PDA

View Full Version : Is it time for Hyper-Calvinists to accept the term "Hyper-Calvinist"



alt731
01-14-19, 01:02 PM
Hyper-Calvinists have long hated the term Hyper-Calvinist. "Hyper" sounds bad, like a hyperactive child or something. Clearly "Hyper-Calvinist" is meant pejoratively by those who use it. But the words don't seem to imply anything inherently wrong. "Hyper" just means 'above' or 'beyond' and I'm quite happy to say that I go above and beyond Calvin, and the large swath of Calvinists throughout history, in various areas. I am a 'Hyper-Calvinist' in that sense.

I appreciate that some people don't want to identify themselves according to the doctrines they hold, and consistently reject the term, "Calvinist" as well as "Hyper-Calvinist." But even then, when one is speaking about doctrine, like on an internet discussion forum, it can be quite helpful to identify one's doctrines by referring to oneself as a "pre-millennialist" or a "credo-baptist" or a "Calvinist" as opposed to an "Arminian." Therefore, when it comes to certain questions, such as "Do people have a duty to be born again?" it seems to make sense for those (such as myself) who answer "no" to call ourselves Hyper-Calvinists. That way, we distinguish ourselves from the majority of professing Calvinists today, who would answer the opposite way.

Gays, back in the 60s, chose to "redeem" or "own" the word "gay," which was originally meant as an insult. Christians today almost universally choose to own the word "Christian" even though that too was meant originally as an insult.

Is it time for Hyper-Calvinists to do the same? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of doing so? Would owning the term help us break out of our marginalized status, and make the doctrines we believe in more acceptable?

One final observation: they're going to call us Hyper-Calvinists regardless. So why not own the term?

My view, as you will have guessed, is that we should own the term, at least when talking about doctrine, although I'm happy to have my mind changed.

Love that the forum is back. Thank you Brandon.

Brandan
01-14-19, 05:06 PM
Hi John,

Welcome back to the forum! Glad to have you back, and I'm glad to have this forum operational again. I ended up having to go back and grab an old backup I made and started again with a previous version of the software. It's not the best, but it's good enough for now.

You have a good point, that we might as well "own" the label. I don't care for the name "calvinist" though because there is SOOOOO much baggage in that word today. That word alone can mean just about anything you want it to believe. The same goes for they hyper variants. Honestly I'd just like to get away from it all. And even amongst honest to goodness "hyper-calvinists" there are different types... Some reject the "free offer" while still embracing duty faith, like the Protestant Reformed Church.

Lately, I've been meeting with some believers that most would call hyper-calvinists, but you will never hear that term used amongst them. They're just simple "free grace" believers. Most would be called supralapsarian absolute predestinarians, but they're not that familiar with that kind of terminology. So anyway, that's probably how I identify myself. I'm a "hyper-calvinist" to the rest of the unbelieving world, but amongst me and my friends, we're just free grace believers. And I kind of like that.

Thanks for your post my fellow hyper!

Brandan

Krablessed1973
01-14-19, 05:55 PM
Hi All,

I used to post on here some years ago under, "The Hawker". I am now a convinced believer in Christ's free grace, having turned my back on main stream Christianity. I now attend and am a member of a Gospel Standard Baptist Chapel. Thus I have turned my back on the "free offer of the gospel", "duty faith" among other things. I long to know more of God and His Word. I feel there is much that I don't know in His Word, that I want to know.

Labels like "hyper-Calvinism" are not helpful. They are terms that are used to snipe against us, but if that is what folks want to do, let them.

The Lord be with you all!

Warm Christian regards,
Kevin.

alt731
01-15-19, 05:51 AM
Labels like "hyper-Calvinism" are not helpful. They are terms that are used to snipe against us, but if that is what folks want to do, let them.

I'm always inclined towards the attitude which says, "Don't give over the lexicon." In other words, I hate it when people who are in the right, accept terms for themselves that make them look bad. It reflects badly, not only on them, but on the positions they hold.

But the times when people have chosen to "own" the insults they've been called, when its worked I mean, have been times when the "insult" has been, in one sense, positive. I don't want to be a "Calvinist," constrained by the teachings of one man, however godly he was. I want to go above and beyond Calvin. Surely Christ went beyond Calvin!

The word "gay" and "Christian" literally mean 'happy' and 'Christ follower'. I'm happy to be called a Christian. I grieve that those who practice their miserable wickedness are popularly known as "gay." But these are both terms that those people were being called anyway. We're going to be called Calvinists whether we like it or not. I'd rather amend that, for people, and say, "No. I'm a Hyper-Calvinist, a Beyond-Calvinist." And to those who would call me a Hyper-Calvinist, I'd like to say, "Absolutely I go beyond Calvin. I am a Hyper-Calvinist." I might even add, "and now that Calvin is with Christ, in heaven, he is a hyper-Calvinist too!"

---

I would add one proviso. Please, if you are a young man reading this, don't get yourself into trouble with your pastor by calling yourself a Hyper-Calvinist. Many Calvinistic churches are run rather like small fiefdoms, with the Pastor in absolute control, deciding who is in, who is out, and who to discipline. None of that is Biblical, but it does exist, so if you're going to get yourself into trouble, do it over an issue that's worth getting yourself into trouble over, not this one.

Brandan
01-15-19, 05:54 AM
I guess it’s kind of like Trump’s deplorables.

Washington Kid
01-15-19, 05:57 PM
Washington Kid here! I am formerly "Kentucky Kid" on P-Net in the past but in God's providence He moved me from Kentucky to Washington state.
I attend a gospel honoring congregation in Oregon. We are a sovereign grace baptist congregation. I'm SO blessed of God to be able to attend.
It is located in the Dalles, OR if anyone lives nearby.
I have no problem using labels because it identifies who we are or what we believe.
I really don't like being called a Calvinist because I am not "Reformed". I am a gospel standard baptist which are labeled Hyper-Calvinist. There are
at least 3 gospel standard congregations in the USA. But the group of sovereign grace baptists I am connected with in my discernment are the most God
honoring congregations that I know of.
So on this site I have no problem being labeled a Hyper- Calvinist. It describes who I am. If you read Brandan's article on what a Hyper-Calvinist is that's
where I am. Been one since 1983. I haven't changed any major Hyper-Calvinist doctrines since then= washed in the blood Hyper-Cal.

Brandan
01-15-19, 06:01 PM
Thank you Craig for posting! You're definitely a hyper friend! :cool:

Washington Kid
01-15-19, 06:11 PM
Brandan as they say in Kentucky: we-in's Hypers son!

Bob Higby
01-16-19, 06:51 AM
The main reason I don't like the label is because I don't want others telling me what I am. When the 'hyper-Calvinist' label is used today, it means a lot more than it meant historically (not that the history is all good), now it is applied by theologians such as Sinclair Ferguson (who represents the current Presbyterian mindset at large) to ALL supralapsarians (ditto for the label 'antinomian').

Calvin was one reformer in the matter of Sovereign Grace, Luther and Zwingli (and many others) were before him and many other reformers of sounder doctrine came after, most of whom we can name. I don't know why we can't just call ourselves hyper-Grace!

--Bro. Bob

Razor
01-30-19, 10:02 AM
I don't mind the label at all. I sometimes will identify by it in order to nip conversations in the bud.

Brandan
01-30-19, 12:04 PM
Welcome back Razor!

Bob Higby
02-01-19, 02:00 AM
When I look at all of the anti-hyper Calvinist trash on the internet, I stand by my assertion that I will let no man define who I am personally by a ridiculous and stupid label that is supposed to end all argument by the mere use of it to condemn someone. The meaning of this 'label' has changed constantly throughout all of post-Calvin history, of course. I will leave all of the composers of this neo-hyper Calvinist labeling trash to their false happiness in 'lying for God.' As I have stated many times, provide me with a list of denominations who support this as their essential doctrine, just like such a list can easily be created for hundreds of 'Arminian' denominations. Bro. Bob

alt731
02-01-19, 09:49 AM
I will leave all of the composers of this neo-hyper Calvinist labeling trash to their false happiness in 'lying for God.' As I have stated many times, provide me with a list of denominations who support this as their essential doctrine, just like such a list can easily be created for hundreds of 'Arminian' denominations. Bro. Bob

A neo-hyper Calvinist? Whaaaaaa?

What is that, Bob?

Brandan
02-01-19, 10:18 AM
A neo-hyper Calvinist? Whaaaaaa?

What is that, Bob?
I think Bob is referring to the fact that the definition of a hyper-calvinist has changed over time.

Bob Higby
02-04-19, 01:00 AM
Yes, the definitions have drastically changed. For instance, 'Common Grace' was not even an debated issue until Abraham Kuyper, now anyone who disagrees with use of the term is tagged a 'hyper-Calvinist'.

For those teachers today who call all true supralapsarians hyper-Calvinists and antinomians, these men are definitely hypo-Calvinists pure and simple. I could provide a lot of links if anyone wishes it, however, it's all very easy to find with web searches.

Bob

Washington Kid
02-04-19, 04:04 PM
Bob I like the label "hyper-grace"!

Brandan
02-04-19, 04:43 PM
I started using the term hyper free-gracer last year to describe what I am.

Washington Kid
02-04-19, 04:56 PM
Brandan: :)

Razor
02-04-19, 06:32 PM
I have used Effectual Redemptionist for several years now.

Washington Kid
02-04-19, 07:58 PM
Razor: yea that's a good label too!

Bob Higby
02-06-19, 02:53 PM
I do like 'hyper-grace' and 'hyper free grace' and used to contrast this as 'high grace doctrine ' with 'low grace doctrine', with the latter referring to the quasi-Amyraldianism of Abraham Kuyper's 'common grace', which teaches that the blessings of the atonement are universal in this life only. Along with this goes the whole false theology of God being accountable to an 'eternal law' and therefore must 'pass over' some in His wrath (contrary to what He really wants) and resulting 'Redeemer's Tears over Lost Souls' (John Howe).

Bob Higby
02-15-19, 11:07 AM
I ran across this 'jewel' from Herman Hanko, a scholar and theological historian from the Protestant Reformed Church:

http://www.prca.org/resources/publications/pamphlets/item/1597-the-history-of-the-free-offer

This is the best summary I have read on the history of the false accusation of 'hyper-Calvinism' against those who affirm the true teaching of the gospel against the watered-down nonsense taught by the popular hypo-Calvinism of centuries, which is also the equivalent of the 'neo-Calvinism' that has become so popular in The Gospel Coalition and other such neo-evangelical movements today.

I especially enjoyed the portion regarding the Marrow Controversy, in light of Sinclair Ferguson's recent book "The Whole Christ", in which he examines the Marrow Controversy in detail and pins Luther as an antinomian (Luther, the very teacher who coined the term 'antinomian') and Tobias Crisp as both a hyper-Calvinist and antinomian. Hanko's conclusion on how both sides of the controversy were both right and wrong illuminates that history very well.

Of the organized denominations, I tend to view the Protestant Reformed Church as closest to gospel truth, although their extreme position on matters such as divorce and condemnation of the homolegoumena/antilegomena distinction in affirming the biblical canon make it impossible for me to be a part of it. These are only examples, there are many other things involved.

Bro. Bob

Brandan
02-15-19, 11:33 AM
The PRCA still believes in Duty Faith I believe...

Brandan
02-15-19, 03:39 PM
That's my conclusion as well Vadim. As a denomination goes, they're still probably one of the best. I don't think I could regularly attend one of their congregations.

BTW, I'm headed to Ashland KY this weekend for a time of fellowship with the folks at 13th Street. Thanks Bob and Vadim for posting!

Brandan
02-18-19, 06:29 PM
Brandan, you wrote, "As a denomination goes, they're still probably one of the best." I agree with you. But this fact very clearly shows us the terrible darkness in which the Church denominations are located. The Apostle Paul boldly proclaimed:
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than that which we have reached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man patch any other gospel to you than that you have received, let him be accursed. (Ga.1:8.9.)
The "gospel" the PRCA is a other gospel. Therefore, other" gospel " PRCA is under the accursed of the Apostle Paul. The false "gospel" is only capable of plunging a person's soul into even greater darkness. The false "gospel" will either cast a man into despair or make him a Pharisee. I know that from my own experience. One drop of poison is enough to make the wine deadly.

Brother Vadim.Agree with you Vadim. Duty faith is another gospel. It's not the Good news of salvation.

Bob Higby
02-20-19, 07:53 PM
Hi Vadim and Brandan.

I have no disagreements with your evaluation of the PRC and it's additional errors. I have additional doctrines of the PRC I could cite that also may be added to the list, some are matters of the PRC (teachings) different from Vadim's and my own confession.

I have never participated in an 'organized' church assembly in my life that didn't hold to duty faith and the 3rd use of the law ala Philip Melanchthon and later 'reformers'. This includes any I have pastored myself in the past--too long ago for me to fully understand the controversies back then. Today I simply state my conviction to other believers with the caveat don't explain uppermost in my mind (see my signature); anything more than a basic summary of belief is out of place with most churchians since I can see that they currently don't want more information regarding the controversy.

I only liked the article by Hanko because it traced important history (Common Grace and Free Offer) on why any hyper-grace believer today is tagged a hyper-Calvinist. It is clear that hyper-grace believers are also all tagged as antinomians due to our rejection of the third use of 'external' law including the Ten Commandments. The very use of the term 'moral law' is not found in scripture as something distinct from all other commandments of God.

Bro. Bob