Oct
2
What Is a Hyper-Calvinist, Really?
Alternate titles: The Truth about Hyper-Calvinism OR Hyper-Calvinism: What It Is and Isn’t
Once again, I find myself — a non-Calvinist, or perhaps a not-quite-Calvinist — defending Calvinists and Calvinism on social media. (Not that I do this a lot, mind you.) Or, at least, trying to correct misinformation. Why? ‘Cuz it really bugs me to see Calvinists/Calvinism, imperfect as they may be, being maligned and misrepresented by those who don’t like them.
In this case, a Facebook acquaintance (who happens to be going through a “deconstruction” phase with his faith) posted a meme that quoted Reformed apologist James R. White, and his comment was that the quote was stupid. His anti-Calvinist friends heartily agreed. I tracked down the exact quote in a book by White and posted the text leading up to it, explaining that I wasn’t looking to debate theology but just thought some context might help make more sense of the quoted part. More to the point of this post, my friend also called White a “hyper-Calvinist”, and I could tell that he didn’t really understand the term. So, my second comment on the thread was to briefly correct that.
Honestly, it’s not like I expected any of the anti-Calvinists in the thread to thank me, let alone change their minds. They love their White-bashing too much. But, I figured I would at least get a comment or even an emoji reaction or three… Nothin’. Maybe they just wrote me off as a pedantic Calvinist nutter. (Assuming any of them actually read what I wrote.) I dunno. It’s too bad, but maybe someone still benefited from my comments. I benefited from my bit of research, and I also got an idea for a blogpost, so there’s that. 🙂
I have since done some more research, including from a new book I purchased, so this article will expand on what I posted in the Facebook thread.
As with “low-” vs. “high-Calvinism”, there is no official definition of “hyper-Calvinism”. This is largely due to a) it being a subtle distortion or blurring of the traditional teachings of Calvinism and b) there being a variety of “flavors” of hyper-Calvinism. I have noticed various people, mostly non-Calvinists, using the term in several different ways. Some will use it just to refer to regular Calvinist belief, ‘cuz they don’t like it (whether they actually understand it or not). Some equate it with “cage-stage Calvinism” or any other passionate/enthusiastic behavior by Calvinists or just evidence that they hold strongly to the doctrines of grace. Some think it’s the same thing as Supralapsarianism and/or “high Calvinism”. Others will refer to someone as “hyper-Calvinist” who identifies as broadly Calvinist but extends their definition of Calvinism beyond the 5 points of TULIP. Let’s look at these in reverse order.
Probably the best-known example of this last category is Pastor John Piper. But, as Matt Perman explains,
“When John Piper says he is a ‘seven-point Calvinist,’ he does so half-jokingly and half-seriously. Historically, there are five points of Calvinism, not seven. Piper isn’t seeking to add two more points, but is simply calling attention to his belief in the traditional five points (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints) in a way that also points toward two additional ‘Calvinistic’ truths that follow from them: double predestination and the best-of-all-possible worlds.”
Nothing “hyper” about this, even if some Calvinists would differ with Piper on the details. It’s possible someone else might do something similar and still be within the bounds of Calvinist orthodoxy. (Here I must note that the TULIP acronym is a later invention and does not cover every Reformed doctrine.) But, it’s also possible for some “independent thinkers” to go astray with heterodoxical doctrines, and that would be cause for concern.
Regarding the equation of hyper-Calvinism with Supralapsarianism, Arminian theologian F. LeRoy Forlines makes the observation that:
“Most Classical Calvinists are Infralapsarian. Supralapsarianism, in making the decree to elect some and to reprobate others precede the decree to create, is sometimes referred to as Hyper-Calvinism. While in a minority, Supralapsarians have been accepted among Classical Calvinists.”
However, Calvinists like Peter Toon make the necessary distinction that, while hyper-Calvinists are often supralapsarian, not all Supralapsarians are hyper-Calvinists. Thus, there can be no equation of the two. Peter Sammons adds, “This distinction is important in order to distinguish those who are within an acceptable Christian tradition and those who are downright heretical.”
I suspect it’s the exuberance of cage-stage Calvinists — i.e., usually those recently converted to a Reformed position, either from outside of Christianity or from a non-Reformed denomination — that make some think of the “hyper-Calvinist” term that they heard somewhere. “Hyper” can mean overdone or unrestrained, and, let’s face it, some Calvinists in the so-called “cage stage” (as in a “cage match” in pro-wrestling) can be a bit… pushy or hard-core, with little room for patience or grace for those who disagree with them. (And, let’s be honest here. Nascent Calvinists are not the only ones who can exhibit “cage stage” behavior.) But, this is not “hyper-Calvinism”.
Finally, there are some who are — for whatever reasons — just plain turned off by anything to do with Calvinism and those who hold to it. I’ve even seen/heard what might be called “Calvinism Derangement Syndrome”, and it’s just as ugly, uncharitable, and unChristian as you might imagine. Some will even accuse Calvinists of teaching false/demonic doctrine and declare them to not be genuine followers of Jesus Christ. But, even non-ranting, normal people have theological objections to Calvinism, and that’s fine. But, they are wrong if they refer to someone simply espousing normal Calvinist beliefs as “hyper-Calvinist”. Unfortunately, the late Norm Geisler was one such person, as he redefined terms in order to call people like himself “moderate Calvinists” and actual, 5-point Calvinists were dubbed hyper-Calvinists or “extreme Calvinists”. (See Geisler’s Chosen But Free or vol. 3 of his Systematic Theology.)
So,… hyper-Calvinists are not regular Calvinists, not even in a “cage stage”. They are not to be equated with Supralapsarians. Nor are Calvinists who like to bring attention to other Reformed doctrines in addition to the standard TULIP rightly called “hyper-Calvinist”. There may be other misapplications of the term, as well. (For example, Phil Johnson points out that some critics equate hyper-Calvinism with fatalism, but not all hyper-Calvinists are fatalists.)
Getting back to what I said earlier, if there is no official definition of “hyper-Calvinism”, how do we identify it? How do we recognize when someone should be rightly called a hyper-Calvinist or has hyper-Calvinist tendencies? Well, there are certain traits that are generally agreed upon among the more historically and theologically informed. (The following is adapted from Johnson and Sammons.)
Unlike historic Calvinism, hyper-Calvinism is grounded in an emphasis on God’s sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility. Thus, a true hyper-Calvinist will likely hold to at least one of these positions:
1) Denial that the gospel call applies to all who hear;
2) Denial that faith is the duty of every sinner;
3) Denial that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal);
4) Denial that there is such a thing as “common grace”;
5) Denial that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.
As Phil Johnson has pointed out, these all lead to an undermining of evangelism or twisting of the gospel message. For example, hyper-Calvinists are opposed to missions and “promiscuous” evangelism (e.g., in mixed crowds), because in their minds it a) is a waste of time and b) can lead some reprobate people into thinking they are “saved”. The hyper-Calvinist thus is expected to have some sort of extra (perhaps even unbiblical) spiritual discernment to identify evidence of regeneration in someone before he will share the Gospel with that person. The Calvinist, on the other hand, believes that “reprobation does not hinder the free offer of the gospel to all men, since we do not know who the elect are.”
One last but important point to make, as it addresses something that non-Calvinists often mistakenly attribute to Calvinists. This unbalanced emphasis on sovereignty “often takes the form of equal ultimacy, or any similar scheme in which God is said to actively coerce (or even force) men to sin to bring about their predestined demise.” Put another way,
“These distortions by hyper-Calvinists overemphasize sovereignty to the point that they are comfortable claiming God is the author of sin, without qualification — something the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Synod of Dort both outright deny.” (Peter Sammons)
If someone you are reading, listening to, or interacting with clearly demonstrates one or more of the preceding beliefs, chances are very good that they are indeed a hyper-Calvinist. (Or, perhaps a poorly-informed or inadequately-discipled Calvinist.) More could be said, of course. But, this should be enough to give anyone interested in accurate representation an understanding of what makes some people “hyper-Calvinists” and others not.
P.S. Just for the record, James R. White has never promoted what hyper-Calvinists believe. His decades of preaching, apologetics, and evangelization of everyone from Mormons to Muslims also demonstrate that he does not hold to that minority doctrine. You might not like him, but don’t call him a “hyper-Calvinist”, lest you be guilty of the sin of libel or slander.
(H/T James R. White (‘Dividing Line’ podcast), Matt Perman (‘Desiring God’ website), F. LeRoy Forlines (Classical Arminianism), Phillip R. Johnson (“A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism”), and Peter Sammons (Reprobation and God’s Sovereignty))
