Hyper-Calvinism

Hyper-Calvinism is a pejorative term referring to a denial of the free offer of the gospel and duty-faith. The term "Hyper-Calvinism" is used in the writings of Iain Murray, Curt Daniel, Peter Toon and others who seek to defend the free offer of the gospel as well as duty faith.

The controversy over the free offer and duty-faith historically arose from within the Calvinist tradition among the early English Particular Baptists in the mid 18th century. It can be seen in the teachings of men like Joseph Hussey (d. 1726), John Skepp (d. 1721), Lewis Wayman (d. 1764), John Brine (d. 1765), William Gadsby (d. 1844) and John Gill (d. 1771). It became widespread among the English Particular Baptists of that day, though some Particular Baptists disagreed with the views of Wayman, Skepp, and Brine.

Opposition to duty-faith and the free offer had a large influence among the particular baptist denominations during the 18th and 19th centuries. In more modern times, these views have been preserved among the Gospel Standard or Strict Baptists churches and certain Primitive Baptist churches. Today, the doctrine of the free offer is denied by the Protestant Reformed Churches in America though they continue to teach duty-faith.

Definition

Peter Toon notes that the expression "Hyper-Calvinism" came to be generally used in the 19th century. "The terms ‘False Calvinism’ and ‘High Calvinism’ were used in the latter part of the 18th century to describe what we have described as ‘Hyper-Calvinism’. It was only in the 19th century that the expression Hyper-Calvinism came to be generally used to describe the same doctrinal system which some people in the 18th century called High Calvinism."

Some writers define Hyper-Calvinism as a denial of the need or desirability to present a universal call to repent and believe the gospel. Other writers describe it in terms of emphasis.

Denial of a universal call to repent and believe the gospel

Iain Murray
"Hyper-Calvinism in its attempt to square all truth with God's purpose to save the elect, denies that there is a universal command to repent and believe, and asserts that we have only warrant to invite to Christ those who are conscious of a sense of sin and need. In other words, it is those who have been spiritually quickened to seek a Saviour and not those who are in the death of unbelief and indifference, to whom the exhortations of the Gospel must be addressed. In this way a scheme was devised for restricting the Gospel to those who there is reason to suppose are elect."

David Engelsma
"Hyper-Calvinism is the denial that God in the preaching of the gospel calls everyone who hears the preaching to repent and believe. It is the denial that the church should call everyone in the preaching. It is the denial that the unregenerated have a duty to repent and believe. It manifests itself in the practice of the preacher’s addressing the call of the gospel, "repent and believe on Christ crucified," only to those in his audience who show signs of regeneration and, thereby, of election, namely, some conviction of sin and some interest in salvation."

Peter Toon
Peter Toon states that Hyper-Calvinism "made no distinction between the secret and revealed will of God, and tried to deduce the duty of men from what it taught concerning the secret, eternal decrees of God. This led to the notion that grace must only be offered to those for whom it was intended."

Descriptions in terms of emphasis

Sinclair Ferguson
"An exaggerated or imbalanced type of Reformed theology associated with Strict and Particular Baptists of English origin and with Dutch-American Reformed groups. Originating in the 18th century, it has always been the theology of a minority, which today is extremely small. It is a system of theology framed to exalt the honor and glory of God and does so by acutely minimizing the moral and spiritual responsibility of sinners... It emphasizes irresistible grace to such an extent that there appears to be no real need to evangelize; furthermore, Christ may be offered only to the elect."

Curt Daniel
Curt Daniel defines Hyper-Calvinism as "...that school of supralapsarian Five Point Calvinism which so stresses the sovereignty of God by overemphasizing the secret over the revealed will and eternity over time, that it minimizes the responsibility of Man, notably with respect to the denial of the word ‘offer’ in relation to the preaching of the Gospel of a finished and limited atonement, thus undermining the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly with assurance that the Lord Jesus Christ died for them."... it is the rejection of the word offer in connection with evangelism for supposedly Calvinistic reasons... the only real and tangible thing which differentiates the Hyper from the High-Calvinist is the word offer."

Historic definition of the term

Historically, the term "Hyper-Calvinism" is also used against the doctrine of limited atonement.
George Croft (1825)
"Should it be asked, whether all Calvinists differ from Arminians, only in reference to effectual grace and perseverance, it is frankly acknowledged, that there are some who differ from them in other points. These persons are generally styled High-Calvinists, or Hyper-Calvinists. Hyper signifies above, and Hyper-Calvinists are so called, because their system is above genuine Calvinism. The Hyper-Calvinist holds the particular design of Christ's death, but denies its general design; whereas moderate or modern Calvinists, as they are called,. hold both."

A Protestant dictionary (1904)
"Some who teach particular redemption, as Calvin taught it, hold with Calvin the theory of universal atonement, and others, who are hyper-Calvinists, maintain that of a limited atonement. The Calvinists would make the offer of salvation to all, but the hyper-Calvinists would limit the scope of the Gospel invitations to the elect; some go so far as to refuse to press upon the sinner the acceptance of salvation."

Doctrine

Duty-faith in relation to Adam

Wayman contends that saving faith was not in the power of man at his best before the fall and therefore makes the following deduction, "What Adam had, we all had in him; and what Adam lost, we all lost in him, and are debtors to God on both accounts; but Adam had not the faith of God's elect before the fall, and did not lose it for his posterity; therefore they are not debtors to God for it while in unregeneracy"

John Brine gives some insight into Wayman's statement. Brine taught that every duty incumbent on Adam in his unfallen state he also had the ability to perform, and this duty extends to all men in their fallen state regardless of their lack of ability. Brine maintained that a lack of ability does not release a man from duty (with which most Calvinists would agree), but he sees salvation in a different category because, "with respect to special faith in Christ, it seems to me that the powers of man in his perfected state were not fitted and disposed to that act"

William Styles reasoned that if saving faith was a duty in the law, it must have been a duty upon Adam to trust in the blood and righteousness of Christ while in a state of innocency. "If spiritual Faith is a natural duty—namely, if it is obligatory on account of the relation in which men stand to God as creatures to their Creator—it is commanded by the Moral Law, and it was incumbent on Adam as much as on any of his posterity. That it is not commanded by the Moral Law is admitted—or if denied involves absurdity. Faith is the trust of a sinner as such in the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ. If, then, spiritual Faith is a creature duty, it was incumbent on Adam in a state of innocency to trust as a sinner in the redemptive work of Christ. For which none contend."

Duty-faith in relation to the atonement of Christ

Interactions with Arminianism

Many Calvinistic ministers defended the doctrine of particular redemption by denying the Arminian view of duty faith. The Arminian Daniel Whitby opposed the doctrine of particular redemption because of duty faith. He wrote, "Now if it were the duty, even of them who perish under the preaching of the gospel, to own Christ as their Saviour, and to believe to the salvation of their souls, it follows either that it is, and, in all generations since our Saviour's coming, was, their duty to believe a lie, and to apply that to them which belonged not to them; or that Christ's death might truly have been applied to, and therefore was most certainly intended for, the salvation of those souls that perish." A defense of duty faith arose from the Arminians who considered the doctrine of limited atonement to be inconsistent with the universal offer and duty-faith. Albert Barnes reasoned against the Calvinistic view of the atonement when he wrote, "...all consistent preaching must be based on the supposition that no one can be saved except the elect for whom Christ died, and all offers of salvation made to others must be based on falsehood and insincerity... all offers of salvation made to those for whom Christ did not bear the penalty of the law must be based on falsehood and insincerity."

Many Calvinistic ministers answered these common arguments by refuting the Arminian view of duty faith and the free offer of redemption. They reasoned that if duty faith and the free offer are true: 1. God may be charged with offering a lie and commanding souls to receive the blessings of this lie by faith. 2. The doctrine of particular and limited atonement must be inconsistent with the free offer and duty faith. W. Kitchen reasoned that duty faith would imply a universal design in the atonement. He wrote, "Duty-faith, then, calls upon every one who hears the gospel to exercise a faith which at once gives him the warrant to believe, and will ultimately give him to know, that Jesus loved him and gave himself for him..."

Albert Barnes rejected the doctrine of limited atonement by rejecting the literal payment for sin in Christ's death. He wrote, "If it were a literal payment of a debt; for a payment of a debt could not be general; that is, the payment of a specific sum of money due to another would not be a transaction of such a nature that a third person could avail himself of that payment as a reason why he should be discharged from the obligation of paying a claim on him." Many Calvinistic ministers have defended the doctrine of limited atonement by defending the doctrine of a literal payment for the sins of the elect by the atonement of Jesus Christ. "While cheerfully admitting the sufficiency of Immanuel’s death to have redeemed all mankind, had all the sins of the whole human species been equally imputed to him; and had he, as the Universal Representative, sustained that curse of the law which was due to all mankind; yet we cannot perceive any solid reason to conclude, that his propitiatory sufferings are sufficient for the expiation of sins which he did not bear, or for the redemption of sinners whom he did not represent, as a sponsor, when he expired on the cross. For the substitution of Christ, and the imputation of sin to him, are essential to the scriptural doctrine of redemption by our adorable Jesus.–We may, therefore, safely conclude, that our Lord’s voluntary substitution, and redemption by his vicarious death, are both of them limited to those, for whom he was made sin–for whom he was made a curse–and for whose deliverance from final ruin, he actually paid the price of his own blood."

Interactions with Andrew Fuller and Neonomianism

Andrew Fuller was a minister among the particular baptist who is well known for defending duty-faith and the free offer. Andrew Fuller sought to reconcile the free offer with particular redemption by teaching that there was a universal sufficiency in the atonement. He writes, "In short, we must either acknowledge an objective fulness in Christ's atonement, sufficient for the salvation of the whole world to believe in Him; or, in opposition to the Scripture and common sense, confine our invitation to believe, to such persons as have believed already." However, Andrew Fuller's view was rejected by many Calvinistic ministers. Many considered his arguments to be Neonomianism. William Rushton replied to Andrew Fuller's statement by writing, "This is the marrow of what has been called Neonomianism; which doctrine, as to substance, is taught in the writings of Mr. Baxter, of the Arminians, and of the most learned of the Roman Catholics... All the efficacy unto justification which Mr. Fuller allows to the obedience and death of Christ is, that the Redeemer merited this great blessing for us, on the conditions of our believing the gospel; or, in other words, that the blood of Christ hath merited salvation for us, on milder terms than those required by the law of works... The conditional sufficiency for the justification of the whole world, which Mr. Fuller ascribes to the work of Christ, places all the efficacy thereof in the act of believing."

The controversy was not only over duty faith and the free offer, but it was also over the intention and purpose of the atonement. If it could be proved by the Arminians that the atonement was designed to provide the opportunity of redemption for all men universally, then the atonement would not be inconsistent with duty faith and the free offer. Andrew Fuller writes, "If the atonement of Christ were considered as the literal payment of a debt, it might, for aught I know, be inconsistent with indefinite invitations." John Stevens made an open reply to Andrew Fuller's book by writing an entire book addressing Andrew Fuller's statements. John Stevens put forth this argument, "It has been, and still is, thought to be very inconsistent and absurd, to suppose that God can have made it the duty of any man to believe in Christ for the salvation of his soul, or, that he can have promised salvation to him on his so believing, when all the while his salvation was not the end for which he died." Many have considered Andrew Fuller's teaching to be rooted in Neonomianism. Fuller expressed such views in these words, "Yet, to speak of sins as being pardoned before they are repented of, or even committed, is not only to maintain that on which the Scriptures are silent, but to contradict the current language of their testimony. If all our sins, past, present, and to come, were actually forgiven, either when Christ laid down his -life, or even on our first believing, why did David speak of 'confessing his transgression," and of God "forgiving his iniquity?"

Historical Understanding of Duty-faith and the Law of Works

For John Brine and others, the argument against duty faith focuses on understanding the difference between works of the law and faith in Christ unto salvation. John Brine writes, "The Law is not of Faith: It doth not present the Object of Faith, that all will allow. Nor doth it direct to the Act of Faith in Christ, as a Saviour. The Law, as a Covenant, requires Obedience, in order to Acceptance, and receiving the promised Reward. Do and live is the Language of it, but not believe and be saved: Yea, it is so far from requiring Faith in Christ for Salvation, that it allows not the Subject of it to hope for Deliverance from Misery." In short, if it could be proven that the law does command sinners to trust in Christ as their savior, then John Brine's argument would not be able to support the denial of duty faith. Many Calvinists opposed duty faith because it teaches that saving faith is a duty commanded in the Law of works, as Job Hupton writes, "While the two covenants are distinct, the things belonging to the one, must be kept separate from those pertaining to the other. The blessings of that of grace cannot, with the least shadow of propriety, be said to be the duties of that of works."

The Orthodox Position of the Reformed Calvinists

John Calvin

He invites to himself both the reprobate and the elect in common
"Last of all, David confesses that it was entirely owing to the pure grace of God that he had come to possess so great a good, and that he had been made a partaker of it by faith. It would be of no advantage to us for God to offer himself freely and graciously to us, if we did not receive him by faith, seeing he invites to himself both the reprobate and the elect in common; but the former, by their ingratitude, defraud themselves of this inestimatable blessing."

Offered to all the world
"That, then, is how our Lord Jesus bore the sins and iniquities of many. But in fact, this word “many” is often as good as equivalent to “all“. And indeed, our Lord Jesus was offered to all the world. For it is not speaking of three or four when it says: ‘For God so loved the world, that he spared not His only Son.” But yet we must notice that the Evangelist adds in this passage: “That whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but obtain eternal life.” Our Lord Jesus suffered for all, and there is neither great nor small who is not inexcusable today, for we can obtain salvation through him. Unbelievers who turn away from Him and who deprive themselves of him by their malice are today doubly culpable. For how will they excuse their ingratitude in not receiving the blessing in which they could share by faith?"

Their unbelief prevents them
"“To bear,” or, “take away sins”, is to free from guilt by his satisfaction those who have sinned. He says the sins of many, that is, of all, as in Romans 5:15. It is yet certain that not all receive benefit from the death of Christ; but this happens, because their unbelief prevents them."

Confessions and Catechisms

The Westminster Standards
The word "offer" or "free offer" was used in the Westminster Standards. The Larger Catechism leaves no room for doubt that the word is used in reference to non-elect persons; "...who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ" (Larger Catechism Ans. 68).

Question & Answers on the Shorter Catechism
In the 18th century, John Brown answered questions on the free offer and duty-faith in his "Question & Answers on the Shorter Catechism." He wrote, "Q. Doth God command every man that hears the gospel to take his gift Christ out of his hand ?—A. Yes ; under pain of his most dreadful wrath, 1 John iii. 23. Q. What mean you by Christ's offer of himself?—A. His holding forth himself as able and willing to save, and inviting sinners to receive salvation from him. Q. To whom doth Christ offer himself?—A. To every one that hears the gospel, without exception, Prov. viii. 4. Q. In what manner is Christ offered in the gospel ?—A. Fully, freely, earnestly, and indefinitely, Isa. lv... Q. How is Christ offered indefinitely ?—A. The gospel offer of him suits every hearer's case as exactly as if he was named in it, Rev. iii. 17, 18. Q. What do you understand by embracing of Christ as offered in the gospel 1—A. A particular persuasion that Christ in the promise is mine; and made of God to me wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption; and trusting on his word, that he will act up to all his saving characters to me in order to promote my everlasting salvation... Q. How do we receive him in agreeableness to his being indefinitely offered?—A. By applying the offer as particularly to ourselves as if it had pointed us out by name, and were not to another, Gal. ii. 20."

Quotes from teachers who opposed duty-faith and the free offer

Answering duty-faith

Christopher Ness
"Evangelical repentance is the gift of free grace; faith is the gift of God. What is God's, as a gift to bestow, cannot be man's duty to perform as a condition of salvation. Those who are invited to look to Christ, to come to Him for salvation, are very minutely described: they are the weary and heavy laden with sin, the penitent, the hungry and thirsty soul, etc., etc.; these are the characters invited to come to and believe in Christ, and not all men (Mt 11:28; Isa 55:1; Mr 2:17)."

J.H. Gosden
"We believe that all men are under obligation to believe and obey God. Though the Adam Fall utterly depraved and alienated human nature from God and goodness, rendering him as entirely incapable as unwilling to submit to God's law, yet the divine Lawgiver has not lost His power to command and to judge. Man's inability does not exonerate him... But what is every man duty-bound to believe? Surely not that each individual is himself interested in the redemption work of Christ, Man is not called upon to believe a lie."

William Styles
"If Faith be a duty, it is a work; but according to the reasoning of the Apostle, the works of the Law are contradistinguished from Faith. Yet if Faith be a natural duty—though we are saved by grace—it is through the works of the law. The Covenant of Works is blended with the Covenant of Grace, and "grace is no more grace."

Benjamin Taylor
"A man is called upon to believe in God so far as his knowledge goes of God, both in His works of grace and His works of providence. No man is called upon to believe what he never heard... To believe in Christ as my own Saviour is purely a spiritual act; and before I can do this, it is certain I must have a revelation of Christ to my soul."

John Foreman
"...faith cannot be separated from any part of its connection and interest... If faith unto salvation be the natural man's duty, then it must be the natural man's duty to be all that the actual believer, through grace unto salvation, really and properly is... it must be the natural man's duty to have all what the actual believer through grace unto salvation truly and properly has, according to the word of God... it must be the natural man's duty for God himself to be to him all what by promise and gift he is to those who through grace do believe unto salvation... it must be the natural man's duty for God to do for him, and give to him, all what by promise he does and gives to those who through grace do really believe unto salvation... If duty faith were a truth, it must have some meaning with God in regard to salvation; and such a meaning too, as that if it were the universal duty of all men, wherever the gospel comes, to believe unto salvation, then salvation would be as universal as the spread of the gospel, if all men did but do their duty."

William Huntington
"...such doctrine [duty-faith] had no good effect, either upon the saint, or upon the sinner: not to the saint, for he was sent to Moses for help; nor to the sinner, for he was sent to the physician before he was sick. Nor will God ever attend with his blessing and his seal such a doctrine as this to the conversion of any soul living... There is a great difference between law and gospel, works and grace, the letter and the Spirit; and between a legal commandment and a life-giving commandment."

John Gill
"...the law is not of faith, so faith is not of the law. There is a faith indeed which the law requires and obliges to, namely, faith and trust in God, as the God of nature and providence; for as both the law of nature, and the law of Moses, show there is a God, and who is to be worshipped; they both require a belief of him, and trust and confidence in him... moreover the law obliges men to give credit to any revelation of the mind and will of God he has made, or should think fit to make unto them at any time; but as for special faith in Christ as a Saviour, or believing in him to the saving of the soul; this the law knows nothing of, nor does it make it known."

Answering the free offer

Robert Hawker
"And the advocates of a yea and nay gospel, all act in perfect conformity to those principles... Offers of Christ, yea pressing Christ upon the congregation, are the chief topics adopted. And sometimes, from the great earnestness with which they have worked up their natural feeling to persuade, they enforce the present opportunity as if, should it be neglected, never another perhaps may be afforded them."

John Brine
"With respect to offers and tenders of mercy and salvation to sinners I observe: That Christ and his salvation are to be proposed for acceptance, to all who see their need of him, that this includes an offer in it, but is more than an offer, and that he is graciously given to them, and ‘tis their duty to embrace and receive him."

John Gill
"The gospel is indeed ordered to be preached to every creature to whom it is sent and comes... And that there are universal offers of grace and salvation made to all men I utterly deny; nay, I deny they are made to any; no, not to God’s elect; grace and salvation are provided for them in the everlasting covenant, procured for them by Christ, published and revealed in the gospel, and applied by the Spirit."

William Tant
"If then the gospel is good tidings because it proclaims blessings that are given to, secured for, and wrought in the souls of all interested in them, independent of creature merit, creature wisdom, creature seeking, creature asking, or creature diligence; then that gospel which gives an opposite view of these things is not good tidings. An offered gospel does do so; therefore an offered gospel is a contradiction to itself, and cannot be the gospel of the ever blessed God, for he is not the author of confusion, 1 Cor. 14:23, Therefore an offered gospel is contrary to God's Word and Will."

See also

• Free offer of the gospel

External links

Historical Sources

• Divine Energy by John Skepp (1675–1721)
• The Cause of God and Truth by John Gill (1738)
• A Refutation of Arminian Principles "The Modern Question Concerning Repentance & Faith Examined" by John Brine (1753)
• Excommunication And The Duty of All Men to Believe, Weighed in The Balance. by William Huntington (1745–1813)
• THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION by Andrew Fuller (1785)
• The Nature of Faith in Christ Considered a Reply to Andrew Fuller by William Button (1785)
• The True Gospel; No Yea and Nay Gospel by Robert Hawker (1753–1827)
• A Defense of Particular Redemption (The Atonement of Christ and Andrew Fuller) by William Rushton (1831)
• On Offering The Gospel by William Tant (1837)
• Particular Redemption a Reply to Andrew Fuller by John Steven's (1841)
• Light thrown upon the four Gospels by William Odling (1851)
• DUTY FAITH by John Foreman (1860)
• On Duty-faith by G. Rogers, from "The Sword and the Trowel" [magazine by Charles Haddon Spurgeon] (1866)
• ON DUTY-FAITH IN SEVERAL RELATIONS by W. Kitchen from the "The Voice of Truth" [Strict Baptist magazine] (1867)
• Duty Faith Examined by William Styles (1897)

Modern Sources

• Monergism: Hyper Calvinism a collection of articles on the subject from Monergism.com
• A primer on Hyper-Calvinism - written by Phillip R. Johnson, from a Calvinist perspective.
• The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity, 1689-1765 by Peter Toon.
• The History and Theology of Calvinism by Dr. Curt Daniel.
• Doctrinal Comparison Chart Comparing the differing views amongs 4 groups. Arminians, Classic Calvinists, High Calvinists, and Hyper Calvinists. Created by Tony Byrne
• History of the English Calvinistic Baptists 1771-1892: from John Gill to C. H. Spurgeon Review by Historian George Ella
• Ten Arguments Against Duty Faith by Peter Meney

Audio Sources

• Armnianism, Calvinism, High Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism by The Narrow Mind Radio
• Duty-faith Examined by William Styles
• What about Common Grace, the Free Offer, and Duty-Faith by Bill McDaniel