Are you asking if I(we) agree with his definition of "Hyper-Calvinism"?
If so, then no. There are so many ~personal~ definitions of Hyper-Calvinism out there -each definition suiting the individual defining it.
For example, According to some individuals on your side of the aisle, a Hyper-Calvinist seems to be somebody who holds to the belief that God has pre-determined/fore-ordained ~ALL~ things that come to pass. I have pointed out time and time again that all the major and historical Calvinist confessions profess this very belief. John Calvin himself held to this belief. If a Hyper-Calvinist is one who believes that all things are pre-determined/fore-ordained by God, then all confessing Calvinists (including John Calvin himself) are Hyper-Calvinists. That's a bit ludicrous, don't you think.
While you might personally might think that the belief that God has pre-determined/fore-ordained all that comes to pass is an extreme view, it is quite a different thing to dishonestly claim that this belief is "Hyper-Calvinist".
On the other hand, I tend to stick with the ~CLASSICAL~ definition of Hyper-Calvinism succinctly summarized as the emphasis of God's sovereignty to the minimization man's responsibility.
Basic Calvinism has long held the belief that God has pre-determined/fore-ordained all that comes to pass yet at the very same time man ~FREELY~ makes his own choices and is fully responsible for his own actions. This is my belief as well.
Basic Calvinism sees man's responsibility written through out the Scriptures and sees God's complete sovereignty and control written through out the Scriptures. We accept both (sovereignty being understood as the freedom from outside influence) and we must simply accept it at face value.
In Genesis 45, Joseph explicitly credits God with the events that brought him to Egypt. He explicitly declares to his brothers, "It was not you who sent me here, but God”. In Genesis 50, Joseph tells his brothers, “And as for you, ye meant evil against me; but God meant it for good”
Joseph didn’t say that God “manipulated” the events. Joseph explicitly says that God “meant” it. The mystery is that, while the intentions and actions of his brothers were evil, the intentions and actions of God to bring about the very same events were good. As drstevej used to say, “Man’s responsibility and God’s sovereignty side by side without apology”.
The Hyper-Calvinist, on the other hand, needs to keep Scripture rational. The Hyper-Calvinist cannot accept mystery or paradox. So, what the Hyper-Calvinist does is minimize the responsibility of man. He keeps the sovereignty of God, but he reduces or removes man’s responsibility. This is a form of rationalism that is forced upon the Scriptures. It is a different, non-Reformed hermeneutic.
Arminians, on the other hand, also need to keep Scripture rational. The Arminian also cannot accept mystery or paradox. However, unlike the Hyper-Calvinist who minimizes the responsibility of man, the Arminian emphasizes the responsibility of man to the minimization of God’s sovereignty. This, too, is a form of rationalism that is forced upon the Scriptures. It is also a non-Reformed hermeneutic. I am told by the FR-minians that God “manipulates” things. But that is not what the Scriptures say. Genesis 50 explicitly lays the intentions of all that happened to Joseph on God himself. He “meant” what happened to Joseph –not “manipulated”.
What Calvinists do not do is take some preconceived notion of fairness or limited human reason and make Scripture in agreement with it. You do not see Calvinists suggesting that an offer can only be sincere only if man has the “actual ability”. If we come to Scripture insisting on that unsupported presupposition, then -like a cult- we will have to re-interpret what a passage clearly says. We, therefore, would be unable to take those Genesis passages at their face value.
The Westminster Confession sums it up quite nicely:
Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.
WCF V.II
God is the “first Cause” of all things that come to pass and our free decisions, free choices and free actions are “secondary causes”.
I think the beliefs that you list in your post are attempts by the author to give examples of beliefs that result when one “emphasizes the God’s sovereignty to the minimization of man’s responsibility”.
In the first example, I do not know of any Calvinist or Hyper-Calvinist who would claim that God is actually the author of sin. I suppose there might be some out there, but it is not a common belief if it is even believed at all.
Likewise, it is entirely possible that a Hyper-Calvinist could hold to some of the beliefs stated, but not to any of the other beliefs stated.
Philip Johnson’s expanded definition of Hyper-Calvinism does much the same thing. He succinctly defines Hyper-Calvinism as I have done, but then he goes beyond that and offers what he thinks Hyper-Calvinists belief.
The problem with that is the original succinct definition is just fine. The expanded definitions are simply possible ways in which the succinct definition works out into a Hyper-Calvinist’s theology.
Notice in Johnson’s expanded definition any one of the definitions supplied accurately define a Hyper-Calvinist. A hyper-Calvinist need not hold ~all~ of his definitions.
The problem with that is this allows an Arminian to distort a Calvinists position and then claim he is a Hyper-Calvinist.
In the example of the doctrine of God’s Decree stated above (I had a purpose in my long winded answer, you know), many Arminians –including many FR-minians falsely accuse Calvinists of believing that God has authored sin due to their belief that God has pre-determined/fore-ordained all that comes to pass. They then point to Johnson’s definition and call us Hyper-Calvinists. The problem is, as I have stated above, all confessional Calvinists –including John Calvin himself- held to the very same doctrine of God’s Decree and none of them believe that God is the author of sin and evil.
This simply comes full circle by allowing Arminians and other non-Calvinists to falsely accuse ~ALL~ Calvinists of being Hyper-Calvinists.
Back to your question. Are you asking if we hold to any of what he calls "destructive beliefs"?
If that is your question, no. I do not hold to any of those, nor do any of the other GRPL members or other Calvinists here on FR.
Jean
If so, then no. There are so many ~personal~ definitions of Hyper-Calvinism out there -each definition suiting the individual defining it.
That is a fair statement.