Talk:Hyper-Calvinism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Calvinism Portal Hyper-Calvinism falls within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Historical only?

It seems to me that Hyper-Calvinism is still with us today in some ways, among some Calvinists (though certainly not all). This article reads as if it is only an historic phenomenon, not living reality. Could someone with more expertise re:Calvinism "update it" a bit to show the ways in which Hyper-Calvinism is still with us? Thanks for considering. KHM03 13:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

This is a duplicate post (I added the same to discussion under Calvinism)

KHM03, I think you are right that some forms of "hyper" Calvinism still exist today. I am aware of the Gospel Standard Baptists (which would probably fit the technical definition). I'm also aware of the Protestant Reformed Church which has been labeled hyper-Calvinist because they deny God's common grace and have theological issues with some contemporary evangelism styles. However, I have had association with PCA churches and have not found evidence of the extreme views which might be considered "hyper" in the technical sense or the general sense. Jim Ellis 17:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert from [User:206.149.212.4] entry

Reverted to previous entry because the distinctions made by [User:206.149.212.4] were already covered under the "non-technical usage." They are not part of a technical distinction and most often reflect persons opinions rather than fact. I think scholarly sources (references) should accompany such comments. I would be glad to discuss. Regards, Jim Ellis 12:13, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Westboro Baptist Church

Phelps and company might have hyper-Calvinist leanings, but they have diverged enough even from this extreme position (which I find horrible) that they simply cannot be listed here. Hyper-Calvinism is bizarre enough; they don'y need the help of a bonafide un-Christian cult. KHM03 23:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Phelps represents Hyper-Calvinism on its purest. His teachings are verbatim correct and according to the Bible - and extremely perverse. The Phelps cult certainly deserves to be on the link page - if not for else, to warn on what sticking to the letter of the Bible and forgetting the spirit completely will lead into. (an anonymous user)

I agree with your assessment of Phelps and company, but am uncomfortable linking them in any way to even the most misled Calvinists; Phelps might be Calvinish, but he's not Calvinist. I think there's a difference. But I'm no Calvinist either. Let's let some of our Calvinist friends weigh in on this before proceeding, if you don't mind. KHM03 23:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

To call Phelps a "hyper-calvinist" is meaningless rhetoric. "Hyper" yes. "Calvinist" so he says. But not a hyper-calvinist; and not notable enough to list together with important influences. It's trivia and sensationalism, not information. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

But how do you really feel? KHM03 23:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Really, I think we should all just love one another. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with KHM03 and Mkmcconn that neither Phelps nor his church is appropriate to be listed in the Hyper-Calvinism article. This is a concensus of interested parties . Until the unregistered interloper gets concensus otherwise, this matter should be considered closed. Jim Ellis 01:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. --Flex 15:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Fred Phelps IS a Hyper-Calvinist. His theology fulfills all the requirements for a Hyper-Calvinism:

• that God is the source of sin and of evil

=> Phelps has himself declared God has made homosexuals the way they are so that they would sin and God would have a reason to reprobate them.

• that a sign of election is to be sought prior to repentance

=> Phelps has claimed only the elect can even think about repentance. The rest are massa perditionis.

• that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect

=> Phelps has claimed humans are nothing but tools of either God or Satan and have no free will.

• that the number of the elect at any time may be known by men

=> Phelps has claimed the 144,000 mentioned in Bible are the only elect

• that it is wrong to evangelize

=> Phelps has claimed evangelizing serves solely the purpose of intimidation and spreading hate

• that God does not command everyone to repent

=> Phelps has claimed God demands people tasks they are impossible to perform so that God would have an excuse of punishing them

• that there is no common grace, i.e. God cares only for his elect and has nothing but hatred for the non-elect.

=> that is exactly Phelps's view

• that only Calvinists are Christians

=> Phelps hates Lutherans and Catholics, and consider only Calvinists as true Christians. He is a vehement Anti-Semite.

Mere disliking Phelps is no excuse to exclude him from Hyper-Calvinism, as his theology fits perfectly in this category. If something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and swims like a duck, it most likely is a duck even if it is called a seagull.

Only that, while Phelps does indeed adhere to these points, he, or perhaps the church, claims salvation only through membership in his church. JW also believes this, and this is considered one of the reasons as to why they shouldn't be called Christians at all. The Bible doesn't say anything about church membership being a requisite for salvation, so I'd agree with that. Hence, WBC are not hyper-Calvinistic.

Adolph Hitler claimed to be a Christian. Shall I link to Mein Kampf from the Wiki article on Christianity? Let's not attempt to tar serious thought by exemplifying it with a fringe element. Westboro does not need to be in this article. In fact, the tar in this article needs to be removed altogether or cleaned up and presented as "objections to Hyper-Calvinism." Amity150 04:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feb 2006 additions

To User:Williamo1: Hi, William. Your addition was quite POV and completely unsourced. You claim that "many" misuse the term, but cite no examples. You claim, "Some Christians have been taught to label anyone who believes in the historic Calvinist position a hyper-calvinist...", but provide no evidence or source. You claim, "In many evangelical circles today, if you believe in the final preservation of the saints, the fifth of the five points of calvinist theology, you are a Calvinist. If you believe any of the other four points you are automatically denounced as a hyper-calvinist...", but, again, provide no examples or ecidence for that information. Who is misuing the term? Who has been taught to label Calvinists as hyper-Calvinists, and who has taught them? What evangelical circles label someone who holds to the first four TULIP pieces "hyper-Calvinist"? I'm simply asking for evidence from a reputable academic source. I removed the addition because it was unsourced and seemed to be going only on your opinion (please review WP:NOR). I truly hope you can improve the section and add it again at some point. Thanks...KHM03 19:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with KHM03. These articles are to be encyclopedic in nature and tone. While Williamo1 may have personally come across misunderstandings such as he describes, they seem to be merely examples of theological ignorance rather than positions held by reputable sources. Jim Ellis 20:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Good to see you in action again, Jim. KHM03 20:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The most recent additions were way over the POV line, so I edited them, keeping the "meat" but removing the point of view. I have asked Williamo1 to make his case here. KHM03 21:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the most recent version, which, again, was in violation of WP:NPOV. My last revert for the day. KHM03 23:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Williamo1 has been reported for violating WP:3RR. KHM03 02:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd notice before RFC

Please discuss POV issues here prior to reverting. If we can't reach consensus, we can WP:RFC. Lbbzman 22:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The section advocated by User:Williamo1 is way over the line in terms of POV. I suggest that William review WP:NPOV, which is official policy. KHM03 22:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC Created

All, I have created an RFC entry at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Williamo1. One more person is needed to certify the request. Please respond on the RFC page with any comments, questions, or concerns. Lbbzman 17:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evangelization and repentance

It's incorrect or at best an oversimplification to claim that hyper-Calvinists believe it is wrong to evangelize and that God doesn't command everyone to repent. The opposition to evangelism is the way it's conventionally carried out, like saying to a specific person that God loves him or her and wants him or her to be saved. As for repentance, God does command everyone to repent, only that there's no free offer of salvation. Salvation is offered to those who will accept the gospel, but the reprobate won't. So those two points should either be removed or at least explained. Jack Daw 16:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV - hyper-Calvinism and Primitive Baptists

There is so little in the body of this article that seems to accord with Primitive Baptist belief, and in fact NONE of the sources cited are Primitive Baptist, so perhaps it would be better to just leave Primitive Baptists off the list altogether, or else find a PB source that holds these positions. You have possibly found a printed source that claims that PBs are hyper-Calvinistic by these criteria, but that source is uninformed!

Perhaps we should eliminate the section on "non-technical hyper-Calvinism" altogether as it sounds like an article about misapplication of the term, which amounts to name-calling and mis-interpretation or mis-representation of core beliefs, rather than identification of what those beliefs themselves are. This is more about what opponents of "hyper-Calvinism" think "hyper-Calvinism" really is. (Few PBs would admit to even being "Calvinist" let alone "hyper-Calvinist"!) Amity150 21:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read this article several times and am even less satisfied than previously. You imply that the term "hyper-Calvinist" is a pejorative. The issue of whether anyone actually believes the things attributed to them by those who coined this term is really left up in the air. At least define the term objectively first, and then keep the present content under a section entitled "criticism of hyper-Calvinism" or something similar. Some critics may think that these beliefs are implicit in the doctrines taught by some 'hyper-Calvinists,' but let's see some of the view from the 'hyper-Calvinist' perspective first. Those few quotes you came up with do not substantiate the alleged beliefs ascribed to these people, IMO. Amity150 22:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just placed an NPOV tag on this article asking for review. Amity150 22:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So I looked up the website of the Protestant Reformed Church following the link under their wikipedia article, which this article links to. I found this statement:

"The Protestant Reformed Churches believe that, in obedience to the command of Christ, the King of the church, to preach the blessed gospel to all creatures, baptizing, and teaching them to observe all things which Christ has commanded, it is the explicit duty and sacred privilege of said churches to carry out this calling according to the measure of our God-given ability."

Here: http://www.prca.org/Missions/index.htm

So it seems unlikely that they would ally themselves with the doctrines which this article states that they, as "hyper-Calvinists," supposedly endorse either. So far my Google searches have turned up no faiths that endorse "hyper-Calvinism", but only websites attempting to discredit beliefs which no denomination seems to admit to having in the first place. Amity150 01:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is a poor definition

This is poorly written at present. The definition is hard to understand as it is at present. May I suggest this definition:

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:

  1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
  2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
  3. Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
  4. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
  5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

• Please remember to sign your posts, anonymous. No, the definition you propose is a poor one, even if Phillip Johnson defends it. Klaas Schilder denied #4, and Arthur Pink denied #5, but neither of those men can properly be called Hyper-Calvinists. I agree, however, that it takes a while for the article to say what HC actually is - is there a one-sentence summary with which we can lead the article? StAnselm 09:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two resources in support of Hyper-Calvinism

Here are two articles that address Hyper-calvinism. One of them addresses all five points presented by Phil Johnson.

1) http://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=404 - "Hyper-Calvinism is the Truth" a response to Phil Johnson by Brandan Kraft 2) http://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=400 - Confession of a HyperCalvinist by Brandan Kraft —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Predestinarian (talk • contribs) 09:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Quotations

Below are some lengthy quotations added by an anon to this article. They seem useful enough, but they don't belong in the article in this form. So I have transported them here to allow someone to incorporate them in a more appropriate way. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Hyper-Calvinism is that school of Supralapsarian "Five Point" Calvinism which so stresses the sovereignty of God by over-emphasizing the secret over the revealed will and eternity over time, that it minimizes the responsibility of Man, notably with respect to the denial of the word "offer" in relation to the preaching of the Gospel of a finished and limited atonement, thus undermining the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly with the assurance that the Lord Jesus Christ died for them, with the result that presumption is overly warned of, introspection is overly encouraged, and a view of sanctification akin to doctrinal Antinomianism is often approached. This (definition) could be summarized even further: it is the rejection of the word "offer" in connection with evangelism for supposedly Calvinistic reasons."

Curt Daniel, "Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill" (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1983), p. 767.

"It was a system of theology, or a system of the doctrines of God, man and grace, which was framed to exalt the honour and glory of God and did so at the expense of minimising the moral and spiritual responsibility of sinners to God. It placed excessive emphasis on the immanent acts of God – eternal justification, eternal adoption and the eternal covenant of grace. In practice, this meant that “Christ and Him crucified”, the central message of the apostles, was obscured. It also often made no distinction between the secret and the revealed will of God, and tried to deduce the duty of men from what it taught concerning the secret, eternal decrees of God. Excessive emphasis was also placed on the doctrine of irresistible grace with the tendency to state that an elect man is not only passive in regeneration but also in conversion as well. The absorbing interest in the eternal, immanent acts of God and in irresistible grace led to the notion that grace must only be offered to those for whom it was intended. Finally, a valid assurance of salvation was seen as consisting in an inner feeling and conviction of being eternally elected by God. So Hyper-Calvinism led its adherents to hold that evangelism was not necessary and to place much emphasis on introspection in order to discover whether or not one was elect."

Peter Toon, The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity, 1689-1765 (The Olive Tree, 1967), pp. 144-145. [see external link below]

"Hyper-Calvinism in its attempt to square all truth with God's purpose to save the elect, denies that there is a universal command to repent and believe, and asserts that we have only warrant to invite to Christ those who are conscious of a sense of sin and need. In other words, it is those who have been spiritually quickened to seek a Saviour and not those who are in the death of unbelief and indifference, to whom the exhortations of the Gospel must be addressed. In this way a scheme was devised for restricting the Gospel to those who there is reason to suppose are elect."

Iain Murray, The Forgotten Spurgeon (Banner of Truth, 1998), p. 47.

"A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:

• Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
• Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
• Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
• Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
• Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect."

Phillip R. Johnson, A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism [see external link below]

[edit] Merge from Double predestination (Hyper-Calvinist)

I propose a merge from Double predestination (Hyper-Calvinist), which does not seem substantial enough to warrant its own article at this point. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Aw, man here we go again, yes it does, and I mentioned I will add to it, besides Double Predestination (hyper-calvinist)... the "hyper-calvinist" is not what is known as "hyper calvinism" which is a different thing all together, it's only "hyper-calvinist" in the sense that there is a large view of God's sovereignty and supposedly in error. And in fact, people don't even mention that, they just say "Double Predestination" and what they mean is "double Predestination" in the hyper-calvinist sense ("hyper-calvinist" is only there because that's what opponents accuse it) Avielh 14:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Who are these opponents? We need reliable sources to verify the notability of this article. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Then place "citation needed", but don't delete important valid verifiable parts, and placing tags for the sole purpose of hindering the article. I give up on this, cause you're bullying me. And I leave it to God, may He judge between us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avielh (talk • contribs) 15:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. As I see it, I'm trying help you, a new-comer, abide by the spirit and standards of the Wikipedia and improve the quality of the content here, not bully you. I have repeatedly made gentle suggestions to you and had my advice confirmed by independent third parties. I have also tried to clean up some of the things that I have seen that could be easily fixed. Remember the notice at the bottom of every edit page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." It's ego-less editing we need here. I'd still like to see you contribute, but you need to accept the fact that the Wikipedia aspires to be a compendium of neutral, verifiable, and notable accepted knowledge, not a theological tract or polemical argument. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Just search google for "John Calvin Double Predestination" and see many supporters/papers identifying Calvin as Double Predestinarian (not in the reformed sense), and not to mention all the Arminians who say Calvin believes in that, which is by far the the majority of all bible believing Christians. Piper believes in DP, he plainly says so, that's why I qouted him, and so does Grudem. You edited it unfairly, deleting contents that are true and verifiable, even specific words/phrases to promote your religious bias.

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it"

I know, that's why I said I leave it to God, if the majority of reformed Christians want this article stopped without really looking into it, they can do that, not even giving the author to finish the article (what is it, 1 day now), if they want to put tags, edit it to shorten it, then try to merge it to other pages unrelated to it with the hopes of deleting it, then vote to delete it, there's nothing I can do, that's why I leave it to God, so that at the judgement I can put the blame in people like you who do this things (or He can say I was wrong). But I will pursue this until you eventually stop me, because it is true, verifiable, notable, accepted (notoriously) by the majority of bible believing Christians.

Avielh 13:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Your accusations are both in bad faith and incorrect. Please try to be more civil. If you want time to finish an article without others editing it, don't make the page an article proper. For instance, edit User:Avielh/Double predestination -- that's your "private" version of it where you can tune it as you see fit for as long as it takes until you are satisfied that it meets WP guidelines and policies. If it's a public article, then it's fair game for anyone to edit (that's the very foundation of the Wikipedia!). You can even request feedback and have other editors contribute to your page before it goes "live". --Flex (talk/contribs) 22:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 5solas link removed, why?

I noticed the 5solas link I once added has been removed, why? It's the most exhaustive internet site dealing with hyper-calvinism. I think it has its place in the external links section no doubt. Permission is no problem, I know Brandan Kraft who maintains the site, I had his permission last time I added the site and probably have the permission to add it again. I would like to see arguments against including the link. Jack Daw (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it was removed by an anon with no explanation given. It is generally better to incorporate links as references (see WP:EL), but I have added PristineGrace.org since it seems to be the parent site for 5solas.org. --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)