Hyper-Calvinism: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:24, 10 February 2006

Hyper-Calvinism is an eccentric theological position that historically arose from within the Calvinist tradition among the early English Particular Baptists in the mid 1700s. It can be seen in the teachings of men like Joseph Hussey (d. 1726), Lewis Wayman (d. 1764), John Brine (d. 1765), and to some extent in John Gill (d. 1771).

It is called Hyper-Calvinism by its critics, who maintain that it deviates from the biblical gospel by (1) denying that the call of the gospel to repent and believe is universal, i.e. for all alike, and (2) denying that the unregenerate (natural) man has a duty to repent and believe in Christ for salvation.

This theological position was labeled Hyper-Calvinism in the mid 1700s as the issue was argued and debated among English Baptists and others. It should be noted that, although Hyper-Calvinism became fairly widespread among the English Particular Baptists of that day, not all Particular Baptists agreed with the extremes of Wayman and Brine.

While this doctrine has always been a minority view, it has not been relegated to the past and may still be found in some small denominations and church communities today.

Non-Technical Usage of the Term

The prefix "hyper" may be used generically to refer to anything that is considered "extreme" or which goes beyond the accepted norm. There is therefore a sense in which one may refer to Calvinistic views regarded as going beyond normal Calvinism as "hyper." This non-technical use, usually as a pejorative term, has been applied to a variety of theological positions which fall outside mainstream Calvinism. Usually, Hyper Calvinism refers to a doctrine in which the concepts of Calvinism are carried out to logical extremes to the point of being biblically unsound:

that God is the source of sin and of evil
that previous doctrines set forth are more important than general scriptual themes
that a sign of election is to be sought prior to repentance
that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect
that the number of the elect at any time may be known by men
that it is wrong to evangelize
that God does not command everyone to repent
that there is no common grace, i.e. God cares only for his elect and has nothing but hatred for the non-elect.
that only Calvinists are Christians

Source Quotations

The archetypal Hyper-Calvinist position may be found explicitly set forth in the confessional articles of the Gospel Standard (Baptist) Churches, specifically: Articles of Faith of the Gospel Standard Aid and Poor Relief Societies, (Leicester, England: Oldham & Manton Ltd., n.d.).

Article 26 of the Gospel Standard articles: "We deny duty faith and duty repentance — these terms suggesting that it is every man's duty spiritually and savingly to repent and believe. We deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So that we reject the doctrine that man in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God."

Article 33 of the Gospel Standard articles: "Therefore, that for ministers in the present day to address unconverted persons, or indiscriminately all in a mixed congregation, calling upon them to savingly repent, believe, and receive Christ, or perform any other acts dependent upon the new creative power of the Holy Ghost, is, on the one hand, to imply creature power, and on the other, to deny the doctrine of special redemption."

Example Logic of the Hyper-Calvinist

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." Lewis Wayman, A Further Enquiry after Truth, (London: J & J. Marshall, 1738), p. 51.

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). Yet, somehow he sees salvation in a different category; for "with respect to special faith in Christ, it seems to me," says Brine, "that the powers of man in his perfected state were not fitted and disposed to that act." John Brine, A Refutation of Arminian Principles (London, 1743), p. 5.

Accordingly, saving faith lay not within the powers of man in his unfallen state, because there was no necessity for it. Since, therefore, it was not part of his powers in his unfallen state, it could not now be required of him in his fallen state. On this basis, duty-faith and duty-repentance are denied by the hyper Calvinist.

Historic Calvinist position as opposed to Hyper-Calvinism

Historic Calvinists regard repentance and faith as the means by which the great commandment to love God and love our neighbor finds fulfillment. This duty to love God and neighbor existed before the fall and Adam certainly enjoyed the ability to do so. Man's love of God is therefore still obligatory, and the means through which it is to be realized, namely repentance and faith, are likewise obligatory. Man owes God his love and trust by the very fact that he is God's rational creature. Adam had the ability to love and trust God before the Fall. Man is still responsible to love and trust God even though, because of the Fall and while in an unregenerate state, he has lost the moral ability to do so. Therefore, contrary to hyper-Calvinism, fallen man is indeed duty-bound to repent and believe in Christ for salvation.

Misuse Of The Term Hyper-Calvinism

According to William Oosterman, many today misuse these terms. Having debated these doctrines in various circles and taught Calvinism in many countries, he has personally observed the misuse and misunderstanding surrounding these historic terms. Other well known preachers as J. R. Rice [1] are an example of this. Rice claims the name Calvinist for those who, like himself, reject four of the five TULIP points. He labels as hyper-Calvinist all those who adhere to all five TULIP points.

Resources

(1) Sinclair Ferguson, et. al., editors, The New Dictionary of Theology (InterVarsity Press, 1988), s.v. Hyper-Calvinism. ISBN 0830814000

(2) Peter Toon, The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Non-Conformity, 1689-1765 (London: The Olive Tree, 1967).

(3) David J. Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism & the Call of the Gospel, (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1994). ISBN 0916206505

(4) Thomas J. Nettles, By His Grace and for His Glory: A Historical, Theological, and Practical Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1986). ISBN 0801067421

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 ==Misuse Of The Term Hyper-Calvinism==
+According to [[William Oosterman]], many today misuse these terms. Having debated these doctrines in various circles and taught Calvinism in many countries, he has personally observed the misuse and misunderstanding surrounding these historic terms. Other well known preachers as J. R. Rice [http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Printed%20Books/Dr%20John%20Rice/hypercalvinism.htm] are an example of this.  Rice claims the name Calvinist for those who, like himself, reject four of the five TULIP points. He labels as hyper-Calvinist all those who adhere to all five TULIP points.
-According to [[William Oosterman]], many today misuse these terms. Having debated these doctrines in various circles and taught historic Calvinism in many countries, he has personally observed the misuse and misunderstanding surrounding these historic terms. Some Christians have been taught to label anyone who believes in the historic Calvinist position a hyper-calvinist. In many evangelical circles today, if you believe in the final preservation of the saints, the fifth of the five points of calvinist theology, you are a true Calvinist. If you believe any of the other four points you are automatically denounced as a hyper-calvinist. This is a serious misrepresentation by those who should know better of the historic usage of these terms. Brandan Kraft in Confession of a Hyper-Calvinist [http://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=400]  describes how he has been mislabelled and accused falsely on many occasions. Such well known preachers as J. R. Rice  are an example of this misuse. Rice wrote “So any person who is not Armenian in faith but rather believes in eternal security of the believer is likely to describe himself as a Calvinist.” Rice is saying that if you believe the last of the five points, the Preservation Of The Saints, you will describe yourself as a Calvinist. Rice goes on to say “Or where Calvinism has not been carried to its more unscriptural, unevangelistic, arrogant extreme, one might probably call himself a "moderate" Calvinist. Most of those who might be called Calvinists do not believe in a limited atonement, for example, nor do they believe that some are foreordained by unconditioned election to go to Hell and so could not be saved, that salvation was never provided for nor offered for them.” Again Rice claims the name “Calvinist” for those who, like himself, reject four of the five points. He labels as hyper-Calvinist all those who simply believe the doctrines Calvin taught. He even says most of those who might be called Calvinists do not believe in the third point, limited atonement. Many more examples of such misuse could be cited. One explanation is that historically Arminianism had strong negative connotations in many circles, while the term Calvinism was respected. Today many Arminian evangelicals like to take the label Calvinism as their own, while refusing to accept the historic five points that go along with it.
-As stated on this web site: [http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm] Some critics unthinkingly slap the label "hyper" on any variety of Calvinism that is higher than the view they hold to. Arminians like to equate all five-point Calvinism with hyper-Calvinism (as Calvary-Chapel author George Bryson does in his horrible little book, The Five Points of Calvinism: "Weighed and Found Wanting" [Costa Mesa: Word for Today, 1996]). That approach lacks integrity and only serves to confuse people. For a more thorough study of this crucial area of theology visit the Sound Of Grace web site. [http://www.soundofgrace.com/]  or [http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/McMahonABriefCritiqueOfHyper-Calvinism.htm]
 ==Resources==