I though it might be helpful to point out that in order for someone to use the term "Hyper-Calvinism" in the manner it has been used historically, and in which it finds its accepted definition, the following should be considered:
1. A Hyper-Calvinists is not simply a "really serious calvinist", or even a "high-calvinist", or a Supralapsarian (one who beleives in double-predestination), or even one who believes that God is the Ultimate reason for all things that happen, even evil.
2. Hyper-Calvinism is marked primarily by the position that does not believe in the indiscriminate offer of the gospel to the elect and non-elect.
This is expressed in the following articles from the confession of the Gospel Standard (Baptist) Churches of England:
3.
Historically, The men who argued most fervently AGAINST hyper-calvinism have been calvinists.
Baptists like Andrew Fuller, Adonirum Judson, & William Carey fervently opposed the hyper-calvinists in their day and were instrumental in early Baptist Missionary work.
Later, Charles Spurgeon would debate and battle hyper-calvinism in his circles, with great spiritual fruit as a result of his indiscriminate Gospel invitation to all.
4.
If you want to call someone a Hyper-calvinist with integrity, you must demonstrate that they Do not believe that we should preach the Gospel to all men and urge them to turn to Christ.
5. Tom Nettles has this to say about the issue:
6.
I will add that historically, Many Calvinists would classify Primitive Baptists as Hyper-Calvinists.
They would likely deny this label, and possibly with good reason, as they do not necessarily oppose evangelism, but simply believe that such evangelism and preaching of the Gospel is unrelated to eternal salvation, but rather simply announces the Gospel to those who are already elect and would end up in heaven whether they ever heard the gospel or not.
Because they refused to change when everyone else around them was succumbing to the great commission of the Church to populate heaven through missionary boards they are now castigated as 'hyper'.
How did folks ever make it to heaven before the invention of missions?
Did Jesus send out the 70, two-by-two to preach repentence?
Yes or no?
Did God send Jonah?
Yes or no?
Did Jesus go into the Greek territory of Decapolis and there preach to the lost?
Yes or no?
And, when Paul came to Jerusalem and the elders of the church conviened the Jerusalem Council, which OT covenant did they refer to for instruction to the Gentiles to whom Paul and company were on mission to reach?
Brother, you are trifling with the Word of God in the way you interpret these well-known Bible passages.
Let's assume, for a moment, that you are correct about your views on God's elect.
COULD heaven be "populated" by any effort of man?
Your answer would have to be NO.
And yet, we find true worshiping communities when God's missionaries (as were Paul, Barnabas, Peter, John,
-- the 12 -- and countelss others after Pentecost) went out to preach to the world so that the elect would hear the Word and with that the effectual call.
I consider myself a PB but I'm far from a hyper Calvinist. There are so many misconceptions of what Primitive Baptists are today that it is laughable just to read some of the commentary. Until you have done an exhaustive study of these folks, Id prefer that most keep silent.
:smilewinkgrin:
My intention was not to ridicule Primitive Baptists, merely to give people some historical context in how the term "Hyper-Calvinist" has historically been used.
Primarily it was to correct some on this board who consider Calvinism & Hyper-Calvinism to be essentially the same.
I actually hoped the PB would see this and give us some helpful clarifications. Such as:
-Is it the Title "Hype-Calvinist" that you disagree with, while agreeing with the position that we are not to preach the Gospel to every man, elect and non-elect?
...Or is there some nuance that we who are outside of PB are not getting?
-Is it simply that you think the title "Hyper-calvinist" should be used, since it was invented as negative term to describe those with opposite views....or do you see a real error in "Hyper-Calvinism" that Primitive Baptists would disagree with?
I don't know why people keep associating Calvin with the primitive baptist.
The primitive baptist do not consult the writtings of John Calvin and do not believe some of the things that he teaches.
Anyone who is truly searching for the truth should use only the inspired word of God and have no part in the interpretations of any man.
Wait a moment Guy.....may I ask, do you seriously believe that bringing the gospel alone to someone who is without the help of the Holy Spirit will have any effect? I assure you it wont without the Holy Spirit.
Also note that a PB believes in preaching for the comfort and instruction of the Lord's people IE the elect (Isa. 40: 1-2, 9; Eph.4: 11-16).
So are you saying we should not listen to anything you tell us either?
You yourself said that preaching edifies the saints.
would that not be one man giving his interpretations to another?
Forest....Im sure you have studied others including Calvinists like Arthur Pink &/ or perhaps Charles Spurgeon....but i take you point to mean that you dont Identify with John Calvin. Many great Calvinists dont either. No Baptist could identify with Infant Baptism.