Is Hyper Calvinism Regarded As being Non Biblical, As A False Gospel?

To answer that question you need to first define what you mean by Hyper-Calvinism. For some, belief in TULIP is sufficient to warrant the title. For others it is double-predestination. There are others too.

 

Hyper-Calvinism is Calvinism(which is at minimum the 5 points) that has been taken too far as to deny other truths. It's a denial of man's responsibility to believe and repent. It's a denial of the need to spread the gospel. Hyper-Calvinism is unbiblical and disobedient.

 

Wait a minute. I though that was Calvinism, not hyper Calvinism. I thought because of their belief of election they teach that the person has no choice but to be saved. If a person has a responsibility to do anything then how can it be Calvinism hyper or not as a responsibility equals choice?

 

My point is made. It has only been a short while since my comment and already we have two views of Hyper-Preterism.

The same "hyper" problem comes up in the Preterism issue.

 

I agree. Using "hyper" always forces the conversation into inexact arguments and ambiguous definitions.

 

Id love to hear a definition as well. Ive been called it & I just would like to see if it sticks.

 

I know some people that have attempted a systematic definition of hypercalvinism. The best one in my opinion is by Hendrix at monergism.com. But I don't think anyone can give a historically justified, theologically/philosophically sound definition. As I heard someone say one time, "It's simple: you're "hyper" if you stand to the right of me."

 

The number of churches/christians that believe in no evangelism whatsoever is so small that there's no point in discussing.

I would guess that there are a few more than that, but not many, that believe in direct causation of all things both good and evil.

There probably was a larger (larger than today, that is) body of Gospel Standard churches in the 18th and 19th centuries, but they are practically extinct today. (Gospel Standard-ites believe that it is a sin to preach the Gospel to the non-elect - just how one distinguishes between the elect and non-elect remains a mystery).

 

JF, I think the last ones called Arianism.

 

You have described hyper-Calvinism...

Election does not equal "salvation" as has been said here multiple, multiple times -- to deaf ears.

The gospel is preached, an effective call (internal and external) is made, justification, regeneration, adoption, faith/repentance, sanctification, perseverance, and finally, glorification.

Until each of those elements that make up "salvation" is complete, there is no salvation.

Additionally, Calvinism (unlike hyper-Calvinism) does not remove human free will and make us automatons or robots. Calvinists deal FULLY with every text of Scripture, including those that suggest that humans have some role to play in the salvific experience. Interpretation of those scriptural passages will likely be different than that of an Arminian or a no-name theology individual, but none are set aside as is often suggested by those same groups.

IF your version of Calvinism were actually true, then our best course of action would be to nuke the whole world and get it over with. That is not, nor has ever been the plan of God expressed in the Scriptures. He said, "whosoever will" and by that, those who are elect, when hearing the gospel, will be effectually called in God's timing by God's power. Until that point, no one is "saved."

 

hello glfredrick I understand the basics of Calvinism, but many on here seem to push it much further. The problem that I have with Calvinism is that both sides are claimed. By that I mean basically what you stated. Calvinism denies that man has no choice in being saved, but then they turn around and say that all who are elect will come. Unless they come on their own without some prior locking them in they do not come on their own.
It is a principle like the government saying a man is innocent until proven guilty and the judge has the sentence written out before the trial and everyone coming before him is found guilty.

I am not saying that Calvinism has no grounds to support its claim. I think it very well might. However I also think that the same scriptures they use can mean something other the what Calvinism thinks it means. In other words I am not convinced as to the claims.

I find it very difficult to understand how scripture can say;
For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

and then claim only the elect will be saved. If His will is for all to be saved then all are elect or some elect reject. However we all know that is not true. While I personally have no problem with the Lord saving only a predestined elect if He so desires, but it leaves a lot of questions in light of the passages I just gave.

So if the predestined elect are the only ones that will be saved, praise God. If the saved are those who become the predestined elect because they become saved then praise God also. Either way or something in between it has no bearing on spirituality of the one holding the belief no matter which side they are on as long as they both preach the same message for salvation. The issue is not if someone holds to Calvinism or not as no one ever seeks to win a soul by first explaining Calvinism to that lost soul. The issue is if they preach the truth about man’s state towards God and what is needed to be right with God which is repentance towards God and faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Thanks for a very reasoned answer.

I'm of a mind that those who are not of the Calvinist "flavor" have probably not done much reading of a theological nature in writings from the pens of Calvinists. That in turn leads those same people to question the soundness (and breadth) of the scholarship and exegesis brought to the table by Calvinists to support their position. I would literally DARE Arminians and no-named theology supporters to read Owens "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" then come back and explain where he was faulty in his extensive exegesis.

You can read it here for free:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath.html

Here, for those interested, is the remainder of the title. The book title is often shortened in the theological field to DDDC, but this is what Owen actualy penned:

A treatise of the redemption and reconciliation that is in the blood of Christ;
with
the merit thereof, and the satisfaction wrought thereby:
wherein
the proper end of the death of Christ is asserted; the immediate effects and fruits thereof assigned, with their extent in respect of its object;
and the
whole controversy about universal redemption fully discussed.
In four parts.
1. Declaring the eternal counsel and distinct actual concurrence of the holy Trinity unto the work of redemption in the blood of Christ; with the covenanted intendment and accomplished end of God therein.
2. Removing false and supposed ends of the death of Christ, with the distinctions invented to solve the manifold contradictions of the pretended universal atonement; rightly stating the controversy.
3. Containing arguments against universal redemption from the word of God; with an assertion of the satisfaction and merit of Christ.
4. Answering all considerable objections as yet brought to light, either by the Arminians or others (their late followers as to this point), in the behalf of universal redemption; with a large unfolding of all the texts of scripture by any produced and wrested to that purpose.​

 

I have, and there is no real need to go into it as it has been something rehashed over and over and over, over last couple hundred years. Sorry, he isn't correct. While I agree that many who are not Calvinists have not read much if any of the works of Calvinists but many of us have, and it is BECAUSE of scripture, we disagree with certain of their views regarding scripture. I find it laughable that you think daring someone to read him would cause them to suddenly say - wow, he is right! Especially when you don't even believe those of us who aren't Calvinists or Reformed in our theology can even grasp it unless God reveals it to us, which he has chosen not to.

 

Funny, you say that Owen is not correct... You'd have to bring some heavy duty exegesis to the table to contend with Owen! Just saying so won't cut it. He brought arguments based on Scripture.

Where do you find him wrong? And, why do you, when so many have been unable to do likewise?

 

Actually, there is a bit more to it than that but that is the short version.
Below is a thread I did a while back on the subject regarding what Hyper Calvinism was -according to Calvinists. I used various Calvinist and reformed sources, but primarily two mainstream Calvinist websites (Monergism and Spurgeon.com). They each gave a listing of various aspects that formulate a Hyper Calvinist. One list more exhaustive and the other more concise , but according to both sites (and I have listed my conversation with them in the thread) they both say are saying the same things (I asked them to look at the others list and see if they agree or not).

And while a person can hold to 1 or a couple of Hyper views, that does not necessarily make them an flat out Hyper. Yet there are a couple that would constitute such.. like what you gave above - no evangelism due to believing God does save apart from His gospel message and or faith in Jesus. Denial of repentance..

But Hyper also holds the connotation of going beyond what Historical Calvinism or Reformed theology taught.. which is what this list gives. Yet it IS something I am seeing more and more of these days among the newer Calvinists coming up (at least within my sphere of influence)

Here is the link to the thread I made on Hyper Calvinism

 

No, they have not been unable, they just have not been listened to. There is a difference. Just saying, I don't agree doesn't cut it either.

Again, this board has been over his views in various ways, contended and I believe proven the Reformed view, on some points, to be biblically incorrect, yet the other side would say differently.

Just because he uses scripture to state his case does not make correct. As they say, even Satan used scripture to make his point to Jesus. So to try to belabor a point that has been contended, contested, for the last couple of hundred years, no matter what I state, will not resolve the issue. But I do thank you for putting such high esteem in my understanding as to think I can do away with the arguments in a few posts. I am humbled but don't think it will do much more than boil down to.. no it isn't.. yes, it is.. no, IT ISN'T, Yes, IT IS.. ect...

 

The question in the OP:

The Calvinist on this BB have convinced me that Calvinism, at least as they explain it, is a false interpretation of the Bible and thus a false gospel. I did not hold this believe prior to the recent discussions on Calvinism.

 

If it won't stick, I've got a hammer and nails!! LOL J/K Bro. EWF!!