WHAT IS A HYPER-CALVINIST?
by Dr. Robert H. Lescelius

In our promotional material we often declare that Peachtree Baptist Church and her ministries opposes Hyper-Calvinism.  Yet in certain circles it is regularly affirmed that we are hyper-Calvinists.  If this charge is true, then we are a “house divided against itself” and thus “shall not stand” (Matt. 12:26).  However, it may be we or our detractors (or maybe both) do not know what a hyper-Calvinist is.   Hence, we undertake to give our answer to the title question: “What is a Hyper-Calvinist?”  We will not only seek to define it, but also state why we are opposed to it as error.

I. WHAT A HYPER-CALVINIST IS NOT

I remember back, when I was a young Christian, the first time I heard the terms Calvinism and Arminianism.  I thought the latter was something that originated in Armenia.  I was told at that time that a Calvinist was one who believed in Eternal Security and an Arminian believed you could lose your salvation.  Thus Baptists were Calvinists, and Methodists, Nazarenes, Pentecostals, etc., were Arminians.  Later I heard that Calvinists believed in such things as election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace, and I wondered what this was all about and whether I was a Calvinist or not. I was told that such “heresies” as the “Five Points”1 were hyper-Calvinism.  This is the view expressed in the late John R. Rice’s book, Predestine to Hell? No!, and over the past 50 plus years of my Christian life this argumentation has been the standard take on this issue among most Fundamental Baptists.  Thus they hold that a Calvinist believes in Eternal Security (but not the Perseverance of the Saints, thus believing only half of the fifth point), while anyone who believes in any or all of the other four and a half points (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Particular Redemption, Effectual Calling, and Perseverance) is a hyper-Calvinist.  Historically, however, Calvinism has been defined by the “Five Points.”  So today we have the wide gap between a point five (.5) Calvinism and five point Calvinism.  I really cannot see how someone who embraces four and a half of the Arminian points can, by any stretch of imagination, be called a Calvinist of any kind, but such is the situation at hand.  Be that as it may, a real Calvinist and a hyper-Calvinist by definition are not the same thing.

Many do not want to be bothered with designations like Calvinist, Arminian, etc., and I sympathize with these sentiments.  So often these terms are used in a derogatory manner in controversy. Why not use such terms as sovereigntist, biblicist, etc.?  The problem arises when one wants to know how much of a sovereigntist you are, or whether you are a  five point or half point biblicist.  My old mentor, Dr. Peter Connolly, taught us that theology was the queen of the sciences, and that every science has its terminology.   Thus certain doctrines have been given designations in the science of historical theology.  To avoid confusion these designations should at least be recognized (whether we like them or not).  Thus one who believes in the “five points” is a Calvinist.  A rose by any other name is still a TULIP.  He is not a hyper-Calvinist because he believes in the “five  points.”

II. WHAT A HYPER-CALVINIST IS

What then is a hyper-Calvinist, and what is the difference between a Calvinist and a hyper-Calvinist?  The prefix “hyper” somewhat confuses the issue.  “Hyper,” from the Greek preposition hyper, means “over, above.”  However, a hyper-Calvinist is not someone who is “more” than a regular Calvinist, or believes “beyond” this position.  It is rather a distortion of Calvinism.  In reality a hyper-Calvinist does not believe enough.  Spurgeon stated his position in the Hyper-Calvinist Controversy of his day: “I do not think I differ from any of my hyper-Calvinist brethren in what I do believe, but I differ from them in what they do not believe.”2   Iain Murray echoes Spurgeon by noting that “the danger with Hyper-Calvinism is not so much what it believes, but that it does not believe enough.”3  What is it that they do not believe?   Hyper-Calvinism is the position that does not believe in the indiscriminate offer of the gospel to the elect and non-elect.  This is expressed in the following articles from the confession of the Gospel Standard (Baptist) Churches of England:

Article 26—We reject the doctrine that man in a state of nature should be exhorted to  believe in, or turn to God.

Article 33—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 hand, to deny the doctrine of special redemption.

Murray explains their view further:

“For a preacher to convey to his hearers the impression that they are called to receive Christ, and to believe in him for salvation, is to deny, in the opinion of Hyper-Calvinists, the sovereignty of divine grace.  It is to represent salvation as available to those whom God has excluded by the decree of election.  Gospel preaching for Hyper-Calvinists means a declaration of the facts of the gospel but nothing should be said by way of encouraging individuals to believe that the promises of Christ are made to them particularly until there is evidence that the Spirit of God has begun a saving work in their hearts, convicting them and making them “sensible” of their need.”4

Hyper-Calvinism, by its own limitations, leads eventually to no-evangelism, no-missions.  This is no doubt the chief fear Fundamental Baptists in our day have of Calvinism.  They equate it with killing soul-winning zeal and missionary outreach, thus the derogatory epithet of Hyper-Calvinism is given to it. Calvinistic missionaries have been harassed by mission boards with the charge of being hyper-Calvinists, even though they have accomplished extraordinary works of evangelism and church planting.  Pastors have suffered ostracizing by other pastors and churches over this same charge, born of prejudice due to ignorance.5  It is strange to think that a modern day Baptist mission board would have to reject William Carey, the Father of Modern Missions, who was sent out by the Particular Baptist Missionary Society (called Particular because they believed in Limited Atonement).  The same would hold true for Adoniram Judson and a host of others. A Charles H. Spurgeon couldn’t serve on such a board or be welcome in many a fellowship for his soteriological views.  Do we know that when Spurgeon dedicated the Metropolitan Tabernacle that he had five men preach five messages on—guess what?6  Do modern day Baptists realize that the Baptists of the past were Calvinists?  Check the Old London Baptist Confessions, the Philadelphia Baptist Confession, and even the New Hampshire Confession.

For a time between John Gill and Spurgeon the Baptists of Great Britain were plagued with Hyper-Calvinism, but its influence was broken with the coming of the Second Evangelical Awakening and the influence of such men as Andrew Fuller and William Carey and later, Spurgeon.  Baptists have overall believed in evangelism and missions, even though they were Calvinists.  We could also mention such non-Baptists as Jonathan Edwards, the theologian of revival, George Whitefield and a long train of other soul-winners.  True Calvinism must not be equated with Hyper-Calvinism.

III. WHY WE ARE NOT HYPER-CALVINISTS  

We at Georgia Baptist College and Theological Seminary do not accept Hyper-Calvinism, because we believe it is error.  We reject it for the following reasons:

1. It denies the free offer of the gospel.  As we have seen Hyper-Calvinism does not believe the gospel is to be preached indiscriminately to all men. This is not the position of historic Calvinism:

John Calvin: The mercy of God is offered equally to those who believe and to those who believe not. The Synod of Dort (from where the “so-called” five points came): It is the promise of the gospel that whosoever believeth in the gospel should not perish, but have everlasting life: which promise, together with the injunction of repentance and faith, ought promiscuously, and without distinction, to be declared, and published to all men and people (Ch. II, Art. 5).

Hyper-Calvinism is not our position, because it is not the teaching of Scripture.  Jesus called all who labored and were heavy laden (Matt. 11:20-24).  He wept over Jerusalem, because they “would not” respond to His call (Matt. 23:37-38).  Note He called those He knew were under final judgment.  He commanded the gospel to be preached to every creature (Mark 16:15), even to those who would not believe and eventually be damned (vs. 16).  Paul told the Athenian philosophers that “God . . . now commandeth all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30).  Cf. John 3:18-19, 36; Acts 13:40-41. 

To wait for evidence that one is a “sensible” sinner before one exhorts them to repent and believe is an impossible task for the Christian witness.  How do we know the person is not a Felix who “trembled”and yet was not regenerated (Acts 24:25)?  How can a sinner be awakened and come under conviction if the gospel is not preached to him?  The gospel is the means the Holy Spirit uses to call the elect (2 Thess. 2:13-14).

2. It discourages obedience to the gospel.  Hyper-Calvinism leads to subjectivity and legalism.  The poor sinner must look within to see if he has been convicted enough, repentant enough, helpless enough to have any warrant to believe.  This has been called “preparationism,” a Protestant form of Roman Catholic penance.  It is as if God sticks a fork in the sinner to see if he has “stewed” enough before He saves him.  When have we repented enough?  When we cannot go another instant without Christ!  When have we believed enough?  When He is the only and sufficient hope for our soul.  Conviction is not to make us acceptable to Christ, but to make Christ acceptable to us. 

Hyper-Calvinism leads to a mystical view of salvation.  A person must have a spectacular salvation experience before he can have any hope of assurance. The warrant of faith, however, is the command, invitation, promise of the gospel: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31).  Spurgeon, as usual, put it well:

The gospel is that you believe in Christ Jesus; that you get right out of yourself, and depend alone in him.  Do you say, “I feel so guilty?”  You are certainly guilty, whether you feel it or not; you are far more guilty than you have any idea of.  Come to Christ because you are guilty, not because you have been prepared to come by looking at your guilt.  Trust nothing of your own, not even your sense of need.7

3. It diminishes the responsibility of man.  It is a strange irony that Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism both begin with the same premise.  It is “responsibility equals ability.” The Arminian argues that since the Bible teaches that man is responsible he must be able. Total Depravity and Inability cannot be true, man must be able to repent and believe, because God has commanded him to.  The Hyper-Calvinist sees the Bible teaching that God is sovereign in salvation and man is totally unable; therefore, he must not be responsible.  To tell just any sinner to repent and believe is to attribute power to him he does not have and deny God’s sovereignty to salvation.  Both are wrong.  Calvinism sees man as responsible yet morally unable due to his total depravity.

It is true that God created man as both responsible and able.  But man fell in the Garden and is now shackled in slavery to sin.  He is a free moral agent, i.e., free from outward coercion, but free now in only one direction—to sin (Rom. 8:7-8).  Jesus said, “No man can [is able to] come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:44).  He did not say, “No man may come,” for all men may come, in fact, they are invited and commanded to come.  Men are responsible to come, and we are responsible to invite them, but “no man can come unto me,” Jesus said, “except it were given unto him of my Father”
(John 6:65).  It is sovereign grace that enables them to come (John 6:45).

Both Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism take an incompatiblist view of the relationship between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility.  Arminianism takes a libertarian view of man’s free will and denies God’s particularizing sovereign grace in salvation.  Hyper-Calvinism takes a strong view of divine sovereignty in salvation and yet diminishes man’s responsibility, both the sinner’s to obey the gospel and the saint’s to preach it. 

The Calvinist takes a compatiblist view, believing both that God is sovereign in salvation and man is responsible.  This is not a contradiction, though it involves a mystery.  Jesus said: “All that the Father giveth me (election) shall come to me (effectual calling); and him that cometh to me (human responsibility) I will in no wise cast out (eternal security)” (John 6:37).   There you have it: both taught in one verse without worrying about how they can be “reconciled.”  Brethren, may we believe all God’s Word teaches and leave it as it is!

Does Calvinism necessarily lead to Hyper-Calvinism in practice?  This has been true, sadly, in some cases, but it has been due to an improper view of Calvinism.  Some have reacted against the activism and “easy believism” of modern day Arminian evangelism, and, struggling with how to apply the truths of the doctrines of grace, have become hesitant in their evangelism and earnest appeals to sinners.  May our Fundamentalist brethren hold our feet to the fire on this matter!  Calvinistic brethren, if Jesus and the apostles invited, commanded, and plead with sinners to come, so should we.  If Jesus offered Himself freely to sinners, so should we offer Him.  “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20).

It has not been my purpose to argue the case for Calvinism.  My aim has been to try to clarify the use of terminology in the discussion.  I’m trying to grow old gracefully, but I get a little impatient when I hear the same arguments and terms tossed about for over 50 years that don’t even come close to accuracy on what Calvinism teaches.  Brethren, I’ll still love you no matter what view you take, but please try to get my view right, even if you don’t believe it.  Surely, Fundamentalists could learn a little theology over 50 years time.  There I go, getting cranky again.

The fact that good men have struggled over this issue for centuries, some with greater minds than ours, and have come up on different sides, should at least produce some humility and charity on the part of all of us, no matter what side we are on.  The fact also that there is a world out there, numbered in the billions, that we are commanded to evangelize with the glorious gospel of grace, should move us to holster our polemical pistols aimed at each other, and cry out to our God for a Holy Spirit “shock and awe” display of gospel power targeted at the hearts of lost sinners!

FOOTNOTES

1.   In the Arminian Controversy that raged in the Netherlands at the close of the 16^th and into the 17^th centuries, the followers of James Arminius (1560-1609) presented a statement of faith called The Remonstrance, containing their views in five main points.  At the Synod of Dort (1618) the Calvinists answered with five points of their own.  Thus the “five points” of Calvinism were a response to the previous five points of Arminianism.  These have subsequently been denoted by the mnemonic TULIP: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Preservation/Perseverance of the saints.  Some limitations to the “five points” are (1) that they reflect a negative response from a theological controversy and not the positive presentation of God’s grace that the doctrines deserve, (2) that some of the designations (such as limited atonement, irresistible grace) produce  misunderstandings that have to be corrected before the truths can be explained (though particular redemption and effectual calling ruin the TULIP), and (3) they are not all there is to the doctrines of grace (e.g., evangelism, missions, etc.).

2.    Cited by Iain H. Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1996), 38.  This book is highly recommended, as well as his, The Forgotten Spurgeon (same publisher), which deals with Spurgeon’s controversy with Arminianism.  We recommend Spurgeon as an example of balanced Calvinism.

3.    Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism, xiv.

4.    Ibid., p. 69.

5.    In fairness we must state that many professing Calvinists, with a head knowledge of the doctrines of grace but without a heart experience of the graces of those doctrines, have caused their share of unnecessary conflict and division.

6.    I wonder how many of my hard-nosed Calvinistic brethren know that Spurgeon had a Methodist preach for him the next Sunday.

7.    Cited by Murray, p. 79.