Hyper-Calvinism Properly defined and thoroughly refuted

by Richard Storey

Contents
Introduction - history and definitions The historicity of Hyper-Calvinismor lack thereof Contentions - Does the duty to believe make faith a work? - Is preaching faith in Christ to the spiritually dead pointless? - Does the command to repent and believe confuse Gospel with Law? - Does Calvinism imply a Universal Atonement? The problematic symptoms of Hyper-Calvinism Conclusion p.1 p.3 p.7 p.9 p.10 p.13 p.14 p.16

Introduction - history and definitions Before we analyse arguments from Scripture, it is important to understand what a Calvinist is and to define other important terms, as there is great confusion concerning them. Today, the majority of Evangelical Christians are Arminians who dont really know what genuine, historic Calvinism is and so label true Calvinists as Hyper-Calvinists; whilst on the other side, the Hyper-Calvinists believe themselves to be the true Calvinists, thus broadbrushing anyone else as Arminian. Charles Spurgeon, remembered as the prince of preachers, fought vigorously in his day to defend these historic Christian doctrines and their proper definitions from attack on both sides. In that same spirit, my chief desire for this study is that professing Christians might consistently and honestly define Calvinism and distinguish it from Hyper-Calvinism, for the sake of truth. Above all, may Christs sheep be sanctified by the Word of God which is truth. So, what is Calvinism? Here is a summary of the basics: All men have sinned in Adam (Romans 5:12) and, as a result, we are corrupt to the extent that we are spiritually dead in our sins, enslaved to evil by our very nature and incapable of truly seeking God or performing any spiritual good (Romans 3:10-18, Ephesians 2:1-3, Hebrews 11:6 etc.). Before creation, God elected/chose some people whom He would draw to His Son, Jesus Christ (John 6:39 & 44, Ephesians 1:3-6 etc.), giving them a new heart and desire so that they certainly would believe in Jesus and be saved; thus, Gods mercy would be manifested for eternity (Ezekiel 36:26-27, Romans 8:28ff. & 9:11-24 etc. otherwise known as Predestination). Therefore, Jesus did not die to make salvation a possibility for everyone who has ever existed, but actually died and fully paid for every sin of His people, His sheep, His friends, His church (Hebrews 10, Isaiah 53, John 10:15, John 15:13, Ephesians 5:25 etc.). These doctrines are called Calvinism, though I do not like the term as Calvin did not invent them. They are otherwise called the doctrines of grace or of Gods sovereignty in salvation but there are many who simply refer to them as the Gospel. Well then, what is Hyper-Calvinism? There have been various characteristics of HyperCalvinism asserted: Some would say that a non-Calvinist cannot be saved; they might reject all forms of evangelism as trying to do Gods work for Him; they might believe God is in some way the author of sin etc. However, the historic definition of Hyper-Calvinism is: The denial of mans duty to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. As Dr. James White put it: Hyper-calvinism, properly defined, is a position that...[does] not preach that it is the duty of sinners to repent of their sins and trust in Christ.1 Dr. C. Matthew McMahon gives the same definition: fallen men have no duty to believe in the Gospel by faith. In short then, Hyper-Calvinists deny what is called duty faith and duty repentance, that is, they deny the Calvinistic doctrine that everyone is responsible to repent and believe the Gospel.

White, J. (2010) Response to C. Michael Patton on the Divine Decrees and Hyper-Calvinism http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2010/01/08/response-to-c-michael-patton-on-the-divine-decrees-andhyper-calvinism/ (09/01/2014)

Therefore, in practice, the Hyper-Calvinist believes the Gospel should not be offered to men except they are regenerate.2 Or, as the New Dictionary of Theology puts it: Christ may be offered only to the elect.3 In effect, you must be born again before you are directed to Christ! Thus, the Hyper-Calvinist must exercise the authority to determine whether someone is truly grieved over their sins and being regenerated by God. If he believes they are not, he would typically direct them to the Law of Moses and only the Law; if he authoritatively perceives that they are grieved over their sins, then he will direct them to Christ for the remission of sins. This is simply the result of the Hyper-Calvinists belief that the duty or command to repent and believe implies that man is actually able to do those things in and of himself, without any intervention from the Spirit of God. To them, this would be to deny the full effects of original sin and the necessity of the new birth and Gods absolute sovereignty in the salvation of sinners. J.K. Popham exemplifies this when he declares that the traditional Calvinists are madly bold in their efforts to wrest Gods special work out of His hands.4 I trust this shall be proven irrevocably false in the course of this study. Before we examine this assertion in the light of Scripture or Hyper-Calvinisms claim to being the true, historic Calvinism, we must take a very brief look at the history of how Calvinism developed. This shall ground us and help us understand a few other terms, such as Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism. Our story begins in the first few centuries A.D. Princeton Theologian, Loraine Boettner, describes the lack of solidity in the early churchs understanding of the doctrines we know as Calvinism: It may occasion some surprise to discover that the doctrine of Predestination was not made a matter of special study until near the end of the fourth century... Some of [the early church] writings contain passages in which the sovereignty of God is recognized; yet along side of those are others which teach the absolute freedom of the human will.5 But what was the source of these conflicting views? The first four centuries of Christianity predominantly taught original sin and mans inability to believe without the empowering of Gods Spirit, from Polycarp (disciple of the apostle John) to Ambrose. However, as Dr. Robert Morey points out, The pagan worldview taught that man was autonomous in an absolute sense. He was totally and absolutely free and even the gods could not violate this freedom Epictetus wrote, Not even Zeus himself can get the better of my free will. When pagans first professed to be Christians, some of them retained much of their pagan worldview.6 This can most clearly be seen in the first two centuries from the writings of Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria: Perhaps we may
2

McMahon, C.M., All house and no doors: A Brief Critique of the False Teachings of Hyper-Calvinism http://www.apuritansmind.com/historical-theology/heresy-in-the-church/all-house-and-no-doors-a-brief-critique-ofthe-false-teachings-of-hyper-calvinism-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/ (02/06/2013) 3 Edited by Sinclair Ferguson, et. al. (1988) The New Dictionary of Theology, InterVarsity Press, s.v. HyperCalvinism 4 Popham, J.K. (2000 reprint) Modern Evangelism Versus the Scriptures of Truth, The Huntingtonian Press, p.13 5 Boettner, L. (1932) The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p.247 - http://www.full-proof.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/04/Boettner-Reformed-Doctrine-of-Predestination.pdf (08/06/2013) 6 Thompson, K. (2013) Refutation of Jesse Morrell's Documentary "Beyond Augustine" - http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2013/02/refutation-of-jesse-morrells.html (13/12/2013)

say [philosophy] was given to the Greeksfor philosophy was to the Greeks what the law was to the Jews - a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ.7 Boettner gives the obvious reasons as to why such doctrinal issues were not addressed sooner than the 4th century: Prior to Augustine's day the time had been largely taken up in correcting heresies within the Church and in refuting attacks from the pagan world in which it found itself. Consequently but little emphasis had been placed on the systematic development of doctrine.8 Under the limiting circumstances of extreme persecution across the Roman Empire, defending doctrines such as the Jewish concepts of Monotheism, bodily resurrection, the virgin birth and full deity of Jesus etc., obviously took precedent for our spiritual forefathers. Soon after, in the early 5th century, was the time of the great debate between Augustine and Pelagius. Pelagius was a monk from either Britain or Ireland whose followers believed that, as God had given commandments in the Old Testament, man must naturally be able to keep them, concluding that Adams original sin cannot have corrupted our natural desires. Please note this: they believed that if God gives a command, man must be able to keep it. The logical conclusion of denying original sin, however, is that a man could live a perfectly sinless life, having no need of Jesus Christ as His Saviour. Pelagianism was thus declared a heresy in numerous councils, one even before Augustine had entered the debate, with the vast majority of churches independently agreeing with the doctrines of grace. So, out of Pelagianism grew what is called Semi-Pelagianism, which did acknowledge original sin and mans spiritual corruption but not so completely that he cannot still believe in Christ of his own free will. This dilution of doctrine later led to what Presbyterian historian, Philip Schaff, called the indulgence of later [Roman Catholic] popes for Pelagianizing tendencies.9 Romanism still believes that they can do away with original sin by sprinkling babies with water, leaving that person with the ability to believe in Christ of their own free will, as well as performing various works necessary to attain less time in the fictional realm of Purgatory. With just a few flicks of water, were back to Pelagianism! But, the root problem with Pelagianism and its relevance to our discussion can be seen as we fast-forward to the time of the Reformation. Of all the differences between Papal Rome and Protestantism, Martin Luther recognised this debate as the hinge upon which the whole turns.10 The two sides of this great debate of the Reformation were Martin Luther on the Protestant side, who believed that a man coming to faith was brought about by the Holy Spirit, and Erasmus on the side of Papal Rome, defending the doctrines of SemiPelagianism. Rome taught and teaches that if God gives a command, man must be able to keep it. And this is what Martin Luther wrote in his mighty work which rocked Europe, The Bondage of the Will, regarding this Pelagian idea:
7

Tyler, W.S. (1894) "Platonism and Christianity," Philip Schaff, ed., A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, 3rd ed., Vol. 3. Toronto, New York & London: Funk & Wagnalls Company, pp.1850-1853
8 9

Boettner, Ibid. Schaff, P. History of the Christian Church, WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Volume III, p. 798

10

Luther, M. (translated by H. Cole, 1823) Martin Luther on the Bondage of the Will: Written in Answer to the Diatribe of Erasmus on Free-will, p.233

[B]y the words of the law man is admonished and taught, not what he can do, but what he ought to do How is it that you theologians are twice as stupid as schoolboys, in that as soon as you get hold of a single imperative verb you infer an indicative meaning, as though the moment a thing is commanded it is done, or can be done?... The passages of Scripture which you cite are imperative; and they prove and establish nothing about the ability of man, but only lay down what is and is not to be done.11 Without insulting any Hyper-Calvinists, or schoolboys for that matter, I think these words can certainly be applied to Hyper-Calvinism. The fact that people ought to believe in Jesus Christ does not negate their need to be brought to spiritual life by the Holy Spirit in order to do so. This simple error shows that Hyper-Calvinism is based on the same faulty logic of Pelagianism. True Calvinism does not imply any ability in man by calling men to do what they ought.

The historicity of Hyper-Calvinismor lack thereof Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones said he was once called an Arminian for commanding a congregation to repent and believe. It certainly seems that Hyper-Calvinism mistakenly views itself as traditional Calvinism, as illustrated by R.J. Baldwin: To believe therefore, that God commands all men to believe savingly in Christ, is surely to have one foot in Arminian ranks. In fact one might well ask is it the story once again of the wooden horse of Troy, and once inside the Calvinistic citadel will it be found to contain our deadliest of enemies? God save us from such a position.12 Yet, when we read the Calvinistic creeds which followed the Reformation era or even the Canons of Dordt, from which the so-called five points of Calvinism were originally derived, we see that Hyper-Calvinisms denial of mans duty to believe stands in stark contradiction to historic Calvinism. The Synod of Dordt declares: In order that people may be brought to faith, God mercifully sends proclaimers of this very joyful message to the people he wishes and at the time he wishes. By this ministry people are called to repentance and faith in Christ crucified God's anger remains on those who do not believe this gospel. But those who do accept it and embrace Jesus the Saviour with a true and living faith are delivered through him from God's anger and from destruction, and receive the gift of eternal life The cause or blame for this unbelief, as well as for all other sins, is not at all in God, but in man. But, the reason for this acceptance of the Gospel is clarified by the Synod: Faith in Jesus Christ, however, and salvation through him is a free gift of God. The London Baptist Confession of 1646 goes one further and denies the Hyper-Calvinistic teaching that unbelievers must only be directed to the Law:

11

Engelsma, D.J. (1994) Hyper-Calvinism & the Call of the Gospel, Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, p.16 12 Baldwin, R.J. (2011 reprint) Is Saving Faith a Duty?, The Huntingtonian Press, p.5

The preaching of the gospel to the conversion of sinners, is absolutely free; no way requiring as absolutely necessary, any qualifications, preparations, or terrors of the law, or preceding ministry of the law, but only and alone the naked soul, a sinner and ungodly, to receive Christ crucified, dead and buried, and risen again; who is made a prince and a Saviour for such sinners as through the gospel shall be brought to believe on Him. One could quote other Reformed creeds but the point is made - these Hyper-Calvinistic doctrines are not Calvinism. Traditional Calvinism has never seen any contradiction with God commanding that wicked men believe the testimony of His Son, yet knowing that they have no ability to do so and that He will rightfully condemn them for rejecting that truth. We also see that these are not orthodox Protestant doctrines either; none of the Reformers believed these things. A.W. Pink, in his excellent article on this subject, quotes numerous Reformers, including Calvin himself: The mercy of God is offered equally to those who believe and to those who believe not, so that those who are not Divinely taught within are rendered inexcusable (John Calvin1552The Eternal Predestination of God p. 95). Christ commands men to believe in Him, yet His limitation is neither false nor contrary to His command when He says 'No man can come to Me except it were given him of My Father.' Let preaching therefore have its force to bring men to faith (Calvin's Institutes Book 3, chap. 18, par. 13).13 Furthermore, none of the Puritans believed these things. John Owen, John Flavel, Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole et al. refer to the duty for men to believe as apparent and indisputable. For example, the so-called prince of Puritans, John Owen, wrote: We are expressly commanded to believe, and that upon the highest promises, and under the greatest penalties. This command is that which makes believing formally a duty. Faith is a grace as it is freely wrought in us by the Holy Spirit, the root of all obedience and duties, as it is radically fixed in the heart. But as it is commanded it is a duty; and these commands, you know, are several ways expressed, by invitations, exhortations, propositions.14 The renowned Puritan commentator, Matthew Henry, notes of Mark 1:15 the great duties inferred: [T]hey must repent, and believe the gospel [B]oth Jew and Gentile are concluded under guilt. They must therefore take the benefit of a covenant of grace, must submit to a remedial law, and this is it - repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, Hyper-Calvinism has absolutely no historical pedigree whatsoever. Such views are entirely absent from any early church writings, not even receiving a mention when the great Pelagian controversy was raging, when mans free will and Gods sovereignty in salvation were being debated across the Roman Empire:

13 14

Pink, A.W. (1936) Duty Faith - http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/dutyfth.htm (01/06/2013) Owen, J. (1650) The Works of John Owen, Vol. 14, p. 223

Ignatius (~100 A.D.), writing to Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John: I entreat thee, by the grace with which thou art clothed, to press forward in thy course, and to exhort all that they may be saved.15 And later, after the fall of Rome and the despair of its citizens, Augustine, who fought against Pelagianism, evangelically called the Romans to a better, heavenly city: Awake! The day has come It is to this country that we invite you, and exhort you to add yourself to the number of our citizens. The refuge we offer is the true remission of sins.16 It seems then that Christians have been exhorting people to obey the Gospel since the apostles walked the earth. Hyper-Calvinism is, truly, a late and isolated phenomenon which only ever had some prominence with the overreaction of some to the rise in popularity of Semi-Pelagianism in the 18th century (under the title of Arminianism). Dr. McMahon summarises the historical facts: Hyper-Calvinism formally took shape in 1707 at the time of John Hussey and his disciple, John Skepp. Skepp in turn prompted the young, and soon to be well-known Dr. John Gill Gills work far surpassed them both in notoriety and volume Later on, William Huntington kept this position alive through his influence and writing. But nowhere do we find scores of theologically astute men contending for this doctrine at any one time The Hyper-Calvinist cannot claim one Puritan to their side, nor any weighty theologians through the last 2000 years of church history.17 Therefore, we can only conclude that Hyper-Calvinism, which denies this command of God to lost souls, is no Calvinism at all and has little grounding in Protestantism, let alone church history. There is no need to detail that the great missionaries and evangelists also (George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, William Carey and David Brainerd etc.) were Calvinists who also found no contradiction in our God commanding wicked men to believe His truth, even if only to render them inexcusable in the day of judgment. Contentions Although we have seen that Hyper-Calvinism has only emerged relatively recently in the history of Christianity, this is not the ultimate authority by which we dismiss its doctrines as false. Let us examine its contentions and see if they can be justified from Scripture. There are several main contentions which Hyper-Calvinists have with genuine Calvinism: 1. Does the duty to believe make faith a work? As we have seen, the Hyper-Calvinists main contention with the doctrine of duty faith is their claim that it makes faith a work which man must perform to earn his own way into heaven, as Baldwin outlines: Duty faith savours of works, for if faith is a duty then it is a work18 Popham concurs, for all that is required to regenerate is within the sinners power it is ceasing from one work and commencing another!19 This might sound like a thoughtless and rash argument which no one could even begin to substantiate but, truly, attempts have been made to justify such statements.
15

Ignatius (edited by A. Roberts, 2007) The Epistle of Igantius to Polycarp, The Ante-nicene Fathers: the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.d. 325: The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Irenaeus,, p.93 16 Augustine (2003 reprint) The City of God, Penguin UK, p.93
17 18 19

McMahon, Ibid. Baldwin, R.J., p.9 Popham, J.K., p.9

John Foreman, in his treatise against Duty Faith, gives us two standard examples of the argumentation employed: i) Firstly, the Hyper-Calvinist insists that duty faith is the duty of all men to beget themselvesinviting the unborn to effect their own birth.20 Basically, they argue that duty faith means men are commanded to be born again as a new creature with a heartfelt desire towards Jesus something only the Holy Spirit can accomplish. However, the new birth is the process by which God brings someone to obey the command to believe, it is not the command itself. The argument defeats itself. ii) The second argument declares that Calvinism makes the Gospel sound too much like the Law of Moses, with commands (i.e. works to be performed) and retribution for disobeying those commands: Duty Faith goes by proposals to put the world of sinners in the same position for heaven and eternal salvation, as Moses addressed the Israelites, saying, I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life21 [Deuteronomy 30:19] However, Paul quotes this exact passage in the New Testament (more specifically, Deuteronomy 30:12-15). But, instead of referring to the commandments which Moses was outlining, Paul is speaking of faith in Christ. The context of this passage shows it is directed to anyone, whether Jew or Greek, all who call upon Him (Romans 10:12). Paul clearly presented the ultimatum of life in Christ or death in sin to all, in the same manner as Moses presented the Law to the Israelites: Romans 10:5-8 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Furthermore, the idea that faith is not a work is a direct contradiction to the words of Christ, as the Lord Jesus Himself was emphatic that the act of believing is a work or action: John 6:28-29 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. Of which John Calvin himself comments: They had spoken of works, Christ reminds them of one work, that is, faith; by which he means that all that men undertake without faith is vain and useless, but that faith alone is sufficient, because this alone does God require from us, that we believe Those who infer from this passage that faith is the gift of God are mistaken; for Christ does not now show what God produces in us, but what he wishes and requires from us.

20 21

Foreman, J. (1995 reprint) Remarks on Duty Faith by John Foreman, Vol. 1, Christian Bookshop: Ossett, p.46 Ibid., p.32

The great German theologian, Professor Lange, notes also in his commentary that [f]aith is called a work by Bullinger and Beza, himself calling it the demand of faith in Him whom God sent. Turretin, the other Reformers and the Puritan commentators are all in agreement. Indeed, the Reformed creeds speak of the act of believing.22 They saw no contradiction here; they did not believe that any command to rightly believe the testimony of Gods Son contradicted the clear biblical teaching that men love darkness and will not come to the light, but must have their eyes opened and be drawn to Him (John 6:44). They are, nevertheless, commanded to do what would be righteous so that they are without excuse. The brilliant Puritan, John Flavel, writes conclusively on this matter: This is a mistake, and the mistake in this leads you into all the rest; though faithbe the gift of God, and the power of believing be derived from God, yet the act of believing is properly our act, though the power by which we believe be of God; else it would follow, when we act any grace, as faith, repentance, or obedience, that God believes, repents, and obeys in us, and it is not we, but God that doth all these. This, I hope, you will not dare to assert; they are truly our works, though wrought in God's strength?23 2. Is preaching faith in Christ to the spiritually dead pointless? William Huntington makes this argument regarding Acts 3:19 and the calling of the lost to repent and believe: Ye might just as well go to the gates of the grave and tell the sleeping dust it is their duty to come forth as Lazarus did.24 Basically, the Hyper-Calvinist believes it is pointless to preach repentance and faith to those who are dead in their sins. John Newton, famous for the great hymn, Amazing Grace, wrote in response to this argument often posed by Hyper-Calvinism: To this it may be answered, that we might cheerfully and confidently undertake even to call the dead out of their graves, if we had the command and promise of God to warrant the attempt; for then we might expect His power would accompany our word. The vision of Ezekiel, chapter 37, may be fitly accommodated to illustrate both the difficulties and the encouragement of a Gospel minister. [Ezekiel is called to preach to the bones of dead men.] The deplorable state of many of our hearers may often remind us of the Lords question to the prophet, Can these dry bones live? Our resource, like that of the prophet is entirely in the sovereignty, grace and power of the Lord: O Lord, thou knowest, impossible as it is to us, it is easy for thee to raise them unto life: therefore we renounce our own reasonings; and though we see that they are dead, we call upon them at thy bidding, as if they were alive, and say, O ye dry bones, hear the Word of the Lord! The means is our part, the Word is thine, and to thee be all the praise. The dry bones could not hear the prophet; but while he spoke, the Lord caused breath to enter into them, and they lived; but the Word was spoken to them considered as dry and dead.25 Whilst, Newton responds biblically, A.W. Pink reveals the purely illogical nature of Huntingtons argument:

22

See chapters on Justificaiton in the Westminster Confession (1646), the Savoy Declaration (1658) and the London Baptist Confession (1689) 23 Flavel, J. (1799) Whole Works of the Rev. Mr. John Flavel, Vol. VI, pp.352-3
24 25

Huntington, W. (1811) The Works of the Reverend William Huntington, SS., p.156 Newton, J. (1808) The Works of the Rev. John Newton, pp.151-2

The physical condition of those in the cemetery is vastly different from the moral state of the unregenerate still upon the earth. The former cannot sin, cannot reject Christ; the latter can and do. The former cannot read their Bibles or call upon God for mercy; the latter should! It is because the natural man possesses the same faculties of soul as does the regenerate that he is an accountable creature, responsible to use them for God instead of against Him.26 In Ezekiel 37, Ezekiel obeys the Lord when he is told to prophesy to the dry bones in the valley. Should we not too obey the Lord when He commands us to preach the Gospel to those who are dead in sins? 3. Does the command to repent and believe confuse Gospel with Law? Yet, Hyper-Calvinism requires that only the commands of the Law of Moses, particularly the Decalogue written in stone under that old covenant, should be preached to warn the unconverted and nothing more. A. J. Baxter outlines this position: All, therefore, that can be done spiritually with men in [their lost] condition is to declare to them their state by the law.27 The attempted justification frequently employed for this claim is the case of the rich young ruler (Matthew 19, Mark 10, Luke 18). I find this argument to be remarkable because, actually, this is one of the clearest passages in which Jesus calls an unsaved man to believe in Him. Baldwin, again, presents the argument: When the rich young ruler came to Christ and said, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? (Matt. 19:16), Jesus pointed him to the commandments as written in the Law of Moses.28 Luke 18:20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. But, is that all that Jesus said? No. When the rich young ruler declared that he had kept all of the commandments (far from feeling his sins) and wanted to know what else he had to do, Jesus calls him to repent and believe in Him: Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. Jesus clearly pointed out his idolatry by telling to him to repent from the riches, which he loved, and invited him to come and follow Him. Although noted for Hyper-Calvinistic tendencies, even Dr. Gill recognises that this can be nothing other than Jesus inviting the rich young ruler to be really and truly a Christian: for to "come" to Christ, is to believe in him, lay hold on him, receive and embrace him as a Saviour and Redeemer; and to "follow" him, is to be obedient to his will, to be observant of his commands, to submit to his ordinances, and to imitate him in the exercise of grace, and discharge of duty. After all, Christ does say that it is only His sheep who follow Him (John 10:27). Therefore, we must conclude that the Lord Jesus does clearly command everyone, elect or reprobate, to follow Him. And to disobey is most certainly damning as it was for the rich young ruler.

26 27

Pink, A.W., Ibid.

Baxter, A.J. (2001 reprint) On the Consistent Preaching of the Gospel: Being an Analysis of a Letter by John Newton on the Subject, The Huntingtonian Press, p.7
28

Baldwin, R.J., p.6

Let us briefly examine three other examples of how the Scriptures are fancifully manipulated to teach that a mans duty is only to obey the Law of Moses, with no command given to believe in Jesus: i) Our primary example is William Huntington, the exemplar of this mentality. He writes in opposition to preaching repentance and faith in Christ to the unconverted: You have no warrant from Christ to feed the household of God with husks, nor to give the childrens bread to dogs [T]he children of wrath [are] sent to the promise, and the heirs of promise to the law Do as you are bid; feed the sheep, feed the lambs; the goats will never believe the gospel.29 Automatically, we see the utter misuse of imagery from Scripture.: - The context of the husks from the parable of the prodigal son convey the emptiness of the pleasures of this world, not the Law of God (Luke 15:13-18). - As for giving the childrens bread to dogs, that is, the Gospel to lost souls, the Gentile woman to whom the Lord Jesus made that illustration was commended for stating that the dogs do eat the crumbs which fall from the Masters table (Matthew 15:27)! - As for feeding the lambs and sheep of Christ, this direction is given to Peter three times (John 21:15-17) to ensure that his faith was resolved and that he would strengthen other Christians, just as Jesus prayed for prior to Peter denying Him three times (Luke 22:31-34). Peter expresses very clearly that the means by which an elder feeds Christs sheep is not purely by commanding them to repent and believe, as Huntington implies, but by leading by example, preaching, teaching and exhorting in both of his epistles (1Peter 5:2). Sadly, this messy collage of misquoted biblical imagery, is the best argumentation presented to justify the claim that Calvinism wrongly presents the Gospel to the unconverted. ii) Our second example: In Romans 7, Paul compares someone who is lost and seeking to justify himself by simply obeying the Law with someone who has been given the light to see that he cannot justify himself and instead must trust in Jesus alone for his salvation. His conclusion is that when we do, we are no longer under the authority or burden of the old covenant Law of Moses, but are rather led in the heart by Gods Spirit to willingly behave more like Jesus. The illustration Paul uses is a woman who is no longer married and is thus not under her ex-husbands authority: Romans 7:2-4 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead [lit. you also died] to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. However, this is interpreted by the Hyper-Calvinist in such a way that everyone is (symbolically) married to Adam, who of course failed to keep Gods simple command in Eden, just as we have failed to keep Gods commandments; therefore, the Hyper-Calvinist concludes that to teach that you must believe in Jesus is somehow teaching people to commit spiritual adultery with Jesus. This is, again, expressed by Foreman: [I]t can no more be the natural mans dutyto believe unto salvation, than it is a womans duty to think of, yield her person and affections to, and secure to herself, a second husband before her first be dead.30
29 30

Ella, G., p.52-53 Ibid., p.20

Let us take the same overly-literal interpretation to Pauls other analogies and see what happens: Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. If we were to interpret this literally too, we would come to the conclusion that we are married to our instructor, called Adam, who then leads us to commit adultery with Jesus. Therefore, this method of interpretation is not just irrational but is also highly offensive. A far simpler interpretation is that, under the Gospel, we are commanded to accept that we are sinners and that the only possible Saviour of sinners is Christ; the Law being a useful and holy tool which reveals our sins in the first place, i.e. how we are clearly disobedient and immoral before a good and holy God (1Timothy 1:8). iii) Our final example is the misuse of Jesus words in John 5:45 in which the Lord says to the Jewish leaders that they will be accused by Moses in the Day of Judgment and not by Himself. Foreman, again, argues that Jesus was stating that the Law of Moses alone is what condemns people and not the refusal to believe in Him.31 Let us read the context: John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And [or but] ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? There is nothing in the context to indicate that Jesus is declaring that only the Law of Moses condemns people; rather, He is declaring that if they truly believed what Moses wrote, they would believe in Him. The whole context is clearly talking about faith in Christ. More than this though, the previous context makes it clear that the reason Jesus wont be accusing anyone to the Father is because He has been made the great Judge of all men: John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son Christ is certainly not declaring anything about the ten commandments here, but is actually saying that even if He werent to be in a position to accuse the unbelieving Jews, He doesnt need to; Moses, whom they claim to follow, will be the accuser, because Moses testified of the Messiah to come. But, in their naturally sinful nature, they will not come to Jesus that they might have life. They are still dead in their sins and would need to be resurrected spiritually in order to be obey, as verses 21 & 24 indicate. These are just three examples of the erroneous doctrines and interpretations to be found in Hyper-Calvinistic literature. All such arguments are built upon the mere presupposition that there is no duty to believe in Christ and, as we have seen, ultimately lead to circular reasoning and eisegesis, that is, the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas.32 Indeed, Hyper-Calvinism claims that as faith in Christ is not obligatory, it is not a sin to reject Him! And this is the root of the errors above.

31 32

Ibid., p.31 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eisegesis, s.v. eisegesis (07/06/2013)

Emotional arguments are employed to convince the Christian that he is confusing the Law with the Gospel. John Foreman illustrates the ferocious zeal with which this view is held: [F]or any man to be damned to hell for not believing unto salvationappears to me to be as silly as it is false and crueland condemns him to death without real cause. As if this error were not rash enough, Foreman then declares that anyone who does is of the pharisaic spirit of antichrist, and of the devil himself in character.33 Thus, he condemns every sincere Christian prior to the 18th century and the vast majority ever since! Dr. John Dagg, in the first systematic theology written by an American Baptist, in his chapter regarding the duty of men to believe in Jesus, outlines the plain biblical teaching: Faith in Christ, is faith in the declarations of the Gospel concerning Christ; and it is faith in these as coming from God. It is the receiving of Gods testimony concerning His Son; and, in this view of it, we see the great sinfulness of unbelief; for he who believeth not, hath made God a liar.34 Here, he quotes the New Testament: 1John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. Note - the immediate context of this verse is so abundantly clear that we are talking about those who are saved by faith and those who are lost through unbelief that, again, even Dr. Gill, must comment on this verse that as nothing can be morereproachful to the being and nature of God, so nothing can more fully expose and aggravate the sin of unbelief, with respect to Christ, as the Son of God. It is, therefore, inescapable; those who do not believe have made God a liar and have thus sinned against His holiness and have not obeyed the Gospel (Romans 10:16). Of course, breaking the moral laws of God, which apply to everyone, is sin; but, to reject the truth of Christ is another, greater sin. This is the reason why Christ declared that Capernaum would suffer a greater punishment than Sodom; though Sodom was full of sinners, Capernaum had rejected the clear testimony God gave of His Son (Matthew 11:23-24). If this rejection were deserving of punishment, then some disobedience to a command or omission of a duty must have taken place. God is just and does not punish or increase punishment without real cause, as Foreman put it. 4. Does Calvinism imply a Universal Atonement? Foreman introduces our final argument also: [I]f it were the universal duty of all men, wherever the gospel comes, to believe unto salvation, then salvation would be as universal as the spread of the gospel.35 The difficulty with this arises from the fact that Calvinism recognises that Christ only died for His elect people. Huntington is more to the point: If it is the duty of all men to believe, they must believe that Jesus died for all men; that he will pardon all men, and save all menand if all men believe this, they believe a lie.36 We have already proven that although God calls everyone to believe that does not mean that they can or will; nor does it mean that they are all Christs sheep for whom He died and whom God will draw to Him for eternal life. After all, the Gospel serves to condemn those who reject it, as we have seen.
33 34 35 36

Foreman, J., p.18 Dagg, J.L. (1859) Manual of Theology, Southern Baptist Publication Society, p.177 Foreman, J., pp.23-26 Ella, G., p.57

However, some continue to press the point by stating that to call the unconverted to believe is to call them to believe Jesus died personally for their sins, which might not necessarily be true. In the New Testament, we do not read anywhere of an individual being commanded to believe that Jesus died personally for His sins as the criteria for salvation. Instead we read of the call to salvation, for men to repent and believe in Jesus Christ as the crucified but risen Son of God and only Saviour of sinners; this is then accompanied by the promises of God that those who believe have forgiveness and the full assurance of their personal salvation (Psalm 32:1-5, Romans 10:8-13, Hebrews 10:19-22, 1John 1:8-2:2 etc.). Dagg, puts it this way: The Gospel addresses men as sinners and presents Christ to them as the Saviour of sinners; and the faith in Christ which it requires is the receiving of the truth which it declares concerning Christ.37 So, basically, the Son of God died for the sins of His people; whether you are one of those people depends on whether you believe Gods testimony of Him. Obviously, the assurance that ones sins have been washed away can only come after one has trusted in that Saviour, not before. The Hyper-Calvinists argument is truly illogical. The problematic symptoms of Hyper-Calvinism We have seen that Hyper-Calvinism is the belief that only those we can determine to be elect and genuinely desiring atonement for their sins can be called to trust in Jesus one sacrifice for sins. The dominant problem being that it leads to sincere Christians probing their hearts and minds to determine whether they should be permitted to come to Christ, i.e. whether they are spiritually fit. As McMahon points out, The subjective experience becomes a prerequisite for trusting in the promises of the Gospel.38 That is, one must first be absolutely certain that they are a sensitive sinner before they can come to Christ; thus the heavy emphasis on the Law of Moses. Am I a thirsty soul, hungering after righteousness? Do I feel my sin enough and fear the just retribution of Gods wrath enough to actually desire Christ? How greatly must I feel my sins? Do I actually feel my sins or am I deluding myself? The questions go on and on. This teaching is subtly presented by Baldwin: [W]hen my sin is to me a burden which seems heavier day by day, and when I turn to the Scriptures and read, He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him, then I know that I may come.39 Every sincere believer will have seen no problem with the words written above, except for the word may. This seems to set out a formula whereby one must not even consider coming to Christ unless some sort of introspective experience has first occurred. McMahon, again, rightly sums this up: The untainted Sovereign Grace of God is mixed with a prerequisite work of feeling before salvation through Gospel preaching may be obtained or even allowed.40 Sadly, this teaching causes many to look inward for certain experiences which would fulfil the criteria to then allow them to trust in Christ and find the relief and salvation they so greatly desire. They end up looking to themselves for a subjective experience, even a mystical experience, rather than looking objectively to Christ the only object of our faith.
37 38 39 40

Dagg, J.L., p.177 McMahon, Ibid. Baldwin, R.J., p.11 McMahon, Ibid.

Peter Toon, in his definitive work on the history of Hyper-Calvinisms development, declares this particular problem to be as old as Hyper-Calvinism itself: Another favourite emphasis was the teaching that the only sure way for a Christian to know he was elect was the voice of the Spirit within his soul saying, You are elect.41 Certainly, the Holy Spirit gives Christs sheep a new heart, one that feels their sins so that they realise they have no righteousness of their own but must trust in Jesus alone. But, nowhere do we see in the New Testament that those who genuinely desire salvation in Christ must engage in introspection before coming to Him. Jesus is simply presented as the Saviour of sinners; it is considered obvious and by-the-bye that only those who feel their need of salvation from their sins will come to Him, otherwise what exactly is it He is saving us from? Preaching the Law of Moses and commanding people to seek out specific experiences before they come to Jesus is conspicuously absent from the Scriptures. Again, the great Puritan, John Owen, exposes this false teaching conclusively: Believe in Christ, and in the remission of sin by his blood, is the first thing that convinced sinners are called unto. They are not directed first to secure their souls that they are born again, and then afterward to believe; but they are first to believe that the remission of sin is rendered unto them in the blood of Christ, and that by him they may be justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the law. Nor upon this proposition is it the duty of men to question whether they have faith or no, but actually to believe. And faith in its operation will evidence itself.42 Amen. The rash defence of Hyper-Calvinism on this point would be to lash out by accusing traditional Calvinism of Sandemanianism. The Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1911 records the strange doctrine of this 18th century sect as maintain[ing] that justifying faith is a simple assent to the divine testimony concerning Jesus Christ, differing in no way in its character from belief in any ordinary testimony.43 It is no more than a simple assent to the divine testimony, as the Census of Great Britain, 1851, notes it. Therefore, the Hyper-Calvinist accuses traditional Calvinism of not embracing any real spiritual experience or change in the believer. This most bogus accusation can simply be refuted by a glimpse at the historical Calvinists quoted in this study. They all wholeheartedly taught that the divine teaching of the Holy Spirit was necessary for a man to willingly and joyfully accept Christ. Yet the ridiculousness of this argument doesnt end there; not even Arminianism makes the claim that faith is a flimsy notion or idea that a man simply entertains! The Methodists, Strong and McClintock, recognise this in their Encyclopaedia: This [faith], however, could only be entertained through divine teaching or illumination.44 Paul teaches us that the natural man considers spiritual things foolish and so God must shine His light in the darkness of our hearts to reveal Christ (1Corininthians 2:14 & 2Corinthians 4:6). This is the traditional understanding of Calvinism and no amount of name-calling can eradicate that fact.
41

Toon, P. (1967) The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity, 1689-1765 http://www.anglicanbooksrevitalized.us/peter_toons_books_online/history/hypercal1.htm (03/06/2013)
42

Owen, J. (1841) A treatise on the Holy Spirit and his operations: An exposition of the 130th Psalm, Volume 4, pp.495-6 43 Encyclopdia Britannica Eleventh Edition (1911), s.v. Glasites, or Sandemanians
44

McClintock, J. & Strong J. (1885) Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Harper, s.v. Sandemanianism

Dagg clearly explains the Calvinistic understanding of a real, living and saving faith: Although faith may be contemplated as merely intellectual, and as antecedent to all emotion; it is not Men must receive the love of the truth, that they may be saved, [2Thessalonians 2:10] as well as the truth itself. A merely intellectual faith, without the love of the truth believed, cannot produce the proper fruits of faith; for faith worketh by love; [Galatians 5:6] and it cannot secure the blessings promised to faith; with the heart man believeth unto righteousness. [Romans 10:10] A faith which dwells exclusively in the intellect, and leaves the heart untouched and cold, is the dead faith which the apostle James describes [James 2:26].45 Therefore, traditional Calvinism holds to the biblical stance that faith without a love for the truth believed is no faith at all and that only God can change our hearts (Ezekiel 36:26). Conclusion We have shown that Hyper-Calvinism has no place in Christian history until the 18th century; even through the Pelagian controversy of the early church and the Reformation, this notion was not developed or noted in historical accounts. We have shown that Hyper-Calvinisms charges are in plain contradiction to the Bible; there is a duty for men to truly believe in Jesus Christ. Yet, Hyper-Calvinism strays into the same faulty logic of the heresy of Pelagianism by declaring that God would not give such a command unless people were able to perform it. We have acknowledged that Hyper-Calvinism results in a lack of Evangelism and a siege mentality whereby non-Calvinists and even traditional Calvinists are seen as apostates, instead of brothers in Christ whose views currently differ. Equally as significant, Hyper-Calvinism results in almost endless introspection and a lack of assurance for sincere Christians.

In light of these conclusions, it is important to remember that there are many sincere Christians within this group. They are not our enemies at all but, rather, the doctrines which might cause them to behave in un-Christian ways towards their fellow brethren are to be fought against. Well then, could Hyper-Calvinism resurge in our time, due to the great development of the false doctrine of Easy Believism or Decisionism throughout the 20th century, since Billy Sunday asked his hearers to come forward to shake his hand to be saved? Should we fear an overreaction to the sinners prayer, promulgated by the Semi-Pelagian majority in Evangelicalism, whereby the act of a single-prayer makes one born again, no different to any rite of Roman Catholicism? When we look through Christian history and see how God has preserved His Word, how Christ has shepherded His flock and especially how the doctrines of free and sovereign grace have been defended, we can fearlessly pick up where Charles Spurgeon left off, with both sword and trowel in hand, ready to build the walls of the church and defend the truth from charges on either side.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Flavel: is not that a conditional promise and threatening?46
45 46

Dagg, J.L., p.177 Flavel, J., p.350