As a follow up to Allan's post, if the intent is to properly identify what Hyper-Calvinism is, one should not use a source that is disputed such as Phil Johnson's writings are. In fact, his may be the poorest source available. Phil's definition is overly general and reductionist. Also, Rippon's comparison of the "P" list and the "M" list is accurate. And to clarify something, I did not say that the monergism.com was the goto guys, but the goto place for information. I do not endorse every opinion of the man John Hendrix, even though he is a much better theologian than Phil Johnson. No offense intended Phil. If I thought that the HC label appropriately described my views, I would gladly own it. I don't think my semantical objection to "common grace" puts me there.