Pristine Grace
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: Is it time for Hyper-Calvinists to accept the term "Hyper-Calvinist"

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    11 Posts

    Is it time for Hyper-Calvinists to accept the term "Hyper-Calvinist"

    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.
    Last edited by alt731; 01-14-19 at 01:05 PM.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to alt731 For This Useful Post:

    Brandan (01-14-19), Forester07 (01-15-19), Krablessed1973 (01-14-19)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts