Calvinism of today versus puritanical Calvinism

Jonnas · Jan 15, 2026

Hello,

I am reading books from the Puritans and from Spurgeon, and it seems to me that their Calvinism was different than the mainstream Calvinism of today. In my opinion, their Calvinism was more faithful to the Scriptures, while today's Calvinism drifted toward Hyper-Calvinism. Is it also your impression? Or do you evaluate otherwise the differences?

Here are some concrete examples that lead me to think as I think:

1) I have heard many Non-Calvinist preachers who believe that once we are saved, we are always saved. When they speak about the serious warnings that are in Heb. 6 or 10, in some rare instances they will humbly admit that they don't know how the warnings fit their Theology, but most of the time they will give some strange interpretation, so that the hearer won't know what to think, having already heard from people with the same Theology many contradicting interpretations of the same text (I can remember 4 or 5 of them(!)) that have nothing in common, save the obvious goal to either annul or downplay the Word of God where it is unpleasant.

This was obviously not the mindset of John Bunyan as he wrote his Pilgrim's Progress, which is a biblical description of the christian life in the form of an allegory of a pilgrimage. In the story, as Christian entered in the house of the Interpreter, he saw things that should encourage and warn him for his further pilgrimage. One of the things was a man locked in an “Iron cage of Despair”, waiting for the “fearful Threatnings of certain Judgment und fiery Indignation, which shall devour [him] as an Adversary” and for eternal Misery, because as he said: “I have crucified [Jesus] to myself afresh” (Heb 6.6). “This man's Misery” was to be “an everlasting Caution” to Christian for his further pilgrimage.

As far as I know, the Puritans understood that such texts as Heb. 6 or 10 have no loophole to make their serious warnings either not directed to true believers or less serious. And they had too great a respect for the Scriptures to intentionally twist them to make them fit their Theology. They still believed that when real grace is working in the heart of someone, he has real faith and he will persevere to the end; however they also viewed the serious warnings as means for God to cause a godly fear in the heart of the real believers so that they won't commit such a terrible sin but will persevere until the end.

However, I heard that the Calvinists today don't take such warnings seriously, and that makes me fear that they don't have the same respect of the Scriptures as the Puritans once had.

2) According to the Calvinism of today, new birth should precede faith (see e.g.: Does Regeneration Precede Faith?), although the former Calvinists didn't held such a belief. The Calvinists of today would even have been considered to be Hyper-Calvinists at an earlier time, because here is what Spurgeon has to say on the matter (The Spurgeon Library | The Warrant of Faith):

If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate.

I also checked the Matthew Henry's Bible Commentary for verses like John 1:12; 5:40; 12:36; 20:31 and Gal. 3.26 and it aknowledges the anteriority of the faith to the new birth in no uncertain terms, as it is plainly exposed in these verses.

This again makes me fear that the Calvinists of today have lost some of the reverence of the Scriptures that the earlier Calvinists had!

What caused the modern Calvinists to reject the view of the Puritans on the warnings of Heb 6 & 10 and on the relationship between faith and new birth as expressed in the above verses, although such views were compatible with Calvinism, the proof being that the Puritans were Calvinists themselves?

John Bauer · Jan 17, 2026

Jonnas said:
I am reading books from the Puritans and from Spurgeon, and it seems to me that their Calvinism was different than the mainstream Calvinism of today. In my opinion, their Calvinism was more faithful to the scriptures, while today's Calvinism drifted toward hyper-Calvinism.

What do you consider to be “hyper-Calvinism,” as you’re using it here? I want to compare it to the historic definition of hyper-Calvinism. And is there a difference between “hyper-Calvinism” (e.g., John Skepp) and “high-Calvinism” (e.g., Theodore Beza)?

You are contrasting the Puritans with Calvinists of today. What historical period is “the Puritans,” as you’re referencing it here? That is, are you talking about English Puritanism or American Puritanism? You spoke of Spurgeon, so I suspect the latter. Or maybe you meant both.

Have you read Peter Toon, The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity, 1689–1765 (London: Olive Tree, 1967)? It is the standard historical monograph on the subject.

Jonnas said:
I have heard many non-Calvinist preachers who believe that once we are saved, we are always saved.

If you are contrasting the Puritans with Calvinists today, of what relevance are non-Calvinists?

Jonnas said:
This was obviously not the mindset of John Bunyan as he wrote his Pilgrim's Progress, which is a biblical description of the Christian life in the form of an allegory of a pilgrimage. In the story, as Christian entered in the house of the Interpreter, he saw things that should encourage and warn him for his further pilgrimage. One of the things was a man locked in an Iron Cage of Despair, waiting for the “fearful threatenings of certain judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour [him] as an Adversary,” and for eternal misery because, as he said, “I have crucified [Jesus] to myself afresh” (Heb 6.6). “This man's misery” was to be “an everlasting caution” to Christian for his further pilgrimage.

Since you called it a “description of the Christian life,” I am not sure you have rightly understood Pilgrim’s Progress. I think it would be more accurate to call it an account of the elect’s life because it includes descriptions of life prior to conversion.

For example, the pilgrim stops at the house of the Interpreter as advised by Goodwill (who represents effectual calling) before reaching the “place of deliverance” where his burden fell off. The Interpreter’s house represents the church’s ministry, the preaching, instructing, and admonishing of those seeking salvation—”excellent things” that would be “a help” to him in his journey. This is an expression of Bunyan’s commitment to the necessity of both warning and instruction as means that drive the pilgrim to seek deliverance in Christ—which has not happened yet.

Your description here also fails to articulate that the man locked in the iron cage was someone who professed faith but did not possess faith, consistent with a Puritan and Calvinist interpretation of Hebrews 6. He partook of the Holy Spirit (v. 4), among other things, but was not indwelt thereby as the principle of new life. Both the Puritans and Calvinists today understand that Hebrews 6 is addressed not to true believers specifically but to the visible church generally, which includes people who profess faith but don’t truly believe. That is who falls away, not from the faith (which they never had) but from the covenant community (where they experienced the good things of God). Notice that the language of Hebrews 6 is experiential and covenantal, not ontological or transformational.

Jonnas said:
As far as I know, the Puritans understood that such texts as Hebrews 6 or 10 have no loophole to make their serious warnings either not directed to true believers or less serious.

“As far as I know,” you said, thus implying that you have read Puritan authors who believed and taught that Hebrews 6 was “directed to true believers.” Please identify those authors and the source material.

Jonnas said:
[The Puritans] believed that when real grace is working in the heart of someone he has real faith and will persevere to the end. However, they also viewed the serious warnings as means for God to cause a godly fear in the heart of the real believers so that they won't commit such a terrible sin but will persevere until the end.

True. But how does that differ from what Calvinists today believe and teach? And provide verifiable examples, please.

Jonnas said:
I heard that Calvinists today don't take such warnings seriously, …

You heard this? From whom?

I am struck by the fact that you said you heard this, that you didn’t say, “Calvinists today don’t take such warnings seriously.” It sounds like you didn’t verify what you heard. Is that the case?

Jonnas said:
According to the Calvinism of today, new birth should precede faith …

Sidestepping the fact that you cited Leighton Flowers, the question of whether or not regeneration precedes faith is separate from what your opening post appears to be about, namely, that the Puritans took Hebrews 6 seriously but Calvinists today do not. Since it is a separate question, I will not engage it here.

Jonnas said:
The former Calvinists didn't [believe that the new birth precedes faith]. The Calvinists of today would even have been considered to be hyper-Calvinists at an earlier time, because here is what Spurgeon has to say on the matter ("The Warrant of Faith"): “If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate.”

If you think Spurgeon believed faith precedes regeneration, then you misunderstood that sermon and Spurgeon generally. He is not saying that it’s absurd to preach Christ to regenerate people, for he preached Christ constantly to regenerate people. That is just what pastors do. Rather, what is absurd is restricting the sinner’s obligation to believe in Christ to those who are already regenerate, or to make regeneration a precondition for the gospel call.

In his sermon “Faith and Regeneration” (here), Spurgeon taught that saving faith is an indication of the new birth:

There never was a grain of such faith as this in the world, except in a regenerate soul … To believe in Jesus is a better indicator of regeneration than anything else, and in no case did it ever mislead. Faith in the living God and his Son Jesus Christ is always the result of the new birth, and can never exist except in the regenerate.

Spurgeon treats faith as the evidence of regeneration, not as something that an unregenerate person can possess or exhibit.

Jonnas said:
I also checked the Matthew Henry's Bible Commentary for verses like John 1:12. 5:40, 12:36, 20:31, and Galatians 3:26 …

Not a single one of those passages are discussing regeneration or its relation to faith. You ought to have consulted Henry on 1 John 5:1, which is about that subject. On that passage Henry notes that the principle of faith is “ingenerated by the Spirit of God”—and here the principle of faith means root, from the Latin principium.

In the theological lexicon of late 17th- and early 18th-century Reformed orthodoxy, in which Henry was steeped, there was a well-developed conceptual distinction between the principle (root, disposition, habitus fidei) and the act (actual believing, fiducia). Thus, principium denotes the God-given capacity, disposition, or habit from which all acts of believing proceed.

Interestingly, Henry as this to say about John 1:13, the very next verse after the one you cited:

Now here we have an account of the original of this new birth. … It is not produced by the natural power of our own will. As it is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, so neither is it of the will of man, which labours under a moral impotency of determining itself to that which is good; so that the principles of the divine life are not of our own planting, it is the grace of God that makes us willing to be his. Nor can human laws or writings prevail to sanctify and regenerate a soul; if they could, the new birth would be by the will of man. But it is of God. This new birth is owing to the word of God as the means (1 Pet. 1:23), and to the Spirit of God as the great and sole author. True believers are born of God (1 John 3:9; 5:1).

He reflects here what Francis Turretin said in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology (XV.x.4): “The habit of faith is infused by the Holy Spirit in regeneration, from which the act of faith afterwards proceeds.”

Jonnas said:
What caused modern Calvinists to reject the view of the Puritans on the warnings of Hebrews 6 and 10, and on the relationship between faith and new birth?

I do not accept the premise on which your question stands. You have not established that Calvinists today have rejected either position.

Jonnas · Jan 18, 2026

Thank you for taking the time for making such a detailed answer!

John Bauer said:
What do you consider to be “hyper-Calvinism,” as you’re using it here? I want to compare it to the historic definition of hyper-Calvinism. And is there a difference between “hyper-Calvinism” (e.g., John Skepp) and “high-Calvinism” (e.g., Theodore Beza)?

I didn't know that there was a difference between high-Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism. I am reading the biography of Spurgeon where he sometimes make comments about high-Calvinists or of people that didn't find him high enough in doctrine. So I assumed that these were all synonymous with hyper-Calvinism, but if it is not so, I would be interested to know what is the key differences between the two.

John Bauer said:
You are contrasting the Puritans with Calvinists of today. What historical period is “the Puritans,” as you’re referencing it here? That is, are you talking about English Puritanism or American Puritanism? You spoke of Spurgeon, so I suspect the latter. Or maybe you meant both.

To be fair, it would be more correct to say that the contrast I see is between Christianity before and Christianity today, but that my reading of the Puritans books gave me insights about the Christianity before when the Christians where not so much enjoying the pleasures of the world as we today do, and had a greater reverence of the Bible compared to today, where people have often little scruple to twist the Bible. I supposed that all movements of Christianity were concerned, with the inclusion of Calvinism.

I wasn't aware that there were different kinds of Puritans, except that they had different views on eschatology, where some were Post-millenarists such as Johnathan Edwards and historical Pre-millenarists such as Spurgeon. So do you mean that Spurgeon is an American Puritanist? Then I think there should not be much differences with the other branch of Puritanism, because Spurgeon used to read once a year the Pilgrim Progress of John Bunyan, had a high esteem about the works of John Gill, often consulted the Matthew Henry's Bible commentary, and even wrote a book containing the works of Thomas Brooks (I assume that these men were English Puritans).

John Bauer said:
Have you read Peter Toon, The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity, 1689–1765 (London: Olive Tree, 1967)? It is the standard historical monograph on the subject.

No I haven't read the book from Peter Toon. So far, I have only read books that aim to edify the Christians in their faith, such as “Grace Abounding” and “The Pilgrim Progress” from John Bunyan, “The Bruised Reed” from Richard Sibbes, a few books from Spurgeon and “The Mortification of Sin” from John Owen. I wasn't so much interested in learning about the development of Calvinism as to better learn about the biblical truths that aren't much taught today, such as about the Sovereignty of God, or about the work of grace in the heart of the believer that will be victorious at the end.

John Bauer said:
If you are contrasting the Puritans with Calvinists today, of what relevance are non-Calvinists?

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was first talking about the period where I knew almost nothing about Calvinism and when I heard preachers that indeed believed that we could not lose the salvation but were non-Calvinists. I was always disturbed how they twisted difficult Bible passages like Heb. 6 and 10. For me, the biggest argument against the teaching that the salvation can't be lost, was the way how their proponents twisted such Scriptures. But then as I began to read books of Puritans, and found it good that they had such a respect of the Bible, that they could believe in the perseverance of the saints without twisting passages like Heb. 6 and 10. But then, I was disappointed to learn from a Calvinist that today Calvinists shouldn't see it the same anymore. So it's not a verifiable example, but I assumed that his opinion was right, but if it is not, then I would be happy to learn otherwise!

John Bauer said:
Since you called it a “description of the Christian life,” I am not sure you have rightly understood Pilgrim’s Progress. I think it would be more accurate to call it an account of the elect’s life because it includes descriptions of life prior to conversion.

I still understood that the description begins before the conversion of “Christian”, when he was called by Evangelist to flee the wrath to come and go to the Wicket-Gate. By the way, he was also named “Christian” before he even reached the Wicket-Gate, at the very beginning of his pilgrimage when his neighbors were trying to dissuade him. I think nobody would deny that he was at this time only an awakened sinner looking for salvation and not yet born again, even if he was already called “Christian” in the description.

John Bauer said:
The Interpreter’s house represents the church’s ministry, the preaching, instructing, and admonishing of those seeking salvation—”excellent things” that would be “a help” to him in his journey. This is an expression of Bunyan’s commitment to the necessity of both warning and instruction as means that drive the pilgrim to seek deliverance in Christ—which has not happened yet.

I agree, the deliverance (and new birth) didn't happen yet, but don't find you it strange that this “this man's Misery” was to be “an everlasting Caution” to Christian, when in the description there was a very little way till he reached deliverance (actually 2 pages afterwards)? Wouldn't you expect the caution to be for only a very short time till he reached deliverance, instead of “an everlasting Caution” that is to last until the end of the Pilgrimage? (I think you wouldn't, based on what I read afterwards)

John Bauer said:
Your description here also fails to articulate that the man locked in the iron cage was someone who professed faith but did not possess faith, consistent with a Puritan and Calvinist interpretation of Hebrews 6.

First the reader of the Pilgrim's Progress is left with little explanation except that “this man's Misery” was to be “an everlasting Caution” for him. A Arminian will agree with that as well. But I think I did provide the Puritan explanation, as I wrote “that when real grace is working in the heart of someone, he has real faith and he will persevere to the end”. This imply that the man locked in the iron cage didn't have real grace working in his heart and per consequent he didn't have real faith.

John Bauer said:
Both the Puritans and Calvinists today understand that Hebrews 6 is addressed not to true believers specifically but to the visible church generally, which includes people who profess faith but don’t truly believe.

This is also my understanding about the view of the Puritans, namely that Hebrew 6 would cause a godly fear in the heart of the true believers as a mean to cause them to persevere to the end and that the false believers won't take the warnings seriously to their own destruction. I would be happy when that is also the view of the Calvinists today! I hope than, that you are right and that the person who told me otherwise was wrong, or that I didn't understand him right.

John Bauer said:
Notice that the language of Hebrews 6 is experiential and covenantal, not ontological or transformational.

I notice the similitude between v7-8 with Matt 13:7-8, where you have the good ground that will at the end produce good fruits and the thorny ground that will not and therefore will be burnt. I don't understand you well, but I guess this description is a experiential causality - effect relationship?

John Bauer said:
“As far as I know,” you said, thus implying that you have read Puritan authors who believed and taught that Hebrews 6 was “directed to true believers.” Please identify those authors and the source material.

I indeed wrote that it is indeed directed to true believers, but I believe that it is more generally directed to all who profess to be Christians (although I didn't expressed it). My emphasis on it being directed to true believers was my answer to the numerous times where I heard or read interpretations that specifically excluded the true believers from the warnings, so that my message was that the true believers were also to pay attention to these warnings. That's said, I believe that we normally can't differentiate at first between believers that are a stony ground or a thorny ground or good ground, having all received the seed of the Word of God (Matt 13), that's why such warnings are to be directed to all of them, because you can't identify who is who before it is time.

John Bauer said:
True. But how does that differ from what Calvinists today believe and teach? And provide verifiable examples, please.

John Bauer said:
You heard this? From whom?

As I wrote, this is according to what I have heard about Calvinism today from a Calvinist, but I would happy if you prove it to be wrong. Maybe this person thought his version of Calvinism to be representative of Calvinism today? I can't remember who he was, but to my knowing he was nor a Theologian nor a book author, possibly not even a pastor.

John Bauer said:
I am struck by the fact that you said you heard this, that you didn’t say, “Calvinists today don’t take such warnings seriously.” It sounds like you didn’t verify what you heard. Is that the case?

Indeed, and I thought that such a forum could be a good place to challenge this view of Calvinism, whether it is not right or not.

Jonnas · Jan 18, 2026

John Bauer said:
Sidestepping the fact that you cited Leighton Flowers

I don't know anything about him, but I think that he made an interesting analysis. Even if he were to be a false teacher, Paul also cited Greek poets that are no model of faith as well (Acts 17:25; Tit. 1:12-13), so I don't think that should be an issue.

John Bauer said:
If you think Spurgeon believed faith precedes regeneration, then you misunderstood that sermon and Spurgeon generally.

By reading Spurgeon, this is what striked me at first: how he could powerfully explain the Gospel. However, in all that I read from Spurgeon there was almost nothing to be found about the question whether faith precedes regeneration or not. But when you write that I misunderstood Spurgeon generally, that must imply that this question was a central theme for him, but I disagree with this:

As reported in his biography, here are his first words in the Tabernacle, the church that was later built for his congregation:

I would propose that the subject of the Ministry in this house, as long as this platform shall stand, and as long as this house shall be frequented by worshippers, shall be the person of Jesus Christ. I am never ashamed to avow myself a Calvinist; I do not hesitate to take the name of Baptist; but if I am asked what is my creed, I reply, 'It is Jesus Christ'. My venerated predecessor Dr. Gill, has left a Body of Divinity, admirable and excellent in its way; but the Body of Divinity to which I would pin and bind myself for ever, God helping me, is not his system, or any other human treatise; but Christ Jesus, who is the sum and substance of the gospel, who is in himself all theology, the incarnation of every precious truth, the all-glorious personal embodiment of the way, the truth, and the life.

By reading Spurgeon I indeed discerned Jesus Christ as his main subject, and I will say that if someone didn't think so, then he misunderstood Spurgeon generally!

John Bauer said:
He is not saying that it’s absurd to preach Christ to regenerate people, for he preached Christ constantly to regenerate people. That is just what pastors do.

Now concerning the sermon, he spoke about preaching faith in Christ, which he precised to be about “bid[ding] [someone] to believe in order to be saved”. So I already understood, that it is about evangelist preaching to the lost, and not about preaching to the believers that are already saved.

John Bauer said:
Rather, what is absurd is restricting the sinner’s obligation to believe in Christ to those who are already regenerate, or to make regeneration a precondition for the gospel call.

I agree. I however see in the words “preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved” that believing in Jesus is what causes someone to be saved, and in the following words “when he is saved already, being regenerate”, I see the equation between being saved with being regenerate. If I put the 2 parts together, I conclude that faith precedes salvation and regeneration, not necessarily on the time level (I think that everything could happen simultaneously), but at least in the causality. I don't see how to make a different conclusion.

John Bauer said:
In his sermon “Faith and Regeneration” (here), Spurgeon taught that saving faith is an indication of the new birth:

Concerning this later sermon, I agree with you. I believe that Spurgeon has changed his opinion, because I can't explain otherwise the differences between the 2 sermons. I also found out that John Bunyan also expressed that “believing is the consequence of the new birth” (https://www.biblebb.com/files/bunyan/lastsermon.htm). Then I understand that this opinion isn't a recent one, but was already adopted by some Puritans. However, as I think that nobody would deny that Spurgeon in his earlier time and Matthew Henry were Calvinists, so I conclude that the anteriority of the new birth to the faith can't be essential to Calvinism.

John Bauer said:
Not a single one of those passages are discussing regeneration or its relation to faith.

I disagree: I believe that becoming the sons of God (John 1:12), being enabled to have life (John 5:40; 20:31), being enabled to be children of light (John 12:36) or being the children of God (Gal. 3:26) are all synonyms to experimenting (or having experimented) the regeneration. And, in these verses, this is in relationship to the faith or to receive or come to Jesus which I also equate to believe in Jesus.

John Bauer said:
On that passage Henry notes that the principle of faith is “ingenerated by the Spirit of God”—and here the principle of faith means root, from the Latin principium.

I agree with that: Both the faith and the new birth are caused by the Word of God as it is written in Rom. 10:17 and 1. Pet. 1:23.

John Bauer said:
Interestingly, Henry as this to say about John 1:13, the very next verse after the one you cited: <citation>

I also agree with him, as to the origin of our willing (and doing) to be found in God's grace (Rom. 9:16 + Phil. 2:13), and with the rest I agree as well, I guess.

John Bauer said:
He reflects here what Francis Turretin said in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology (XV.x.4): “The habit of faith is infused by the Holy Spirit in regeneration, from which the act of faith afterwards proceeds.”

I didn't find this citation in this part of his commentary, but he put John 1:13 in relationship with Gal 3:26 and here is what he has to say:

That we are the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus v.26. And here we may observe, [1.] The great and excellent privilege with real Christians enjoy under the gospel: They are the children of God; they are no longer accounted servants, but sons; (...) [2.] How they come to obtain this privilege, and that is by faith in Christ Jesus. Having accepted him as their Lord and Saviour, and relying on him alone for justification and salvation, they are hereupon admitted into this happy relation to God, and are entitled to the privileges of it; for (Jn 1:12) as many as receved him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to those that believe on his name. And this faith in Christ, whereby they became the children of God, he reminds us.

I don't know how someone could see anything else in this text but that faith is the mean for someone to obtain the privilege of becoming a Child of God, which implies that faith, being the cause, must precede the new birth, being the effect. That's said, both faith and the new birth have their origin in the Word of God, as the Bible teaches us, and that is, I think, the most important thing for us to know.

John Bauer said:
I do not accept the premise on which your question stands. You have not established that Calvinists today have rejected either position.

Indeed the private opinion of the one Calvinist I heard and of a few websites, can't be counted as a proof, I agree. I should better have made clear, that I don't have solid grounds for my assumptions, and that I wished to check on the forum whether these assumptions should be true or false.

Jonnas · Jan 18, 2026

Jonnas said:
As reported in his biography, here are his first words in the Tabernacle, the church that was later built for his congregation:

I forgot to put the exact source of the quote. Here it is:
C. H. Spurgeon
Autobiography: Volume 2
p.34

I understand that the question about the interpretation of Heb. 6 and 10 should now be solved and that the question for the debate is now whether it should be essential for Calvinism to believe that regeneration precedes faith. My answer is no, because I found that Spurgeon in his early years and Matthew Henry have not believed so, although they were Calvinists.

An additional question to help clarify would also be: do Calvinistic creeds such as the Westminster Confession or the London Baptist Confession mention anything about the question?

Jonnas · Jan 18, 2026

Of course I will also be happy to have some more opinions whether people think that the Calvinism of today should be different than the Calvinism of the Puritans

John Bauer · Jan 20, 2026

Jonnas said:
I didn't know that there was a difference between high-Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism. … [If they are not synonymous], I would be interested to know what is the key differences between the two.

As I understand it, the chief difference between the two is this:

High-Calvinists affirm the indiscriminate proclamation of Christ to all sinners, upholding the public preaching of the gospel as the divinely appointed means by which the elect are effectually called.
Hyper-Calvinists restrict or deny the free offer of the gospel, arguing that Christ is not to be offered to the non-elect as such. Preaching is addressed only to those showing signs of regeneration.

Jonnas said:
To be fair, it would be more correct to say that the contrast I see is between Christianity before and Christianity today, but that my reading of the Puritans books gave me insights about the Christianity before …

I don’t think that is a more fair description of your intent (“to be fair”) so much as a substantially different intent. According to your thread title and opening post—not to mention the fact that you posted this in the Semper Reformanda forum—the stated contrast was between the “Calvinism of today versus puritanical Calvinism.” That is a very particular subset of Christianity.

Relatedly, reading Puritan authors will not inform you about Christianity back then, but rather about Puritan Christianity; it will also clue you in to some of the more serious problems with the Church of England—who were also Christians, so let’s not forget them—because that is who the Puritans were fighting against. Moreover, reading the Puritans can’t inform you about hyper-Calvinism because that emerged (late 17th century) several decades after the Puritan movement had disappeared (early 17th century). Arguably, John Owen was the last of the Puritans.

People like Edwards and Whitefield (early-mid 18th century) were post-Puritan evangelicals, although they drew heavily on Puritan theology. Edwards is the last major figure who thinks like a Puritan while living in a post-Puritan world.

Jonnas said:
[I see a real contrast between Christianity then versus now because Christians back then] were not so much enjoying the pleasures of the world as we today do, and had a greater reverence of the Bible compared to today

Two things: (1) I agree in part with your observation and diagnosis. Western Christians have also lost the fear of God, love for God, and trust in God. (2) If your concern is actually about Christianity then versus now, then this thread belongs in a different forum. This forum pertains to Calvinist soteriology (i.e., Calvinism) and Reformed theology.

Jonnas said:
I wasn't aware that there were different kinds of Puritans, except that they had different views on eschatology, …

It began with English Puritans seeking to reform the Church of England. Between 1620 and 1640, especially after the accession of Charles I in 1625, thousands of English Puritans emigrated to New England in what is known as the Great Migration. American Puritans, then, were the New England–born children (and grandchildren) of English Puritan immigrants, who inherited English Puritan theology and discipline but were now focused less on reforming a national church and more on planting and sustaining godly churches in the New World.

Eschatology was not the driver. English and American Puritans shared the same broad Reformed eschatology—predominantly postmillennial but also amillennial.

Jonnas said:
… some were postmillennialists (such as Jonathan Edwards) and historical premillennialists (such as Spurgeon).

Historic premillennialism existed as a view among Puritans but it was marginal, taking a backseat to postmillennialism and amillennialism. However, neither Edwards nor Spurgeon were Puritans; that movement had disappeared by the time of Edwards, never mind Spurgeon.

Jonnas said:
So, do you mean that Spurgeon is an American Puritan?

No, he was not. I only meant that your invocation of his name suggested an interest in America, not England, and therefore I should probably focus on New England Puritans. Spurgeon was American but not a Puritan.

When I speak of “American” Puritans, I am using that term loosely and anachronistically, since neither the United States of America nor a unified colonial identity separated from England existed yet. That was still a couple decades away (c. 1776). Technically, they were Puritans but not Americans.

Jonnas said:
I wasn't so much interested in learning about the development of [hyper-]Calvinism as to better learn about the biblical truths that aren't much taught today, such as the sovereignty of God or the work of grace in the heart of the believer that will be victorious at the end.

Fair enough. I could definitely recommend some books for your consideration (e.g., The Holiness of God, by R. C. Sproul).

Jonnas said:
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was first talking about the period where I knew almost nothing about Calvinism and when I heard preachers that indeed believed that we could not lose the salvation but were non-Calvinists. I was always disturbed how they twisted difficult Bible passages like Hebrews 6 and 10. For me, the biggest argument against the teaching that the salvation can't be lost, was the way how their proponents twisted such Scriptures. But then as I began to read books of Puritans, and found it good that they had such a respect of the Bible, that they could believe in the perseverance of the saints without twisting passages like Hebrews 6 and 10. But then, I was disappointed to learn from a Calvinist that today Calvinists shouldn't see it the same anymore. So it's not a verifiable example, but I assumed that his opinion was right, but if it is not, then I would be happy to learn otherwise!

Sorry, he thinks Calvinists should not see what the same anymore?

Jonnas said:
I think nobody would deny that [the pilgrim] was at this time only an awakened sinner looking for salvation and not yet born again …

It sounds like you are contrasting “awakened” with “born again.” What do those mean to you? Is regeneration either of those things?

Jonnas said:
Don't you find it strange that [the man in the iron cage] was to be “an everlasting caution” to Christian? Wouldn't you expect the caution to be for only a very short time till he reached deliverance, instead of one that is to last until the end of the pilgrimage? (I think you wouldn't, based on what I read afterwards.)

Hebrews 6 serves as an “everlasting” caution in the sense that such warnings (a) produce humility, self-examination, and prayerful dependence in believers, and (b) are a dire call to repentance for unbelievers (remembering that these warnings are addressed to the visible church, which is constituted by both).

But I find myself wondering sometimes whether the Spirit-wrought focus of believers, as they mature, should transition over time. At the beginning it’s more conviction by the law while clinging to the promise of the gospel. But as we mature it should be more conviction by the gospel while remembering the law. The law serves primarily to convict and kill, while the gospel of Christ alone gives life. I detect an existential and even liturgical movement from threat to promise. The ideal is to remain Christ-centered and gospel-driven and to minimize the law’s accusatory presence (lex semper accusat) in the mature believer’s ongoing experience. But that’s just where my thinking is heading these days. Sorry for the autobiographical parenthesis.

Jonnas said:
I hope, then, that you are right and that the person who told me otherwise was wrong or that I didn't understand him right.

I am not aware of any well-known Calvinist church, institution, teacher, or preacher who teaches that Hebrews 6 is not addressed to the church. If the person had told me that, I would have asked him for names. But then I’m a skeptic, so that’s usually my first question.

Jonnas said:
I notice the similitude between Hebrews 6:7-8 with Matthew 13:7-8, where you have the good ground that will [ultimately] produce good fruit and the thorny ground that will not and be burnt. I don't understand you well, but I guess this description is a experiential causality - effect relationship?

Then you accidentally understood me, for we both notice the same thing. The only thing I meant by “experiential and covenantal” (rather than ontological) is to underscore that these people are said to “partake” of the Holy Spirit in the visible church, but not indwelt and transformed.

Jonnas said:
I did write that it’s directed to true believers, but I believe that it is more generally directed to all who profess to be Christians (although I didn't express it). My emphasis on it being directed to true believers was my answer to the numerous times where I heard or read interpretations that specifically excluded the true believers from the warnings, so that my message was that the true believers were also to pay attention to these warnings. That's said, I believe that we normally can't differentiate at first between believers that are a stony ground or a thorny ground or good ground, having all received the seed of the Word of God (Matt 13), that's why such warnings are to be directed to all of them, because you can't identify who is who before it is time.

Fair enough.

Jonnas said:
As I said, this was according to what I heard about Calvinism today from a Calvinist, but I would happy if you prove it to be wrong.

Just to be clear, it is not my task to prove his claim wrong, but rather his task to prove it right. If he said Calvinists believe and teach x, then he needs to show both who and where. Since he he did not, he failed to give anyone any reason to believe him. So, don’t believe him.

Jonnas said:
I can't remember who he was, but to my knowing he was nor a theologian, or a book author, possibly not even a pastor.

All the more reason to not believe him. He not only had no evidence but he didn’t even have relevant, qualified authority. (Sometimes you don’t need the former if you have the latter—but I emphasize “relevant and qualified.”)

John Bauer · Jan 20, 2026

Jonnas said:
I don't know anything about [Leighton Flowers], but I think that he made an interesting analysis.

He definitely can have some “interesting” analyses, for he is a Pelagian heretic. I would strongly advise caution regarding his Soteriology 101 website and resources.

Jonnas said:
When you wrote that I [may have] misunderstood Spurgeon generally, that [implies] that this question—the relationship of regeneration and faith—was a central theme for him, but I disagree with this.

Okay, but tell me why you disagree. The quoted material you included—from C. H. Spurgeon’s Autobiography: Volume 2 – The Full Harvest, 1854–1860 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1899)—did not address the relationship of regeneration and faith. So, on what basis do you believe Spurgeon later “changed his opinion,” that he once believed faith preceded regeneration? I proved my claim by referring you to his clearest sermon on that question. That is what I am seeking from you, a clear statement from Spurgeon where he asserted the opposite view—because I have serious doubts that such a thing exists.

“Because I can't otherwise explain the differences between the two sermons,” you said. Fine, but that tells me something about you, not Spurgeon.

Jonnas said:
I see in the words “preach Christ to him and bid him to believe in order to be saved” that believing in Jesus is what causes someone to be saved. And in the words “when he is saved already, being regenerate,” I see the equation between being saved with being regenerate.

There is a kind of equation between the two, in that there is no such thing as a regenerate person who is not saved, just as there is no such thing as an elect person who is not saved. All who are elect are (infallibly) saved, but election and salvation are not the same. In like manner, all who are regenerate are (infallibly) saved, but regeneration and salvation are not identical.

You need to study the ordo salutis and come to the realization that things like election, effectual calling, regeneration, conversion, etc., all pertain to salvation but are not identical with salvation. They are each distinct elements of salvation. There is a sequence of distinct, causally and logically related acts and gifts, all comprising the one great benefit of union with Christ and salvation, yet each with its own meaning and function.

Regeneration is not believing; it is the condition in which believing is made possible, indeed inevitable. (The Wicket Gate came before the place of deliverance.) And believing is not salvation, but the instrument by which we are justified and ultimately saved.

Jonnas said:
If I put the two parts together, I conclude that faith precedes salvation and regeneration—not necessarily on the time level (I think that everything could happen simultaneously) but at least in the causality. I don't see how to make a different conclusion.

Fair enough. But, again, that tells me something about you, for these are autobiographical details.

In the Calvinist schema, the logical and causal order moves from election → regeneration → conversion (repentance and faith). So, there is a (weak) sense in which faith precedes salvation. But, sincerely, it must be remembered that all of these things together constitute salvation. It is why the Bible can say that we have been saved (justified), are being saved (sanctified), and will be saved (glorified).

Jonnas said:
I conclude that the anteriority of the new birth to the faith can't be essential to Calvinism.

Your conclusion is in error. The teaching that regeneration precedes faith is truly essential to Calvinism. When the first Arminians (the Remonstrants) drafted their five points of disagreement with Reformed soteriology—which is how we got the five points of Calvinism, by the way—the continental Reformed churches convened an international synod in Dort (1618–1619) to address their disputed doctrines. The result of that synod was the Canons of Dort, in which it is clearly stated that regeneration precedes faith (Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine, arts. 12 and 14). You will find it in many of the Reformed confessional standards: Belgic Confession (1561), Heidelberg Catechism (1563), Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), Savoy Declaration (1658), London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), etc.

Jonnas said:
I believe that becoming the sons of God (John 1:12), being enabled to have life (John 5:40; 20:31), being enabled to be children of light (John 12:36) or being the children of God (Gal. 3:26) are all synonyms to experiencing (or having experienced) the regeneration.

Okay. However, that’s not a defensible position. It is sort of like how, just above, you equated being regenerate with being saved. Like election or justification, adoption or becoming children of God is another one of those constituent elements of salvation (part of the ordo salutis).

David Lamb · Jan 21, 2026

John Bauer said:
Spurgeon was American but not a Puritan.

Assuming you are speaking of Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892), he certainly was not American. He was British, born in Kelvedon, Essex, England to English parents.

Jonnas · Jan 21, 2026

John Bauer said:
High-Calvinists affirm the indiscriminate proclamation of Christ to all sinners, upholding the public preaching of the gospel as the divinely appointed means by which the elect are effectually called.

It looks like moderate Calvinism to me. Do you see a difference between moderate Calvinism and High-Calvinism? If I remember correctly, Spurgeon reported interactions with Calvinists that fit your description for Hyper-Calvinism but he named them High-Calvinists or people higher on doctrine. Has your definition a consensus among moderate Calvinists (I assume that Hyper-Calvinists don't call themselves that way).

John Bauer said:
I don’t think that is a more fair description of your intent (“to be fair”) so much as a substantially different intent. According to your thread title and opening post—not to mention the fact that you posted this in the Semper Reformanda forum—the stated co between the “Calvinism of today versus puritanical Calvinism.” That is a very particular subset of Christianity.

I wanted to assess how much the Calvinism movement followed the general trend in Christianity in having less fear of God, sorry if I didn't express my motivation well!

John Bauer said:
Sorry, he thinks Calvinists should not see what the same anymore?

Whether a Christian should care about the seriousness of the warnings in Heb. 6 and 10 the way the Puritans did. I however don't know his interpretation on these passages, whether he discards them completely or only lessen their severity. Or maybe he meant that Calvinists today believed the same but their focus on these warnings is smaller (possibly just doing some lip service)? Sorry that I haven't anything precise to tell.

John Bauer said:
It sounds like you are contrasting “awakened” with “born again.” What do those mean to you? Is regeneration either of those things?

An awakened sinner is not born again. He is only aware of his lost condition and of his need to find salvation in Jesus. I didn't invent this term, maybe that was the language of Spurgeon. I don't know exactly where I found it.

John Bauer said:
Hebrews 6 serves as an “everlasting” caution in the sense that such warnings (a) produce humility, self-examination, and prayerful dependence in believers, and (b) are a dire call to repentance for unbelievers (remembering that these warnings are addressed to the visible church, which is constituted by both).

I agree with (a) but not completely with (b), because among the believers there are those who have received the Word of God but they are the stony and thorny grounds of the Parable of the Sower but they may not know yet. Therefore everyone needs this warning to watch out for himself. For me an unbeliever belongs to the outside world. He is in no danger to leaving the way of righteousness (see 2.Pet. 2:15+21) for the simple reason that he never entered it!

John Bauer said:
The ideal is to remain Christ-centered and gospel-driven and to minimize the law’s accusatory presence (lex semper accusat) in the mature believer’s ongoing experience.

I don't think it would be a good think because the greatest danger for a believer is pride. Even Paul needed a thorn in the flesh to prevent the pride in him. The law is a good instrument to help us keep humble and it will help us remember the grace of Christ.

John Bauer said:
Then you accidentally understood me, for we both notice the same thing. The only thing I meant by “experiential and covenantal” (rather than ontological) is to underscore that these people are said to “partake” of the Holy Spirit in the visible church, but not indwelt and transformed.

Thanks for the insight!

John Bauer said:
If he said Calvinists believe and teach x, then he needs to show both who and where. Since he he did not, he failed to give anyone any reason to believe him. So, don’t believe him.

Then I will follow your good advice!

[To be continued]

John Bauer · Jan 21, 2026

David Lamb said:
Assuming you are speaking of Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892), he certainly was not American. He was British, born in Kelvedon, Essex, England to English parents.

Weird. For some reason, I had it vividly clear in my mind that he was an American preacher—in New York, even. I wonder where I got that impression from, or why it was so strong it felt like a memory. But thanks for the catch.

Jonnas · Jan 22, 2026

John Bauer said:
He definitely can have some “interesting” analyses, for he is a Pelagian heretic. I would strongly advise caution regarding his Soteriology 101 website and resources.

Before I will come to a conclusion whether this man is an heretic or not, I will apply the same advice you suggested me and not assume that the assertion of someone in a matter is true, unless I see the evidence.

John Bauer said:
Okay, but tell me why you disagree. The quoted material you included—from C. H. Spurgeon’s Autobiography: Volume 2 – The Full Harvest, 1854–1860 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1899)—did not address the relationship of regeneration and faith.

I was challenging the part of your statement that I might have "misunderstood (...) Spurgeon generally". So it is not about an opinion of Spurgeon about a specific point of doctrine, but his core message that according to your statement I may have misunderstood. The quoted material shows the core message of Spurgeon and I believe that I demonstrated that I have understood it.

John Bauer said:
So, on what basis do you believe Spurgeon later “changed his opinion,” that he once believed faith preceded regeneration? I proved my claim by referring you to his clearest sermon on that question. That is what I am seeking from you, a clear statement from Spurgeon where he asserted the opposite view—because I have serious doubts that such a thing exists

I believe that I have demonstrated that Spurgeon expressed a different view in the first sermon than in the second, and I don't know what I could say to add.

John Bauer said:
There is a kind of equation between the two, in that there is no such thing as a regenerate person who is not saved, just as there is no such thing as an elect person who is not saved.

Yes, but I think that you have distracted yourself from the point I made. The point I made was that if Spurgeon in the first sermon affirmed that faith is what causes salvation, and salvation equates with the regeneration (here I don't mean that they are the same thing but I am talking about the timeline), then he indirectly affirmed, that faith caused the regeneration and not the other way arround.

Moreover, an elect person may not be saved yet (he may even not exist yet), but he will eventually. As our discussion is about the timing of the things related to salvation, I think this is an remark to be made.

John Bauer said:
You need to study the ordo salutis and come to the realization that things like election, effectual calling, regeneration, conversion, etc., all pertain to salvation but are not identical with salvation. They are each distinct elements of salvation.

I indeed understand that there are distinct elements of salvation, who are not necessarily happening simultaneously and have some dependences toward another, with the election being the first in time, as it happened before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4).

John Bauer said:
Regeneration is not believing

I don't deny that fact.

John Bauer said:
[regeneration] is the condition in which believing is made possible, indeed inevitable.

I see the opposite in the Bible, as I have already told.

John Bauer said:
The Wicket Gate came before the place of deliverance.

It doesn't make sense to me in the allegory that there was some way to walk for Christian and experiences to be made between the 2 events, but the Wicket Gate may very well relate to faith and the deliverance to the regeneration, and not the other way around, for it is at the deliverance that Christian receives his new clothes and gifts. In the allegory is then first the faith and then the regeneration.

John Bauer said:
Your conclusion is in error. The teaching that regeneration precedes faith is truly essential to Calvinism. When the first Arminians (the Remonstrants) drafted their five points of disagreement with Reformed soteriology—which is how we got the five points of Calvinism, by the way—the continental Reformed churches convened an international synod in Dort (1618–1619) to address their disputed doctrines. The result of that synod was the Canons of Dort, in which it is clearly stated that regeneration precedes faith (Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine, arts. 12 and 14). You will find it in many of the Reformed confessional standards: Belgic Confession (1561), Heidelberg Catechism (1563), Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), Savoy Declaration (1658), London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), etc.

If you quote me where such confessions affirm that regeneration precedes faith then I will consider the question for settled, whether this is an essential teaching of Calvinism. If this teaching is true would be however a different question. Whether all Calvinists agree 100℅ with every point of their confession of faith is also a different question.

John Bauer said:
Okay. However, that’s not a defensible position.

That's a vague statement which doesn't show why it shouldn't be a defensible position.

John Bauer said:
It is sort of like how, just above, you equated being regenerate with being saved. Like election or justification, adoption or becoming children of God is another one of those constituent elements of salvation (part of the ordo salutis).

I didn't mean that regeneration is the same thing as salvation. It is part of it, as you wrote. The statement I wanted to make is about the timeline: the salvation has occurred when the regeneration has occurred, which statement was implied by Spurgeon in his first sermon. So the equation is in the timeline, not in the nature of the 2 things.

ladodgers6 · Friday at 3:19 AM

Jonnas said:
Hello,

I am reading books from the Puritans and from Spurgeon, and it seems to me that their Calvinism was different than the mainstream Calvinism of today. In my opinion, their Calvinism was more faithful to the Scriptures, while today's Calvinism drifted toward Hyper-Calvinism. Is it also your impression? Or do you evaluate otherwise the differences?

Here are some concrete examples that lead me to think as I think:

1) I have heard many Non-Calvinist preachers who believe that once we are saved, we are always saved. When they speak about the serious warnings that are in Heb. 6 or 10, in some rare instances they will humbly admit that they don't know how the warnings fit their Theology, but most of the time they will give some strange interpretation, so that the hearer won't know what to think, having already heard from people with the same Theology many contradicting interpretations of the same text (I can remember 4 or 5 of them(!)) that have nothing in common, save the obvious goal to either annul or downplay the Word of God where it is unpleasant.

This was obviously not the mindset of John Bunyan as he wrote his Pilgrim's Progress, which is a biblical description of the christian life in the form of an allegory of a pilgrimage. In the story, as Christian entered in the house of the Interpreter, he saw things that should encourage and warn him for his further pilgrimage. One of the things was a man locked in an “Iron cage of Despair”, waiting for the “fearful Threatnings of certain Judgment und fiery Indignation, which shall devour [him] as an Adversary” and for eternal Misery, because as he said: “I have crucified [Jesus] to myself afresh” (Heb 6.6). “This man's Misery” was to be “an everlasting Caution” to Christian for his further pilgrimage.

As far as I know, the Puritans understood that such texts as Heb. 6 or 10 have no loophole to make their serious warnings either not directed to true believers or less serious. And they had too great a respect for the Scriptures to intentionally twist them to make them fit their Theology. They still believed that when real grace is working in the heart of someone, he has real faith and he will persevere to the end; however they also viewed the serious warnings as means for God to cause a godly fear in the heart of the real believers so that they won't commit such a terrible sin but will persevere until the end.

However, I heard that the Calvinists today don't take such warnings seriously, and that makes me fear that they don't have the same respect of the Scriptures as the Puritans once had.

2) According to the Calvinism of today, new birth should precede faith (see e.g.: Does Regeneration Precede Faith?), although the former Calvinists didn't held such a belief. The Calvinists of today would even have been considered to be Hyper-Calvinists at an earlier time, because here is what Spurgeon has to say on the matter (The Spurgeon Library | The Warrant of Faith):

I also checked the Matthew Henry's Bible Commentary for verses like John 1:12; 5:40; 12:36; 20:31 and Gal. 3.26 and it aknowledges the anteriority of the faith to the new birth in no uncertain terms, as it is plainly exposed in these verses.

This again makes me fear that the Calvinists of today have lost some of the reverence of the Scriptures that the earlier Calvinists had!

What caused the modern Calvinists to reject the view of the Puritans on the warnings of Heb 6 & 10 and on the relationship between faith and new birth as expressed in the above verses, although such views were compatible with Calvinism, the proof being that the Puritans were Calvinists themselves?

If I may add, I don't know how many times I have encountered straw-man & caricatures. For example OSAS is a misrepresentation of Classical Calvinism. Because the people who bring this up either do not know or just look-up third party sites. Instead of doing their own home work.

Mainstream so-called Calvinism or 2 point, 3 point Calvinists which are not Calvinists in my book. Try to sum up Calvinism with the Tulip. TULIP does not encompass all of Calvinism. The TULIP was a response to the 5 points of Remonstrance.

Charles Spurgeon believe in and taught Covenant of Redemption or Covenant of Grace. God's Plan to redeem his people from their sins. God made an Oath, a Promise, a Covenant where the elect will be his people and He will be their God.

Covenant of Grace is an eternal, secure, and divine treaty between the Father and Son, signed before time to ensure the salvation of the elect. He famously described it as the "Magna Charta of the saints," a firm, immutable foundation for believers' hope, focusing heavily on God's sovereignty, Christ's substitutionary work, and unconditional grace.

It is Christ who finishes it at the Cross for the sheep! This is the good news fore the ungodly who trust and believe in God who justifies the ungodly and counts their faith as righteousness. All of this is God's doing; it's all by His Grace and Mercy!

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Calvinism of today versus puritanical Calvinism

Active Member

Reformed

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Reformed

Reformed

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Reformed

Active Member

Know what you believe and why you believe it

Similar threads