Hyper Calvinism defined

G

guest1

Guest
Phil Johnson, who has done extensive research on this subject very helpfully defines hyper-Calvinists using a five-fold definition. A hyper-Calvinist is one who:

  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.
As Phil says, “All five varieties of hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message.” So this is the key to understanding hyper-Calvinism: it undermines evangelism and/or somehow distorts the gospel message. Hyper-Calvinists emphasize God’s sovereignty but de-emphasize God’s love. They tend to set God’s sovereignty at odds with the clear biblical call to human responsibility.


hope this helps !!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Phil Johnson, who has done extensive research on this subject very helpfully defines hyper-Calvinists using a five-fold definition. A hyper-Calvinist is one who:

Why are you so obsesssed with falsely labelling Reformed Christians as "hyper-Calvinists"?

And why do IGNORE the parts of your VERY OWN sources which contradict your view?

From your OWN link:

"Probably the most distinguishing characteristic of a Hyper-Calvinist is an unwillingness to evangelize at all, or to evangelize without extending a call to accept and believe the gospel."

Why don't you care about the "most distinguishing characteristic"?
We are not "Hyper-Calvinists".
 
Why are you so obsesssed with falsely labelling Reformed Christians as "hyper-Calvinists"?

And why do IGNORE the parts of your VERY OWN sources which contradict your view?

From your OWN link:

"Probably the most distinguishing characteristic of a Hyper-Calvinist is an unwillingness to evangelize at all, or to evangelize without extending a call to accept and believe the gospel."

Why don't you care about the "most distinguishing characteristic"?
We are not "Hyper-Calvinists".
Had he stated you were all hyper Calvinists?
 
Why are you so obsesssed with falsely labelling Reformed Christians as "hyper-Calvinists"?

And why do IGNORE the parts of your VERY OWN sources which contradict your view?

From your OWN link:

"Probably the most distinguishing characteristic of a Hyper-Calvinist is an unwillingness to evangelize at all, or to evangelize without extending a call to accept and believe the gospel."

Why don't you care about the "most distinguishing characteristic"?
We are not "Hyper-Calvinists".
Did you miss all the other points ? Any single one by default qualifies as hyper.

hyper this helps !!!?
 
Why are you so obsesssed with falsely labelling Reformed Christians as "hyper-Calvinists"?

And why do IGNORE the parts of your VERY OWN sources which contradict your view?

From your OWN link:

"Probably the most distinguishing characteristic of a Hyper-Calvinist is an unwillingness to evangelize at all, or to evangelize without extending a call to accept and believe the gospel."

Why don't you care about the "most distinguishing characteristic"?
We are not "Hyper-Calvinists".
Because it's important. It's easy for some to go from being a Calvinists to being a "Hyper-Calvinists". And not even know it. You're an IT guy from way back right? DOS. And you know the Net was created as a way for scientists and researchers to share information, knowledge, and communicate.

Even Spurgeon had to look out for “Hyperism,” whose main points are. First, God loves the elect, but not the nonelect. Second, there is no such thing as a universal gospel call, but only an effective call to the elect. Third, strictly speaking, unbelief is not a sin because the nonelect cannot possibly exercise saving faith. Fourth, anything short of this degree of Calvinism is sub-Christian.

So pointing out this system of extreme Calvinism, in which divine agency completely overwhelms any hint of human agency is a good thing. Spurgeon called it “Hyperism” and now we call it “hyper-Calvinism.”
 
Because it's important. It's easy for some to go from being a Calvinists to being a "Hyper-Calvinists". And not even know it. You're an IT guy from way back right? DOS. And you know the Net was created as a way for scientists and researchers to share information, knowledge, and communicate.

Even Spurgeon had to look out for “Hyperism,” whose main points are. First, God loves the elect, but not the nonelect. Second, there is no such thing as a universal gospel call, but only an effective call to the elect. Third, strictly speaking, unbelief is not a sin because the nonelect cannot possibly exercise saving faith. Fourth, anything short of this degree of Calvinism is sub-Christian.

So pointing out this system of extreme Calvinism, in which divine agency completely overwhelms any hint of human agency is a good thing. Spurgeon called it “Hyperism” and now we call it “hyper-Calvinism.”
Amen great posts today .
 
Because it's important. It's easy for some to go from being a Calvinists to being a "Hyper-Calvinists". And not even know it.

Okay, so it seems (please correct me if I'm wrong), that you're trying to tell me that non-Calvinists, even anti-Calvinists, get to tell traditional Calvinists that they're "Hyper-Calvinists", and to assume that non-Calvinists know what Calvinists believe better than what Calvinists understand about their OWN beliefs.

That sounds more than a little bit unreasonable, if you don't mind my saying so.
I'm studied Hyper-Calvinism in GREAT detail.
And I know I'm not one.


You're an IT guy from way back right? DOS. And you know the Net was created as a way for scientists and researchers to share information, knowledge, and communicate.

Actually, no, I wasn't an "IT guy".
I was a PC user.

Even Spurgeon had to look out for “Hyperism,” whose main points are.

Yes, I've read it.
In case you weren't aware, the dude in my Avatar is Spurgeon.

First, God loves the elect, but not the nonelect.

I believe that God loves EVERYONE.

Matt. 5:45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

I believe common grace is an example of God's love for everyone.

Now I understand how some may be mistaken about my beliefs, since I'm assuming that most of the discussion about "love" here is about salvific love, since A's and C's differ on soteriology.

But I'm definitely not a "Hyper-Calvinist" by this definition.

Second, there is no such thing as a universal gospel call, but only an effective call to the elect.

I deny this as well.
The gospel is to go out to EVERYONE.
We cannot stand by, like TRUE Hyper-Calvinists, and withhold evangelism to people until they show "signs" of being elect. Preaching the gospel is the MEANS by which the elect come to faith!

So I'm not a "Hyper-Calvinist by this criterion, either.

Third, strictly speaking, unbelief is not a sin because the nonelect cannot possibly exercise saving faith.

I reject that wholeheartedly, unbelief is CERTAINLY a sin.

So I'm not a "Hyper-Calvinist by this criterion, either.

So what basis is there for falsely labelling me a "Hyper-Calvinist"?


Fourth, anything short of this degree of Calvinism is sub-Christian.

Great!
I'm not a "sub-Christian".
I'm a full-blown Christian.

What now?

So pointing out this system of extreme Calvinism, in which divine agency completely overwhelms any hint of human agency is a good thing. Spurgeon called it “Hyperism” and now we call it “hyper-Calvinism.”

And I'm not included.
As Chalcedon pointed out, Reverend is not HC, and as Reverend pointed out, he and I believe the same, both being 1689 Baptists, so I can't be HC either.

So why continue this worthless straw-man mudslinging endeavour?
 
I believe that God loves EVERYONE.

Matt. 5:45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

I believe common grace is an example of God's love for everyone.

Now I understand how some may be mistaken about my beliefs, since I'm assuming that most of the discussion about "love" here is about salvific love, since A's and C's differ on soteriology.

But I'm definitely not a "Hyper-Calvinist" by this definition.
So you believe God loves the non elect ?

Does he love them enough to desire their salvation?
 
Okay, so it seems (please correct me if I'm wrong), that you're trying to tell me that non-Calvinists, even anti-Calvinists, get to tell traditional Calvinists that they're "Hyper-Calvinists", and to assume that non-Calvinists know what Calvinists believe better than what Calvinists understand about their OWN beliefs.

That sounds more than a little bit unreasonable, if you don't mind my saying so.
I'm studied Hyper-Calvinism in GREAT detail.
And I know I'm not one.




Actually, no, I wasn't an "IT guy".
I was a PC user.



Yes, I've read it.
In case you weren't aware, the dude in my Avatar is Spurgeon.



I believe that God loves EVERYONE.

Matt. 5:45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

I believe common grace is an example of God's love for everyone.

Now I understand how some may be mistaken about my beliefs, since I'm assuming that most of the discussion about "love" here is about salvific love, since A's and C's differ on soteriology.

But I'm definitely not a "Hyper-Calvinist" by this definition.



I deny this as well.
The gospel is to go out to EVERYONE.
We cannot stand by, like TRUE Hyper-Calvinists, and withhold evangelism to people until they show "signs" of being elect. Preaching the gospel is the MEANS by which the elect come to faith!

So I'm not a "Hyper-Calvinist by this criterion, either.



I reject that wholeheartedly, unbelief is CERTAINLY a sin.

So I'm not a "Hyper-Calvinist by this criterion, either.

So what basis is there for falsely labelling me a "Hyper-Calvinist"?




Great!
I'm not a "sub-Christian".
I'm a full-blown Christian.

What now?



And I'm not included.
As Chalcedon pointed out, Reverend is not HC, and as Reverend pointed out, he and I believe the same, both being 1689 Baptists, so I can't be HC either.

So why continue this worthless straw-man mudslinging endeavour?
You missed the point entirely so in answer to your question yes you are wrong. I know your not a "Hyper-Calvinist". And I've seen many drawings of Spurgeon. You did pick the best one, all the rest look a lot different.
 
Phil Johnson, who has done extensive research on this subject very helpfully defines hyper-Calvinists using a five-fold definition. A hyper-Calvinist is one who:

  1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear,
That was me
  1. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner,
That was me. If our Lord died for you no matter what you were saved.
  1. 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),
That was me. It was only the means for reason of damnation to the non-elect.
  1. OR
  2. Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” OR
  3. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.
There was no love of God for the non-elect. God hated Esau, who represented the non-elect as many here think as I recall from the topic.

God determined everything. Not one thought, decision, or action is done by the will of the creature, but all determined by God. Kinda like playing with toy army men as a boy. Every thought, decision, and action of the toys were by my determination. Sadly pathetic.

God bless
 
That was me

That was me. If our Lord died for you no matter what you were saved.

That was me. It was only the means for reason of damnation to the non-elect.

There was no love of God for the non-elect. God hated Esau, who represented the non-elect as many here think as I recall from the topic.

God determined everything. Not one thought, decision, or action is done by the will of the creature, but all determined by God. Kinda like playing with toy army men as a boy. Every thought, decision, and action of the toys were by my determination. Sadly pathetic.

God bless
Thanks for sharing brother !
 
That was me

That was me. If our Lord died for you no matter what you were saved.

That was me. It was only the means for reason of damnation to the non-elect.

There was no love of God for the non-elect. God hated Esau, who represented the non-elect as many here think as I recall from the topic.

God determined everything. Not one thought, decision, or action is done by the will of the creature, but all determined by God. Kinda like playing with toy army men as a boy. Every thought, decision, and action of the toys were by my determination. Sadly pathetic.

God bless
Glad that is no longer you

Praise God
 
That was me

That was me. If our Lord died for you no matter what you were saved.

That was me. It was only the means for reason of damnation to the non-elect.

There was no love of God for the non-elect. God hated Esau, who represented the non-elect as many here think as I recall from the topic.

God determined everything. Not one thought, decision, or action is done by the will of the creature, but all determined by God. Kinda like playing with toy army men as a boy. Every thought, decision, and action of the toys were by my determination. Sadly pathetic.

God bless
Yes Thanks, your post is very encouraging.
 
John Gill is hyper

“the 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 promised for them in the everlasting covenant, procured for them by Christ, published and revealed in the gospel, and applied by the Spirit.”

 
Yes, praise God!! The Lord worked with me and got me to where I am today. I was a sorry mess after reading MacArthur and others. Dizerner said it in one of his posts that logically consistent Calvinists reach full determinism....I found that to be true for me.

God bless
Yes he is right no escaping that .
 
Back
Top