Evolutionary History of Hyper Calvinism

Another title for this post might be "The Historiography of Hyper Calvinism." Many years ago when I first began my online book of chapters on "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" I had to early on define "hyper Calvinism." Here is what I wrote in chapter one (See here):

"In my studies in theology and its history, including systems commonly and traditionally known as Calvinism and Arminianism, I accept these definitions regarding variants of Calvinism.

High Calvinism - the belief in absolute predestination of all things, the belief that everything that exists or comes to pass does so due to the will and decree of God. High Calvinists are often known as supralapsarians, and some supralapsarians are Hyper Calvinists, but not all. I am a supralapsarian Calvinist, like other great Baptists theologians, as John Gill and A.W. Pink, and I believe in the proclamation of the gospel to all men and that Christ invites, yea, commands all men to receive him and to acknowledge him and his salvation.

Low Calvinism - the belief in either conditional or limited predestination or the absolute predestination of some things only, certainly not of all things. Low Calvinists are always infralapsarians.

Hyper (or Hybrid) Calvinism - The belief that God works independently of human means in the saving of sinners, the belief that regeneration precedes faith in Christ, that faith in Christ or conversion to the Christian religion are not necessary for regeneration. Hardshells have a sect that are High Calvinists (Absoluters) and a sect that are Low Calvinists. But, they all are Hyper Calvinists. "I think we must be careful to distinguish between "Hyper" and "High" Calvinism.

When I gave that definition, I was giving its 21st century definition, not its original definition. Originally, as I recently stated in "Elder David Pyles on Hyper Calvinism," Hyper Calvinism originally dealt with one issue, i.e. with "duty faith," which is all the same as the question whether all men are called by the gospel or offered opportunity to be saved. However, like other errors, there was an evolution in the doctrine so that other erroneous ideas became associated with it.

Later Attachments (evolutionary mutations)

1. Regeneration before faith and conversion (logically but not chronologically)

2. Regeneration (which is a part of sanctification) before justification

3. Total depravity denotes physical, as well as moral, disability

4. Commands or imperatives imply ability

5. No divine love for the non elect or giving of common grace

6. God has no will or desire for the salvation of the non elect

7. No conditions for salvation (like election)

8. Hardshellism - elect saved apart from faith and all human means

Dr. Phil Johnson, long time associate of Dr. John MacArthur, has a good primer on the subject. I have cited from him before in my writings. He gives a five fold definition (As cited here): 

"The definition I am proposing outlines five varieties of hyper-Calvinism, listed here in a declining order, from the worst kind to a less extreme variety (which some might prefer to class as “ultra-high Calvinism”): A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either: 

 

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, 

2. OR Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, 

3. OR Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), 

4. OR Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” 

5. OR Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect. 

All five varieties of hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message."

You will notice that brother Johnson does not include the "born again before faith" error. This is because he believes it himself, as does Dr. MacArthur. I had some back and forth comments with Phil many years ago. Though this was not originally seen as a part of Hyper Calvinism, it has become a part of it. Also, the denial of means in regeneration became an integral part of Hyper Calvinism as it evolved. Charles Spurgeon saw it as a part of Hyper Calvinism. Historic Calvinism asserted means in regeneration. As time went on, Calvinists began to speak of "initial regeneration," which excluded faith and repentance (conversion), and complete or broad regeneration which included evangelical faith and conversion.

In the remainder of this chapter I would like to cite at length from "What is Hyper-Calvinism?" by Jim Ellis (See here), which is a good primer on this issue. Said Ellis (all emphasis mine):

"Hyper-Calvinism is a term of derision that today is often used to negatively label anyone with a strong theological view of God's sovereignty in the affairs of men. A legitimate understanding of hyper-Calvinism, in its technical sense, appears to be lost today. It seems as if anyone to the right of one's own theological position is fair game to be labeled a hyper-Calvinist. For example, Arminians regard any who hold to unconditional election as hyper-Calvinists. The four-point Calvinist views the five-point Calvinist as "hyper" because he holds to a limited atonement. We also find five-point infralapsarians referring to five-point supralapsarians as hyper-Calvinists because of their view of the relationship between the fall of man and God's predestination of the elect."

That is true among many, sad to say. However, the more scholarly and historical definition must consider the time period in which it is being defined. 

Wrote Ellis:

"There is indeed such a thing as hyper-Calvinism; but it may be shown both historically and theologically that it is not unconditional election, limited atonement, or supralapsarianism that make a hyper-Calvinist. All of these characteristics fall solidly within orthodox historic Calvinism. The disagreements and discussions regarding these particular theological points are not to be confused with the issue of "hyper-Calvinism." To label one who holds any or all of these views as a hyper-Calvinist is to display a serious case of theological and historical ignorance."

That is true. However, as stated above, other issues became wedded to Hyper Calvinism. None of those ideas however involved the traditional five points. In other words, it is appropriate to say that those Calvinists who teach that regeneration occurs apart from evangelical conversion are Hyper. Or, if they say that God has no love at all for the non elect, they are Hyper Calvinists. Or, if they say that man's inability to obey the gospel is physical, they are Hyper. Etc.

Wrote Ellis:

"I recognize that 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 I may refer to a Calvinist whose views I regard as going beyond normal Calvinism as "hyper." However, the term "hyper-Calvinism" has a technical meaning." 

I agree except with this caveat; Hyper Calvinism's distinctives in the 18th century were more narrow than those of the 19th century and later.

Wrote Ellis:

"Now I should not be so hyper-sensitive about the use of the term hyper-Calvinism that it gives me hyper-tension, but it seems that theological discussions should reserve the term for its technical significance, since it has one, and refrain from indiscriminate use which often amounts to slander. The goal of this post (and the next) is hopefully to re-establish the technical meaning of the term "hyper-Calvinism" and, in doing so, to foster its proper use."

I like the play on words when Ellis speaks of being "so hyper-sensitive about the use of the term hyper-Calvinism that it gives me hyper-tension."

Again, the technical definition today would involve more errors than that which was esteemed as part of the definition of the 18th century, the time when it first raised its head.

Under the sub heading "Problems in Definitions" Ellis wrote:

"There seems to be a problem in adequately defining what constitutes the fundamental error of hyper-Calvinism. Why is a clear definition so elusive? In part, the problem stems from scholarly definitions that either fail to specifically define the error of hyper-Calvinism or else blur the distinction between it and legitimate Calvinism. Let's look at some definitions in the literature to illustrate this point. The New Dictionary of Theology, defines hyper-Calvinism as:

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."

What led Calvinists in the 18th century to deny the well meant offer of the gospel to all men? Well, two errors. The first was due to not properly understanding "total depravity" and making wrong deductions from that teaching. The second was due to not properly understanding the doctrine of unconditional election. Involved in the first error was imbibing the Pelagian idea that "commands imply ability to perform the commands." On this point brother Bob L. Ross of Pilgrim Publications has written much.

Wrote Ellis:

"While the above definition is generally true and helpful, it falls short of telling us specifically what is hyper-Calvinism. It seems to dance around the answer as if specifics would be too laborious to describe or too difficult for the layman to understand. Broad general definitions like the above only contribute to the problem tendency which obscures the distinction between legitimate Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism! Another example comes from R. T. Kendall, formerly of Westminster Chapel, who defines hyper-Calvinism in the appendix of his book, Stand Up and Be Counted as follows:

Hyper-Calvinism. This is a spirit that militates against evangelism and the free offer of the gospel. It has its roots in High-Calvinism but goes beyond it. Many High-Calvinists would still hold to the free offer of the gospel - that you should offer the gospel to everyone even though Christ did not die for everyone. Hyper-Calvinism holds that one must not say "Christ died for you" lest one should not be telling the truth. The most that the hyper-Calvinist feels that he can do is to say "Christ died for sinners" and leave the rest to the Holy Spirit. Hyper-Calvinism does not essentially differ from high-Calvinism except in actual practice, which is why I define Hyper-Calvinism as a spirit."

Here Kendall adds to the problem by suggesting that 5-point Calvinism is somehow the same in essence as hyper-Calvinism. To reduce the distinction merely to one of "spirit" and overlook any distinction in essence is a reflection of Kendall's personal opinion rather than historical or theological accuracy. Moreover, Kendall mistakenly identifies an unwillingness to tell the unregenerate man that Christ died for him as the central issue in hyper-Calvinism. This is an issue in the discussion of "for whom Christ died," i.e. limited versus universal atonement, within historic Calvinism; it's certainly not a defining feature of hyper-Calvinism. Peter Toon shows better insight, suggesting 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 . . .So hyper-Calvinism led its adherents to hold that evangelism was unnecessary." 

Toon's summary definition here is valid as far as it goes, but it stops short of clarifying the root problems in hyper-Calvinism and unduly focuses on its effect upon evangelism in terms of the free offer of grace. However, Toon's overall work is an excellent treatment of the development of hyper-Calvinism with its root causes and resultant theological expressions. The hyper-Calvinist did not aim to undermine evangelism and then work to justify that end. The negative influence on evangelism was the result of some faulty theology aimed at guarding against the encroachment of Arminianism. This faulty theology is the root problem and also what defines hyper-Calvinism, yet that's what is still unclear in these definitions."

Amen. Very well stated. 

Wrote Ellis:

"A final example comes from Curt Daniel, in his massive dissertation entitled Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill. He defined the phenomenon 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." 

This definition contains some valid aspects, but Daniel goes on to finally reduce it to one factor: "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." Daniel may have gone a little far by defining hyper-Calvinism in terms of its use of a single word although a connection is there. Also, it seems to me the historical data indeed does show "real and tangible things" which distinguish the hyper from the high-Calvinist."

Originally the criterion for judging whether one was a Hyper Calvinist was his denial that all men (including the dead in sin, or the non elect), were to be exhorted to believe and repent for salvation.

Wrote Ellis:

"There appears to be a prejudice in most definitions of hyper-Calvinism. It is not only a prejudice against the error of hyper-Calvinism but includes an apparent bias against 5-point or high Calvinism. Most authors quoted as sources in defining hyper-Calvinism are not 5-point Calvinists and many are not Calvinists at all. They see 5-point Calvinists as in error to begin with, so it is no wonder they fail to properly discern the errors of the hyper-Calvinist in distinction to legitimate Calvinism. In spite of any shortcomings of the previous definitions, however, they are helpful to some extent. Considered together we see within them the common threads that are germane to a clear definition of hyper-Calvinism. Namely, it has an adverse effect on evangelism based on certain views regarding the indiscriminate preaching (or free offer) of the Gospel and the responsibility man. Now we are getting somewhere. But we're not there yet."

Amen. Next, under the sub heading "Let's Get Specific" Ellis writes:

"It is quite true that archetypal hyper-Calvinism first appeared among the early English Strict and Particular Baptists. It can be seen, for example, 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). However, the theological extreme held by these men, properly denoted as hyper-Calvinism and properly denoted as error, is rather distinct and certainly deserves a more explicit definition than merely an "over-emphasis of irresistible grace which undermines evangelism." And it certainly deserves to be defined in a way that does not confuse it with legitimate 5-point Calvinism. David Engelsma does just that in the following.

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." 

This definition is much more helpful in that it tells us the specific characteristics of hyper-Calvinism: (1) a denial that the call of the gospel to repent and believe is universal, i.e. for all alike, and (2) a denial that the unregenerate man has a duty to believe. It also illustrates how this misguided view adversely affects evangelism. With this definition it is easier to see exactly where hyper-Calvinists have strayed from orthodoxy. It should also be noted here that these particular characteristics are not true of classic 5-point or high-Calvinism." 

Amen. However, if we ask why it is that some Calvinists began to say "regeneration precedes faith," even though they affirm that it only precedes it logically but not chronologically, and affirm that the gospel is to be addressed to those who are dead spiritually, they will argue from the standpoint of the Hyper Calvinist, if not from the fact of election nevertheless from the fact of total depravity. This is why the regenerated before faith view should be viewed as now a part of Hyper Calvinism in its later form.

Wrote Ellis:

But why not let the "Hypers" speak for themselves. The essential error is most clearly and succinctly stated in their own words from Article 26 in the confessional articles of the Gospel Standard (Baptist) Churches:

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. 

There you have the essence of hyper-Calvinism stated bluntly and emphatically - it is a denial of the duty of fallen man to repent and believe the gospel of God's grace in Jesus Christ coupled with the denial that we should beseech all men indiscriminately to believe the gospel. This eccentric view was labeled hyper-Calvinism in the mid 1700's as the issue was argued and debated among English Baptists and others. It should be noted that, while 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. There were some of course who detected something gone awry in understanding the plain sense of the Scriptures at this point and stayed their course in biblical Calvinism."

One can see how it was from a misunderstanding of total depravity and an accepting of the Pelagian principle that says evangelical commands imply ability to obey the commands. 

Ellis continued:

"We now have what I believe is a more precise description of hyper-Calvinism in its technical sense. Simply stated, hyper-Calvinism consists of two fundamental errors: a denial of duty-faith and a denial of the universal offer of the gospel. However, rather than stop here with this definition, we will look a little further into the issues that are raised and see how the "Hypers" could come to such a disturbing conclusion in their theology."

I agree with the technical definition. I also agree that one cannot stop by giving this original definition without looking into the theological issues that led to those two denials. When that is done one will see how errors in regard to total depravity, seeing it as physical rather than moral, or of the will, and in regard to God's desiring, to some degree, the salvation of all men. 

Under the sub heading of "Duty-Faith" Ellis wrote:

"Tom Nettles sees the essence of hyper-Calvinism as the denial of duty-faith. I tend to agree. Regarding the two defining elements, a denial of duty-faith and a denial of the universal call of the gospel, it seems that once you establish the first, namely to deny that it is the duty of unregenerate man to believe the gospel, then the second point naturally follows, i.e. that the gospel is not for all men indiscriminately and therefore should be proclaimed only to those who show signs of being regenerate. Therefore the critical issue is the denial of duty-faith. If this tenet falls, then I would suggest so does the basis for denying the universal call of the gospel."

 

Again, I agree. Andrew Fuller was one who opened both barrels on the denial of duty faith. I have written much on this subject over the years. Those who deny duty faith and repentance have no warrant from scripture for their denial and can only attempt its defense by making logical arguments relative to man's inability. Those who deny duty faith must admit that rejecting the gospel is no sin, and that is totally untenable and unscriptural.

Wrote Ellis:

"Therefore we ought to look a little closer into the reasoning of the Hypers on this point. One might well ask, How can the hyper-Calvinists rationally deny duty-faith? It stems from a desire to protect the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity (or the moral inability) of the natural man. It seems that men fell into hyper-Calvinism in reaction to the rising Arminianism of their time. Those who repudiated duty-faith and the universal call (or free offer, as it was termed) certainly supposed that they were defending Calvinism. This is why their error may be called hyper-Calvinism. This is plain especially in 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. They, like the Arminians, mistakenly assume that if it is the duty (responsibility) of fallen man to believe and God indeed calls him to believe, then he must have the natural ability to do so. The Arminian conclusion is that man has a free will and Christ has made an atonement for all alike. The hyper-Calvinist, based on the same assumption, concludes that it is not the duty of fallen man and that God in the gospel does not indiscriminately offer Christ to all men alike; that is in reference to the "outward call" of the Gospel. Thus, in trying to protect the Calvinist doctrines of total depravity and particular redemption (a noble endeavor), the hyper-Calvinist has thrown out the baby with the bath water; namely, the universal call to faith to all who hear the gospel, reprobate and elect alike."

In his "Conclusion" Ellis writes:

"In my opinion, we have successfully closed on a clear technical definition of hyper-Calvinism. Simply stated, it consists of two fundamental errors: a denial of duty-faith and a resultant denial of the universal call of the gospel. These fundamental errors are a departure from the teaching of Scripture as well as historic Calvinism. These errors were responsible for unbiblical teaching on evangelism and the proclamation of the gospel among 18th century English Baptists. However, as we have seen, the sad effect on evangelism is not the defining error, but a symptom.

On the other hand, in my understanding, historic Calvinism has always maintained that it is the duty of unregenerate men to repent and believe. Calvinism also acknowledges that the gospel is to be preached to all men indiscriminately and that we are to beseech all to individually trust in Jesus Christ and Him alone for salvation. 

Finally, I hope it is clear that hyper-Calvinism is not to be considered a legitimate form of Calvinism, for it is not. By the same token, however, it should also be clear that honest theological discussion should refrain from labeling legitimate variations within orthodox Calvinism as "Hyper-Calvinism."

Amen. 

The reader might want to check out "Joseph Hussey: the Founding Father of Hypercalvinism" from Calvin and Calvinism web page (here).

Joseph Hussey (1660–1726) was an English Calvinist and congregationalist minister and wrote "God's Operations of Grace but No Offers of His Grace." (1707) He was the first to promote Hyper Calvinism, although he did not deny that the gospel was the means of regenerating the elect.