A Brief Critique of Hyper-Calvinism

A Puritan's Mind ^ | C. Matthew McMahon

[P-Marlowe]

General discussion. Keep it Civil.

[lockeliberty]

. They simply do not understand how to reconcile the Sovereignty of God and the human responsibility of man. That is why Hyper-Calvinism exists. (In essence, that is why Arminianism exists as well!)

This is the crux of the issue. How do we find that area that exists between deism on the one hand and determinism on the other?

[P-Marlowe]

This is the crux of the issue. How do we find that area that exists between deism on the one hand and determinism on the other?

I think the article makes it clear that the area you speak of is not ours to find. "They desire to tread where theological license has not officiated them to travel. I suppose, then, we could say with the proverb, "Curiosity killed the cat." For Hyper-Calvinism, unwarranted curiosity in the decrees and counsel of God has caused them to enter a realm where God has not revealed Himself."

I think a big problem I have seen on these threads is that there are those who think they know that area like the back of their hands. (Both Calvinists and Arminians). They have it all mapped out. They know all the roads. Or so they think.

[lockeliberty]

I think a big problem I have seen on these threads is that there are those who think they know that area like the back of their hands. (Both Calvinists and Arminians). They have it all mapped out. They know all the roads. Or so they think.

Amen to that!

I grew up around the Protestant Reformed Church, which was an offshoot of the denomination that I attended. Unfortunately, I see many calvinists on these threads heading in that direction, denying common grace, wanting to quote from Engelsma, all in an attempt to stake out their position instead of trying to glorify God.

[P-Marlowe]

I have often said that I am a Calvinist in the tradition of J. Vernon McGee and Ray Stedman and I am an Arminian in the tradition of Billy Graham, Chuck Smith and Greg Laurie.

[P-Marlowe]

Is it me, or are some of our local "Calvinists" really "Hyper-Calvinists?"

Inquiring Minds want to know.

Bump.

[CCWoody]

As the saying goes, "Hyper-Calvinism is a house with no doors, while Arminianism is all doors but no house."

You may find this interesting: in actual movement of beliefs, Arminianism is very close to hyper-Calvinism. Every single former hyper-Calvinist in my church is now a rather vocal Arminian, to the point of declaring that unless God gives every single person an opportunity to be saved whether they actually ever believe in Jesus or not then He is an unfair God. Notice, that God must be fair by today's American welfare standard. You will not find this standard of fair anywhere except here in America.

[CCWoody]

Is it me, or are some of our local "Calvinists" really "Hyper-Calvinists?"

Actually, PM, it is more conceivable that many of the Arminians on this thread are rather hyper-Calvinistic in that they never ever share the gospel with the lost on these threads nor do they warn them nor can they even properly name the gospel (5 words BTW) or express the gospel (exactly 3 words BTW) much less actually preach the gospel.

You will find, though, that the Calvinist on these threads are very vocal in their comminication to the lost.

[Revelation 911]

And I like how it is not Calvinism we believe, but hyper-Calvinism, a term which you have been asked to define, but never ever have.

I stated :I will however rephrase it. HYPER Calvinists are animals, (my apologies to rational Calvinists, rhesus monkeys, small crawly things and Lorraine B.) I assume you are a "regular" calvinist.

Now you say you are a "hyper" - Geesh - I cant keep up with you, silly goose

I direct you here, to this thread for a reasonable definition

[Jerry_M]

"Is it me, or are some of our local "Calvinists" really "Hyper-Calvinists?""

I haven't met one yet. The FreeRepublic Calvinists have proclaimed that the Gospel is to be preached to all, and that every man, everywhere is required to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. However, we recognize that only the elect will actually repent and believe. The fact that our non-Calvinist detractors have concluded that we cannot believe the first part of the equation due to the fact that we believe the second part of the equation doesn't change the equation.

[CCWoody]

Well, name the Hyper-Calvinists here that have injured you? Name them!

[P-Marlowe]

I recently asked one of your "Calvinist" people whether or not God loves only the elect (and HATES everyone else)? I was answered with the "Jacob I loved and Esau I hated" verse. I then asked them whether or not they loved their lost and departed freinds and relatives more than God did, and whether God could possibly send someone he "loved" to hell, and that person refused to answer.

This article says that God loves EVERYONE, elect and unelect. And that God also HATES the sinful state of everyone elect and unelect. Gee I agree. What 's wrong with this picture? Is the author wrong?

So if you think God loves only the elect, then according to this author you are a Hypercalvinist. I have often quoted J. Vernon McGee as someone I agree with almost all the time. I have been told by members of the Calvinist clique here that J. Vernon McGee is not a "real" Calvinist, but some kind of Calmanian. However McGee is listed on several Calvinist sites as an example of a "famous" Calvinist along with Spurgeon and John MacArthur.

My objections to Calvinism are mostly in regard to the things I see are listed here as examples of Hyper-Calvinism. So what is it? Are you guys in agreement with the author here? Or is the author some kind of heretic like me?

[Woodkirk]

I don't get the regeneration before salvation. Scripture teaches that we accept the Gospel "by faith" -- in other words, without knowing and understanding and having everything spelled out for us in advance. Faith precedes understanding not vice versa.

That God works in our lives before salvation is evidenced by God's dealing with Jacob to wrestle him into submission. It is the goodness of God which leads men to repentance in hopes of bringing them to a place of a change of heart. That leading is not regeneration and in many cases that leading is ignored and rejected and salvation never received.

[xzins]

By this man's definition, the calvinists you frequently ping are hyper-calvinists. One mark mentioned above is the belief that regeneration precedes faith and repentance (or words to that effect.)

I don't think that the so-called witnessing that takes place on these threads when an occasional lurker wanders onto a thread can be proof that one is not a hyper-Calvinist, given that not witnessing is not the definition of hyper-Calvinism. (As you say, some witness just because of a command to do so.) Besides, to me, most of the so-called witnessing appears to be constant, unloving browbeating, verbal/emotional abuse, and ridicule.

[CCWoody]

So if you think God loves only the elect, then according to this author you are a Hypercalvinist. I have often quoted J. Vernon McGee as someone I agree with almost all the time. I have been told by members of the Calvinist clique here that J. Vernon McGee is not a "real" Calvinist, but some kind of Calmanian. However McGee is listed on several Calvinist sites as an example of a "famous" Calvinist along with Spurgeon and John MacArthur.

Well, I have never said that God only loves the elect. In fact, I have actually said the opposite:

• 1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
• 1 John 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
• John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him sould not perish bu have everlasting life.

However, you have the problem of explaining just exactly how God loves somebody whom He knowingly never gives enough grace to believe in a saving way given your fundamental beliefs.

And I have also, if you would understand my posts, stated that God also hates us when we are in Adam as the article points out. From my meditations from the 1st:

• Psalm 5:5 The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity.

My objections to Calvinism are mostly in regard to the things I see are listed here as examples of Hyper-Calvinism. So what is it? Are you guys in agreement with the author here? Or is the author some kind of heretic like me?

Actually, I'm still digesting the article. Believe it or not, but much of it also applies to Arminianism as well. Go figure!

[winstonchurchill]

An excellent article. I am not at all sure I see a hairs-breadth difference between what the author calls "hyper-Calvinists" and the the FR "Calvinists". They certainly seem to preach and demand conformity to the same theological construct.

I suppose the question I would have for the author is "What is the significance of the modifier "hyper"? That is, how does his understanding of the 'historic' "Calvinisim" differ from the 'hyper' brand he identifies (and which appears to flourish here)? I suppose one would have to buy his 330-page book to find out.

I checked out his site and he claims to believe in the TULIP, so it sounds like he is smart enough to blur some of the outragiousness of the contentions of the local "Calvinists" without affecting his ability to support the TULIP. Who knows.

Since the thrust of this article is what he does not believe, what do you know about what he does assert?

[drstevej]

Me and J. Vernon are/were (J. Vernon's with the Lord) moderate or if you prefer inconsistent Calvinists, in that we believe in Limited Attainment rather than Limited Atonement.

You may call us "No-L" Calvinists. :))

BTW, the term "hyper" usually means "more than me" and also "what I perceive to be extreme."

[CCWoody]

An excellent article. I am not at all sure I see a hairs-breadth difference between what the author calls "hyper-Calvinists" and the the FR "Calvinists".

Actually, I cannot even see a hair's breadth of difference between the Hyper-Calvinist and the FR Arminians as far as the actual application of their doctrine.

• The hyper-Calvinist denies the Free Offer of the gospel; the FR Arminian denies to preach the gospel as a Free Offer.
• Like the hyper-Calvinist, the FR Arminian really does not understand the gospel: he cannot name it nor can he express it nor can he preach it.

[vmatt]

I have often said that I am a Calvinist in the tradition of J. Vernon McGee and Ray Stedman and I am an Arminian in the tradition of Billy Graham, Chuck Smith and Greg Laurie.

1 Corinthians 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

[P-Marlowe]

However, you have the problem of explaining just exactly how God loves somebody whom He knowingly never gives enough grace to believe in a saving way given your fundamental beliefs.

I don't have that problem. You have that problem! I don't believe that God knowingly never gives enough grace to believe in a "saving way."