Wikipedia

User:Rursus/Hyper-Calvinism

< User:Rursus

Hyper-Calvinism is a pejorative term for a theological position that denies that there is a universal offer of redemption made by Christ in the general call of the gospel. Hyper Calvinists teach[bogus] that the sufficiency of the atonement is limited to the intent of Christ's redemption for the elect alone. They denied[bogus] that the law of God ever commanded saving faith in Christ. Therefore, they denied[bogus] that saving faith is a duty of law upon unregenerate souls. They affirmed[bogus] that the faith which hopes in Christ is not a duty in the law of works, but rather it is blessing of grace which warrants a soul to receive the assurance that Christ has loved them and given himself for them. They affirmed[bogus] that the law does command all men to turn from all sin (including the sin of unbelief). They affirmed[bogus] that it is the duty of unregenerate souls to believe the scriptures (including the record of the gospel) and to love the truth as it is commanded in the law of works.[street preacher sermon]

They considered the doctrines of duty faith and the universal offer to confuse the doctrines of God's sovereign electing love, Christ's literal payment of sin for the elect, and the Spirit's sovereign work of regeneration. Hyper Calvinists rejected the doctrines of the universal offer and duty faith because the doctrines made God out to be the author of confusion. Many Hyper Calvinists have written articles and books to present their case that there is no scriptural warrant for such doctrines. Their views will become evident in the quotes and sources provided below.[street preacher sermon]

Hyper-Calvinism is a pejorative term for a theological position that denies that the call of the gospel to repent and believe is universal - that is, for every person. Hyper-Calvinism also asserts that since a person who is not influenced by the Holy Spirit does not have the ability to believe in Christ, therefore she or he does not have a duty to repent and believe in Christ for salvation[invalid perspective].

Hyper-Calvinism historically arose from within the Calvinist tradition among the early English Particular Baptists in the mid 1700s[invalid perspective]. 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 to some extent in John Gill (d. 1771). It became widespread among the English Particular Baptists of that day, though Particular Baptists disagreed with the extremes of Wayman, Skepp, and Brine.

While this position has always been a minority view[invalid perspective], it may still be found in some small denominations (such as the Gospel Standard Strict Baptists) and church communities today.

Doctrine

edit

The archetypal Hyper-Calvinist position may be found[by whom?] explicitly set forth in the confessional articles of the Gospel Standard (Baptist) Churches[neutrality is disputed], specifically: Articles of Faith of the Gospel Standard Aid and Poor Relief Societies, (Leicester, England: Oldham & Manton Ltd., n.d.). Article 26 in that publication reads,

"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" [emphasis added].

And Article 33 says,

"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."

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" (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), 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" (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[improper synthesis?][invalid perspective].

A confessional Hyper-Calvinist position may be found[according to whom?] explicitly set forth in the confessional articles of the Gospel Standard (Baptist) Churches[improper synthesis?], specifically: Articles of Faith of the Gospel Standard Aid and Poor Relief Societies, (Leicester, England: Oldham & Manton Ltd., n.d.). Article 26 in that publication reads, "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" (emphasis added). And Article 33 says, "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."

These articles have been considered[by whom?] to be the historical confession of Hyper Calvinism[improper synthesis?], but they do not properly represent the views and arguments of all Hyper Calvinists who deny duty faith and the universal offer. The Hyper Calvinists from the 1700s were not around during the time of the gospel standard confessions and not all Hyper Calvinists assent to an agreement with the gospel standard confessions. Their views shall be considered with their own statements.

Duty-faith in relation to Adam

edit

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" (A Further Enquiry after Truth, London: J & J. Marshall, 1738, p. 51). [this book is by Lewis Wayman and sold by J. & J. Marshall] library source

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" (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.

Duty-faith in relation to the atonement of Christ

edit

Hyper Calvinists sought to protect the doctrine of particular redemption by denying duty faith. Their reasoning was crucially dependent on their understanding of the doctrine of the atonement. If the real imputation of the sins of only the elect were charged to Christ, then it cannot be the duty for everyone to receive the blessings of the atonement through faith. Their argument was that if it is the duty of all men who hear the gospel to receive the blessings of the atonement by faith, then it would imply that the imputation of sin in the atonement must be extended to all. If it was not extended to all, then the Calvinist must answer why God would command all men who hear the gospel to receive the blessings of the atonement by faith.

1. The Foundation of the Controversy - This was a question that arose from the Arminians who considered the doctrine of limited atonement to be inconsistent with the universal offer. 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." (Albert Barnes, The Atonement) The Hyper Calvinists sought to answer this argument by denying duty faith and the universal offer of redemption. They reasoned that if duty faith and the universal 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 considered as inconsistent with the universal 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..." (W. KITCHEN, The Voice of Truth; or, Strict baptists' magazine, January 1867)

2. An Answer to the Controversy that was Frightening - Albert Barnes rejected the doctrine of limited atonement by rejecting the idea of a 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." (Albert Barnes, The Atonement) Hyper Calvinists not only sought to protect the doctrine of limited atonement, but they also sought to protect the doctrine of a literal payment for sin in Christ's death. Like Albert Barnes, the Hyper Calvinists considered the doctrine of duty faith and the universal offer to be inconsistent with limited atonement and a literal payment of sin. Albert Barnes sought to defend the universal offer while the Hyper Calvinists sought to defend a literal payment of sin in the atonement. For the Hyper Calvinist, to deny a literal payment for sins in the atonement, is to deny the righteous ground of their justification by Christ.

3. The Rejection of Neonomianism - Andrew Fuller is well known for answering the objections of the Hyper Calvinists. Andrew Fuller sought to reconcile the universal 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." (Andrew Fuller, The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation) However, this answer did not satisfy the Hyper Calvinists. Hyper Calvinists consider this argument 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." (William Rushton, A defence of Particular Redemption) Many of Andrew Fuller's arguments did not satisfy the Hyper Calvinists, because they rejected Neonomianism.

4. The Intention and Purpose of the Atonement - The controversy was not only over duty faith and the universal offer, but it was also over the intention and purpose of the atonement. If it could be proved that the atonement was designed to provide the possibility of redemption for all men universally, then the atonement would not be an argument against duty faith and the universal 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."(Andrew Fuller, The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation) 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." (John Stevens, Help for the True Disciples of Emmanuel: Being an answer to a book, Published by the late Rev. Andrew Fuller, entitled The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation; or, The Duty of Sinners to Believe in Christ.)

Duty-faith in relation to the Law

edit

For John Brine and others, the argument against duty faith is reasoned on discerning the difference between works of the law and faith in Christ. 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." (John Brine, Motives to Love and Unity Among Calvinists who Differ on some Points) If it could be proven that the law does command sinners to hope in Christ as their savior, then John Brine's argument would not be able to support the denial of duty faith. Hyper Calvinists oppose duty faith because it teaches that saving faith is a duty commanded in the law of God. They understand this to imply that the Spirit of Christ is received by works of the law and not by the hearing of faith. They also understand this to imply that we are justified by the deeds of the law and not by faith. 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." (Job Hupton, A Blow Struck at the Root of Fullerism)

Common Misunderstandings

edit

1. Do Hyper Calvinists exhort all men to turn from sin? Some may misunderstand all arguments against duty faith as a denial that souls are commanded to believe the gospel and turn from sin. While this may rightly be concluded from the statements of some Hyper Calvinists, it should be understood that this is not common among all Hyper Calvinists. John Gill clarified this point when he wrote "...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." (John Gill, The Body of Divinity: Of the Gospel) Gill affirms that the law does require souls to give credit to any revelation of the mind and will of God that He has made to them. In commenting on the gospel standard articles of faith, J.H. Gosden writes, "Whatever our worthy predecessors intended by the terms of this Article, they certainly did not mean to minimize the sin of unbelief. The purpose was to rebut the flesh-pleasing error taught by the Arminian that man in his natural state (that is, dead in trespasses and sins) is possessed of some latent power to exercise savingly the spiritual acts of faith and repentance... unbelief is a chief sin, the root of all other sins (John 16:9; Rom. 1. 19, 28)." (J.H. Gosden, Commentary on the Gospel Standard Baptist Articles of Faith, ARTICLE 26 - On Duty Faith)

2. Do Hyper Calvinists ever exhort sinners to believe on Christ? Some may misunderstand all arguments against duty faith and the universal offer as a denial that souls should be exhorted to come to Christ. Some Hyper Calvinists have clarified when we are to exhort sinners to believe on Christ. William Styles understood the gospel call as intended for those who have been convinced of their sins. He comments on Isaiah 1:18-19 and says, "The above words can therefore be with propriety applied only to those who feel their guilt through the inwrought work of the Holy Ghost." (William Styles, A Manual of Faith and Practice) John Gill comments on Isaiah 55:1 and says, "The persons here encouraged are such, who not only have no money, but know they have none; who are poor in spirit, and sensible of their spiritual poverty; which sense arises from the quickening influences of the Spirit of God upon their souls; nor are Isaiah 1:18, 19, Luke 13:3, John 3:16, and 7:24, any offers, grace, as they are with this represented to be." (John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth) In commenting on the gospel standard articles of faith, J.H. Gosden writes, "As the convincing power of the Holy Spirit attends the ministry, the elect are sought out and brought in guilty before God. To them Christ will be attractive as held forth in the gospel. It is the sick soul who wants the Physician, and it is the minister's duty and privilege to minister the consolations of the gospel to such." (J.H. Gosden, Commentary on the Gospel Standard Baptist Articles of Faith, ARTICLE 26 - On Duty Faith)

Conclusion

edit

Hyper Calvinists taught that only the sins of the elect were charged to Christ in his death and only their sins were put away by the sacrifice of Himself. This is a crucial foundation in their understanding of this controversy. It should be understood that these men were not against preaching a universal command for all men everywhere to turn from sin (including the sin of unbelief). It also should be understood that these men were not against directing sinners who were sensible to their spiritual poverty to come to Christ. However, they did not preach saving faith as though it were a duty in the law that must be performed as a condition for their salvation. They also rejected the teaching of Neonomianism in their gospel preaching. Though some have viewed the effect of their doctrine to have a positive influence, others view it as deadly and harmful.

Historical influence and effect of the doctrine

edit

The Warning in the Modern Reformed Community

edit

There are many modern reformed works on the Hyper Calvinism movement. Among the reformed community, Hyper Calvinism is seen as negative and harmful to the gospel. Phil Johnson writes, "All five varieties of hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message... Deliberately excluded from hyper-Calvinist "evangelism" is any pleading with the sinner to be reconciled with God... They generally oppose evangelism of any kind." (Phil Johnson, A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism) Some consider the doctrines of Hyper Calvinism to militate against evangelism. R. T. Kendall (formerly of Westminster Chapel) wrote, "Hyper-Calvinism. This is a spirit that militates against evangelism and the free offer of the gospel." (R. T. Kendall, Stand Up and Be Counted, Appendix) Hyper Calvinism is considered to be an ugly head that soon arises after true evangelical Calvinism comes alive. "It is a historical fact that when true evangelical Calvinism comes alive and active, Hyper-Calvinism will soon raise its ugly head." (Ernest C. Reisinger, An Open Letter About Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism) Thomas Ascol warned that these doctrines are a parasite that sucks the life out its host. He writes, "The error of hyper-Calvinism can only emerge where true Calvinism has taken root. It is a perverting error. It distorts that which is good and true. It is a parasite which sucks the life out of its host." (Thomas Ascol, book review of "Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching by Ian Murray")

New Efforts to Warn the Flock in 2010

edit

The influence of Hyper Calvinism was greater in past centuries than it is now. But, after the recent high spread of historic Calvinism, it is feared by some that Hyper Calvinism shall gain an influence. In February 2010 Jeff Noblit's church hosted a conference titled, "The Quagmire of Hyper- Calvinism". Jeff Noblit expressed his concerns in an interview. He writes, "In pride, one can become tempted to love a man-made “system” of theology more than the God of that system and the souls of men. Thus begins the slide down the slippery slope of hyper-Calvinism. Our goal in this year’s conference is to cut off this serpent’s head before it is above the ground!... Cold, dead, fatalistic hyper-Calvinism should not even be named among us!... we must fight all temptation to be slack in taking the Gospel to ALL men in ALL nations urging ALL to repent and believe!" ("Interview with Jeff Noblit" by Matthew M. Johnston)

A Historian's Assessment

edit

Biographer and Historian George Ella documents a brief history of the influence of the "High Calvinists". He writes, "1795-1835 was a time of widespread revival with Anglican Robert Hawker preaching to thousands, Independent William Huntington equalled his efforts and Baptist William Gadsby founding 45-50 churches filled with new converts... Gill had one of the largest Particular Baptist congregations in Britain, outnumbering Fullers by far." (George Ella, Exaggerated Claims concerning Andrew Fuller and False Information Regarding ‘High-Calvinists’) Among modern reformed groups it has been reported that these men were against evangelism. George Ella documents John Gill as having a great zeal in spreading the gospel. He writes, "Time and time again he refers to his duty to gather together Christ’s sheep who were scattered abroad. Preaching at the induction of John Davis, Gill told him, “Souls sensible to sin and danger, and who are crying out, What shall we do to be saved? you are to observe, and point out Christ the tree of life to them; and say,... Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, Acts XVI: 31.” He goes on to stress, “Your work is to lead men, under a sense of sin and guilt, to the blood of Christ, shed for many for the remission of sin, and in his name you are to preach the forgiveness of them." (George Ella, John Gill and the Charge of Hyper-Calvinism)

A Teacher that Denied the Universal Offer

edit

Robert Hawker has had much influence among Calvinists through his 9 volume devotional commentary on the whole bible. Charles Spurgeon had good things to say about Hawker. He writes, "He sees Jesus, and that is a sacred gift which is most precious whether the owner be a critic or no. There is always such a savor of the Lord Jesus Christ in Dr. Hawker that you cannot read him without profit."(Charles H. Spurgeon, Commenting on Commentaries) Robert Hawker has much to say in the controversy through his treatise titled, "The True Gospel; No Yea and Nay Gospel". He openly denied the doctrine of the universal offer. George Ella writes concerning Robert Hawker's influence, "He founded several charitable works for the poor and provided for the relief of the families of soldiers who had died in service or from a fever which had spread through the Plymouth area. By 1798, he was busy building an orphanage and a school. He now preached three times on Sundays besides holding numerous weekly teaching, prayer and testimony, meetings. He also preached two or three times a week for the soldiers and visited the military hospitals, never accepting a penny for his services. As the military buildings were miles apart, this witness consumed much of Hawker’s time and energy in all weathers. Hawker also started a work amongst destitute women who had chosen a life of sin as a means of income... Notwithstanding, this Five-Point man whom many were calling an Antinomian and a Hyper-Calvinist received invitation after invitation to evangelise so that he had to plan a similar tour each year for the rest of his life. Yet modern critics of Hawker’s doctrines invariably argue that such doctrines destroy evangelism!" (George Ella, Robert Hawker (1753–1827): Zion’s Warrior)

Comparison to historic doctrines

edit

Historic Calvinists regard repentance and faith as the means by which the great commandments to love God and love our neighbor finds fulfillment. Since historic Calvinists believe that this duty to love God and neighbor existed before the fall and that Adam certainly enjoyed the ability to fulfill this obligation, they argue that man's love of God is still obligatory and that the means through which it is to be realized, namely repentance and faith, are likewise obligatory. Therefore, historic Calvinism has rejected Hyper-Calvinism[citation needed].

Below are 5 highly respected pillars among Historic Calvinists. These men may be quoted as opposing the views of Hyper Calvinism. Historic Calvinism teaches that the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all men to be redeemed. Historic Calvinists taught a universal offer and some have taught that it is man's fault if he does not obtain the blessings of Christ's redemption. (In reference to those who had blessings offered to them)

1. John Calvin taught that both the non-elect and the elect are invited by God. He writes,"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." (John Calvin, Commentary on Psalms 16:7.) Calvin taught that Christ suffered for the sins of even those who don't receive Him. "He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him." (John Calvin's Commentary on Romans 5:18) Calvin believed that it was our duty to strive that the great care Christ bestows in saving us be not fruitless. He writes in his commentary on John 5:34, "In this we see also a striking proof of his wonderful goodness, by which he regulates all things for our salvation. It is therefore our duty, on the other hand, to strive that the great care which he bestows in saving us may not be fruitless." (From Calvin's Commentaries on John 5:34) Calvin taught that Jesus suffered His death and His passion for all. On this ground, he believed that we are to labor to bring every man to salvation that the grace of Christ may be available to them. "And again, has not our Lord Jesus Christ redeemed men’s souls: true it is that the effect of his death comes not to the whole world: Nevertheless for as much as it is not in us too discern between the righteous and the sinners that go to destruction, but that Jesus Christ has suffered his death and passion as well for them as for us: therefore it behooves us to labour to bring every man to salvation that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ made be available to them." (John Calvin, Sermons on Job, Sermon 116 31: 29-32., p., 548.)

2. Augustine taught that even Judas was redeemed by Christ. He writes, "For he threw down the price of silver, for which by him the Lord had been sold; and he knew not the price wherewith he had himself by the Lord been redeemed. This thing was done in the case of Judas." (Augustine, Exposition on the Book of the Psalms, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, 8:309.) Augustine believed that the death of Christ was for all without exception. He comments on 2 Cor 5:14-15 and writes, "Thus all, without one exception, were dead in sins, whether original or voluntary sins, sins of ignorance, or sins committed against knowledge; and for all the dead there died the one only person who lived, that is, who had no sin whatever, in order that they who live by the remission of their sins should live, not to themselves, but to Him who died for all..." (Augustine,The City of God and Christian Doctrine, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series. 2:245.)

3. Martin Luther believed that since Christ is offered to all, justification by Christ must be possible for all. He writes, "The righteousness of Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, our Lord and Savior, is so great that it could justify innumerable worlds. "He shall justify many," says he, that is to say, all. It should, therefore, be understood of all, because He offers His righteousness to all, and all who believe in Christ obtain it." (W 40 III, 738 f–E op ex 23, 523 f - SL 6, 720). Cited from: Ewald M. Plass, What Luther Says (Saint Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1959) Luther also believed that Christ sufficiently gave himself a ransom for those who perish. "Christ did not effectively give His ransom for Judas and the Jews, He certainly gave it sufficiently. It is rather that they did not accept it. Therefore it should not be denied that it was given, but rather it should be denied that the benefit of the propitiation was accepted." (Martin Luther, First Lectures on the Psalms, in Luther’s Works 10:228.)

4. Jonathan Edwards taught that all mankind now have an opportunity to be saved in some sense, "UNIVERSAL REDEMPTION. In some sense, redemption is universal of all mankind: all mankind now have an opportunity to be saved otherwise than they would have had if Christ had not died. A door of mercy is in some sort opened for them. This is one benefit actually consequent on Christ's death." (Jonathan Edwards [1743], Documents on the Trinity, Grace and Faith, WJE Online Vol. 37) Jonathan Edwards also affirmed that Christ's redemption was in some sense for the salvation of the non-elect. "Christ's incarnation, his labors and sufferings, his resurrection, etc., were for the salvation of such as are not elected, in Scripture language, in the same sense as the means of grace are for their salvation; in the same sense as the instruction, counsels, warnings and invitations that are given them, are for their salvation." (Jonathan Edwards [1743], "Controversies" Notebook, WJE Online Vol. 27)

5. John Bunyan taught that the righteousness of Christ is sufficient to save all, but sin hinders all from being saved by it. "So then, though there be a sufficiency of life and righteousness laid up in Christ for all men, and this tendered by the gospel to them without exception; yet sin coming in between the soul and the tender of this grace, it hath in truth disabled all men, and so, notwithstanding this tender, they continue to be dead." (Bunyan, Reprobation Asserted, in The Works of John Bunyan, Banner of Truth, 2:249-350.) John Bunyan also taught that the death of Christ must be extended to all, if the grace of God is to be offered to all. He writes, "...it must needs be that the gospel was with all faithfulness to be tendered unto them; the which it could not be, unless the death of Christ did extend itself unto them (John 3:16; Heb 2:3); for the offer of the gospel cannot, with God’s allowance, be offered any further than the death of Jesus Christ doth go; because if that be taken away, there is indeed no gospel, nor grace to be extended."

Quotes from teachers who had Hyper-Calvinistic views

edit

Historically there has been two highly disputed controversial doctrines which have earned many the name "Hyper Calvinist".

  1. That unregenerate souls do not have a duty to bring forth the faith of God's elect.
  2. That Christ's redemption is not to be preached as an offer of redemption, as though the gospel was intended to provide souls with an opportunity to be redeemed.

Answering the doctrine of duty faith

edit

"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)." -Christopher Ness (1621–1705) (An Antidote Against Arminianism by Christopher Ness)

"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." (Commentary on the Gospel Standard Baptist Articles of Faith by J.H. Gosden)

"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." (William Styles, A Manual of Faith and Practice)

"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." (Benjamin Taylor, Deceiving the Souls of Thousands)

Answering the doctrine of the universal offer

edit

"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." (Robert Hawker, The True Gospel; No Yea and Nay Gospel)

"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." (Sermon 7: THE DOCTRINE OF PREDESTINATION STATED, AND SET IN THE SCRIPTURE LIGHT, John Gill)

"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." (William Tant, On offering the Gospel)

Informal and/or erroneous usage

edit

[This might be an embryo of the definition of Hyper-Calvinism]

The prefix "hyper" may be used generically to refer to anything that goes beyond the accepted norm. For this reason, any Calvinistic view regarded as going beyond orthodox Calvinism is sometimes referred to as "hyper-Calvinism." This non-technical usage, often derogatory, has been applied to a variety of doctrines and ideas sometimes found within Calvinism:

References

edit
  1. Sinclair Ferguson, et al., editors, The New Dictionary of Theology (InterVarsity Press, 1988), s.v. "Hyper-Calvinism". ISBN 0-8308-1400-0
  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 0-916206-50-5
  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 0-8010-6742-1
  5. Murray, Iain H. Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching. Banner of Truth, 2000. ISBN 0851516920
  6. Daniel, Curt. Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1983.
  7. Oliver, Robert W. History of the English Calvinistic Baptists: 1771-1892. Banner of Truth, 2006. ISBN 0851519202
edit

Historical Sources

Modern Sources


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rursus/Hyper-Calvinism&oldid=1219193141"