Caricatures of Hyper-Calvinism: Some Notes on Preaching to All

Updated and reorganized on 9-1-2024.

“I’m not a hyper-Calvinist! I think we should preach to all. I am not against evangelism.” Ever heard that before? It’s quite common. Some Reformed and Calvinistic people (among others) today often create a caricatured view of hyper-Calvinism when they respond to critics—sometimes so that they are not identified with it or don’t look so close to it themselves, but often just out of ignorance. From what they say, one would think that hyper-Calvinists didn’t (or don’t) believe one should preach to all. That is not necessarily true historically, as several of the following sources indicate.

Dr. Curt Daniel wrote this in his dissertation:

In spite of their theological position on other points, the Hyper-Calvinists have stressed the primacy of preaching in a way that surprises many of their critics. Contrary to the opinion of some opponents, they nearly always believed that the Gospel is to be preached indiscriminately to all men. This is not a minority view either, nor a later development, for we find it from the very beginning. Hussey gave as the first answer to the question above [i.e., the question: “How must we preach the Gospel, if we do not offer the Gospel”], “We must preach the doctrine of salvation to all sinners, in general, within the hearing.” The same opinion can be found in the special subject of our study, Dr. John Gill: “the Gospel is to be preached to all.” Of course, this applies only to rational creatures; but as all men have the natural duty to hear and believe what God reveals to them, so the preacher has the duty to preach and proclaim to all.

Curt Daniel, Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1983), 448–449. Elsewhere he said: “Numerous Hyper-Calvinists have appealed not only to Hussey’s Operations but even to the very title of the book [GOD’S OPERATIONS OF GRACE BUT NO OFFERS OF HIS GRACE. To which are added two brief treatises. The One about Invitation, and the other about Exhortation of Sinners to come to Christ; both examined and consistently stated with the Glory of Free Grace, to rectify some Common and Prevailing Mistakes in Ministers, who now with Time, are running in the Present Generation] to substantiate their claims that we can preach but not offer” (Daniel, Hyper-Calvinism, 408, n. 55).

And then in another book, he said:

With the exception of a few extreme Primitive Baptists, all Hyper-Calvinists have believed that we are to “preach” the Gospel to all, but “offer” it to none. Preach, explain, command—yes. Offer—no. Some have also quibbled over the word “invite,” arguing that we can only invite “sensible sinners,” not sinners in general. All this is related to anti-missionism.

Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism (Springfield: Good Books, 2003), 89. “They [hyper-Calvinists] say we can preach [to all] but not offer” (Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism [Darlington, UK: Evangelical Press, 2019], 104).

What the classic hyper-Calvinists were against was free offers, particularly if one is suggesting in the indiscriminate offer that God wills the eternal well-being or eternal salvation of every man who hears the gospel call. They were not necessarily against preaching to all as such.

As The Gospel Standard (hyper-Calvinistic) Baptist confession said in Article 29:

While we believe that the Gospel is to be preached in or proclaimed to all the world, we deny offers of grace; that is to say, that the gospel is to be offered indiscriminately to all.

Articles of Faith and Rules (Harpenden, UK: Gospel Standard Trust Publications, 2008), 35.

In the recent “True Church Conference” on hyper-Calvinism, notice what Dr. Michael Haykin said about John Gill’s rejection of free offers:

He admitted that the “gospel is indeed ordered to be preached to every creature to whom it is sent and comes….Gill stated, “that there are universal offers of grace and salvation made to all men, I utterly deny.” Not even to the elect does God make an “offer” of salvation.

Iain Murray said the same thing about hyper-Calvinists preaching to all:

If God has chosen an elect people, then, Hyper-Calvinism argued, he can have no desire for the salvation of any others and to speak as though he had, is to deny the particularity of grace. Of course, Hyper-Calvinists accepted that the gospel be preached to all, but they denied that such preaching was intended to demonstrate any love on the part of God for all, or any invitation to all to receive mercy.

Gerald Priest wrote the following in the Denver Baptist Theological Journal:

What troubled Robert Hall and certainly Andrew Fuller was the fact that, for all his assertions of proclaiming the gospel to everyone, Gill undervalued the general call when insisting upon the effectual call.

Robert Oliver (who thinks Gill was a hyper-Calvinist), writing in the Banner of Truth, said:

As Dr [Tom] Nettles shows, he [Gill] did believe in evangelism, as, in fact, many other Hyper-Calvinists have done.

Rathel wrote:

[Robert] Oliver rightly explains that the preaching of the Gospel is not the issue in that debate over Gill’s hyper-Calvinism; hyper-Calvinists such as Joseph Hussey and John Brine both preached the Gospel. Instead, the issue is how one understands Gospel offers and duty faith as well as the accompanying doctrines of sensible sinners and evangelical repentance. Considering this fact, merely pointing out Gill’s charge to preach the Gospel is not sufficient.

David Mark Rathel, “John Gill and the Charge of Hyper-Calvinism: Assessing Contemporary Arguments in the Defense of Gill in Light of Gill’s Doctrine of Eternal Justification,” The Journal of Andrew Fuller Studies 1 (September 2020): 27.

David Gay wrote:

Hypers, I acknowledge, claim they do preach the gospel to all, but Spurgeon was referring to the fact that they limit the gospel invitation to the sensible. Giving the invitation to all, however, is an essential part of preaching the gospel to every creature; without it, the gospel is not being preached as it should be.

David H. J. Gay, The Gospel Offer is Free: A Reply to George Ella’s Rejection of the Gospel Offer, 2nd ed. (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; England: Brachus, 2012), 179n35. Spurgeon referred to “…those ultra-Calvinistic theologians who say, ‘You may instruct and warn the ungodly, but you must not invite or entreat them’” (Spurgeon, “On Conversion as Our Aim,” in Second Series of Lectures to My Students [Grand Rapids, Baker, 1978], 186). Notice that some hyper-Calvinists in Spurgeon’s day were for instructing and warning the ungodly, but not for inviting and entreating them.

These men all agree with Daniel’s historical analysis above.

In the audio in this post, one can hear D. A. Carson saying the same thing.

In many places Phil Johnson has echoed the same point. In his Primer on Hyper-Calvinism, he said:

Some common (but not quite precise) definitions: Hyper-Calvinism is sometimes defined as the view that God will save the elect apart from any means. Some, but very few, modern hyper-Calvinists hold such an extreme view. Those who do hold this view oppose all forms of evangelism and preaching to the unsaved, because they believe God will save whomever He chooses, apart from human means.

That seems related to Daniel’s comment about some Primitive Baptists above. Phil continued:

Many modern hyper-Calvinists salve themselves by thinking their view cannot really be hyper-Calvinism because, after all, they believe in proclaiming the gospel to all. However, the “gospel” they proclaim is a truncated soteriology with an undue emphasis on God’s decree as it pertains to the reprobate. One hyper-Calvinist, reacting to my comments about this subject on an e-mail list, declared, “The message of the Gospel is that God saves those who are His own and damns those who are not.” Thus the good news about Christ’s death and resurrection is supplanted by a message about election and reprobation—usually with an inordinate stress on reprobation. In practical terms, the hyper-Calvinist “gospel” often reduces to the message that God simply and single-mindedly hates those whom He has chosen to damn, and there is nothing whatsoever they can do about it.

Deliberately excluded from hyper-Calvinist “evangelism” is any pleading with the sinner to be reconciled with God. Sinners are not told that God offers them forgiveness or salvation. In fact, most hyper-Calvinists categorically deny that God makes any offer in the gospel whatsoever.

The hyper-Calvinist position at this point amounts to a repudiation of the very gist of 2 Corinthians 5:20: “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.” The whole thrust of the gospel, properly presented, is to convey an offer (in the sense of a tender, a proffer, or a proposal) of divine peace and mercy to all who come under its hearing. The apostle’s language is even stronger, suggesting the true gospel preacher begs sinners to be reconciled to God—or rather he stands “in Christ’s stead,” pleading thus with the sinner. Hyper-Calvinism in essence denies the concept of human responsibility, and so it must eliminate any such pleading, resulting in a skewed presentation of the gospel.

Phil Johnson (at 3:02 PM on October 08, 2007) also said this in response to a comment his blog. First, Dave Crater said: “Hyper-calvinism means something very specific: the idea that evangelism is incompatible with predestination.” Phil then responded:

I’ve read most of the major published works on hyper-Calvinism ranging from Iain Murray to Peter Toon to David Engelsma. I’ve also read several unpublished academic works on the subject. And I don’t know of a single serious student of the subject that would accept your definition.

At 9:18 AM on October 09, 2007, he also said to him:

Hyper-Calvinists may or may not deny the need for “evangelism.” Most actually would not. What they do typically deny is that the gospel constitutes a well-meant proposal of mercy to all, or that it calls all hearers (rather than the elect alone) to faith and repentance.

(There are several similar and related errors that are either characteristic of hyper-Calvinism or tend strongly towards hyper-Calvinism. I outlined some of these in my article [or Primer] on hyper-Calvinism.)

The point here, however, is that to reduce your definition of hyper-Calvinism (as you did) to “the belief that evangelism is incompatible with predestination” is to define it in a deliberately reductionistic way that actually removes the true distinguishing characteristics of hyper-Calvinism from the definition.

One can see all of these men (Daniel, Haykin, Murray, Priest, Oliver, Rathel, Gay, Carson, and Johnson), who have studied the issue, rightly admitting that most hyper-Calvinists believed in “preaching” to all men. What classic hyper-Calvinists were actually against were free “offers,” since “offers” presuppose certain theological issues they viewed as problematic (i.e., conditionalism in the New Covenant, man’s ability to accept, God’s willingness to give, an objective sufficiency in Christ’s death for all, etc.), or contrary to the “doctrine of sovereign grace.”

Modern forms (or the Dutch/American variety) of hyper-Calvinism, which also believes in preaching to all, sometimes prefer to redefine “offers” rather than reject “offers of grace” outright, since the language is quite confessional.

Here are a few more important quotes:

The essence of hyper-Calvinism is to minimize the moral and spiritual responsibilities of sinners. Hyperism undoubtedly affects preaching and teaching and is very dangerous because it can stultify and destroy the witness and life of a church. There are few exceptions. There have been some like William Gadsby, who although they intellectually adhered to hyperism nevertheless preached with such power and warmth that many were converted. They were better than the system to which they adhered. Gill’s church on the other hand shrunk and we are not surprised. When Gill declared, “that there are universal offers of grace and salvation made to all men, I utterly deny,” he was expressing with accuracy the deficiency of all his writings and works. Valuable though they may be in many other ways they are destitute of pleadings with sinners to repent, believe and be saved.

Erroll Hulse, The Free Offer of the Gospel: An Exposition of Common Grace and the Free Invitation of the Gospel (Worthington and Haywards Heath, Sussex,. UK: Carey Publications, 1973), 15.

Hyper-Calvinists asserted the facts of the gospel, they taught that eternal life is the gift of God, bestowed solely on account of the work of Jesus Christ, and they upheld the supernaturalism of grace.

Iain H. Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2000), 67.

And again, Murray wrote:

It [David Silversides’s book on The Free Offer] is more particularly oriented to answering the teaching of the Protestant Reformed Church of America (PRC)—encouraged in Britain through the British Reformed Fellowship—that the ‘free offer’ only means that the gospel is to be preached to all; it is no expression of love in God for all. So the preacher must not individualize the message to convey to his hearers the belief that the gospel is sent for their salvation; he must rather confine himself to generalities (not knowing who the elect are).

Iain Murray, “Book Reviews,” Banner of Truth 507 (December 2005): 22.

Hyper-Calvinism views the gospel preaching solely as a means for the ingathering of God’s elect. It argues that such words as, ‘Trust in Christ and you will be saved’, should only be addressed to elect sinners for it is their salvation alone which the preacher should have in view. For a preacher to convey to his hearers the impression that they are called to receive Christ, and to believe in him for salvation, is to deny, in the opinion of Hyper-Calvinists, the sovereignty of divine grace. It is to represent salvation as available to those whom God has excluded by the decree of election. Gospel preaching for Hyper-Calvinists means a declaration of the facts of the gospel but nothing should be said by way of encouraging individuals to believe that the promises of Christ are made to them particularly until there is evidence that the Spirit of God has begun a saving work in their hearts, convicting them and making them ‘sensible’ of their need.

Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism, 69.

Gordon H. Clark (1902–1985) was a hyper-Calvinist, as was Herman Hoeksema (1886–1965). Hoeksema described Gordon Clark’s view on preaching to all this way:

According to Dr. [Gordon] Clark, however, the preacher proclaims to all his hearers promiscuously that God sincerely seeks the salvation of all the elect. The elect may be variously named in the preaching: those who repent, they that believe in Christ, that hunger for the bread of life, that thirst for the water of life, that seek, knock, ask, that come to Christ, etc. etc. But they are always the elect.

Herman Hoeksema, The Clark-Van Til Controversy (Hobbs, NM: Trinity Foundation, 1995), 35; italics original.