Curt Daniel on the Four Main Issues Regarding Hyper-Calvinism

The Issues
The controversy [about hyper-Calvinism] revolves around four main issues. First, all Hyper-Calvinists reject the idea of the free offer (of the gospel, grace, and/or Christ). All Calvinists before 1700 and the vast majority since then have accepted the free offer. Hyperists sometimes claim Calvin for their cause, but the evidence is heavily against them. This is the main distinctive tenet of Hyper-Calvinism and has been identified as such by mainline Reformed writers for centuries.

Hyper-Calvinists argue that free offers are Arminian and contradict Reformed teaching on total depravity, limited atonement, and unconditional election as well as other teachings. They say we can preach but not offer. The Gospel Standard Baptists say that we can invite only ‘sensible sinners’ who have been convicted of sin to come to Christ. The word offer is never used in the Bible of preaching the gospel, they say, and the practice implies that salvation is for sale and is not free. They often say free offers make salvation conditional upon man rather than God. Some agree that the Latin word offero was used by Calvin and others as well as the English word offer by the Puritans and others, by then say that the word underwent a change and came to mean something different, so it should not be used today.

Mainline Calvinists respond as follows. First, the teaching of the free offer is indeed biblical. The word offer is used in several reputable translations of 1 Corinthians 9:18 (e.g., the NIV and NASB). We offer by presenting and setting forth the gospel to lost sinners in general with the call for them to repent and believe in Christ. We invite all lost sinners, not just ‘sensible’ sinners. The offer is free. God both offers and gives; the two are not contradictory. Lost sinners are unable to accept the offer, but this in no way contradicts either election or particular redemption. There has been no substantial change in the meaning of the words offero or offer. By far most leading Reformed theologians and preachers have believed in free offers — Calvin and all the Reformers, the Puritans, the Reformed Scholastics, the Nadere Reformatie divines, Jonathan Edwards, the Princetonians, Spurgeon, and thousands of others. It is the non-offer men who are out of step with historic Calvinism, not those who believe it.

Second, John Murray and Ned B. Stonehouse wisely note: “It would appear that the real point in connection with the free offer of the gospel is whether it can properly be said that God desires the salvation of all men.”⁶ Mainline Calvinists almost unanimously say yes; all Hyper-Calvinists say no. The free offer expresses a universal saving desire in God as part of His revealed will. It is well-meant and sincere. This does not nullify or contradict the secret will, for as Calvin said, it concerns the will of God in the gospel and not that of predestination.⁷ Calvin certainly taught the universal saving desire of God. For example: “God declares that he wills the conversion of all, and he directs exhortations to all in common.”⁸

Hyper-Calvinists deny that God desires all men to be saved, for that would include the reprobate and would contradict the doctrine of election. But mainline Calvinists argue that Scripture portrays God as holding out His hands all day long to sinners in general (Romans 10:21; Isaiah 65:2; Proverbs 1:14). He takes no pleasure in the death of the lost sinner but rather desires that he repent and be saved (Ezekiel 18:23, 32; 33:11). Paul echoes this in Romans 10:1: “My heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they many be saved” (see also Acts 26:29). God commands faith unto salvation (Acts 16:31), and that certainly indicates a well-meant desire. The eternal decrees never fail, but the revealed will of law and gospel are usually rejected by sinners. Lastly, historic Calvinists differ on the interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9. Some apply both to predestination, others to the gospel. But even so, the vast majority of historic Calvinists believe in the universal saving will of God. In this the Hyper-Calvinists are in the tiny minority and go beyond biblical truth.

The third issue is Duty Faith. The English Hypers usually reject it, but it appears that the PRC tends to accept it in some form. The state of the question, known as the Modern Question, is this: “In the preaching of the gospel, do all lost sinners have the duty to savingly [i.e. evangelically] believe in Jesus Christ?” [John] Gill and [John] Brine said that sinners have only the duty to believe the report of the gospel, not the duty to savingly [i.e. evangelically] believe personally in Christ. [Evangelical] Faith is a gift, they contended, and therefore [that sense of faith is] not a duty. ‘Duty faith’ implies that sinners are able to [evangelically] believe, for responsibility assumes ability.

Historic Calvinists have replied that saving [i.e. evangelical] faith is both a duty and a gift. Spiritual inability does not negate one’s responsibility. Sinners are commanded to both believe the report of the gospel (Mark 1:15) and savingly believe in Christ (Acts 16:31). First John 3:23 clearly states, “And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ.” A commandment is a duty on us. Christ commanded saving faith in John 12:36, 14:1, and 20:27, as did John the Baptist (Acts 19:4). God commands all men to believe (Isaiah 45:22). Paul commanded that we obey the gospel in “the obedience of faith” (Romans 1:5; 6:17; 10:16; 16:26). The same goes for duty repentance — which is both a duty and a gift (see Acts 2:38; 3:19; 17:30). Failure to repent and believe [in an evangelical sense] is a great sin (Mark 16:16; John 3:18, 36; 5:38; 16:8–9; Romans 14:23; 1 John 5:10; Hebrews 3:12). Unbelief would not be a sin if faith were not a duty, contrary to [W. J.] Style’s extreme notion. Therefore, the Hyper-Calvinists who deny Duty Faith are both unbiblical and out of the mainstream of Reformed teaching.

The fourth point in dispute is common grace. Hoeksema and the Protestant Reformed Church utterly reject it, but some others such as Gill accept a modified form of it. Mainstream Calvinists before and after Kuyper have taught that, yes, God does indeed have a general love, mercy, and favor for all men (e.g., Psalm 145:8–9), including the reprobate. Out of this general love, God gives good gifts to all men (Acts 14:17; James 1:17), even to the reprobate who end up in Hell (Luke 16:25). Christ, the perfect revelation of God, had compassion on the multitudes of thousands, not all of whom were elect (Matthew 14:14). This was not just in His humanity, as argued by some Hyper-Calvinists, for His holy humanity was in perfect harmony with His deity. He “loved” the lost rich young ruler (Mark 10:21). God commands us to imitate Him by loving all men in general, even our enemies (Matthew 5:43–48; Luke 6:35–36).

Contrary to Hoeksema’s contention, historic Calvinists have taught the Three Points of 1924, namely: (1) out of general mercy God restrains sinners (Genesis 20:6); (2) God enables the unconverted (including the reprobate) to do outwardly good things such as giving good gifts to their children (Matthew 7:11); and (3) God has a general love for mankind and provides for the development of culture, science, medicine, government, and the family (Acts 14:17). Out of this common grace there is a delay of judgment, as it were — anything short of Hell is a mercy. Referring to these and other verses, Louis Berkhof commented: “If such passages do not testify to a favourable disposition in God, it would seem that language has lost its meaning, and that God’s revelation is not dependable on this subject.”⁹

Those such as Herman Hoeksema are well out of the mainstream of the Reformed tradition to deny that God has any love, grace, mercy, kindness, or favor of any kind on all men in general, including the reprobate. Some Hyperists say that God is only fattening the reprobate up for the slaughter and has no remorse whatsoever for their lost state. That is supralapsarianism with a vengeance. It implies that the reprobate are never under grace but only wrath, and conversely, the elect are always under grace and never under wrath (contrary to Ephesians 2:3).
_______________
6. John Murray, The Free Offer of the Gospel (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2001), 3.
7. John Calvin, The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews and the First and Second Epistles of St. Peter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 364 (on 2 Peter 3:9).
8. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeil, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 3:3:21, (p. 615).
9. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 446.

Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism (Darlington, UK: Evangelical Press, 2019), 104–107.

Curt Daniel on Loving Our Enemies and a Hyper-Calvinist Error

On 06/29/2014, Dr. Curt Daniel preached on Luke 6:27-36 and the topic "Love Your Enemies." Around minute 30:40-33:10, he took some time to speak against a variety of hyper-Calvinism that denies God's universal love (Note: not all varieties deny it). He said:

"We at this church believe in the 5 points of Calvinism; we would be mainstream Calvinists. But there is something called hyper-Calvinism, and I've read some of their books, and they go beyond this [the mainstream teaching on God's love]. And they say God does not love everybody; he has only love for those that are Christians, that he has chosen [the elect]. They misunderstand this. The bible says God has a general love for everybody, even though He reserves a special love for the elect, His children. But this movement goes beyond that and says, 'No, no, no. God loves only the elect.' And then I say to them, and I've had to say to some of them, I say, 'Well if God only loves Christians, then we should only love Christians, and not love non-Christians.' And I've seen them, where they bite their lips, because they see the logic of this and they change the subject. And I say, 'Well what do you do with Jesus? He loved the Pharisees; He prayed for those that were killing Him; and He gave us the example. He healed people that never even said thank you!' And one of them [a hyper-Calvinist] had the audacity to say, 'Well that was Jesus, not me, and that was in His humanity and not in His deity.' And I said, 'You missed the whole point! We're to imitate Jesus. He is showing us, not just perfect humanity, but He is showing us the heart of God! God has a general love for all people, and when we show that love, even to ungrateful, God-hating people that hate us too, we're imitating God.' So, brethren, let's not be like the hyper-Calvinists who are imitating the Pharisees. Let's imitate the Lord Jesus Christ by loving and doing good to those that are unthankful; they'll never say thank you to us or to God, and in that we are being merciful like our heavenly Father is.

Let me boil it down to this: it's not just showing mercy and kindness; we are showing grace! What is grace? It's God's undeserved kindness! Yes, [to] that person that hates you. He doesn't deserve a good response, but do it anyway. And by showing love, you are showing undeserved grace! And in no other way, dear brethren, can we so imitate God as when we show grace to those that hate us and despise us and don't deserve love. So go to that enemy that I asked you to think about this morning, and do good to him, and show him the love of God."

Curt Daniel on Hyper-Calvinism and the Denial of God's Universal Saving Will

Dr. Curt Daniel has given several lectures on hyper-Calvinism (see here and here), but this latest one given in 2013 is particularly good:

There are three sections to this lecture:

1) An Introduction [min. 0:40–11:37],

2) A Four-fold Description of the Hyper-Calvinist Distinctives [min. 11:37–65:40], and

3) A Question and Answer Period [min. 65:40–75:05].

The four-fold description of hyper-Calvinism's distinctives involve their rejection of:
2A) the free offer of the gospel [min. 11:42–23:54],
2B) the universal saving will of God [23:54–33:00],
2C) common grace [min. 33:00–46:00], and
2D) duty-faith [min. 46:00–56:12].

Here is the section dealing with hyper-Calvinism's rejection of God's universal saving will [min. 23:54–33:00]:

Number 2: There's more. It's what is involved in the free offer from God's point of view in His attitude. Now, I have a little booklet here I will give out in a minute by the late John Murray, a first class, mainline Calvinist scholar. The very first sentence of it hits the nail on the head:

It would appear that the real point in dispute in connection with the free offer of the gospel is whether it can properly be said that God desires the salvation of all men.

And he's right. All  mainline Calvinists have taught what we call the universal saving will of God in the preaching of the gospel. Now, one or two have kind of been unclear on that, but you can still find it in their writings, such as John Owen. But all hyper-Calvinists have denied that, because they deny the free offer and they say, "No, God does not desire the salvation of everybody, but only the elect."

Now, to lay the groundwork for this debate, we first have to understand something very distinctive to Reformed theology, and that's the two-fold will of God. What do we mean by that? The two-fold. For example, there's the secret will of God that we call predestination. God has foreordained everything that comes to pass, including election. It will happen. Period. It's never frustrated. But then there is also the revealed will of God, and that is what we find in the law, and in the gospel; that is His will of command, desire, His wish, and it is not always fulfilled. In fact, it rarely is. But it includes law and gospel. We have to keep those two in balance. But the hyper-Calvinists do not. You can tell which one of them they put all the emphasis on, the secret will. Now, true historic Calvinists study the bible, and they say that the bible clearly does teach that in the revealed will, in the gospel, God does earnestly, sincerely desire the salvation of all those that are lost, and especially those that hear the gospel. That desire is well-meant and sincere. For example, John Calvin said this in his Institutes (III.iii.21):

Indeed, God declares that He wills the conversion of all and He directs exhortation to all in common.

In the handout I'll have a dozen or so more similar quotes. You can multiply hundreds like that. God sincerely desires and offers the gospel to all lost sinners.

Now, how do we base our case in Scripture? Well, first, we see several scriptures which says God holds out His hands to lost sinners in general. Romans 10:21 quotes Isaiah 65:2: "All day long I have held out my hands to a lost and rebellious people." You find that in Proverbs 1:24 and elsewhere. He holds out His hands and He calls and beckons to lost sinners to come. Secondly, three times in Ezekiel, 18:23, 18:32 and 33:11, God says, "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but only that they repent and live." God's pleading with them. That's a saving desire for them. Now, that leads us to two verses upon which mainline Calvinists are not in complete agreement: 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9. 1 Timothy 2:4 says God desires all those to be saved. 2 Peter 3:9 [says that] "God is not willing that any should perish, but all come to repentance. Some, such as Calvin, say both of these are referring to the revealed will of God, not the secret will; in other words the gospel, not predestination. But then as you continue to study this you'll find that some Calvinists will say that one of them refers to the secret and the other one to the revealed, or vice versa, and then still others say both of these refer to the secret will. But yet, even those they will say we still believe in the universal saving will of God, whether it's taught in either or both of those two verses [i.e. Mainline Calvinists are in theoretical agreement regarding God's universal saving will, even if they disagree on the interpretation of some verses used to support the doctrine]. So we can't found our case completely on them, although it is interesting that John Calvin went on record in his Commentaries on those to say that in the revealed will of the gospel, God does desire the salvation of all those that hear the gospel.

Here's another one that we would appeal to: Romans 10:1. Paul, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (very important) said, "My heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved." He's not praying just for the elect, because he didn't know who the elect Israelites were. My desire for them in prayer is that they may be saved. Similar words are found in Acts 26:19, speaking to Agrippa, he said that, "I wish that you were altogether like me, except for these chains." And he said all those that would hear me. That's a desire. This is crucial. If God desires people's salvation, so should we. But if God does not desire everybody's salvation, neither should we; and we cannot pray for everybody to be saved, or pray for anybody to be saved because we don't know who the elect are. Sometimes I wonder if our hyper-Calvinist brethren desire the salvation of people. We'll get back to that later. I wonder if they pray for their lost loved ones, "Lord, save them!" Paul says "my desire is that they be saved." Paul's prayer was right! It echoed God's desire for lost sinners to be saved.

Next, if God commands sinners to believe, and faith is a condition of salvation, it logically follows [that] God desires their salvation. If He commands faith which leads to salvation, certainly a command is an expression of desire. You can't get around that. It won't do to say, as some hyper-Calvinisnts say, "well God has no unfulfilled desires." They're confusing the two-fold will of God. The secret will is always fulfilled, the revealed will is not usually fulfilled. So to say "no unfulfilled desires," they don't know their scripture. John Murray, for example, refers to four verses, that are what's called the "optative desires." Deuteronomy 5:29 and other ones where God says, "Oh, that my people would do this!" That's a desire. But [if] you look up those verses you will find out that the people were not honoring that desire. It was one that did not come to pass. Again, the revealed will of God does not always come to pass. If you say that it always comes to pass, then you say that everybody obeys God's law. God's law does not always come to pass. Same thing with the gospel.

Now, let's give just one or two of their arguments on this. Sometimes hyper-Calvinists will argue, "there can be no contradiction between the secret will and the revealed will. There's only one will of God." Well I'd appeal to John Calvin that said ultimately God has only one will, but He condescends to explain it to us in part by saying it's two aspects. So we would say it's a paradox, not a contradiction. And we'd say both of them are legitimate because both are taught in the bible: the secret will of predestination and the revealed will of law and gospel. By the way, the Arminians say you can't have it both, so they go with the revealed will and they negate the secret. Hyper-Calvinists tend to do it in reverse and say since they can't be harmonized, we reject the revealed and go with the secret. But they're inconsistent. What God has joined together, let no many put asunder. They're both taught in the bible.

Now their next argument would be similar to that. They say, "well, God wills only the salvation of the elect. If God desired that people be saved, they would be saved!" To which we say, in the secret will, yes, revealed will, no. They do not see the difference between them. They're confusing the categories. Mainline Calvinists, including your pastor, say, in the secret will whoever God wills to be saved, he chooses. They will be saved. But in this universal desire, He desires all. But only those that He has chosen will be saved. So we dare not confuse or eliminate either one.

So, that's our second point: mainline Calvinists have repeatedly taught God sincerely desires the salvation of all lost sinners, especially those that hear the gospel. But since some Calvinists deny this, they are going beyond the mainstream. Therefore, on this point, they are hyper-Calvinists. They have gone too far, not only out of the mainstream, but out against what scripture itself teaches.

Elsewhere Daniel noted:

Another thing called hyper-Calvinism says since God has chosen some, He does not sincerely desire [the salvation of] those that are not chosen, therefore there is no free offer.

Curt Daniel, "Q&A 2017 Conference," October 7th, 2017. See minute 10:20–10:31

Curt Daniel on the Calvinism Debate and 4 Main Issues Regarding Hyper-Calvinism

On November 3 of 2013, Dr. Curt Daniel spoke on "The Calvinism Debate" (click) at Faith Bible Church in Springfield, Illinois. From minute 21:50 to 24:43, he addressed the matter of hyper-Calvinism by saying the following:

What is hyper-Calvinism?... It revolves around 4 main issues:

Number one, the free offer of the gospel. Historically, all Calvinists have believed in the free offer of the gospel, where God holds out His arms and says, "Come! Everything is now prepared! Please come and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ!" Calvinists believe in that; hyper-Calvinists do not believe in that.

Secondly there's the universal saving desire of God; that God, in the preaching of the gospel, He desires that all those that hear the gospel repent and believe and be saved. That's part of the free offer. Historic Calvinists believe in that, hyper-Calvinists do not believe in that.

Thirdly there's the issue of common grace. Now here's where there is debate even amongst hyper-Calvinists. Common grace says God has a general love for everybody, but there's also a special grace just for those that have been elected. That's what the bible teaches. That's historic Calvinism. On the one hand Arminianism says, "No, no, no. God loves everybody equally and there's no differentiation." That's one of Dave Hunt's arguments. That it's not common and special. It's all common. Hyper-Calvinists go to the other extreme and say, "No, no, no. It's only special grace. God only loves the elect. He has no kind of love, mercy or compassion on those that he has not chosen. So many of them reject the idea of common grace...most, but not all.

Fourthly there's the issue of duty-faith. What's that? Historically, Calvinists, just like others, have believed that in the preaching of the gospel, those that hear the gospel have the duty to savingly believe in Jesus. If they do not believe, they are condemned for that. And that's what all Calvinists, evangelical Arminians and Lutherans have believed, but many hyper-Calvinists reject that. And they give a lot of arguments like, "Well, how can it be their duty if they are not able to believe? And if faith is a gift, how can it be a duty? Duty...that sounds too Arminian, and that sounds legalistic." So that's how they come to reject it, and yet the bible clearly teaches it; that it's a command. In fact, 1 John 3 says, "this is His command, that we believe in Him that He has sent, that is Jesus Christ His Son." So you can see where this differentiates Calvinists from hyper-Calvinists.

Who are these leading hyper-Calvinists? They're not very well known. I like to say they are big fish in a small pond. People like John Gill, who was an English Baptist 250 years ago. Herman Hoeksema, who is [was] a Dutch American, and a few others, but by and large they are not well-known outside of their own circles. They're a tiny but very vocal minority. They're on the Internet. That's part of this ongoing debate. Is there a free offer? and so forth...

A Recent Series by Curt Daniel on the Five Points

Curt Daniel on the Connection Between the “All” of the Atonement and the “Revealed Salvific Will of God”

We call attention to Calvin’s warning that if one limits the ‘all’ of the atonement, then one limits the revealed salvific will of God, which necessarily infringes on the preaching of the gospel and diminishes the “hope of salvation” of those to whom the Gospel is preached. Both High and Hyper-Calvinists fell prey to Calvin’s warning. The former limited the atonement and opened the door to limiting the revealed will that all be saved. Hyper-Calvinists went through that door and logically diminished the Gospel ministry and content.

Curt Daniel, Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1983), 603.

See also Edward Polhill’s observations about God’s Will of Salvation and the Death of Christ, as well as On the Extent of the Gospel Commission and the Death of Christ.

Curt Daniel on the Common Grace Controversy

11. The Debate over Common Grace.

A. Most Hyper-Calvinists admit that there is a small remnant of mercy for the non-elect, called Common Grace. This pertains to them as creatures, not as elect or non-elect. Some say it postpones their judgment. Most say it has to do with the bounties of Providence. This is in agreement with the best of truly Reformed theology.

B. However, they greatly de-emphasize it. It sounds too Arminian. Herman Hoeksema and the Protestant Reformed Church completely reject all notions of Common Grace. Hoeksema’s logic is an extreme based on a distorted kind of Supralapsarianism. He argues that because of the double-decree of election and reprobation before the decree of the Fall, God has only love for the elect and only hatred for the reprobate.

C. This necessitates two corollaries, argues Hoeksema. First, the elect have never been under the wrath of God, for that means hatred. Second, the non-elect have never been under the love of God. Never the twain meet.

D. Mainstream Calvinists have great difficulty with this. First, Eph. 2:3 explicitly says that believers were once under the wrath of God “even as the rest.” Second, Scripture often speaks of God’s general love to all men as creatures (Psa. 145:9, Matt. 5:43-48, etc.). God commands us to love all men; does He command us to do what He Himself does not do? Mind you, this does not mean that Common Grace is saving – saving grace is special and particular.

E. Hoeksema had great difficulty with Calvin’s formula. Calvin said that it is not true that God had only love for some and only hatred for others. Rather, God had love and hatred for all men, but in differing ways. God hated all men because of sin, but had Common Grace on all because they were His creatures. Yet God had a special love for His elect, leaving the reprobate in the hatred their sins deserved. The real mystery, said Calvin, is that God could both love and hate the elect. But He did.

Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism (Sprinfield, Ill: Good Books, 2003), 91.

Dr. Curt Daniel on Bunyan, Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger and Two Reformed Confessions

John Bunyan (1628–1688) tended towards a more universal atonement. In his Reprobation Asserted, he argued that the atonement underlies the Gospel offer. Therefore, we preach to all because Christ died for all. If the atonement was limited to the elect alone, then the reprobate who hear and reject the Gospel deserve no extra punishment. Furthermore, if the atonement were limited, then no man could know that Christ had died for him and, consequently, saving faith could not contain the essential assurance that 'Christ died for me.'

Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism (Springfield, Ill: Good Books, 2003), 76.

Luther and all Lutherans believed in universal atonement. There is no real disagreement on this. Also, all of the first-generation Reformed theologians taught universal atonement. This includes Zwingli, Bullinger, and the others. Universal atonement is explicitly taught in many of the earliest Calvinist confessions, such as the Heidelberg Catechism and the Thirty-nine Articles.

Ibid., 77.

[John] Gill is strangely silent on the most prominent and respected Baptist of the Puritan era: John Bunyan. To our knowledge Gill does not make a single, even indirect, reference to Bunyan. There can only be one reason for this silence. In his later years Bunyan held to universal atonement. Whether he held it in earlier days is not known, but he clearly espoused this position in Reprobation Asserted. This would clearly signal a serious compromise in Gill’s eyes.

Curt Daniel, Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill (Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 1983), 47.

We have recently seen that James Swan thinks the same way about Luther, and that Dr. Richard Muller agrees with Daniel's historical assessment on Bullinger, Ursinus (an author of the Heidelberg Catechism), and John Bunyan.

Richard Muller’s Clarification on the Question of Limited Atonement in History and its Background

It is often erroneously said that the issue of “limited atonement” (or the questions, as Muller clarifies it) wasn’t debated or discussed prior to Dort, or until the time of Amyraut. To the contrary, look at what Muller says at the end of this quote:

The question of the “L” in TULIP, of “limited” versus “universal atonement,” also looms large in the debate over whether or not Calvin was a Calvinist. This question, too, arises out of a series of modern confusions, rooted, it seems to me, in the application of a highly vague and anachronistic language to a sixteenth- and seventeenth-century issue. Simply stated, neither Calvin, nor Beza, nor the Canons of Dort, nor any of the orthodox Reformed thinkers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries mention limited atonement—and insofar as they did not mention it, they hardly could have taught the doctrine. (Atonement, after all is an English term, and nearly all of this older theology was written in Latin.) To make the point a bit less bluntly and with more attention to the historical materials, the question debated in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, concerned the meaning of those biblical passages in which Christ is said to have paid a ransom for all or God is said to will the salvation of all or of the whole world, given the large number of biblical passages that indicate a limitation of salvation to some, namely to the elect or believers. This is an old question, belonging to the patristic and medieval church as well as to the early modern Reformed and, since the time of Peter Lombard, had been discussed in terms of the sufficiency and efficiency of Christ's satisfaction in relation to the universality of the preaching of redemption.

Richard A. Muller, Was Calvin a Calvinist? Or, Did Calvin (or Anyone Else in the Early Modern Era) Plant the “TULIP”? (A Lecture Sponsored by the H. Henry Meeter Center: Oct. 15, 2009), 9. Also in Richard A. Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 60.

Even Beeke makes the following small concession:

Robert Peterson argues that the issue of the extent of the atonement belonged more to the subsequent period of Reformed orthodoxy and was therefore largely anachronistic for Calvin.²¹ Pieter Rouwendal shows, however, that the question of the atonement’s extent was dealt with in Calvin’s day, but the way that it was handled by later Reformers was foreign and anachronistic to Calvin.
_______________
21. Robert A. Peterson, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Atonement (Phillipsburg, N.J..: P & R, 1983), 90–91; Rouwendal, “Calvin's Forgotten Classical Position,” forthcoming. [Pieter L. Rouwendal, “Calvin’s Forgotten Classical Position On The Extent Of The Atonement: About Sufficiency, Efficiency, And Anachronism” WTJ 70.2 (Fall 2008): 317–335]

Joel R. Beeke, “The Extent of the Atonement,” in The Banner of Sovereign Grace Truth 17.6 (July–August 2009): 162.

Beeke probably has in mind pages 319–323 in Rouwendal’s article. David has posted some of this article here as well.

Curt Daniel said:

Moreover, it cannot be ignored that the controversy was not a new one. Some writers feel that the matter did not arise until the generation immediately following Calvin. While granting that the controversy reached fever pitch at the time of the Synod of Dort, we cannot for a minute ignore what church history plainly teaches. In the present section we have shown that the controversy did not even begin with Luther and the Reformation. It was hotly debated by the Schoolmen and even earlier by Augustine and Prosper, not to mention Gottschalk. Our opinion, rather, is that instead of it becoming a new issue when certain heterodox Calvinists such as Davenant began to teach Universalism or Dualism, the exact opposite is the case. That is to say, there was discussion from the earliest times in the Reformation about the extent of the atonement and that, barring Luther's early comments in the Romans Commentary, virtually all of the Reformers were of the Universal or Dualist persuasion. What made for the controversy was not the rejection but the introduction of Particularism.

Curt Daniel, Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill (PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 1983), 514.

It should also be obvious from what we sketched out in Section A of Chapter IX that the debate preceded the Synod of Dort. Indeed, it was an issue with the Church Fathers, notably Augustine and Prosper, not to mention the heated debates of the medieval Schoolmen. Even if Calvin or the other Reformers did not comment on the subject, this must be immediately recognized. In fact, though, Calvin and the others did mention the Schoolmen. Far from there being a silent, implicit consensus among the Reformers in favour of Particularism, the opposite was the case. From Luther onwards, we can find numerous discussions in the writings of the leading Reformers. The pattern was that the earlier ones tended to take the Universalist position, the later ones gradually shifting to the Particularist line.

Ibid., 779.

Curt Daniel’s Doctoral Thesis on Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill

Dr. Curt Daniel’s doctoral dissertation, Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill, is now scanned and available for free download at EthOS (Electronic Thesis Online Service), or here (direct link). They just completed the scan and sent me an email notice. One of the benefits is that it is even a fully searchable pdf(s)! Unfortunately it comes in two files, but I was able to join them together using Adobe Acrobat.

EthOS also has Michael Horton's dissertation (or directly here) and Alan Clifford's dissertation (no longer available) scanned and ready for download. Soon they will have the dissertations of G. Michael Thomas and Sinclair Ferguson (or here: click on the "link to institutional repository") as well.

Update on 9-26-13:

You can also freely get Daniel's thesis here directly in two parts (click).

Curt Daniel on God's "Universal Saving Will"

Yet another problem facing Calvinists is the nature of the universal saving will in the Revealed Will. Much of it revolves around the exegesis of 1 Tim. 2:4. Some say that salvation belongs only to the Secret Will; the Revealed has only to do with the Law. If that were so, then the Gospel is a secret -- how could we preach it? The truth is that the call of the Gospel commands faith in all who hear it -- God wills for them to believe the Gospel, in the Revealed Will. In that sense, He wills all to be saved. But remember, the Revealed Will is conditional. He wills for them to be saved by believing the Gospel. But He has not intended to give them all faith. This too is a paradox which we will examine more closely later.

Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism (Springfield, IL: Good Books, 2003), 208.

John Piper also used the expression "universal saving will of God" three times in his article "Are There Two Wills in God?," in Still Sovereign, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner & Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker, 2000). See pages 107, 108 and 122.

Dr. Curt Daniel on the Free Offer, The Will of God, and Hyper-Calvinism

Hypers usually reject the idea of offers that are free, serious, sincere, or well-meant.

Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism (Springfield, Ill.: Good Books, 2003), 89.

Curt Daniel lists four "main Hyper-Calvinist arguments" against "free offers" along with the historic Calvinist reply. The fourth in the list says:

(4) “Free offers imply that God wishes all men to be saved. This contradicts the doctrine of election. It also implies that grace is universal.” But: The Reformed doctrine of the revealed will of God is that there is a sense in which God certainly does will the salvation of all who hear the Gospel, just as He wills all who hear the Law to obey. He has no pleasure in the death of the one who rejects either Law or Gospel. True Reformed theology keeps the balance between the secret will (election) and the revealed will (Gospel), but Hyperism over-emphasizes the secret will. Similarly, special grace reflects election and the secret will, but there is also common grace for all men as creatures in the revealed will.

Ibid., 90.

Curt Daniel also briefly discusses this in his doctoral dissertation.

See Curt Daniel, Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1983), 426–429.

‘Free offer’ was the debated term in mainstream Hyper-Calvinism, but ‘well-meant offer’ has been the debated phrase within the Hoeksema school. In essence, however, they are one and the same. The first simply brings out the aspect that God wishes to give something without cost, while the second points to God’s willingness that it be accepted.

Curt Daniel, Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1983), 410.

HYPER-CALVINISM

Hyper-Calvinism is a conservative form of traditional *Reformed theology that holds to the five points of Calvinism as formulated by the Synod of *Dort. In contrast with mainstream Calvinism, however, it denies the free offer of the gospel. Many Hyper-Calvinists also reject the historic Reformed doctrines of common *grace and duty faith (i.e. that it is the duty of all who hear the gospel to savingly believe in Christ). They contend that free offers, common grace and duty faith are *Arminian concepts and are incompatible with the Five Points. Their justification for their position is that God sincerely desires the salvation of only the elect, not all men. All Hyper-Calvinists have been supralapsarian, but not all supralapsarians have been Hyper-Calvinist (see *Predestination).

The movement is mainly associated with the Strict and Particular Baptists in England and the Protestant Reformed Church in America. It began in England around the year 1700. The first significant work was God’s Operations of Grace, But No Offers of Grace (1707) by Joseph Hussey. The leading theologian has been John *Gill, whose Body of Divinity, The Cause of God and Truth and other works continue to be reprinted. Other leaders include John Brine, William Huntington, William Gadsby, Joseph Charles Philpot,  B. A. [Benjamin Ashworth] Ramsbottom [who from 1971 to 2015 was the editor of the Gospel Standard] and George Ella. The English movement was much curtailed by Andrew *Fuller’s The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation (1785) and the ministry of C. H. *Spurgeon. Herman Hoeksema (1886–1965) has been the leading American exponent, as in his Reformed Dogmatics (Grandville, 22004). Homer Hoeksema, David Engelsma and Herman Hanko have continued his tradition, which has been opposed by Cornelius *Van Til, John *Murray and others. The movement has always been a very small minority in the Reformed community.

Bibliography

C. D. Daniel, Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill (unpublished PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1983); A. De Jong, The Well-Meant Gospel Offer (Franeker, 1953); D. Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel (Grandville, 21994); M. A. G. Haykin (ed.), The Life and Thought of John Gill (1697–1771) (Leiden, 1997); I. H. Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism (Edinburgh, 1995); J. Murray, The Free Offer of the Gospel (Edinburgh, 2001); R. W. Oliver, History of the English Calvinistic Baptists, 1771–1892 (Edinburgh, 2001); P. Toon, The Emergence of Hyper- Calvinism in English Nonconformity, 1689–1765 (London, 1967).

C. D. Daniel

Curt D. Daniel, “HYPER-CALVINISM,” in New Dictionary of Theology: Historical and Systematic, ed. Martin Davie, Tim Grass, Stephen R. Holmes, John McDowell, and T. A. Noble, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016), 432–33.

Westminster Stats

Of the Westminster Assembly, Dr. Curt Daniel writes:

...about 3/4 of the divines were Infralapsarian, 1/4 Supralapsarian. About 2/3 were for limited atonement, 1/3 for either universal atonement or a ‘dual’ approach.."

Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism (Springfield, Ill: Good Books, 2003), 51.

(HT: Josh)

Two Quotes from a Dr. Daniel Sermon

I have been listening to Dr. Curt Daniel's series through the Gospel of John, and I heard him read the following two quotes in his sermon on The Funeral of Jesus (Streaming, Download):

One Joseph was appointed by God to be guardian of Christ’s body in the virgin womb, and another Joseph was the guardian of his body in the virgin tomb; and each Joseph is called a ‘just man’ in Holy Scripture.—Christopher Wordsworth

Among clothing that belongs to us, Christ put on even the grave-clothes, to make them easy to us, and to enable us to call them our wedding-clothes.—Matthew Henry

This particular sermon is packed with interesting information for meditation.

Disunity in the Godhead?

I've quoted this before on my blog as a side note, but it deserves an exclusive post for future reference since the issue keeps coming up.

Then there is the argument from the Trinity. It is argued that if Christ died for all men equally, then there would be conflict within the Trinity. The Father chose only some and the Spirit regenerates only some, so how could the Son die for all men in general? Actually, this argument needs refinement. There are general and particular aspects about the work of each member of the Trinity. The Father loves all men as creatures, but gives special love only to the elect. The Spirit calls all men, but efficaciously calls only the elect. Similarly, the Son died for all men, but died in a special manner for the elect. We must keep the balance with each of these. If, on the one hand, we believe only in a strictly Limited Atonement, then we can easily back into a strictly particular work of the Father and the Spirit. The result is Hyper-Calvinism, rejecting both Common Grace and the universal Free Offer of the Gospel. On the other hand, if the atonement is strictly universal, then there would be disparity. The tendency would be towards Arminianism – the result would be to reject election and the special calling of the Spirit.

Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism (Springfield, IL: Good Books, 2003), 371.

Curt Daniel on John Calvin (1509–1564) and Tilemann Heshusius (1527–1588)

We now come to another important quotation from Calvin. This is the ‘very explicit denial of the universality of the atonement’ to which Cunningham appeals as the only example he could find.^[1] In a refutation of the Lutheran writer Heshusius on the true partaking of the Lord's body at the Supper, Calvin offers this argument:

But the first thing to be explained is, how Christ is present with the unbelievers, as being the spiritual food of souls, and, in short, the life and salvation of the world. And as he adheres so doggedly to the words, I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh which was not crucified for them? and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins? I agree with him, that Christ is present as a strict judge when his supper is profaned. But it is one thing to be eaten, and another to be a judge. . . . Christ, considered as the living bread and the victim immolated on the cross, cannot enter any human body which is devoid of his Spirit.^[2]

We cannot ignore this example, as Davenant, Morison, Douty and Kendall do.^[3] Several options are open to us at the outset. First, this paragraph could teach limited atonement. If so, then either Calvin contradicts his other statements espousing Universal atonement (perhaps without knowing it) or has changed his views on the subject.^[4] After all, differences and changes are not entirely without example in Calvin. The tract was written in 1561, a late work. The second option is that affirmed by Cunningham and A.A. Hodge. They feel that this proves that Calvin did not teach Universal atonement. The ‘vague and indefinite statements’ about the atonement written in ‘a more unguarded manner’^[5] must be interpreted in the light of this one explicit statement. Calvin's other statements are then interpreted as Particularist. The third option is that the quotation above does not teach Particularism, though Calvin elsewhere teaches it. The fourth option is that neither in this place nor anywhere else does Calvin assert limited atonement. We seek to prove that the last option is the correct one.

We need not go into much depth on Calvin's views of the Supper, for that has been done by others at considerable length.^[6] We do not have access to the original propositions of Heshusius, but they can be deduced from what Calvin says in reply.

Being a Lutheran, Heshusius taught consubstantiation. This means that all who eat the bread and drink the wine at the Table do actually eat and drink Christ, for Christ is really present in, with and under the elements. Calvin, of course, does not accept Christ's presence at the Table in this way. Christ is spiritually present, says Calvin, and therefore linked with the Word rather than with the elements. This is what Calvin is seeking to prove in the tract. Since Christ is present only in a spiritual sense, He is eaten only in a spiritual sense. And that spiritual eating is done by faith alone. No man truly eats (receives) Christ except through faith.^[7] Unbelievers therefore do not eat Christ at all. They are, however, judged by Christ at the Table for their lack of faith. Their judgement for daily lack of faith is compounded when they partake of the elements because the Sacrament is the ultimate expression of personal communion between a believer and his Lord. An unbeliever pretending to be a believer thus insults Christ Himself. Christ certainly is present at the Table but He judges unbelievers because of their unbelief, not because they eat the elements and Himself.

Other passages in Calvin's work bear special relevance to the interpretation of the passage in question. One is in the Institutes. There Calvin deals with the question of unbelievers ‘eating Christ’: ‘However, I should like to know from them how long they (the wicked) retain it (the true body of Christ) when they have eaten it’.^[8] Note the same introductory phrase, ‘I should like to know. . . .’ In the Institutes quotation, what follows the introductory phrase is something that Calvin denies–that the wicked actually eat and retain Christ. He is not accepting that the wicked actually eat and retain Christ; the inquiry is rhetorical. We feel, therefore, that the instance with Heshusius must be interpreted as parallel in form and content.^[9] In the Institutes quotation, the second clause (that the wicked eat and retain Christ) is asserted by the protagonist; in the Treatise quotation the second clause (that the wicked eat the flesh which was not crucified for them) is asserted by Heshusius, not by Calvin.

When Calvin says that Heshusius ‘adheres so doggedly to the words’, he refers to the Lutheran exegesis which interprets literally Scriptures like ‘Take, eat, This is my body’, (Matt. 26:26) and the verses in John 6 (esp. vss. 35, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56). It is on the basis of this literalising that Heshusius asserts that even the wicked eat Christ. But Calvin does not interpret these verses literally but spiritually. What Calvin is denying is that these verses are interpreted literally and that the wicked eat Christ. He is not denying that the flesh of Christ was crucified for the wicked. Lutherans such as Heshusius, of course, did not deny Universal atonement. Something else, therefore, is being said about the atonement and those for whom Christ died.

Cunningham probably wishes to insert a comma after ‘flesh’, viz.: ‘I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh, which was not crucified for them’. This would make a subordinate clause with a separate assertion, as if there were possibly two sentences: ‘. . . how the wicked can eat the flesh. The flesh was not crucified for them’. But that is not what Calvin is saying. This punctuation would make it more probable that it was Calvin who was making the assertion in the second clause of the inquiry. But we have argued that this clause belongs to Heshusius. What then is he saying?

To answer this we turn to another important parallel. In his Commentary on I. Cor. 11:24, Calvin notes:

. . . the Supper is a mirror which represents Christ crucified to us, so that a man cannot receive the Supper and enjoy the benefits, unless he embraces Christ crucified.^[10]

Here Calvin says that true eating is dependant upon embracing Christ crucified. Often he defines this as believing that Christ was crucified for oneself. For instance:

For it is not enough that Jesus Christ suffered in His person and was made a sacrifice for us; but we must be assured of it by the Gospel; we must receive that testimony and doubt not that we have righteousness in Him, knowing that He has made satisfaction for our sins.^[11]

Calvin says the same thing in his comments on Mark 14:24, which describes the Last Supper:

So when we come to the holy table not only should the general idea come to our mind that the world is redeemed by the blood of Christ, but also each should reckon to himself that his own sins are covered.^[12]

Calvin says that the faith which truly partakes of Christ's body at the Table is the same faith which justifies.^[13] This faith is grounded in the Gospel and the atonement. We are to renew that faith at the Table by faith in the Word about the cross. This means that we again believe that Christ satisfied for our sins and thereby covered them. This is embracing Christ crucified: believing that Christ died for us. Without this faith, there is no true partaking at the Table. This is contrary to the Particularist theory. Particularism denies that saving faith believes that Christ was crucified for oneself; consequently it further denies that this conviction is necessary for the true partaking of Christ at the Table. This represents a radical departure from Calvin on the Sacrament of the Supper.

We would paraphrase the words in the Treatise quotation as follows: ‘I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ if they do not believe that Christ was crucified for them’. It is Heshusius, not Calvin, who claims that a person can truly eat without this faith. This is not to make Heshusius a Particularist. Not at all. But Heshusius and Particularists share the conviction that one need not believe that Christ was crucified for oneself in order to partake truly of the Supper and Christ.

What about Calvin's words here about the Spirit? How do we explain them? Calvin is simply saying that there is no true eating without the Spirit within oneself, for the plain reason that there is no faith without the Spirit. This is also brought out in the Commentary on I Cor. 11:27. There Calvin argues that without the Spirit, no one truly eats Christ.^[14] Some weak believers eat unworthily but they still do eat, for even weak believers have the Spirit and are united to Christ.^[15] The wicked may have historical faith that Christ died but this is not enough truly to partake of Christ. But this is not disputed by Cunningham.

Cunningham's only support, then, actually teaches the very opposite. Calvin taught that one must believe that Christ died for oneself and that the only way we can know this is for the Gospel to tell us. Though the Gospel does not specify individuals (this man or that man) or particular men, it does say that Christ died for all men. The believer knows that he is a man and therefore that Christ died for him. Saving faith accepts this. The conclusion is that without a Universal atonement no man can know by the Gospel that Christ died for him. In this sense we can agree with Kendall's introductory sentence to his first chapter: ‘Fundamental to the doctrine of faith in John Calvin (1509–64) is his belief that Christ died indiscriminately for all men.’"^[16]
_______________
^[1]Reformers, p. 396. This is probably one of the ‘explicit statements’ Engelsma refers to without quoting (p. 75). After stating that ‘This is a very explicit denial of the universality of the atonement’, Cunningham adds ‘But it stands alone–so far as we know–in Calvin's writings, and for this reason we do not found much upon it’ (Reformers, p. 396). This seems to contradict what he said earlier on the same page: ‘We do not find in Calvin's writings explicit statements as to any limitation in the atonement, or the number of those for whom Christ died’. And later on the same page: ‘He has not usually given any distinct indication, that he believed in any limitation as to the objects of the atonement’. Some critics might be forgiven for supposing that it is Cunningham and not Calvin who fails to give distinct and consistent affirmation on the subject in question. Note further that in dismissing Daille's evidence he castigates him with respect to ‘consistency’ (p. 401). The quotation is mentioned in Lane, p. 30; A A Hodge, The Atonement, p. 360; Helm, Calvin, p. 21; Letham, vol. I, p. 126; Bell, pp, 15–17; and others. It strikes us as very strange indeed that those such as Cunningham could search so widely among the many writings of Calvin–as we assume they have–and can only produce this solitary quotation which, from their point of view, is obscure at best. Cunningham may sense the embarrassment of this difficult situation by confessing that it stands alone and should not weigh for much. It would be stronger still if in fact this is the only hint at all in which Calvin touches on the whole question of extent. This is why we again stress the absolute importance of repeated, explicit quotations. Surely to argue on the basis of this solitary quote, no matter what it means, against the flood of the rest of the testimony is precarious at best.

^[2] We quote from the Tracts and Treatise (CTS edition), vol. II, p. 527. This was the translation available to Cunningham and Hodge, although the former quotes the Latin and the latter offers what seems to be his own translation. Lane and Helm refer to the more recent translation in J.K.S. Reid, Theological Treatises, p. 285.

^[3] Kendall briefly refers to Cunningham’s article but has been chided in reviews for failing to discuss this quotation. Cunningham: ‘We do not recollect to have seen it adverted to except by a single popish writer’ (Reformers, p. 396).

^[4] Lane seems to imply this (p. 30) as well as Strong (p. 778)–only the latter does so in reverse, that Calvin changed from Particularism to Universalism. In this, Strong is followed by those such as Baker who rely on his evidence, which has been shown to be faulty.

^[5] Hodge, The Atonement, pp. 359 - 360. Cf. Helm, Calvin, p. 13. Is it possible that Calvin's ‘unguarded manner’ is due to his less Scholastic approach? Kendall and others contend that Particularist Calvinists rely on Scholastic logic. Crisp's bold style is certainly not Scholastic; we feel that it has more in common with that of Luther and that of Calvin. See Chapter 11 above.

^[6] Three notable studies should be consulted; McDonnell, John Calvin, the Church and The Eucharist; Wallace, Calvin's Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament; and Barclay, The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. See also the relevant sections in the biographies and general studies of Calvin. Fortunately, Calvin himself wrote at length on the subject, so the researcher has a plethora of material to study.

^[7] Cf. Institutes, IV, 17, 33; Comm on John 6, etc. Though we eat Christ by faith, faith itself is not the eating (Comm on John 6:35), for ‘spiritually to eat the flesh of Christ is something greater and more excellent than to believe’ (Tracts and Treatises, vol. II, p. 553) and ‘eating differs from faith, inasmuch as it is an effect of faith’ (ibid., p. 283).

^[8] IV, 17, 33. In at least two other places in his works Calvin uses this phrase ‘I should like to know’ with reference to the Supper. ‘I should like to know to what end Christ invites us to partake of his flesh and blood in the Supper, if it be not that he may feed our souls’ (Tracts and Treatises, vol. II, p. 378). Note that the second clause includes what Calvin denies (‘if it be not . . .’). Later he says this: ‘I should like to know whether, according to them, this communion belongs indiscriminately to unbelievers as well as to believers’ (ibid., p. 415). Again he rejects what is in the query, for Calvin holds that the communion belongs only to believers.

^[9] In the Treatises quotation, Battles/Reid correctly omit the question mark which the CTS translator inserts. Both are, in fact, sentences which are rhetorical enquiries. Recognizing the form of the construction, we feel, is vital. For example, Alan Clifford (in private correspondence) exegetes the passages differently from ourselves while denying that the passage restricts the atonement in the way thought by Cunningham and Helm. Clifford feels that the clause ‘as he adheres so doggedly to the words’ means that ‘the flesh’ in the second clause refers to the literal element in the Supper rather than that which was crucified for them. He paraphrases the passage thus: ‘If our Lord's words are to be taken literally, are we to imagine that the actual bread and the actual wine about which he spoke were crucified? How can the wicked (or anyone else for that matter) eat that "blood" since the elements themselves were not "crucified" for their sins. Christ himself was crucified for them, not the symbolic elements.’ Clifford sees the debate at this juncture as centering around Consubstantiation rather than faith, if we understand him rightly. There is something to be said for his interpretation, but we feel it does not do full justice to the rhetorical construction, the flow of Calvin's argument, or the parallel passages. Doyle seems to follow our interpretation: ‘Calvin is using a stunning piece of hyperbole, which for its potency depends, in turn, on a belief in a universal scope of the atonement’ (p. 277). And yet Doyle hesitates on this, adding that this is a ‘blunt denial’ that Christ died for the wicked and that ‘here Calvin flatly contradicts himself, perhaps due to the heated and protracted nature of the controversy he is conducting with Heshusius’ (pp. 276–277). Unfortunately, Doyle does not elaborate his views. Bell also thinks that this is hyperbole (p. 17).

^[10] Comm on I Cor. 11:24. Cf. Kendall, p. 18. The mirror motif is prominent in Calvin's works. Christ is the mirror of God and man; only through Christ does man know God and thereby know himself. Christ is the mirror of election, therefore He is also the pledge of salvation (Predestination, p. 127). He is also the mirror and pledge of divine love and grace (Comm on John 15:9) and the Gospel is the mirror in which we see Christ (Letters, vol. III, p. 23). Hence, one knows Christ and God through the Gospel but this faith must include the persuasion ‘Christ died for me’ because the mirror also shows us ourselves. The supper is, as it were, a visible picture of the Gospel and therefore true partaking includes faith that Christ died for oneself. ‘Now our heavenly Father, to succour us in this, gives us the Supper as a mirror, in which we may contemplate our Lord Jesus Christ, crucified to take away our faults and offences’ (Tracts and Treatises, vol. II, p. 168). And ‘the Supper is given us as a mirror in which we may contemplate Jesus Christ crucified in order to deliver us from condemnation’ (ibid., p. 169). Similarly, ‘the Supper is a solemn memorial of the redemption which has been purchased for us’ (ibid., p. 210). Since redemption is by grace, the sacraments are ‘mirrors in which we may contemplate the riches of the grace which God bestows upon us’ (Institutes, IV, 14, 6).

^[11] Sermons on Isaiah, p. 117 (cf. pp. 128, 131). See also Comm on John 3:16, ‘faith embraces Christ with the efficacy of His death’. Similarly, Sermons on Deuteronomy, p. 299. See chapter IX, Section C and below.

^[12] Comm on Mark 14:24. Note the explicit Universalism (see above). The Commentary on the parallel in Matt. 26:26 adds little to our discussion at this point except to reaffirm that true eating is by faith. Cf. Sermons on Galatians, pp. 106-107.

^[13] The faith of justification is ‘not doubting but that our sins are forgiven us for our Lord Jesus Christ's sake’, with special reference to the atonement, meaning faith that says ‘I believe in Christ who died for me’ (Sermons on Deuteronomy, p. 167). The Roman Catholic error of justification is reflected in its wrong view of the Supper and its statements about faith and the atonement. The Mass re-crucifies Christ and thereby rejects the only atonement. Faith, therefore, becomes impossible because the Mass is substituted for the atonement. ‘By means whereof the death and passion of our Lord Jesus Christ was utterly defaced, in spite of the redemption that he had wrought. Inasmuch that if it be admitted that Jesus Christ was sacrificed daily; it is all one to reject the benefit that was purchased us by his death and passion’ (Sermons on Deuteronomy, p. 311).

^[14] Also: ‘Indeed the death of Christ was death for the whole world, and that is surely supernatural’ (Comm on Heb. 8:2). Christ is portrayed in the Supper, therefore ‘We maintain that in the sacrament Christ is eaten in no other way but spiritually’ (Tracts and Treatises, vol. II, p. 374). In order for one to eat spiritually one must have the Holy Spirit. Calvin therefore rebukes those who ‘insist that Christ is received by the wicked, to whom they do not concede on particle of the Spirit of Christ’ (ibid., p. 234). And in a nearly exact parallel to the passages in dispute, Calvin again stresses the place of the Spirit: ‘And in fact it were grossly absurd to hold that Jesus Christ is received by those who are entire strangers to him, and that the wicked eat his body and drink his blood while destitute of his Spirit. . . . Their offence then is that they rejected Christ when he was presented to them’ in the Gospel (ibid., p. 158). They eat unworthily not because they eat elements which portray what was not crucified for them, but because they do not have the Spirit, because they do not believe that Christ was crucified for them, and because they do not believe the Gospel. Cf. Institutes, IV, 17, 33.

^[15] Union to Christ is vital to true partaking, for it is associated with believing that Christ died for oneself (cf. Gal. 12:20). Calvin explains: ‘We confess that the holy supper of our Lord is a testimony of the union which we have with Jesus Christ, inasmuch as not only he died and rose from the dead for us, but also truly feeds and nourishes us with his flesh’ (Letters, vol. III, p. 376). Also, ‘under the symbols of bread and wine an exhibition of the body and blood of Christ is held forth; and we are not merely reminded that Christ was once offered on the cross for us, but that sacred union is ratified to which it is owing that his death is our life’ (Tracts and Treatises, vol. II, p. 574). This principle is shown in the reverse in the example of Judas. He was at the Supper and ate the elements but he did this wickedly because he was never in union with Christ, neither did he truly believe in Him. Therefore Judas did not feed on Christ, as Peter did. Most Particularists deny that Judas was at the Table (see Chapter IX), but Calvin explicitly says that he was (e.g., Tracts and Treatises, vol. II. pp. 93, 234, 297, 370–371, 378; Comm on Matt. 26:21, John 6:56). Kuiper mentions that Calvin felt that Judas was there but not in union with Christ, but Kuiper fails to see the problem (For Whom Did Christ Die?, p. 66). The problem for Particularists is that at the Supper Christ said, ‘This is my body, which is broken for you’. If Judas was there, Christ therefore said that He died for him. And if He died for Judas, then it was not for the elect alone, for Judas was not elect. But this was no problem for Calvin. Luther, another Universalist, also held that Judas was present. But Bucer questions this, adding that in any case the words of the ‘Bold Proclamation’ did not apply to Judas. See Common Places, pp. 330–332; and chapter IX above.

^[16] Kendall, p. 13. Kendall's study on Calvin and the atonement is very brief but it is the first chapter of what has proven to be a very controversial book. Yet evidently he saw some of the implications of Calvin's doctrines of faith and assurance which we have investigated in this paper.

Curt Daniel, Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill (PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 1983), 817–823. Also in R. T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (Bletchley, Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 1997), 231–238.

Other Relevant sources from Dr. Daniel's Bibliography

Barclay, Alexander The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. Glasgow, 1927.

Bell, Merton Charles, Jr. Saving Faith and Assurance of Salvation in the Teaching of John Calvin and Scottish Theology. Ph.D. thesis, Aberdeen University, 1982.

Calvin, John Letters of John Calvin. 4 vols. Edited and translated by Jules Bonnet. New York, 1858, 1972.

Calvin, John Tracts and Treatises. With a short life of Calvin by Theodore Beza. 3 vols. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Edited by Thomas F. Torrance. Grand Rapids, 1958. See pp. 215 - 216 below from Calvin's other works cited.

Cunningham, William The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation. Edinburgh, 1862, 1967.

Doyle, Robert Colin The Context of Moral Decision Making in the Writings of John Calvin - the Christological Ethics of Eschatological Order. Ph.D. thesis, Aberdeen University, 1981.

Helm, Paul Calvin and the Calvinists. Edinburgh, 1982.

Hodge, Archibald, A. The Atonement. London, 1868.

Kuiper, R.B. For Whom Did Christ Die? Grand Rapids, 1959.

Lane, A.N.S. ‘Calvin's Doctrine of Assurance’, Vox Evangelica, vol. XI, 1979, pp. 32 - 54.

Strong, Augustus Hopkins Systematic Theology. Philadelphia, 1907.

Wallace, Ronald S. Calvin's Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament. Edinburgh, 1953.

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). About inviting, note what Packer said: “Evangelizing, therefore, is not simply a matter of teaching, and instructing, and imparting information to the mind. There is more to it than that. Evangelizing includes the endeavor to elicit a response to the truth taught. It is communication with a view to conversion. It is a matter, not merely of informing, but also of inviting. It is an attempt to gain (KJV), or win (ESV), or catch our fellow men for Christ (see 1 Cor 9:19ff.; 1 Pet 3:1; Lk 5:10). Our Lord depicts it as fishermen’s work (Mt 4:19; cf. 13:47).” J. I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Westmont, IL: IVP Books, 2012), 58; italics original.

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.