of our thinking to what the Bible teaches.”

"The net effect of this viewpoint is to put a governor on the indiscriminate preaching of the gospel
and wholehearted engagement in world missions. You can hear it in the voice of a preacher who,
when William Carey wanted to go to India, said, “Sit down, young man. "When God wants to reach the nations, he’ll do it without your help.”

"In other words, “Don’t you go out there and preach the gospel indiscriminately to those pagans.

"You might tempt somebody to embrace the gospel when they’re not elect.” That’s hyper-Calvinism.

"In other words, the emphasis is put so completely on the unconditional election of God
and the spiritual deadness of man and the sovereignty of grace in conversion (all of which are true)
that the irrational and unbiblical inference is drawn
that we should not say to any non-elect person who’s spiritually dead, “Repent. Believe. Come to Christ.”

"We should never preach like that. We should never indiscriminately say to a whole crowd of people,
many of whom would be non-elect, “Come to Christ. Repent. Believe.”

"Now, the reason I say that’s irrational and unbiblical to draw that inference from election and deadness and sovereign grace is this:
nothing in reason says that summoning a spiritually dead sinner to repent
might not be the means God uses to perform the miracle of making him alive, and thus demonstrating he is elect.

"I say it’s unbiblical because the Bible tells us to preach the gospel to everyone,
and the sheep will hear the Shepherd’s voice in the preaching and follow him (John 10:27).

"Our job is not to know ahead of time who the sheep are.

"Our job is to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ, pray for converting power,
and plead for people to repent and trust God — trust him to do his regenerating work.

"God raises the dead. He grants faith, and he does it through preaching.

"We’re supposed to say precisely to dead bones, “Live! Live! Why would you die?”

"That’s the way we should preach: indiscriminately, to all people, offering the gospel to everyone, and trusting God to call his own."

 

[kyredneck]

What is a hyper-Calvinist?

"Everyone to the right of me is hyper" Tom Butler. And I seriously doubt if there's anyone on this board more right than me.

 

[DaveXR650]

"That’s the way we should preach: indiscriminately, to all people, offering the gospel to everyone, and trusting God to call his own."

That would be the basic requirement I would think. Personally I think what you believe regarding how this works will still affect the way you do this. In other words, a church spreading the gospel because they believe that in real time they are in working to convert sinners who are truly and actually on their way to damnation unless something is done is going to look different than a church whose perception is that they are bringing in those infallibly, already chosen to be saved, and in the case of hyperCals, already saved.

Calvinism demands two simultaneous thoughts be held as true at once. First, God is truly in control and does ordain (in the broad sense) everything that comes to pass. Second, the free will of men is not violated by God in accomplishing this. These points are arguable as to the truth of them but they are not arguable as to whether they are what Calvinism is. That is because they are clearly stated in the Calvinist confessions like the Westminster Confession of Faith. It is extremely important that this be understood. And here is why:

Most people will not accept that both of the above concepts be true and true at the same time. So they are forced to emphasize one truth over the other and/or they can think of one and accept it at one time and then believe the other at another time depending upon what scripture they are looking at at the time. If we are honest, that is what most of us do. That's what I do.

What I find is that to cope with this some people tend to view this from a human standpoint when reading scripture. They notice that God reasons with people, discusses with people, threatens and advises on courses of action, and proposes conditions of salvation that are clearly open to accept or reject. Others tend to try to see things in scripture as what is revealed about God, with glimpses into all this from God's point of view. They see him all knowing and able to determine whatever his plan and will shall be, without man being able to interfere. They see precise prophesies carried out and described in detain. They even see descriptions of things that would have happened had a different contingent action occurred which would have changed reality but God did not allow that to happen. (If the works done here would have been done in Tyre and Sidon).

Those of us who admit both free will and God's sovereignty are true will not tend to be as condescending to someone who is at the time thinking of one concept or the other. That will appear "wishy-washy" to a purist or someone who argues more to signal their status within a camp than to try to understand truth.

My own position is that anyone on the Calvinistic side who believes the offer of salvation is to everyone and that everyone has a warrant to believe in Christ and be saved is fine with me. On the other side, anyone who realizes their lost condition, no matter what their understanding of how it was they came to this, and comes to Christ by faith (whether they think it was a gift or whether they came to it themselves) is saved in the same way.

 

[JesusFan]

"Everyone to the right of me is hyper" Tom Butler. And I seriously doubt if there's anyone on this board more right than me.

Someone who would fail to practice and obey the Lord Jesus in regards to the Great Commission mandate

 

[JesusFan]

That would be the basic requirement I would think. Personally I think what you believe regarding how this works will still affect the way you do this. In other words, a church spreading the gospel because they believe that in real time they are in working to convert sinners who are truly and actually on their way to damnation unless something is done is going to look different than a church whose perception is that they are bringing in those infallibly, already chosen to be saved, and in the case of hyperCals, already saved.

Calvinism demands two simultaneous thoughts be held as true at once. First, God is truly in control and does ordain (in the broad sense) everything that comes to pass. Second, the free will of men is not violated by God in accomplishing this. These points are arguable as to the truth of them but they are not arguable as to whether they are what Calvinism is. That is because they are clearly stated in the Calvinist confessions like the Westminster Confession of Faith. It is extremely important that this be understood. And here is why:

Most people will not accept that both of the above concepts be true and true at the same time. So they are forced to emphasize one truth over the other and/or they can think of one and accept it at one time and then believe the other at another time depending upon what scripture they are looking at at the time. If we are honest, that is what most of us do. That's what I do.

What I find is that to cope with this some people tend to view this from a human standpoint when reading scripture. They notice that God reasons with people, discusses with people, threatens and advises on courses of action, and proposes conditions of salvation that are clearly open to accept or reject. Others tend to try to see things in scripture as what is revealed about God, with glimpses into all this from God's point of view. They see him all knowing and able to determine whatever his plan and will shall be, without man being able to interfere. They see precise prophesies carried out and described in detain. They even see descriptions of things that would have happened had a different contingent action occurred which would have changed reality but God did not allow that to happen. (If the works done here would have been done in Tyre and Sidon).

Those of us who admit both free will and God's sovereignty are true will not tend to be as condescending to someone who is at the time thinking of one concept or the other. That will appear "wishy-washy" to a purist or someone who argues more to signal their status within a camp than to try to understand truth.

My own position is that anyone on the Calvinistic side who believes the offer of salvation is to everyone and that everyone has a warrant to believe in Christ and be saved is fine with me. On the other side, anyone who realizes their lost condition, no matter what their understanding of how it was they came to this, and comes to Christ by faith (whether they think it was a gift or whether they came to it themselves) is saved in the same way.

Just think that when people say things such as God will not override your free will. or say God will not "rape you yo save you", do they realise that unless the Holy Spirit enabled us to responds in a saving way the the Gospel invitation, that none of ud ever decide to accept Jesus and get saved based upon our natural bent?

 

[DaveXR650]

How our "free will" works, if there even is such thing is a study in itself. We defend it as being the most essential core element of our identity yet spend 90% of our time trying to manipulate and change others free will to get them to do what we want. Everybody from Finney to Owen teaches that the main problem with us is our free will yet we are scared to death of any concept that God might help us with it, let alone being sovereign over it. As if somehow we are better off if he just leaves it all to us. What could possibly go wrong there?

 

[JesusFan]

Wouldn't we though ALL be MUCH netter off if we always was doing the will of God for our lives, and not just what we desired to do all of the time? Is it that big of a problem if we just accepted the sovereignty of God in regards to our salvation, as would that not make it much less worrisome or anxious, did I really get saved, was it just emotions, have I done right enough long enough etc?

 

[Blank]

How do we sustain our strong Calvinistic convictions without slipping into hyper-Calvinism?​

(God works through means)

 

[DaveXR650]

Wouldn't we though ALL be MUCH netter off if we always was doing the will of God for our lives, and not just what we desired to do all of the time? Is it that big of a problem if we just accepted the sovereignty of God in regards to our salvation, as would that not make it much less worrisome or anxious, did I really get saved, was it just emotions, have I done right enough long enough etc?

The highest and best for us would probably be that we are in such a close walk with God that we unconsciously do God's will while to us it just seems like we are just doing what we want. That was what Thomas Kempis said and he was a Catholic monk. And he was highly regarded by Jonathan Edwards. Most of us usually though are conscious of fighting against the flesh and the devil and the world to do God's will.

The problem with some Calvinists is that because they cannot keep two truths in mind at the same time, when they put an emphasis on the sovereignty of God in our salvation they mistakenly condemn someone who insists they they wanted to come to Christ and chose to come to Christ when in fact that is exactly what they did and what we must all do. Where the non-Calvinist makes a mistake is that he doesn't have an understanding of his natural state and doesn't understand and accept the work that God has already done in his heart. Yes they come by their own free will, but it was at least an enlightened free will, maybe even a regenerated free will, depending on how your theology is on that.

 

[DaveXR650]

How do we sustain our strong Calvinistic convictions without slipping into hyper-Calvinism?

Hyper-Calvinism is the incomplete endpoint result of following one logical step after another. If this is true then of course that must also follow. It's the endpoint you get from going off on human logic for someone who leans toward determinism. Extreme free will theology, all the way to Pelagianism and even universalism is the endpoint of a free will leaning person. Basic confessional Calvinism of the Puritan era acknowledges both aspects, with admittedly an emphasis on determinism.

Hyper-Calvinism is extremely logical. So is complete free will theology or what we now call Provisionism. They are both wrong.

 

[Blank]

Yes they come by their own free will, but it was at least an enlightened free will, maybe even a regenerated free will, depending on how your theology is on that.

What would be the difference between an enlightened free will and a regenerated free will?. Or, can you have an enlightened free will without having a regenerated free will?

 

[DaveXR650]

What would be the difference between an enlightened free will and a regenerated free will?. Or, can you have an enlightened free will without having a regenerated free will?

Many Calvinists believe that you come to faith because you have been regenerated. And that includes guys like Martyn Lloyd-Jones who I respect too much to refute on this. But I don't believe that. I believe that the work of the Holy Spirit convicts and enlightens and enables them to have faith. When they come to Christ by faith they are then regenerated. I also believe that it may well be possible for us to resist the grace given at that point, which knocks me out of being in the true Calvinist club, at least according to most. Some of the Calvinist sermons I read would seem to indicate that at least off the record, they agree with the resistibility of grace.

 

[Blank]

Many Calvinists believe that you come to faith because you have been regenerated. And that includes guys like Martyn Lloyd-Jones who I respect too much to refute on this. But I don't believe that. I believe that the work of the Holy Spirit convicts and enlightens and enables them to have faith. When they come to Christ by faith they are then regenerated. I also believe that it may well be possible for us to resist the grace given at that point, which knocks me out of being in the true Calvinist club, at least according to most. Some of the Calvinist sermons I read would seem to indicate that at least off the record, they agree with the resistibility of grace.

I'll go with the 'true Calvinist club' on this one.

 

[DaveXR650]

I'll go with the 'true Calvinist club' on this one.

Well. That's alright. I just have noticed that I see warnings from John Owen sermons where he warns us not to continually ignore the convicting work of the Holy Spirit lest at some point he leave you in your present condition. That to me would be a clear case of resisting grace. Jonathan Edwards, in one of his sermons says "Christ has died, all things are ready for you and the only thing still needful is your consent". Again, it seems like he is talking about resisting grace.

In addition, the Calvinists talk about how they don't like the term "irresistible grace" but prefer "effectual grace". This makes more sense to me because obviously it results in the effective salvation of the elect and in the case of non-elect it is still there but was ineffective in that it did not result in salvation. The Westminster Confession of Faith seems to state the same thing in that there is a general call to everyone who hears the gospel and an effectual call to those who end up being saved. I understand the terminology in light of the fact that I think some type of work of the Holy Spirit is essential but I question whether difference was in the call or in the response to the call.

You certainly don't have to agree but I would suggest that you develop a real reason that you have thought through for your position, whatever it may be. Most people in general, simply try to learn the tenets of their sect and fit in as best they can. That probably is the best way to get along but to me is not satisfying. But I do still respect the great confessions and won't just dismiss them. Of course it's just as or more likely that my understanding is deficient.

 

[Blank]

Well. That's alright. I just have noticed that I see warnings from John Owen sermons where he warns us not to continually ignore the convicting work of the Holy Spirit lest at some point he leave you in your present condition. That to me would be a clear case of resisting grace. Jonathan Edwards, in one of his sermons says "Christ has died, all things are ready for you and the only thing still needful is your consent". Again, it seems like he is talking about resisting grace.

In addition, the Calvinists talk about how they don't like the term "irresistible grace" but prefer "effectual grace". This makes more sense to me because obviously it results in the effective salvation of the elect and in the case of non-elect it is still there but was ineffective in that it did not result in salvation. The Westminster Confession of Faith seems to state the same thing in that there is a general call to everyone who hears the gospel and an effectual call to those who end up being saved. I understand the terminology in light of the fact that I think some type of work of the Holy Spirit is essential but I question whether difference was in the call or in the response to the call.

You certainly don't have to agree but I would suggest that you develop a real reason that you have thought through for your position, whatever it may be. Most people in general, simply try to learn the tenets of their sect and fit in as best they can. That probably is the best way to get along but to me is not satisfying. But I do still respect the great confessions and won't just dismiss them. Of course it's just as or more likely that my understanding is deficient.

How else can the 'natural man 'receive' the things of the Lord?
1 Corinthians 2:10,12 ESV
these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. [12] Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.
1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
I would include the Gospel to include 'those things of the spirit of God'. The Gospel is more than, "Jesus loves you, and has a wonderful plan for your life!"

Even Jesus told Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven."

 

[DaveXR650]

How else can the 'natural man 'receive' the things of the Lord?
1 Corinthians 2:10,12 ESV
these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. [12] Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.
1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
I would include the Gospel to include 'those things of the spirit of God'. The Gospel is more than, "Jesus loves you, and has a wonderful plan for your life!"

Even Jesus told Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven."

I agree that God's grace is essential or no one will be saved. I think it can be and often is resisted.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

This is the 2nd of "Hyper-Calvinism" we may see today, in addition to the 1st "Hyper-Calvinism" concerns in the O.P.​

"Withholding Assurance".​

"Now, here’s another contemporary form of hyper-Calvinism that is common among some Reformed groups.

1st. Just like the old hyper-Calvinism was hesitant to Offer Gospel Salvation to someone who might not be Elect,

2nd. This contemporary form of hyper-Calvinism is hesitant to Offer Gospel Assurance to professing Christians who might not be Elect.

"I had a conversation with a man who held this view recently on one of my trips, and my conclusion was this:
he so emphasized the danger of giving False Assurance to possibly fake Christians
that he preached in such a way as to withhold True Assurance from real Christians.

That’s how a good concern becomes a hyper-concern. You can smell it, because the tone of the congregation is not the tone of Romans 8,
which is so radically bent on helping Christians be gloriously bold in their Assurance that;
"nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ".

How do we sustain our strong Calvinistic convictions without slipping into hyper-Calvinism?​

"Scripture over System"​

"Those are two forms of hyper-Calvinism, and the way to avoid both of them is Bible, Bible, Bible —
the whole Bible, unashamed and uncompromising in biblical balance.

"My response to somebody who says, “Piper takes his Calvinism to the nth degree, the nth power,”
would be to say, “Well, ‘nth degree’ has no meaning to me. It has no content.
"You can’t know if it’s true and I can’t know if it’s true or false because it doesn’t carry any meaning.”

"The question is this: Does John Piper submit his so-called Calvinism to the Bible?
"Does he bring it into Alignment with the Truth of the Whole Bible?
"Does he bring it into Balance with the way the Bible teaches the Sovereignty of God?
"Here are the key questions, and I invite everybody to ask them of me, and of everything I’ve ever said:

• Does John Piper silence important Biblical teachings by his Calvinism?
• Does he Silence the Responsibility of man?
• Does he Silence the Reality of Secondary Causes, like Satan and sinful man, in the suffering and sin of the World?
• Does he Silence the Reality of the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit can be Grieved, or that Jesus Wept over Jerusalem?
• Does he Silence the Biblical Reality that we should hold our hands out to a World bent on destruction
• and plead with them with tears to repent?

If John Piper uses his Calvinism to Silence Truth — True and important Biblical teachings — then Piper is moving into Hyper-Calvinism.

"Now, whether that’s happening is not helped or clarified at all by saying John Piper’s Calvinism is to the nth degree.

"What use is that?"

"Balance on the Bible"​

Here’s where the rubber meets the road: it often comes down to being thoroughly Biblical
versus silencing Scripture with philosophical assumptions.

"The modern world operates with the philosophical assumption that human willpower
has the capacity for ultimate, final, decisive self-determination in the moment of Conversion to Christ.

"That is the reigning modern philosophical assumption. (When I say modern, I mean in the last two to three hundred years.)

"Whatever divine influences there are, the modern world says
that we humans provide the final, ultimate, decisive cause in our Conversion to Christ.


"That assumption, then, is brought to the Bible. It’s not found in the Bible. You can’t find that assumption anywhere in the Bible.

"That assumption, that assertion, is brought to the Bible, and it causes many people to call Calvinism > hyper-Calvinism.

"By labeling Calvinism > hyper-Calvinism, by just labeling ordinary, Bible-balanced Calvinism > hyper-Calvinism,
you can blow smoke over the clear Biblical Reality that
there is no such thing in the Bible or in the World
as ultimate, final, decisive human self-determination in Conversion to Christ.

"We end back where we started with the main thing: Bible, Bible, Bible —
not philosophy, not assumptions,
not the modern American love affair with free will. No, no, no.

"Bible, Bible, Bible — not modern assumptions,
not the darling of human self-determination in Conversion,
but Bible: the Whole Counsel of God in Biblical Proportion.
John Piper (@JohnPiper)

“Our Job is to Preach the Unsearchable Riches of Christ,
Pray for Converting Power, and Plead for people to Repent and Trust God.”

 

[Blank]

"Scripture over System"​

"Those are two forms of hyper-Calvinism, and the way to avoid both of them is Bible, Bible, Bible —
the whole Bible, unashamed and uncompromising in biblical balance.

You quoted me, but I was only quoting the OP, not asking a question.
Then you went on about Piper. I don't even take Piper as a serious Reformed Theologian. Maybe at least start with R.C. Sproul.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

Does man in his natural spiritual state have free will in the spiritual realm?

[Eph 2:1 KJV] 1 And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Should a Born Again child of God exercise free will in the spiritual realm?

[Eph 6:6 KJV] 6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;

Should a Born Again child of God exercise free will in the physical realm?

[Jas 4:13-17 ESV] 13 Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit"--
14 yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes.
15 Instead you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that."
16 As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil.
7 So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.

God dictates mans "free will" to achieve His ends. He has throughout my life. I thank and praise Him for doing it!

[Jdg 4:6-7, 13 KJV] 6 And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedeshnaphtali, and said unto him, Hath not the LORD God of Israel commanded, [saying], Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun? 7 And I will draw unto thee to the river Kishon Sisera, the captain of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into thine hand. ... 13 And Sisera gathered together all his chariots, [even] nine hundred chariots of iron, and all the people that [were] with him, from Harosheth of the Gentiles unto the river of Kishon.

I venture to say, if Sisera were asked why he was going to the river Kishon, he would say it was his duty. True. But God was pulling the strings - so to speak.

So...Is there any such thing a free will. I think not. Ultimately, God is the Almighty.

What say you?

 

[Blank]

Should a Born Again child of God exercise free will in the physical realm?

What say you?

I'd say yes, the believer has a free will of responsibility (should) (compatibilism?), but not the unbeliever...unless regenerated.
Matthew 11:29-30 ESV
Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. [30] For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
Philippians 2:12-13 ESV
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, [13] for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.