Thread: Whats the difference between hyper calvinism and calvinism?

Originally Posted by Jon 316

It's not a bad thing per se. It's just a bit complicated since the term is widely thrown about and carries different meanings for different people.

From that perspective, all calvinists could be accused of hyper calvinism then?

I am certain that because I affirm the exhaustive fore-ordination of all events, everywhere, that there is not a single stray particle in the universe that acts apart from the decree of our Almighty, Sovereign God, some would accuse me of being a hypercalvinist.

The treatment of hyper-calvinism in Wikipedia is helpful. Hyper-Calvinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wish there was a definition that all would agree to within the Reformed community. Highs don't want to be called hypers, hypers want to be considered higher than highs, and on it goes. It would take at least ten single spaced pages to outline historical and doctrinal differences, and even then, there would be hypers who would disagree with what was written.

So I just use a simple algorithm that generally works for me. I tend to label a person a hyper-Calvinist if that person:

1. is supralapsarian (BUT-- not all supras are hypers!);
2. really, really resonate with John Gill's and/or Herman Hoeksema's writings;
3. reject "free offers" (that is preach to all, offer to none);
4. hold to some level of justification before faith;
5. reject "duty-faith" (Answer 'no' to the question: Is it the duty of all who hear the Gospel to believe savingly in Christ?); and
6. de-emphasize or reject "common grace".

The above is distilled from Curt Daniel's book.

Any help with suggestions and/or corrections to the above is greatly appreciated.

AMR

Who gets to define "hyper calvinism" so that their definition is authoritative?
To every Arminian, any Calvinist is a hyper-calvinist.

But who decided that _____ is hyper calvinism?

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

I wish there was a definition that all would agree to within the Reformed community. Highs don't want to be called hypers, hypers want to be considered higher than highs, and on it goes. It would take at least ten single spaced pages to outline historical and doctrinal differences, and even then, there would be hypers who would disagree with what was written.

So I just use a simple algorithm that generally works for me. I tend to label a person a hyper-Calvinist if that person:

1. is supralapsarian (BUT-- not all supras are hypers!);
2. really, really resonate with John Gill's and/or Herman Hoeksema's writings;
3. reject "free offers" (that is preach to all, offer to none);
4. hold to some level of justification before faith;
5. reject "duty-faith" (Answer 'no' to the question: Is it the duty of all who hear the Gospel to believe savingly in Christ?); and
6. de-emphasize or reject "common grace".

The above is distilled from Curt Daniel's book.

Any help with suggestions and/or corrections to the above is greatly appreciated.

AMR

Thank you for deciding that those who happen to disagree with you (including a significant section of this board) are in essence heretical.

Originally Posted by Hippo

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

I wish there was a definition that all would agree to within the Reformed community. Highs don't want to be called hypers, hypers want to be considered higher than highs, and on it goes. It would take at least ten single spaced pages to outline historical and doctrinal differences, and even then, there would be hypers who would disagree with what was written.

So I just use a simple algorithm that generally works for me. I tend to label a person a hyper-Calvinist if that person:

1. is supralapsarian (BUT-- not all supras are hypers!);
2. really, really resonate with John Gill's and/or Herman Hoeksema's writings;
3. reject "free offers" (that is preach to all, offer to none);
4. hold to some level of justification before faith;
5. reject "duty-faith" (Answer 'no' to the question: Is it the duty of all who hear the Gospel to believe savingly in Christ?); and
6. de-emphasize or reject "common grace".

The above is distilled from Curt Daniel's book.

Any help with suggestions and/or corrections to the above is greatly appreciated.

AMR

Thank you for deciding that those who happen to disagree with you (including a significant section of this board) are in essence heretical.

huh?

There is a congregation of Particular Baptists here in Tasmania who I would say fit the HC label. They do not evangelise, or pray for anything in particular (just that God's will be done).

Huh?

I pointedly asked for, and am open to, correction. Please elaborate. My intent is not to be divisive. If you took my post that way, I apologize to you and anyone else who also sees it as do you. If you prefer I will just delete the post and drop the subject.

Again, apologies to anyone offended by my post.

AMR

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

Huh?

I pointedly asked for, and am open to, correction. Please elaborate. My intent is not to be divisive. If you took my post that way, I apologize to you and anyone else who also sees it as do you. If you prefer I will just delete the post and drop the subject.

Again, apologies to anyone offended by my post.

AMR

You have out humbled me, I apologise for being so short.

This thread has outlined how the term hyper calvinism is perjoritive and it can be used to label anyone more calvinistic than yourself as beyond the pale.

The problem really is that the term is so perjoritive.

What it cannot mean and retain any meaning is something so wide as your quoted definition, Hoeksema and Gill were great theologians, to say if they resonate with you you are hetrodox is really a bit much.

Surely as long as the Gospel is proclaimed indescriminatley you are not hyper calvinistic in that you are still within the pale of Christian orthodoxy.

Again sorry for responding as I did, but nerves get raw on this subject.

Thanks, Mike. Whew! I figured that with less than a dozen posts my tenure here would be short-lived.

I do not mean to use the term "hyper-Calvinist" as a pejorative, but just as a descriptor of those that hold to a certain set of beliefs. Discerning those beliefs seems to be like nailing jello to a wall, based on my discussions with those that appropriate the label. Hence my request for suggestions on what exactly comprises the label. If we remove the reference to Gill and Hoeksema, does the algorithm still rub you the wrong way?

AMR

Bruce a5pointer, as Iain Murray is my favorite author I find it impossible to believe he misrepresented Spurgeon. He is too careful, too brilliant, and too wise a bibiographer I think, to misrepresent something so significant.

I'd have to read original Spurgeon materials myself to decide who correctly represents him I suppose. But I am not going to because I trust IM so highly.

Thank you for your concern though, I truly appreciate it.

I think that an attempt to find "hallmarks" of hyper calvinism will always be dangerous as you are almost by definition trying to cast a wide net according to your own convictions.

I am of the opinion that the heart of the matter is whether the gospel should be proclaimed promiscuously, of course the problem with such a loosly defined term is that people are free to disagree which is dangerous for everyone when the term has such baggage.

Why use such a term at all in friendly discussion?

We shouldn't put anyone on that high a pedistal. Murray is not beyond doing sub par work; for instance his little work contra exclusive psalmody. Reviewed here by Hugh Cartwright.

Originally Posted by lynnie

Bruce a5pointer, as Iain Murray is my favorite author I find it impossible to believe he misrepresented Spurgeon. He is too careful, too brilliant, and too wise a bibiographer I think, to misrepresent something so significant.

I'd have to read original Spurgeon materials myself to decide who correctly represents him I suppose. But I am not going to because I trust IM so highly.

Thank you for your concern though, I truly appreciate it.

Originally Posted by lynnie

Bruce a5pointer, as Iain Murray is my favorite author I find it impossible to believe he misrepresented Spurgeon. He is too careful, too brilliant, and too wise a bibiographer I think, to misrepresent something so significant.

I'd have to read original Spurgeon materials myself to decide who correctly represents him I suppose. But I am not going to because I trust IM so highly.

Thank you for your concern though, I truly appreciate it.

You may be in for a shock here but Ian Murray for all his fine qualities should never be "trusted" in this sphere to be anything but partisan. Murray's defence for his meddling with Pink's Sovereignty of God will not fill anyone with confidence in this area.

This link discusses the subject:

Pink's "Sovereignty of God" development

Tom Ascol was interviewed on Iron Sharpens Iron regarding the topic "Hyper-Calvinism vs. Historic Calvinism"
Iron Sharpens Iron: TOM ASCOL: "HYPER-CALVINISM VS. HISTORIC CALVINISM"

It's not terribly in-depth, but it should give you a clear understanding of the issue. He is careful to use the term in it's historical meaning, rather than in the sense that Phil Johnson and others use it.

(I think the actual part about Hyper-Calvinism doesn't start until 20min in or so)

Different sources on monergism pertaining to this discussion:

Monergism :: Search Results

What is Hyper Calvinism? seems to give insight into some of the topics discussed in this thread on varying definitions.

Originally Posted by Jon 316

So what exactly is the distinction bewtween these two? My understanding is that HCs dont believe in evangelism? I'm sure there must be more to it? For example would anyone here consider themselves to be what has been termed 'hyper calvinism?

Basically that is correct. Many mistakenly believe that Hyper-Calvinism is a any form of double predestination, but it is really a problem centered around evangelism.

I would recommend David J. Engelsma's "Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel"

You guys make it too difficult!

A hyper Calvinist is anyone more Calvinistic than me.
(Just as an Arminian is anyone less Calvinistic than me).

Seriously, if you check out the way the term gets bandied about in various "objective" delineations, that is about what it amounts to in practice. Because the term is used negatively, it almost always gets thrown as an insult at those more "Calvinist" than ourselves (e.g., Geisler using it for most of us!!!) Note how Curt Daniel applies it to Gill and Hoeksema vs. Engelsma's definition). We tend to use the term for those just slightly more than us. So, as a 5 pointer, to Geisler I'm a hyper-Calvinist whereas to Gill I would be only a low Calvinist.

We get into the same issues when dealing with the right meaning of the RPW. Drs. Clark and Frame would label me quite differently on the subject, I suspect. Both would conclude me to be wrong for not being closer to their "side" of the debate.

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

I don't think anyone would call themselves that since most consider it to be serious error (even heresy). Hyper-calvinism (IMO) really is about whether someone evangelizes the lost and calls them to repentance and faith. If someone will not call sinners to repent because they don't know if they are elect and therefore able to repent then they are hyper. I believe that is the line one crosses to be hyper-calvinist. Many try to call high-calvinists hyper but unless they do what I described they are not.

Thanks you for all your posts manley, one can always count on you.

We would do truth a favor by sticking to the historic use of words and concepts IMHO. Putting a label with a negative connotation on someone to which it does not apply under the accepted definition; how is that not a violation of the ninth commandment? Of course the question will be what is the accepted definition. It should be the historically grounded one. We should not allow folks to take over terms and change the use of them for their own ends, whether it is to try and paint themselves as still confessional, or paint someone else with a prejorative term because of some views they hold.

As far as the RPW, at least in that case the moniker applies to a particular understanding with a long history attesting to the concept from Knox (1550) to Prof. Murray (1946). See entries from my PB blog below.

What is the Regulative Principle of Worship - The PuritanBoard
Whence the Regulative Principle of Worship? 1 - The PuritanBoard
Whence the Regulative Principle of Worship? 2 - The PuritanBoard

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

You guys make it too difficult!

A hyper Calvinist is anyone more Calvinistic than me.
(Just as an Arminian is anyone less Calvinistic than me).

Seriously, if you check out the way the term gets bandied about in various "objective" delineations, that is about what it amounts to in practice. Because the term is used negatively, it almost always gets thrown as an insult at those more "Calvinist" than ourselves (e.g., Geisler using it for most of us!!!) Note how Curt Daniel applies it to Gill and Hoeksema vs. Engelsma's definition). We tend to use the term for those just slightly more than us. So, as a 5 pointer, to Geisler I'm a hyper-Calvinist whereas to Gill I would be only a low Calvinist.

We get into the same issues when dealing with the right meaning of the RPW. Drs. Clark and Frame would label me quite differently on the subject, I suspect. Both would conclude me to be wrong for not being closer to their "side" of the debate.

Originally Posted by lynnie

Bruce a5pointer, as Iain Murray is my favorite author I find it impossible to believe he misrepresented Spurgeon. He is too careful, too brilliant, and too wise a bibiographer I think, to misrepresent something so significant.

I'd have to read original Spurgeon materials myself to decide who correctly represents him I suppose. But I am not going to because I trust IM so highly.

Thank you for your concern though, I truly appreciate it.

You really owe it to yourself to read the rebuttal book. It is an easy little primer like Murray's. It has been many years since I read them. But my recollection is that I was sorry I had recommended Murray's book to freinds after reading the second book. We all have many times been disappointed in authors we have come to admire. I would like to know what you think after doing so. If I am missing something I would gladly like to know. Sorry to question your favorite.

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

We would do truth a favor by sticking to the historic use of words and concepts IMHO.

Even if we use the historic use of the term we run into problems. The OED defines
"Hyper-Calvinism. Theol Calvinistic doctrine that goes beyond that of Calvin himself; extreme Calvinism. So Hypercalvanian, Hyper-Calvinist a., one who holds such doctrine; Hyper-Calvinistic a., pertaining to Hyper-Calvinists or Hyper-Calvinism"

So far so good.

Then it goes on to the first use of the term:

"1674 Hickman Quinquart Hist. (ed. 20) 68 Thomas Aquinas ... is rather a Hypercalvanian then not a Calvinist in the matter of the absolute Decree."

The problem is the word has been used in many ways historically. Years ago I raised the question on this board of Who is Johnson and why we should take his definition any more seriously then the definition of John Rice. Pastor Wray responded that the Johnson position was the position of this board. I am glad the Board has developed beyond that definition. It still does not me we have a common definition. Toon, Packer, Gerstner, & Engelsma seem to agree that a hyper-calvinist is one who does not believe in the indescriminate proclamation of the Gospel. That works for me.

Spiritual Declension: Lessons from Early 18th Century Particular Baptists, Part 3-The Chilling Effect of Hyper-Calvinism RBS Tabletalk

Originally Posted by yeutter

Toon, Packer, Gerstner, & Engelsma seem to agree that a hyper-calvinist is one who does not believe in the indescriminate proclamation of the Gospel. That works for me.

This is fine with me; that is at least a consensus of sorts (I guess then the RPW has a significantly greater paper trail on a definition than hypercalvinism!).

copyright Rev Jonathan James Goundry:

1. Hyper-Calvinism: Beliefs: God is the author of sin and man has no responsibility before God. The Gospel should only preached to the elect. i.e. duty faith. and anti-missionary Belief in the five points is a prerequisite for true salvation, also known as Neo-Gnostic Calvinism. Proponents: Joseph Hussey John Skepp and some English primitive Baptists.

2. Ultra High Calvinism: Beliefs: That the elect are in some sense eternally justified. A denial of: The Well– Meant Offer; Common Grace; and God having any love for the non-elect. Proponents: John Gill, some ministers in the Protestant Reformed Church of America

3. High Calvinism: Beliefs: That God in no sense desires to save the reprobate, Most deny the Well-Meant Offer. Supralapsarian viewing God’s decrees. All hold to limited atonement. Most believe in particular grace and see the atonement as sufficient only for the elect. Proponents: Theodore Beza, Gordon Clark, Arthur Pink

4. Moderate Calvinism: Beliefs: That God does in some sense desires to save the reprobate, Infralapsarian in viewing God’s decrees. Affirms Common Grace. Proponents: John Calvin (some argue that he was a High-Calvinist), John Murray, RL Dabney

5. Low Calvinism: Beliefs: That Christ died for all in a legal sense, so one can speak of Christ dying for the non-elect. That God has two distinct wills. Affirms the Well-Meant Offer and Common Grace, Proponents: Amyraldrians , RT Kendal

6. Lutheranism: Beliefs: That Calvinist over emphasize God Sovereignty over man’s responsibility. That Christ died for all in legal sense, that some are predestined on to life but none are predestined onto death. That the sacraments are means of grace regardless of one’s faith. Proponents: Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, Rod Rosenbladt

7. American Baptist: Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. Once a persons believes the gospel, he is eternally secure. Rejects Calvinism, some would even call it heretical. Proponents: Jerry Falwell, Adrian Rogers

8. Arminianism Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is solely based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. A person can fall from the state of grace i.e. lose ones salvation, since it is our free will that chooses Christ at conversion. Proponents: Jacob Arminius, John Wesley some Methodists

Where are you on the Calvinism Chart?

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

A hypercalvinist is me after my morning pot of coffee

-----Added 1/18/2009 at 05:14:55 EST-----

Originally Posted by Jan Ziska

There is a congregation of Particular Baptists here in Tasmania who I would say fit the HC label. They do not evangelise, or pray for anything in particular (just that God's will be done).

I've heard that Particular Baptists do not evangalize and are HyperC's but I have recently become great friends with a Particular Baptist pastor (first PB I've ever met) and he doesn't think that way at all. He is a big Spurgeon fan. I guess there are lot's of different ideas within that camp.

You mean Primitive Baptists...? Right?

Originally Posted by JM

You mean Primitive Baptists...? Right?

No. The name of his church is Particular Baptist of Mendenhall (Mendenhall being the town he lives in). When I asked why he calls it "Particular" Baptist he said "Because we believe in particular redemption."

-----Added 1/18/2009 at 05:24:18 EST-----

BTW I voted "No" I'm not a Hyper-Calvinist. Can a Supralapsarian guy get by with that?

Originally Posted by JM

copyright Rev Jonathan James Goundry:
[INDENT]1. Hyper-Calvinism: Beliefs: God is the author of sin and man has no responsibility before God. The Gospel should only preached to the elect. i.e. duty faith. and anti-missionary Belief in the five points is a prerequisite for true salvation, also known as Neo-Gnostic Calvinism. Proponents: Joseph Hussey John Skepp and some English primitive Baptists.


Where are you on the Calvinism Chart?

This definition is probably not too far from the ideal, it benefits when linking concepts from the use of "and" rather than "or".

I think that I've learned a lot... I thought that a hyper Calvinist was someone who would think that John Calvin was too liberal to be a true Christian and would claim to know Calvin's thoughts better than he himself did I wonder who in South Africa would qualify as a hyper Calvinist Anyway, interesting topic.

Originally Posted by Jon 316

It's not a bad thing per se. It's just a bit complicated since the term is widely thrown about and carries different meanings for different people.

From that perspective, all calvinists could be accused of hyper calvinism then?

According to many that do not hold all five points, yes, and they often are.