hyper-calvinism?

[Rhamiel]

what is the differance between calvinism and hyper-calvinism?
to me they look the same, except that the hyper-calvinists are a little more bold about it
hyper-calvinism seems to be the logical end of calvinism,

 

[AMR]

Here is a decent primer on the topic:

A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism

And, no, hyper-calvinism is not the logical end of the doctrines of grace.

AMR

 

[Anoetos]

Hyper-Calvinism is a historical term which describes those Calvinists who deny that the non-elect have any duty to believe the Gospel.

It seems like a small idea but there are enormous consequences.

These folks often have very distinct ideas about how the Gospel ought to be conveyed, usually rejecting the "warm offer". Additionally, there can be resistance to missions.

Unfortunately, anti-calvinists have recently gotten into the habit of describing mere belief in the five points as "hyper-calvinism" which, of course, it is not.

 

[mlqurgw]

Here is a decent primer on the topic:

A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism

And, no, hyper-calvinism is not the logical end of the doctrines of grace.

AMR

Well I guess according to the article I am still a Hyper. NOT! The question of Hyper-calvinism isn't one of free offer and commen grace but one of the Gospel. I was raised a true Hyper and rejected it years ago. I do not believe in so-called common grace or in duty faith but am not even close to being hyper. A Hyper-Calvinist does not believe in preaching the Gospel. A hyper holds to the idea that God saves His elect apart from the preaching of the Gospel. They believe that the elect are saved whether they hear and believe or not. They are saved simply because they are elect.

Because of the controversy over duty faith and the free offer many who hold to one side seek to paint all who oppose them as hyper in order to discredit them. I believe it is our duty to preach the Gospel to all in sincerity but God does not offer salvation to anyone. He gives it to whom He pleases and brings them to faith in Christ by the preaching of the Gospel. I can truly and with a sincere heart proclaim the Gospel to all and tell them of Christ hoping that they can believe but I cannot dishonor the truth of God and tell sinners that God offers them salvation if they will only believe. The article is a straw man built to discredit those who do not hold to duty faith and the free offer and is a false representation of truth. I have lost all respect for Phil because of this.

 

[mlqurgw]

Hyper-Calvinism is a historical term which describes those Calvinists who deny that the non-elect have any duty to believe the Gospel.

It seems like a small idea but there are enormous consequences.

These folks often have very distinct ideas about how the Gospel ought to be conveyed, usually rejecting the "warm offer". Additionally, there can be resistance to missions.

Unfortunately, anti-calvinists have recently gotten into the habit of describing mere belief in the five points as "hyper-calvinism" which, of course, it is not.

I deny duty faith but am not a Hyper. See my response above.

 

[Anoetos]

mlg,

Unfortunately, your rejection of common grace and duty faith defines you as at least quasi-hypercalvinistic, and, frankly, I think you should just own it.

 

[mlqurgw]

what is the differance between calvinism and hyper-calvinism?
to me they look the same, except that the hyper-calvinists are a little more bold about it
hyper-calvinism seems to be the logical end of calvinism,

In the broadest sense Calvinism is belief in what are known as the Doctrines of Grace or TULIP. There are many varieties among those who hold these truths. You can almost find as many differences in what Calvinists believe generally concerning all other doctrines as you can Calvinists. But all have at least these truths in common.

Hyper-Calvinists are those who do not belive in the preaching of the Gospel. They preach sentimental temporal salvation but not a saving trust in Christ alone.
The Hyper-Calvinist believes that God saves His elect simply because they are elect without the need to hear and believe in Christ. They believe that the most isolated and cut-off tribe of humans could have an elect sinner who is saved and is so not because he hears the Gospel of Christ and believes but because God chose to save him. He may never hear of Christ and still is saved. Hyper-Calvinism is utter heresey and without foundation in the Scriptures.

 

[mlqurgw]

mlg,

Unfortunately, your rejection of common grace and duty faith defines you as at least quasi-hypercalvinistic, and, frankly, I think you should just own it.

I don't need to own something that is untrue. I have no problem with you or anyone else calling me whatever you wish, I have been called many things, but if it ain't true it ain't true. I am not defending myself or what I believe but trying to actually explain what the difference is and how the name is being misused. You can think me a hyper if you wish. I do not stand and answer to men but to Christ. I am more than willing to let Him be my judge.

 

[Anoetos]

I don't think I put that right. It sounded like I was accusing you of something and I regret that. It wasn't my intention.

Classical Reformed theology, in both the Continental and English traditions, accepts the doctrine of common grace, properly understood, the duty of the reprobate to believe the Gospel, though they will not (note that I did not say that they can not) and the propriety of the warm offer of the Gospel (which does not mean pretending that the non-elect can be saved).

Non-acceptance of these does not necessarily make one a heretic, but it does make one something other than entirely orthodox in ones acceptance of Reformed theology. Additionally, by historical definition, it means that one is, at least on these points, hyper-calvinistic, however orthodox one may be on others.

It just means that you, like all of us, are still reforming and still in need of correction and discipline.

 

[mlqurgw]

I don't think I put that right. It sounded like I was accusing you of something and I regret that. It wasn't my intention.

Classical Reformed theology, in both the Continental and English traditions, accepts the doctrine of common grace, properly understood, the duty of the reprobate to believe the Gospel, though they will not (note that I did not say that they can not) and the propriety of the warm offer of the Gospel (which does not mean pretending that the non-elect can be saved).

Non-acceptance of these does not necessarily make one a heretic, but it does make one something other than entirely orthodox in ones acceptance of Reformed theology. Additionally, by historical definition, it means that one is, at least on these points, hyper-calvinistic, however orthodox one may be on others.

It just means that you, like all of us, are still reforming and still in need of correction and discipline.

There are several things in Reformed orthodoxy that I do not agree with but that is OK. I didn't take offense at your post as I have a very thick skin developed from speaking my mind on doctrinal truth over a long period of years. I understand the reasoning behind the free offer, or warm offer as you put it, but do not think it is Biblical. I hold no hard feelings toward you and look forward to future conversations.

 

[Ryft]

Classical Reformed theology, in both the Continental and English traditions, accepts the doctrine of common grace, properly understood, the duty of the reprobate to believe the Gospel, though they will not (note that I did not say that they can not) and the propriety of the warm offer of the Gospel (which does not mean pretending that the non-elect can be saved).

I really appreciate how Arthur Pink stated the matter: "We say again that the above distinction between the natural ability and the moral and spiritual inability of the sinner is of prime importance. By nature he possesses natural ability but lacks moral and spiritual ability. The fact that he does not possess the latter does not destroy his responsibility, because his responsibility rests upon the fact that he does possess the former. [...] Here then is the ground of human accountability—the possession of rationality plus the gift of conscience. It is because the sinner is endowed with these natural faculties that he is a responsible creature; [that] he does not use his natural powers for God's glory constitutes guilt" (The Sovereignty of God, pg. 96).

As Mitch Cervinka put it, "[Fallen man] could obey God’s law if he desired to do so. He could trust in Christ if he had any love for God. Man is guilty for the simple reason that, in his sinful rebellion, he refuses to do that which he has the full mental and physical ability to do. His problem is a moral and spiritual problem: he is a sinner at heart, who has no desire for God or godliness" (How Free is the Will?).

 

[heymikey80]

Here's another thread pointing out the radicalization of hypercalvinism:

Justification is by Christ Alone not Faith alone !

I've normally found that non-Calvinists can't tell the difference, because they've assumed Calvinists are hypercalvinists. The consistency argument doesn't really hold. When you actually distinguish one from the other, it's awfully easy to tell why Calvinism doesn't logically extend to hypercalvinism.

Calvinism reveals a larger break that God establishes between the saved and the unsaved. Many hypercalvinisms actually close that break by saying the reprobate and elect are chosen the same way.

 

[1611AV]

Seems like basically the same thing. Election. Altho I strongly disagree with both positions. Hypothetically if one was true I would have to side with the Hyper-Calvinists. If God is going to elect a sinner, why not elect any sinner, wether they believe or not, have faith or don't. what's the difference when your forcing people to Love you and have "faith" in you. It's like a computer programmer making his favorite robots follow him and his least favorites go in the opposite direction. When in reality neither really knows what they are doing because they where programed that way.

If you think of it both sets of robots are obeying the programmers commands and are equally obedient.

 

[Hammster]

Seems like basically the same thing. Election. Altho I strongly disagree with both positions. Hypothetically if one was true I would have to side with the Hyper-Calvinists. If God is going to elect a sinner, why not elect any sinner, wether they believe or not, have faith or don't. what's the difference when your forcing people to Love you and have "faith" in you. It's like a computer programmer making his favorite robots follow him and his least favorites go in the opposite direction. When in reality neither really knows what they are doing because they where programed that way.

If you think of it both sets of robots are obeying the programmers commands and are equally obedient.

If you look at it from the viewpoint that all are deserving condemnation, and that God, in His mercy, chooses to save some (out of no obligation to do so), then I don't see where the robot analogy comes in to play. When God gives a person a new heart, ala Ezekiel 36, and causes them to be born again, they believe willingly, not as robots. That wouldn't be love on our part. But with a new heart, to do otherwise would just be insane. Yes, we would have a choice, but there would have to be some basis for that choice to leave, or not to believe.

John 6
66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

That is where we, as believers, are. Simon and the others stayed because they had no other place to go because they had been shown the truth. Nothing robotic about that.

 

[1611AV]

If you look at it from the viewpoint that all are deserving condemnation, and that God, in His mercy, chooses to save some (out of no obligation to do so), then I don't see where the robot analogy comes in to play. When God gives a person a new heart, ala Ezekiel 36, and causes them to be born again, they believe willingly, not as robots. That wouldn't be love on our part. But with a new heart, to do otherwise would just be insane. Yes, we would have a choice, but there would have to be some basis for that choice to leave, or not to believe.

John 6
66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

That is where we, as believers, are. Simon and the others stayed because they had no other place to go because they had been shown the truth. Nothing robotic about that.

I agree all deserve condemnation, and look at it from that viewpoint. But the reason they deserve condemnation is because of the offence of one which came upon all men. Even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification.

Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

If we are to say that all deserve condemnation then we must also say that all, by the Righteousness of Jesus have access to the free gift of Salvation.

 

[Hammster]

I agree all deserve condemnation, and look at it from that viewpoint. But the reason they deserve condemnation is because of the offence of one which came upon all men. Even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification.

Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

If we are to say that all deserve condemnation then we must also say that all, by the Righteousness of Jesus have access to the free gift of Salvation.

Why do all deserve to have access to the free gift? In the verse you quoted, it not only says that the free gift came upon all men (I really don't need the "all" bolded. It doesn't make your case any more compelling), but that it came unto the justification of life. So in using the verse in the manner that you used it (out of context, no less), you are actually arguing for universalism. I am sure you aren't a universalist. But that is what happens when you try to have an all inclusive 'all'. More than likely, Paul is saying that for those whom Adam is the head (all of us), all are condemned. And all whom Jesus is the head (the elect), all receive the free gift of justification of life.

 

[1611AV]

Why do all deserve to have access to the free gift? In the verse you quoted, it not only says that the free gift came upon all men (I really don't need the "all" bolded. It doesn't make your case any more compelling), but that it came unto the justification of life. So in using the verse in the manner that you used it (out of context, no less), you are actually arguing for universalism. I am sure you aren't a universalist. But that is what happens when you try to have an all inclusive 'all'. More than likely, Paul is saying that for those whom Adam is the head (all of us), all are condemned. And all whom Jesus is the head (the elect), all receive the free gift of justification of life.

I did not say all men deserve access to the free gift. I said all have access of the free gift. (See this is why i need to bold the words in the verse) And because you say I used the verse "out of context" does not prove that I did.

I am not a universalists. And I did not try to use the "all inclusive all", God did. I stated the verse exactly as it is in the Bible. But, you had to corrupt the words that I used and also had to add to them to fit your position. ie; (all of us) and (the elect) are not mentioned in the verse.
This is why you have to use the term "more than likely"

 

[Hammster]

I did not say all men deserve access to the free gift. I said all have access of the free gift. (See this is why i need to bold the words in the verse) And because you say I used the verse "out of context" does not prove that I did.

I know you didn't say deserve, but if you are going to use an if/then statement, they should be equal. You can't just say it and make it so. Or, try demonstrating that if man sins and deserves punishment then he should have access to the gift.

I am not a universalists.

I never said you were.

And I did not try to use the "all inclusive all", God did.

No, He didn't. That is your interpretation. You have yet to prove your assertion.

I stated the verse exactly as it is in the Bible. But, you had to corrupt the words that I used and also had to add to them to fit your position. ie; (all of us) and (the elect) are not mentioned in the verse.
This is why you have to use the term "more than likely"

No, I didn't corrupt it. I was giving an interpretation based on the verse in context. You, like most synergists, find these singular verses and try to make a whole doctrine out them. When you look at the passage as a whole, you cannot maintain that view.

 

[JM]

You can see a few definitions given on the link but this is the one for Hyper-Calvinism from the Calvinism Chart:

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. [end quote]

​

 

[Shulamite]

Whether Hyper-calvinist or just calvinist... Jesus' words are clear to the Elect:

"Go into the world and preach the gospel to every creature."

I am the fragrance of Christ in every place and speak of the gospel because I love Jesus and He commanded me to.

I obey because I love Him. I don't obey because each person I preach the gospel to will accept. "The Lord knows those Who are His."

I go because He said go. When He sends us out to the non-elect to preach the Truth, He knows not all will accept because not all are the elect. Just as the Father sent Jesus, so He sends us. Yes, only those who are appointed to salvation will believe, but we go anyway. Why? To bear testimony to the truth. Jesus came into the world to bear testimony to the truth, so do we.

Just my 2 cents.../