Hyper-Calvinism

Q. How do you define Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism?

A. A Hyper-Calvinist is anyone whose Calvinism is higher than my own, and an Arminian is anyone whose Calvinism is lower than my own.

Now of course that's a joke. But if you've spent any length of time discussing Reformed or evangelical theology, you'll probably know that it's a slightly uncomfortable joke because there are people out there debating theology in online forums who don't argue that much differently from this. So what is real Hyper-Calvinism and how do you differentiate it from Historic Calvinism? One of the best articles on the web dealing with this issue is Phil Johnson's A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism. Johnson points out that there is more than one kind of Hyper-Calvinism, and some are more extreme and more seriously in error than others. He mentions five definitions:

"A Hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. 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), OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect."

I think that on their own strictly speaking holding to points 4 and 5 do not mean a person is automatically a Hyper-Calvinist. It is just about possible, from within Reformed orthodoxy, to argue that God does not show "grace" or "love" to the reprobate wicked, though this might indeed be deemed "Ultra High Calvinism" as Johnson puts it. One might almost call it "Stratospheric Calvinism".

Here in particular, we must be careful to distinguish between someone who objects to a word of terminology but accepts the content of what it stands for from someone who rejects both the terminology and the content. For example, there are people who would question the use of the terminology "common grace" for the good gifts that God gives to the reprobate and elect alike in this life, but would in no sense deny that God does give the reprobate these good gifts in his providence. They merely say that it is not properly called "grace" when the Bible itself seems to use "grace" only for God's attitude of saving favour in the realm of redemption.

Having said that, I think it is fair enough for Johnson to mention all five of these positions as tenets of Hyper-Calvinism. Having flirted with points 4 and 5 myself in the past, I believe that a person holding to points 4 and 5 is probably on a slippery slope towards the more serious forms of Hyper-Calvinism, because at that point, although no one would admit this, people have already abandoned deriving their doctrine solely from biblical texts and have already started to read biblical texts through an interpretative matrix of what can and what cannot be correct because of how problematic texts are deemed to contradict or be in conflict with other doctrines that are obviously biblically correct.

Rather than work through the issues as rigorously as we should, there is a tendency to re-interpret Scripture to fit with our system. We take a fairly easy path of accepting an unlikely but possible interpretation of a problematic text so that it more easily fits into our system. The harder course is to see if our system can withstand the most likely interpretation of all texts, rather than having to choose unlikely meanings to make them fit into something. The latter is akin to the child who uses scissors on a jigsaw-puzzle to make the pieces fit, irrespective of how it destroys the overall picture.

For the avoidance of any doubt, my beliefs measured against Johnson's "Five Points" would be as follows:

1. The gospel call certainly applies to all, without exception, who hear the gospel message. And it is a call that goes out not merely as a human call by the preacher, but as a divine call, issued by God himself through the preacher to everyone within the sound of the preacher's voice.

2. Because the gospel is a command and an invitation issued by God, it is the duty of everyone who receives that invitation and command to obey it. The doctrine of reprobation does not exclude anyone from obeying God's commands, including the gospel command.

3. In the free offer of the gospel, Christ himself and salvation in him are offered to sinners, not merely as a bare presentation of facts about Christ and his work, but with the assurance that Christ is abundantly able to save any sinner who comes to him and the promise that no one who comes to him for salvation will ever be turned away. Furthermore, the free offer of the gospel should also be made to sinners with the understanding that, in his revealed will (will of command), God expresses a sincere desire for everyone who hears the gospel to believe it and be saved through obeying his command and accepting his offer. This desire is not something that God chooses to bring to fulfilment in the case of the reprobate however, as that genuine desire is nonetheless tempered by another divine desire: the desire to manifest his glory in the justice shown to those sinners he chooses to reject and punish for their sins.

4. God gives innumerable good gifts to all people, both elect and reprobate alike. In the sense that such providential gifts are not deserved by anyone, it is feasible to term them "common grace". However, it could be argued that this is not an ideal term for this doctrine as the Scriptures do not tend to use the word "grace" in this way. Something like "providential goodness" may be more accurate.

5. God does not love everyone with the same kind of love, but he does love everyone with some kind of love. As far as electing, redeeming or saving love goes, he loves only the elect and hates the reprobate (Romans 9:13). However, the Scriptures also teach that God has a compassionate, benevolent, though non-saving love, for all his creatures including every human being. It is from this love that God's good gifts to all his creatures flow. Such a non-saving love in God to the wicked as creatures is not inconsistent with God's curse and wrath against the wicked considered as guilty sinners or even with God's hatred of them as reprobates. On the contrary, the rejection of God's love and goodness by the reprobate serve God's purposes by leaving them without excuse and liable to greater condemnation.