Is there really such a person as a "hyper-Calvinist&quo

[AnonymousRex]

Where does this term come from? When was it first used? I've heard it thrown around by a few people to describe others who (obviously) disagree with them on certain doctrinal issues such as election, God's love, common grace, etc. Over time, I've come to discover that there doesn't seem to be any clear definition of this appellation. Some believe that it describes someone who believes in "limited atonement" and not "definite redemption", others think it describes someone who does not believe in "common grace", and still others believe that it describes someone who believes that God does not love everyone. The most popular definition I've heard is one who denies the importance of the general call, believing that the pastor or evangelist should preach only to the elect.

This leads me to ask the question: does such a person exist? Are there actually individuals who believe that we should preach only to those we believe are among the predestined of God? If one were to take a minute to think about it, it would be absurd to suggest that anyone would believe anything so silly - that anyone professing Christ would actually know something known only to God. I know that many, such as John Gill and L.R. Shelton, are accused of "hyper-Calvinism", but more often than not, upon the scrutiny of their writings and/or sermons, we find quite the opposite to be the case.

I can't help but wonder if this term was coined by an Arminian to describe Calvinists who naturally believe in all five doctrines of grace (or six, if they believe in burning heretics), making a distinction between these and "moderate Calvinists" (like Millard Erickson), the latter believing in only two or three - as opposed to all five - points. Personally, I don't believe such a contrast realistically exists.



AnonRex

 

[JonathonHunt]

Yes, they do exist, and by your latter definition. There are many small churches around this land dying and choked by an over emphasis on the sovereignty of God at the expense of personal and corporate witness.

Many who followed in the footsteps of Lloyd Jones took a very romantic view that all that had to be done was public preaching, and the Lord would do the rest. And yes, yes, yes, there are many many christians over here who believe that the gospel should not be freely offered. If they deny this verbally in their doctrinal statements, they live it daily in the lives of their churches with no evangelism and no evangelistic preaching. It is what my Seminary Principal calls 'methodological hypercalvinism'.

There is a little hypercalvinist in all of us I believe, and we have to know him, recognise him and defeat him. The devil loves hypercalvinists!

 

[alwaysreforming]

Here is the running definition I have picked up on as I've listened to people debate Calvinism back and forth:

Hyper-Calvinism seems to be described as Calvanists who believe that God elects as strongly and purposefully those that will be subjects of His wrath as those who will be subjects of His mercy.

For example, God, before the creation of the world, actively chooses and creates individuals for the purpose of sending them to hell.

I like what Rod Rosenbladt, a Lutheran on the White Horse Inn show, has to say about this:
He says that God purposefully chooses His elect, but the way He "chooses" the damned is more of a "leaving behind" or a forsaking of them that is too mysterious to describe, and beyond our tracing out. (In other words, none of our business). There is a way in which God passes over those not chosen for redemption, such that His "choosing" is a term that could really only be applied to the elect. The damned are more or less "not chosen".

So again, the "hyper" Calvanist would say that God is just as eager to choose the damned as the elect. Perhaps this wording could be better, but maybe it gets a basic idea across.

 

[VanVos]

To me the main distinctive of hyper-calvinism is a symmetrical view of election and reprobation. In other words God has a postive decree on the sinner, that causes them to sin. From their flow all the other errors i.e. only preaching to the elect, eternal justification etc.

Historic Calvinism has an asymmetrical view of election and reprobation, where by the reprobate willing choses to sin and is ultimately passed over by God to face the judgment they deserve.

VanVos

 

[Learner]

We need more godly men such as John Gill , John Brine , Crisp , J. C. Philpot , Joseph Irons, Herman Hoeksema and many others who were charged with being hyper-calvinists .They were instruments in the hands of the Lord to extend His kingdom and a means of instruction and building -up of the saints . Whatever their faults they were used mightily of the Lord .