“The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel, Chapter Ten, titled Hyper-Calvinism.

  

I think it is appropriate for someone who has spent as long in the gospel ministry as I have, with approaching 50 years of what I hope will be appreciated as conscientious observation of the theological and ministerial landscape, to make three initial observations.

Observation number one. For almost a half-century, I have witnessed many opinions about Calvinism coming from men who have not studied Calvinism. Instead, they have formed opinions about Calvinism based upon hearsay or the personality of someone they knew who claimed to be a Calvinist. Because the person had not himself studied the issues related to Calvinism, he was not in a position to recognize whether the supposed Calvinist he did not like was indeed someone whose positions and practices reflected Calvinism. That isn’t very ethical, in my opinion. I remember several Bible college classmates who claimed to be Calvinists, who were uninformed, misinformed, and arrogant. In my many years since sharing several classes with them, my conclusion is that, despite them claiming to be Calvinists, they knew nothing about Calvinism. They sought the attention that young, brash men sometimes seek by being controversialists and contrarians.

Observation number two. The founder and, for many years, the editor of The Sword of the Lord was John R. Rice.[pictured]

Almost every gospel minister in the latter half of the 20^th century would agree that John R. Rice’s opposition to Hyper-Calvinism was legendary. He taught against, preached against, and wrote against Hyper-Calvinism as much as any other issue he opposed. I have heard it said that he blamed his father’s deviation from Christian orthodoxy and declension into spiritual lethargy on his father’s adoption of the tenants of Calvinism. I have also heard that he blamed his father’s deviation from Christian orthodoxy and declension into spiritual lethargy on his father’s embrace of Freemasonry. I do know this. In the days that I read The Sword of the Lord, John R. Rice most usually printed sermons in his periodical that were the sermon manuscripts of Calvinists! However, John R. Rice never informed his readers that the men whose sermons they were reading were Calvinists. He also severely edited those sermons to remove any comments he deemed inappropriate. He did so without informing his readers of his decision to censor the material he offered. How is this different from CNN, MSNBC, Facebook, or Twitter censoring content? At least the mainstream media sometimes informs their audience that they are censoring material. I do not doubt that John R. Rice was a wonderful Christian man, profoundly spiritual, and a legendary prayer warrior. However, the practice of criticizing Calvinists while printing their heavily (secretly) edited sermons does not sit well with me as being ethical or intellectually honest.

Observation number three. Still dealing with the legacy of John R. Rice, he redefined Hyper-Calvinism as embracing T-U-L-I-P. In his view, all five-point Calvinists were Hyper-Calvinists. This is most interesting because it is not valid. It is demonstrably, not true. Most of the pastors who led what is today the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London were five-point Calvinists. Included were Benjamin Keach, John Gill, John Rippon, Charles Spurgeon, and the current pastor Peter Masters. Few would deny that John Gill was a Hyper-Calvinist, but were the other men Hyper-Calvinists? No.

True, they embraced all five points of Calvinism. Yet, how could a five-point Calvinist be honestly described as a Hyper-Calvinist when the famous Charles Spurgeon, a self-proclaimed five-point Calvinist, campaigned against Hyper-Calvinism the first decade of his ministry in London? A five-point Calvinist is not a Hyper-Calvinist except in the mind of John R. Rice and those who have subscribed to his definition of the term. No one in the 19^th century believed that five-point Calvinists were Hyper-Calvinists. No one. Why John R. Rice decided to mislabel Benjamin Keach, John Rippon, Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, William Carey, Adoniram Judson, Hudson Taylor, David Brainerd, and so many other profoundly influential gospel ministers Hyper-Calvinists, I do not pretend to know.

Imagine my surprise upon learning that Iain H. Murray,[pictured with me] a wonderful Christian gentleman, scholar, and author, who I have met and whose company I enjoyed, wrote “Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching.”[pictured] One cannot be a Hyper-Calvinist while attempting to eradicate Hyper-Calvinism as a detriment to Christ’s cause.

Thank you for putting up with these personal comments and observations, which I believe to be an appropriate backdrop for my review of the chapter titled Hyper-Calvinism.

The chapter is subdivided into Background, Eighteenth-Century Hyper-Calvinism, Nineteenth-Century Hyper-Calvinism, Twentieth-Century Hyper-Calvinism, The Issues, and Conclusion. It is interesting to note at this point that the author’s Ph.D. dissertation for the University of Edinburgh, in 1983, is titled “Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill.” He is knowledgeable on the subject. In the first paragraph of the chapter, he acknowledges that Hyper-Calvinism is a term that is often misunderstood.

Background. Five paragraphs are devoted to the history of Hyper-Calvinism, including the names of notable opponents of Hyper-Calvinism, including Richard Baxter (1615-1691).[pictured]

Eighteenth-Century Hyper-Calvinism. One of the distinguishing features of Hyper-Calvinism is the belief that the gospel offer should not be delivered indiscriminately. John Gill was the undisputed leader of both the Baptists and the hyper-Calvinists during his 51 years of pastoral ministry. “Toward the end of the century, five pro-offer English Particular Baptists came to the rescue: Andrew Fuller (1754–1815), William Carey (1761–1834), John Rippon (1751–1836), John Ryland Jr. (1753–1825), and Samuel Pearce (1766–99). Fuller’s The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation defended free offers and Duty Faith, which the hypers had denied. His friend William Carey produced what many consider the mandate for the Great Missionary movement, An Inquiry into the Obligation of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens. They were influenced by Jonathan Edwards and the Great Awakening in America and the Evangelical Awakening in England, which the Hyper-Calvinists usually ignored or opposed test.[pictured]

Nineteenth-Century Hyper-Calvinism. In this chapter, the author introduces a group known as Strict and Particular Baptists without explaining their position. Strict refers to a closed communion ecclesiology. Particular refers to five-point Calvinism. The author wraps up this section with a paragraph addressing American Primitive Baptists and their approach to Hyper-Calvinism. Though he was by no means a Hyper-Calvinist, some who read this review will recognize the name of my late friend Kenneth Connolly. [pictured]

Though his name does not appear in this book. He was most certainly not a Hyper-Calvinist. He and his father, Peter Connolly, embraced the Strict and Particular Baptist persuasion, meaning they advocated closed communion and five-point Calvinism while offering the gospel freely to one all. [pictured]

Twentieth-Century Hyper-Calvinism. This portion of the chapter deals with men who lived on both sides of the Atlantic. Abraham Kuyper, Louis Berkhof, Herman Hoeksema, Gordon H. Clarke, John H. Gerstner, and Arthur W. Pink are recognizable names. Pink usually opposed Hyperism.[pictured]

The Issues. The author spends about 3½ pages discussing the main issues, which I will merely list. First, all Hyper-Calvinists reject the idea of the free offer of the gospel, grace, and/or Christ. Five-point Calvinists disagree. Second, Hyper-Calvinists deny that God desires all men to be saved. Five-point Calvinists disagree with Hyper-Calvinists. Third, the issue of Duty Faith, the belief that saving faith is both a duty and a gift. Hyper-Calvinists disagree that faith to trust Christ is a duty for all sinners. Fourth, the matter of common grace is in dispute. Hyper Calvinists do not believe God loves all men. Five-point Calvinists believe God mercifully restrains all sinners to some degree, enables the unconverted to do outwardly good things, and has a general love for mankind.

Conclusion. The author points out that Hyper-Calvinists are firmly evangelical, even if not very evangelistic. They are sound on the five sola doctrines, the five “fundamentals,” and the five points. They strongly endorse biblical infallibility, the Trinity, the deity and resurrection of Christ, and other vital truths. They worship the same God and love the same Christ as do all Christians. Hyper-Calvinism upsets the beautiful balance of divine sovereignty and human responsibility, minimizes or opposes evangelism and missions, usually denies that Arminians are saved, and has been a thorn in the side of mainline Calvinism.