Enabled by God

Human nature has a tendency to error towards extremes when labeling others. We do not have a natural bent towards biblical charity or generosity when differing worldviews collide with ours. In the past ten years or so I have learned that:
1. Not all Democrats are necessarily panty waisted tree huggers.
2. Not all conservative minded politicians are Christian.
3. Not all different denominations are heretical by default.
4. Not all UF football fans were born without souls.
5. Not all five point Calvinists with a high view of God’s sovereignty are hyper-Calvinists.

I’d like to expand our discussion on the last point. It has been the focus of much contentious debate and confusion among evangelicals. Depending on the Christian circle you identify with, you may have heard the label of “hyper-Calvinism” hastily plastered on anyone with a propensity for Puritan literature and Reformed Confessions. Typically, the label is used by those of Arminian (free will) persuasion to categorize anyone who casually affirms the five points in “TULIP.”

A complete lack of evangelism fervor is usually the defining characteristic of the hyper-Calvinist adherent. The most notorious example of this kind of hyper-Calvinism was when John Ryland heard William Carey talking about becoming a missionary to India, and told him, “Sit down, young man. When God decides to save the heathen, He will do it without your help.”

It’s true that adherents to hyper-Calvinism usually descend into a lazy unbiblical stance of non-evangelism. But that (non)action is just a symptom of a faulty theology. The error of hyper-Calvinism needs to be defined in a much more specific way than just lazy evangelism (most everyone in Christianity could be labeled with that!)

David Engelsma aptly defines it in this way:

Hyper-Calvinism is the denial that God in the preaching of the gospel calls everyone who hears the preaching to repent and believe. It is the denial that the church should call everyone in the preaching. It is the denial that the unregenerated have a duty to repent and believe. It manifests itself in the practice of the preacher’s addressing the call of the gospel, “repent and believe on Christ crucified,” only to those in his audience who show signs of regeneration and, thereby, of election, namely, some conviction of sin and some interest in salvation.

This is not a mischaracterization of hyper-Calvinism. In fact, it affirms what the hyper-Calvinist openly confesses already. For example, article 26 in the confessional articles of the Gospel Standard (Baptist) Churches:

We deny duty faith and duty repentance – these terms suggesting that it is every man’s duty spiritually and savingly to repent and believe. We deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So that we reject the doctrine that man in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God.

Hyper-Calvinism and Historic Calvinism both deny the capability of the natural man to prepare himself for grace. That is where total depravity comes in (Romans 3:11-18). Where Hyper-Calvinism creates the rift with true Calvinism (and Scripture) is whether that natural man should be exhorted to repent and believe without any sign of requisite grace in his life.
In short, hyper-Calvinism contradicts the plain ordinary meaning of passages such as:

“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent” (Acts 17:30).

“Repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47)

In contrast, historic Calvinism affirms that the gospel be preached indiscriminately to all men. In effect, we don’t know who will be saved, but we do know how God will save them (Romans 10:14-17). We don’t know the secret will of God so we obey the open and plain preceptive will of God revealed in Scripture: To make disciples of all nations and call men everywhere to repent (Acts 1:8)

Men of old like Calvin, Knox, Edwards, Whitefield and Spurgeon all affirmed God’s sovereignty and the open gospel offer. Revivals of biblical proportions followed many of the men who upheld the Reformed doctrine. Almost every modern Calvinist affirms the same. In fact, I can’t think of one major leader in the recent Reformed resurgence who would ever side with a hyper-Calvinist on this. Church history testifies that an overwhelming majority of the Christian movements steeped in historic Calvinism have also been voracious advocates of evangelism (The Great Awakening anyone?!?!?).

The fear some pastors have of their flock being infiltrated by the prototypical hyper-Calvinist trickster is illogical and probably uninformed. Most contemporary strains of hyper-Calvinism are incredibly small and virtually inconsequential as coherent movements.

In the end, we need more of the biblically robust and evangelically fervent historic Calvinism in the church, not less. Let us not be lazy with our labels. And let us watch hyper-Calvinism die the slow certain death it was predestined to from the outset.

Bryan