Orthodox Christianity goes hand in hand with labels that define what a particular group of people believe in. Some labels (e.g. covenant theology and dispensational theology) are broad while others (e.g. Calvinism and Arminianism) are narrow and apply to specific issues. Though labels often create problems,
they are a necessary evil as they help to draw parameters pertaining to what one
believes and teaches.
In the doctrine of salvation, the major labels are Arminianism and Calvinism. Each of these labels have various distinctions but they both can be summarised by how they answer the question, “Who is responsible for our salvation?” The Arminian believes that salvation is dependent on man’s willingness and choice to repent. The Calvinist believes that salvation is the work of God. He believes that man is dead in his sins (Eph. 2:1–3) and unable to seek God (Rom. 3:9–18). It is because of this hopeless reality that man desperately needs God to awaken him from the dead and give him newness of life (Eph. 2:4; Acts 16:11). The Calvinist has a iblical understanding of the sovereignty of God over all the affairs of life, including salvation.
Charles
Spurgeon was right when he said, “I have my own opinion that there is no such
thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays
is called Calvinism.
It is a
nickname to call
it Calvinism; Calvinism is the
gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel if we do
not preach justification by faith without works; nor unless we preach the
sovereignty of God in his dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the
electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor
do I
think we can
preach the gospel
unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of his elect and
chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross.”
The fact that salvation is the work of God is clearly laid out in the first chapter of Ephesians. God the Father chose and predestined us unto salvation before the foundations of the world (v.4–5). God the Son died and redeemed those whom the father chose (v.7–12) and God the Holy Spirit convicts and seals those whom the Father chose, whom the Son redeemed (v.13–14) and all this God did to the praise of his glory (v.6,12,14). The hymn writer summed up this truth by saying:
“That for a wilful outcast such as I,
The Father planned, the Saviour bled and died; Redemption for a worthless slave to buy,
Who long had law and grace defied.”
In the recent years there has been a rise in Calvinistic thinking and preaching in Christendom as many people have rediscovered the great teachings of the Bible. While this is to be encouraged and we pray that more and more people will be enlightened to these truths, we also need to remember that whenever Calvinistic thinking has come to the fore in history it has given rise to an extreme called Hyper-Calvinism.
Iain Murray makes this observation when analysing Spurgeon’s battles
with Hyper-Calvinists: “Hyper-Calvinism only arises whenever and wherever the truth of the sovereignty of God in salvation is firmly believed. The reason why Spurgeon’s first controversy has been so little thought of in these last hundred years is not that the subject is insignificant. It is rather that doctrinal Christianity as a whole has been too largely ignored. At the present time, when evangelical Calvinism is again being recovered in many parts of the earth, the danger of Hyper-Calvinism is once more a possibility and the lessons to be drawn from this old controversy have again become relevant.”
What is Hyper-Calvinism?
It would
be amiss to continue
discussing Hyper-Calvinism without
defining what it is. Defining of the terms is not straight forward
business because of the different nuances that particular systems tend to take
up and Hyper-Calvinism is no different. Part of the problem stems from the
confusion that abounds in many circles. As Sam Storm observes;
“Unfortunately, the label ‘Hyper-Calvinist’ is used frequently in our day to insult or ridicule anyone who is more Calvinistic than oneself. As far as the Pelagians are concerned, semi-Pelagians are Hyper-Calvinists. As far as semi-Pelagians are concerned, Arminians are Hyper-Calvinists. As far as Arminians are concerned, four-point Calvinists are Hyper-Calvinists. As far as four-point Calvinists are concerned, five-point Calvinists are Hyper-Calvinists. Depending on where you find yourself on the theological spectrum, everyone (except the Pelagian) is a Hyper-Calvinist. Oh yes, and as far as authentic Hyper-Calvinists are concerned, everyone else is just confused!”
As a result of this confusion, the term Hyper-Calvinism has become a
derogative term that is used toward people who are passionate Calvinists. If we are to understand this system of belief we have to look at it from its historical roots. It is this understanding that will help us differentiate Calvinism from Hyper-Calvinism. Phil Johnson gives a fivefold definition of Hyper-Calvinism. According to Phil Johnson, a Hyper-Calvinistic is one who is characterised by denial in the following spheres:
(a) The denial of the gospel call: Hyper-Calvinism denies that the gospel calls all sinners to repentance and faith. The gospel call (the invitation to come to Christ for salvation—Rev. 22:17; Matt. 11:28–29; Isa. 45:22, 55:1–7) is denied to all but the elect.
David Engelsma supports this description of Hyper-Calvinism by
adding that “it is a 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 unregenerate 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.”
The most well-known example of this kind of Hyper-Calvinism was when John Ryland responded to William Carey’s desire to go to India for mission work. John Ryland told him, “Sit down, young man. When God decides to save the heathen, he will do it without your help.”
(b) The denial of faith as a duty: Hyper-Calvinism here suggests that since
unbelievers are incapable of faith apart from enabling
grace, believing in
Christ must never be presented to them as a duty. This is clearly expressed in the articles of faith of the Gospel Standard Aid and Poor Relief Societies, i.e. the statement of faith of the Hyper-Calvinistic Gospel Standard (Baptist) churches.
(c) The denial of the gospel offer: Hyper-Calvinism denies the gospel offer
of mercy to the non-elect. It denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal. An article in the Gospel Standard Articles records, “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.”
(d) The denial of common grace: The doctrine of common grace has a long history that goes all the way back to Calvin and Augustine. But Hyper- Calvinism denies the concept, insisting that God has no true goodwill toward the non-elect and, therefore, shows them no favour or grace of any kind. The distinction between common grace and special grace parallels the distinction between the general call and the effectual call. Common grace is extended to everyone. It is God’s goodness to humanity in general whereby God graciously restrains the full expression of sin and mitigates sin’s destructive effects in human society.
Common grace imposes moral constraints on people’s behaviour,
maintains a semblance of order in human affairs, enforces a sense of right and wrong through conscience and civil government, enables men and women to appreciate beauty and goodness, and imparts blessings to elect and non-elect alike. God “causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matt. 5:45).
(e)
The denial of God’s love toward the reprobate: Hyper-Calvinism denies God’s love for
the reprobate. To deny that God loves the reprobate is to suggest that God
holds us to a higher standard than he himself follows, for he instructs us to
love our enemies—and Scripture teaches that when we love our enemies we are
behaving like God, who shows lovingkindness even to
the reprobate (Deut.
10:18; Matt. 5:44–45).
One example of preachers who held to such a view is John
Rabbi Duncan who is quoted
saying, “I believe that God does hate some of you and that he always will! Do what you will he will hate you, whether you believe or not—whether you pray or not—whether you repent or not—God hates you and will hate you!”
As one can observe, Hyper-Calvinism carries a variety of nuances but
it is helpful to keep this description in mind as one thinks of this heretical system of belief. Phil Johnson sums up the problem with Hyper-Calvinism when he writes, “All five varieties of Hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message.” Hyper-Calvinists are notorious for their refusal to evangelise the lost and for drawing conclusions springing from their belief of the sovereignty of God that are contrary to the teachings of Scripture.
A brief response
The denials discussed are damaging to the teachings of the Bible. Hyper- Calvinism presents a God who is unjust and unloving. Is this what the Bible teaches? We respond to these beliefs with two questions:
Should the gospel be offered to all? Hyper-Calvinists believe that the gospel should not be preached to the unbeliever as they are totally unable to believe and that since God is sovereign in election, the elect will be saved regardless. What they fail to see, however, is that human inability does not negate responsibility just as sovereign election does not negate evangelism. The apostle Paul was the greatest proponent of man’s total depravity (Rom 1:18–
3:18) and God’s sovereign election (Eph. 1:3–14; Rom 8:28–9:29), and yet his
evangelistic fervour and missionary passion are unrivalled. He pleaded with people to be saved from their sins and the wrath to come.
Hence, Paul preached the gospel and suffered for its cause (Rom 1:16;
Acts 9:15–16; Rom 9:1–3, 10:9–17) while acknowledging that salvation is the sovereign work of God. The Canons of Dort’s statement sums it up well when they affirm that Christ’s death “is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world” (Second Head, Article 3). They go on to say, “the promise of the gospel … to all persons … without distinction
….” Although
many do not
embrace it, this
“is not owing
to any defect
or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but
is wholly to be imputed to themselves” (Second Head, Articles 5–6).
Is God good to everyone? The Hyper-Calvinist argue that the non-elect does not experience the goodness of God in any way because God does not love them. They reject any notion that distinguishes between God’s saving gracing towards his chosen people and his common grace towards his entire creation. The problem with such a position is that one has to do away with a lot of verses in the Bible. Michael Horton’s comments are helpful here: “Scripture is full of examples of God’s providential goodness, particularly in the Psalms: ‘The Lord is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made …. You open your hand; you satisfy the desire of every living thing’ (Ps. 145:9, 16). Jesus calls upon his followers to pray for their enemies for just this reason: ‘For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust’ (Matt. 5:44). Christians are supposed to imitate this divine attitude.”
Conclusion
A church that has a shallow understanding of the sovereignty of God is a church that will be spiritually weak and will not make gospel proclamation central to its life. When such a church proclaims the gospel, it is unclear and manipulative. We must heed the caution of Iain Murray: “While I know of no evidence that Hyper-Calvinism is recovering strength, it would appear that the priority which soul-winning had in Spurgeon’s ministry is not commonly seen to be our priority. The revival of doctrine has scarcely been matched by a revival of evangelism… Doctrine without usefulness is no prize.” (xiv)
Bibliography
Englesma, David. 1980. Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel. Grand
Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association.
Murray, Iain. 2002. Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel
Preaching. Banner of Truth.
Spurgeon, Charles. 1856. The New Park Street Pulpit Vol. 1.
2010. The Canons of Dort. Chapel library. Pensacola, Florida.
2008. The articles of Faith and Rules. Gospel standard trust
publications. http://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/what-is-hyper-calvinism
http://www.romans45.org/articles/hypercal.htm
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/reformed-theology-vs-hyper-calvinism/
