Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley on the Objection Against the Gospel Call

2. The Objection against the Gospel Call

Just as some people have so emphasized the general gospel call as to severely downplay God’s sovereign election, others have so emphasized election as to minimize the gospel call. The various forms of this error are often called hyper-Calvinism. However, we must acknowledge that this label has difficulties. Often it is wrongly applied to legitimate forms of historic Reformed doctrine, such as unconditional election or eternal reprobation. The term is also misleading because, as Iain Murray writes, “Too often it has been supposed that the difference between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism is simply a question of degree.”⁵⁸ The problem is not too high a view of divine sovereignty but the denial of other biblical doctrines.

Some advocates of sovereign grace deny that the gospel call is an offer of Christ. The most relevant meaning of the verb offer in this case is “to present for acceptance or rejection.”⁵⁹ John Gill wrote, “The gospel is indeed ordered to be preached to every creature to whom it is sent and comes”; however, he also said, “That there are universal offers of grace and salvation made to all men I utterly deny; nay, I deny that they are made to any; no, not to God’s elect; grace and salvation are provided for them in the everlasting covenant, procured for them by Christ, published and revealed in the gospel, and applied by the Spirit.”⁶⁰ Yet we note that Gill could preach as follows: “Come to the Lord as humble penitents … let sensible sinners come to the person, blood and righteousness of Christ for justification and salvation.”⁶¹ Gill also encouraged preachers “fervently” and “boldly” to “set forth the lost and miserable estate and condition of men by nature, the danger they are in, the necessity of regeneration and repentance, and of a better righteousness than their own, and of faith in Christ; which things are blessed for the turning of men from darkness to light.”⁶² He commended preaching that is “very moving … striking … spiritual, savory, and evangelical having a tendency to awaken the minds of sinners to a sense of sin and danger, and to relieve and comfort the distressed.”⁶³ However, it does appear that Gill held to a mild form of hyper-Calvinism that discouraged churches from freely calling and commanding lost sinners to come to Christ, believe in him, receive him, and be saved.⁶⁴

The language of the free offer expresses biblical truth. Faith is receiving of Christ (John 1:11–12; Col. 2:6), but it is difficult to understand how Christ could be received if he were not offered to people in the gospel. Grace is a gift that must be received for salvation (John 1:16; Rom. 5:17). Christ offers the Spirit to the thirsty, and sinners receive the Spirit by faith in Christ (John 7:37–39; Gal. 3:1–2). The Spirit in his operations upon the believer is a “gift” that repentant sinners “receive.”⁶⁵

The free offer is affirmed in Reformed confessional statements. Calvin’s Catechism of 1537 (Art. 12) says, “Just as the merciful Father offers us the Son through the word of the Gospel, so we embrace him through faith and acknowledge him as given to us. It is true that the word of the Gospel calls all to participate in Christ, but a number, blinded and hardened by unbelief, despise such a unique grace. Hence, only believers enjoy Christ; they receive him as sent to them; they do not reject him when he is given, but follow him when he calls them.”⁶⁶ The Genevan Confession (Art. 11) states, “We believe the promises of the gospel and receive Jesus Christ as He is offered to us by the Father and described to us by the Word of God.”⁶⁷ The Canons of Dort (Head 3/4, Art. 9) say, “It is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ offered therein, nor of God, who calls men by the gospel and confers upon them various gifts, that those who are called by the ministry of the Word refuse to come and be converted.”⁶⁸

The Westminster Standards affirm the same. The Shorter Catechism (Q. 31) says that Christ is “freely offered to us in the gospel.”⁶⁹ The Larger Catechism (Q. 68) speaks of how God justly leaves in unbelief the wicked for “their willful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them.”⁷⁰ The Westminster Confession of Faith (7.3) says, “The Lord was pleased to make … the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved.”⁷¹

The free offer of the gospel expresses God’s sincere desire for sinners to repent and be saved. Another relevant meaning of the word offer is “to declare one’s readiness or willingness.”⁷² The Word reveals the goodness of God to all people. God “is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil” because of his “merciful” character (Luke 6:35–36; cf. Matt. 5:44–48).⁷³ When the gospel comes to people, he expresses his good desires for them in saying, “O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!” (Deut. 5:29).

In Ezekiel 18:23, we read, “Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?” The words “have I any pleasure at all” render a grammatical construction that repeats the same Hebrew root for emphasis. Calvin said, “God desires nothing more earnestly than that those who were perishing and rushing to destruction should return into the way of safety.… And this is the knowledge of salvation, to embrace his mercy which he offers us in Christ.”⁷⁴ This is a revelation of the heart of God. Johannes Polyander said, “The impelling cause [of the gospel call], whereby God is moved internally by himself, is God’s grace, his good pleasure and favorably-inclined will to offer, in Christ, his salvation to wretched sinners.”⁷⁵

Does this teaching overthrow the Reformed doctrine of election? Herman Hoeksema said that to teach a “general love of God and desire to save sinners” is “Arminianism and Pelagianism.”⁷⁶ There is some tension in the Bible at this point, but no surrender of the doctrines of sovereign grace. In one sense, God desires all men to repent. In another sense, he desires to punish the wicked, and he sometimes gives them up to a hard and unrepentant heart. When Eli corrected his wicked sons, the Scriptures say that they did not listen and repent “because the Lord would slay them” (1 Sam. 2:25). Literally the verse says the Lord “was pleased to cause them to die,” using the same verb translated as “please” (khapets) as is used in Ezekiel 18:23.

Therefore, one text says that God is not pleased that sinners do not repent and so die; another text says that some sinners did not repent because God was pleased that they should die. How can we understand both of these texts together?

The answer lies in the manifold and complex display of God’s goodness to fallen sinners. God’s gracious character shows itself in his goodness and compassion to all his creation (Ps. 145:8–9). Therefore, he calls all who hear the gospel to repent and live, and desires that they do so. As John Murray said, “The full and free offer of the gospel is a grace bestowed upon all. Such grace is necessarily a manifestation of love or lovingkindness in the heart of God.”⁷⁷ However, God is also the sovereign and righteous King (vv. 13, 17). He is free to work as he sees fit (115:3) and always works consistently with his righteousness (33:4–5). The same goodness by which he delights in mercy (Mic. 7:18) is that by which he delights in justice (Jer. 9:24). In his sovereign freedom, he has chosen to be good to all people in temporal blessings, to graciously call many people to eternal joy, and to actually save only some (Matt. 22:14). He is patient and good to many in this life whom he has destined for destruction for their sins (Rom. 2:4–5; 9:22). This is the doctrine of reprobation.⁷⁸

Moïse Amyraut (1596–1664) misunderstood this to indicate two wills in God,⁷⁹ but Calvin spoke more wisely when he said that “his will is one and simple; but since our minds do not penetrate the abyss of secret election, in accommodation to the capacity of our weakness, the will of God is exhibited to us in two ways.”⁸⁰ Francis Turretin explained, “Now in calling God indeed shows that he wills the salvation of the called by the will of precept and good pleasure (euarestias), but not by the will of decree.… It teaches what is pleasing and acceptable to God and in accordance with his own nature (namely, that the called should come to him); but not what he himself has determined to do concerning man.”⁸¹ Therefore, we do not preach a two-faced God or a God of duplicity, but one God whose wisdom and will are infinitely beyond our understanding (Rom. 11:33–34), knowable only in part and then by his revelation alone.⁸² God’s purpose is not to confuse us but to assure us that he gladly receives every repentant sinner (Luke 15) and to call us to praise him for our salvation, for it is entirely of his gracious will (Eph. 1:3–6).

The combination of human responsibility, divine sovereignty, and the free offer of the gospel appears most beautifully in Jesus Christ, the perfect Image of God. The Lord Jesus Christ said of the Jews in Jerusalem who would soon kill him, “How often would I have gathered [you] together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not” (Matt. 23:37). Both occurrences of “would” translate the same Greek verb (thelō), which means to desire, to will, or to decide.⁸³ Christ was willing, but they were not willing.

Again, Christ said to a group of Jews, “These things I say, that ye might be saved” (John 5:34). The grammatical syntax (hina plus a subjunctive verb) indicates purpose. Hence, the Son of God made known his desire and the intention behind the message he communicated: that those who heard him would come to him by faith and have eternal life (v. 24)—though they were not willing to do so (v. 40). Christ’s words clarify matters for everyone who hears the gospel. Jesus wants them to be saved by faith in him; if they are unsaved, it is because of their unwillingness to come to him.⁸⁴

Similarly, in Matthew 11 we hear that Christ condemned the cities of Galilee for their rejection of the gospel and called everyone who was burdened to come to him and find rest (Matt. 11:20–24, 28–30). Yet sandwiched between these declarations of human responsibility and the free offer, we read that God has hidden the truth from some people according to his good pleasure, and that no one can know the Father except those to whom Christ chooses to reveal him (vv. 25–27). The Lord Jesus shows us that man’s responsibility for his sins, God’s sovereignty in saving whom he chooses, and the free offer of the gospel belong together.

The Canons of Dort (Head 1, Art. 5) say, “The cause or guilt of this unbelief, as well as of all other sins, is no wise in God, but in man himself; whereas faith in Jesus Christ and salvation through Him is the free gift of God.”⁸⁵ Calvin said,

If we see and acknowledge, therefore, the principle on which the doctrine of the Gospel offers salvation to all, the whole sacred matter is settled at once. That the Gospel is, in its nature, able to save all I by no means deny. But the great question lies here: Did the Lord by His eternal counsel ordain salvation for all men? It is quite manifest that all men, without difference or distinction, are outwardly called or invited to repentance and faith. It is equally evident that the same Mediator is set forth before all, as He who alone can reconcile them to the Father.… The mercy of God is offered equally to those who believe and to those who believe not, so that those who are not divinely taught within are only rendered inexcusable, not saved.⁸⁶

_______________
58 Iain H. Murray, Spurgeon and Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1995), 40.
59 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, s.v. “offer.”
60 John Gill, The Doctrine of Predestination Stated, and Set in Scriptural Light: In Opposition to Mr. Wesley’s Predestination Calmly Considered, in Sermons and Tracts (1815; repr. Streamwood, IL: Primitive Baptist Library, 1981), 3:117–18.
61 John Gill, The Watchman’s Answer to the Question, What of the Night?, in Sermons and Tracts, 1:59; cf. John Gill, The Glory of God’s Grace Displayed, In Its Abounding over the Aboundings of Sin (London: Aaron Ward, 1724), 38.
62 Gill, Body of Divinity, 931–32.
63 John Gill, Funeral sermon for Samuel Wilson (1750), cited in S. H. Cone, “Biographical Sketch of the Author,” in Samuel Wilson, A Scripture Manual or a Plain Representation of the Ordinance of Baptism, in The Baptist Library: A Republication of Standard Baptist Works, ed. Charles G. Sommers, William R. Williams, and Levi L. Hill, 3 vols. (Prattsville, NY: Robert H. Hill, 1843), 1:29–30.
64 Gill said that the gospel obligates men to historical faith—that is, to assent that the historical events reported in the gospel are true—but does not obligate them to saving faith in Christ. John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth (1855; repr., Paris, AK: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1992), 31–32. Therefore, it is not man’s immediate duty to trust in Christ upon hearing the gospel. “Though I think the judgment should still be surrounded with cautions and caveats, there may be compelling evidence that Gill held to the distinctive hyper-Calvinist tenet.” Tom J. Nettles, “John Gill and the Evangelical Awakening,” in The Life and Thought of John Gill (1697–1771): A Tercentennial Appreciation, ed. Michael A. G. Haykin (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 153n60. “Gill was shaped by the rationalism of his day.… Gill’s theology did hamper passionate evangelism and outreach.” Michael A. G. Haykin, “Remembering Baptist Heroes: The Example of John Gill,” in Ministry by His Grace and for His Glory: Essays in Honor of Thomas J. Nettles, ed. Thomas K. Ascol and Nathan A. Finn (Cape Coral, FL: Founders, 2011), 29.
65 Acts 2:38; 8:19–20; 10:45, 47; 11:17.
66 Reformed Confessions, 1:365–66.
67 Reformed Confessions, 1:397–98.
68 The Three Forms of Unity, 143. On the meaning of offero in the Canons of Dort and other Reformed orthodox writings, see R. Scott Clark, “Janus, the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel, and Westminster Theology,” in The Pattern of Sound Doctrine: Systematic Theology at the Westminster Seminaries, Essays in Honor of Robert B. Strimple, ed. David VanDrunen (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2004), 169–73.
69 Reformed Confessions, 4:357. See also Q. 86 on “faith in Jesus Christ” (4:365).
70 Reformed Confessions, 4:312.
71 Reformed Confessions, 4:242–43.
72 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, s.v. “offer.”
73 See chap. 2.
74 Calvin, Commentaries, on Ezek. 18:23.
75 Polyander, Walaeus, Thysius, and Rivetus, Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, 30.12 (2:213).
76 Hoeksema, A Triple Breach in the Foundation of the Reformed Truth, 32.
77 Collected Writings of John Murray, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982), 4:132. This article (pp. 113–32) was a committee report authored by Murray for the General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. It is available at http://www.opc.org/GA/free_offer.html.
78 On God’s good delight in repentance and retribution, see RST, 1:845–46. On reprobation, see RST, 1:989–97.
79 On Amyraldianism, see RST, 1:1024, 1026.
80 Calvin, Commentaries, on Matt. 23:37. On Calvin and Amyraut’s misinterpretation of him, see Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition, 107–25.
81 Turretin, Institutes, 15.2.15 (2:507). On God’s preceptive will and decretive will, see RST, 1:764–67.
82 On the importance of recognizing the vast difference between God’s theology (archetypal) and our theology (ectypal) as image bearers, particularly our theology as pilgrims on earth who have not arrived, see Clark, “Well-Meant Offer,” in The Pattern of Sound Doctrine, ed. VanDrunen, 149–68, 174–79.
83 TDNT, 3:44–46.
84 Willard, A Compleat Body of Divinity, 438. On John 5:34, see Samuel E. Waldron, The Crux of the Free Offer of the Gospel (Greenbrier, AR: Free Grace Press, 2019), 19–34.
85 The Three Forms of Unity, 121.
86 John Calvin, On Eternal Predestination, in Reformed Confessions, 1:751, emphasis original.

Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Spirit and Salvation, vol. 3 of Reformed Systematic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2021), 299–305; italics original.

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.

Tom Nettles’s Summary of John Gill’s (1697–1771) View on the Love of God

The love of God, according to Gill, foundations all theology. God’s principal object of love is Himself. This is right and good, for He contains all excellence and perfection and worth. Second, God loves all that He has made, declares it very good and rejoices in His works. Because rational creatures are the particular objects of His care, love and delight, God supports, preserves and bestows the bounty of His providence upon all of His creatures.

To the elect, however, the Triune God bears a special love. Gill identifies this with the “great love” spoken of in Ephesians 2:4. The love of the Father is demonstrated toward the elect by His devising and effecting a plan whereby they might be reconciled to Him through Christ. The Father chose the elect in Christ from the beginning and, in Him, has bestowed upon them all other blessings. The Son’s love for the elect appears in His becoming a surety for their salvation by actually giving Himself as a sacrifice for them, laying down His life on their account, and shedding His blood for the remission of their sins. The special love the Spirit exhibits toward the elect appears in His convincing them of sin and righteousness, shedding abroad the love of God in their hearts, and implanting every grace in them.⁶
_______________
6. John Gill, Body of Divinity, 2 vols. (n.p. Tegg & Co., 1839; reprint ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978), 1:112–115.

Thomas J. Nettles, By His Grace and For His Glory: A Historical, Theological and Practical Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life. Revised and Expanded 20th Anniversary Edition (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2006), 25.

Note: One should not think that Gill is altogether orthodox or within the boundaries of mainstream Reformed thought on the universal love of God. In classic Calvinistic and Puritan thought, God’s love for all men, including the non-elect, involves His benevolent desire for their ultimate well-being, and His beneficent love or kindness is given with a view to bringing men to evangelical repentance (Rom. 2:4). In Gill’s theology, however, God simply has a regard for the temporal/physical well-being of the non-elect, and a kind of passive delight in them as a part of His good creation as such (which is what Nettles outlines above). It is a “love” that is totally devoid of any willingness or desire on God’s part to bring them to evangelical repentance, though at times he may want to bring them to external, civil repentance, so as to get them to avoid some physical calamity. Nevertheless, at least Gill, unlike other hyper-Calvinists, acknowledges a sense of love in God for all men, and Nettles’s brief summary is basically correct, though it lacks nuance.

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."

Greg Nichols on Dort, the Free Offer and Hyper-Calvinism

Greg Nichols is a pastor of Grace Immanuel Reformed Baptist Church, Grand Rapids, Michigan. More biographical information is available here (click). He has lectured on The Canons of the Synod of Dort. Nichols holds to a strictly limited (or an Owenic limited imputation) view of the atonement, and also doesn't seem to be well-studied in the diversity of views that were present at the Synod (which is why I do not recommend this lecture series), but he does strongly hold to the well-meant gospel offer. In lecture #10, he spoke on the atonement's necessity, nature, sufficiency, and the obligation for the indiscriminate publication of the gospel. He is expounding this section of the Dortian consensus:

Second Head: Article 5.

Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel.

From minute 45:54 to 47:30, Nichols says the following, at times speaking rhetorically or sarcastically, as if he were a hyper-Calvinist:

I wanted to call this [the Dortian statement] 'the free offer,' but I can just imagine some of my hyper-Calvinist friends pointing out to me that it no where says that it was 'well-meant' or 'well-intentioned,' only that it 'ought to be declared. [It] no where says why. [It] no where says that God wants them to repent and believe. [It] no where says that God has good-will for the reprobate. It doesn't say that.' I can just hear them [hyper-Calvinists]. So, in deference to those voices of hyper-Calvinists pounding in my head, I have kept myself from putting my 'spin' on it [Nichols uses the exact language of Dort], and referring to it as 'the free offer of the gospel.' It doesn't say why it was intentioned, only that 'it ought to be,' only that it should be, not because we care about people, only because God tells us to.' [sarcasm] [audience chuckles] That's all it says, right? [It] doesn't say we ought to do it because we love people; [it] doesn't say we ought to do it because we love God; [it] doesn't say because we care about people [sarcasm]. No, no, no, [it] doesn't say that; all it says is that it 'ought to be', so we ought to do it because it is our duty to do it, not because we care about people and love people [sarcasm], is that clear?

[An audience member says, 'So it [the hyper-Calvinist reading] is like a pretty heavy spin.']

Well, that's a spin too, isn't it? I agree. You've got to really go out of your way to put that 'spin' on it, but there are some who do and some who will. So, let's just be honest with what it says. All it [the exact Dortian statement] says is that 'it ought to be published and declared,' not out of good-will, which to me [that hyper-Calvinist 'spin'] is preposterous!

The point is this: not only does this Reformed Baptist elder strongly believe that the gospel offer is free, well-meant and well-intentioned, since God has good-will for all men (including the non-elect), but he (like Curt Daniel, Iain Murray, and many others) associates the denial of the well-meant gospel offer with hyper-Calvinism, and rightly so.

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...

Brief Notes by Erroll Hulse, James Dennison, John Armstrong, Joel Beeke and Mark Jones on Hyper-Calvinism

But [Herman] Hanko speaks for a minority, Dutch, hyper-Calvinistic school, a group hostile to the doctrine of common grace that God loves all men and desires that all be saved.

Erroll Hulse, "Global Revival: Should We Be Involved in Concerts of Prayer?," Reformation and Revival 2.4 (Fall 1993): 29.

Historically the term hyper-Calvinism has been reserved for the doctrine that the unregenerate are to hear only legal conviction and terrors of judgment from the pulpit, not the free offer of the gospel.

James T. Dennison, Jr., Review of The American Pietism of Cotton Mather: Origins of American Evangelicalism. By Richard F. Lovelace, JETS 25.1 (March 1982): 96.

A biblical study which demonstrates that the Father’s heart is one of love for all people, especially for His own. A good corrective to the emphasis of newer hyper-Calvinism.

John Armstrong, Review of The Love of God, by John MacArthur, Reformation and Revival 7.2 (Spring 1998): 146.

On the other hand, a growing number of Reformed conservatives today, moving beyond Calvin, are espousing the idea that God does not sincerely offer grace unconditionally to every hearer of the gospel. The result is that the gospel preaching is hampered and man's responsibility is often dismissed, if not denied. Happily, we are freed from such rationalistic, hyper-Calvinistic conclusions about the doctrines of grace when we read Puritan writings such as John Bunyan's (1628-1688) Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ, John Howe's (1630-1705) The Redeemer's Tears Shed over Lost Souls, or William Greenhill's (1598-1671) sermon, "What Must and Can Persons Do toward Their Own Conversion."¹⁰
_______________
10. John Bunyan, Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ (1681; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2004); John Howe, The Redeemer's Tears Wept over Lost Souls (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978); William Greenhill, "What Must and Can Persons Do toward Their Own Conversion," in Puritan Sermons: 1659-1689: The Morning Exercises at Cripplegate (Wheaton, Ill.: Richard Owen Roberts, 1981), 1:38-50.

Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 963.

Geoff Thomas on Spurgeon’s Battle with Hyper-Calvinism

Geoff Thomas gives an overview of Iain Murray’s May 19th, 1995 address to the annual Grace Baptist Assembly (a “group of 1689 Confessionalists”) on the subject of “C. H. Spurgeon and His Battle with Hyper-Calvinism.” Thomas says that, “It is not that this group of 1689 Confessionalists are drifting in that direction, indeed a better grasp of experiential Calvinism would lift us all-pulpits and churches. But, as lain Murray pointed out, whenever Calvinism is revived, hyper-Calvinism appears. Conversely, when Calvinism is eclipsed then hyper-Calvinism is a spent force.” A brief survey of Spurgeon’s battle with James Wells is given, along with 4 errors of hyper-Calvinism. Here’s the fourth error:

4. The hyper-Calvinist denies the universal love of God. He has a fearful caricature of the real nature of God which would present him as fierce, and not easily induced to love. If we fellowshipped more with Christ, said Iain Murray, we would know and love him more. Then there would be no uncertainty that God desired the salvation of sinners. ‘How oft would I have gathered you,’ says the Saviour to recalcitrant Jerusalem.

Geoff Thomas, “Spurgeon’s Battle with Hyper-Calvinism,” Evangelical Times 29.7 (July 1995).

Dr. Samuel Waldron’s Admonition Against Hyper-Calvinism

Download Audio Clip Here

After outlining the ways that God loves people according to the teaching concerning the Noahic Covenant in Genesis 8 and 9, Waldron in his sermon (click) focuses on 4 applications of the text for people today. He says the first one is this (see minute 39:10–41:53):

There is an admonition against Hyper-Calvinism. There is a warning against Hyper-Calvinism. We live in the day of what's called the Reformed resurgence, and if you believe that Reformed theology historically is biblical theology, you have to be happy about this. But whenever men start getting a hold of God's sovereignty in salvation, there seems to be a native tendency in their hearts (well, there certainly was in my heart) to go to the extreme of Hyper-Calvinism. One of the evils of Hyper-Calvinism is its persistent tendency to deny God's general love for all mankind. It reasons, and it thinks it reasons quite logically, that [since] God only elects some people to salvation, then He must have no love in any sense for anyone else. This, it seems to the Hyper-Calvinist, is what logic requires. This being the case, the free offer of the gospel cannot be true, because God cannot truly desire all the men who hear the gospel to turn and be saved. If He did, then He would have elected them, right? Finally, the logic of such people argues that if election is true, there can be no such thing as common grace. The Hyper-Calvinist, therefore, denies the general love of God, and he denies the free offer of the gospel, and he denies the doctrine of common grace.

What is the problem with the Hyper-Calvinist? Well, actually it's the same problem as with the Arminian. Both of them think they know too much about God. The Hyper-Calvinist thinks he knows altogether too much about God. He thinks he knows what God can do and what He can't do, and what God can feel and what He can't feel. And the fact is, he doesn't! The Spirit of God only knows what is in the spirit of God and the mind of God. This person trusts his own logic more than the bible to tell him what God can be and what God can feel, and passages like the one in front of us this morning make [it] very clear that God loves people, and He loves humanity in general! And the bible makes clear that the doctrines of the general love of God, and the free offer of the gospel, and the common grace of God, are true! And they are true whether or not the logic of the Hyper-Calvinist thinks they can be, because the bible is clear [on this]. And our doctrine is not finally based upon our finite, fallen and frail logic. It is based on the story of the bible.

Update on 12-13-14:

Also, during a a recent conference (1689 Conference in 2014, November 13–15th, Q&A session on Day 3 [YouTube version here]), it was asked how one would use the confession against some of the tenets of hyper-Calvinism. Sam Waldron has this response around minute 46:49–47:38:

I just want to make three doctrinal comments. First of all, with regard to Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism, there's certain language that has become the language of Calvinism that has been rejected by hyper-Calvinism over the last 100 years. And we discover that the confession uses the language of Calvinism, and language that's been rejected by hyper-Calvinism in chapter 7.

There's the language of the free offer of the gospel. In chapter 14 (I think it's in chapter 14), of saving faith, there's the language of common grace. And [in] that way, the confession shows that it's, I think plainly, in the tradition the Canons of Dort, which I think plainly teach common grace and the free offer of the gospel.

The other area where I would set our confession over against hyper-Calvinism is that think—I want to put this carefully so you don't misunderstand me—but there's a caution about the doctrine of double predestination in chapter 3 of our confession. There's a caution about that doctrine that is commendable. Don't get me wrong, I think in some sense we should hold double predestination, but we need to hold it carefully, and with qualification. I think the way it's presented in our confession, even as opposed to say the Westminster, is commendable and cautious. And I think that's an important thing to remember with regard to our confession and hyper-Calvinism as well.

Update on 8-15-16:

At the 2015 Reformation Preaching Conference (RP15), Dr. Waldron addressed Misunderstandings of Reformed Thinking, or 21 Misunderstandings of Calvinism. It is posted on YouTube here (link). The audio clip is here (link). In minutes 30:05–35:04, he addressed several sub-points under the topic of “Misunderstandings related to Unconditional Election,” and he posted the section on the Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary blog here (link). He said this (with audio additions put brackets): 

II. Misunderstandings related to Unconditional Election

(7) It is not the duty of the non-elect to believe in Christ for salvation. Calvinists do not believe in the free offer of the gospel.

This is, indeed, the doctrine of a few Hyper-Calvinists, but it has never been the doctrine of mainstream Calvinism. The 1689 Baptist Confession (7:2) affirms: “Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved.” Listen once more to the Canons of Dort:

    THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 9. It is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ offered therein, nor of God, who calls men by the gospel and confers upon them various gifts, that those who are called by the ministry of the Word refuse to come and be converted. The fault lies in themselves; some of whom when called, regardless of their danger, reject the Word of life

[Added in audio: “Men are called, regardless of whether they are elect or not, to believe the gospel, and when they do not respond they sin, and are condemned for that sin.”]

(8) God does not desire the salvation of the non-elect, but has only hatred for them.

There are again some High Calvinists that teach that [audio omits “High Calvinists,” but has “there are some who teach that...”], even though God commands the non-elect to come to Christ, He really has no desire that they come. [audio adds: “But again, this is contrary to historic Calvinism”] But listen again to the Canons of Dort:

    THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 8. As many as are called by the gospel are unfeignedly called. For God has most earnestly and truly declared in His Word what is acceptable to Him, namely, that those who are called should come unto Him. He also seriously promises rest of soul and eternal life to all who come to Him and believe.

In Audio: “I believe this is the well-meant offer and it’s there in the Canons of Dort.”

(9) There is no such thing as common grace.

Once more the 1689 Baptist Confession contradicts this claim. At 14:3 it speaks of “the faith and common grace of temporary believers…”

This is a good place to stop and make a comment or two about what is going wrong when Hyper-Calvinism denies duty-faith, the free and well-meant offer of the gospel, and common grace. What is going wrong is that they have adopted an imbalanced doctrine of the divine will. They are identifying the divine will simply with God’s decree. The Bible, however, teaches that the divine will is also revealed in God’s precepts. Consider a few texts:

    Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.
    Genesis 50:20 As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. [audio adds: “evil as it’s defined by the word of God is contradiction and violation of God’s will expressed in the law.”]
    Ezekiel 33:11 “Say to them, ‘As I live!’ declares the Lord GOD, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?’
    Romans 2:4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, [audio omits these last two texts]

Hyper-Calvinism refuses to value, or undervalues God’s preceptive or revealed will in favor of His decretive or secret will. But these two dimensions of God’s will must be equally valued. God as holy, righteous, and good, desires and must desire that men act in a way that is holy, righteous, and good. For mysterious reasons of His own He has not predestined in His decretive will that men should always act according to His preceptive will. Sometimes it is God’s decretive will that men violate His preceptive will and do what Joseph calls “evil.” [audio adds: “‘you meant evil against me.’ But, in doing that, at one and the same time, they are fulfilling God’s decretive will, and we must, rather than trying to explain away this  mystery and entangling ourselves in terrible difficulties...”] We must bow to this mystery and not try to explain it away!

Bio:
Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary

Donald Dunkerley on “Hyper-Calvinism Today”

You are not likely to find it in any theological dictionary or encyclopedia, but there is a term that has been used to describe some who profess to be pure followers of John Calvin: Hyper-Calvinists.

Among those who have made free use of the term, Hyper-Calvinist, was John MacLeod. He uses it in his book, Scottish Theology, based on lectures delivered at Westminster Seminary in 1939. By the phrase he means, in particular, that view of Calvinism which holds that “there is no worldwide call to Christ sent out to all sinners, neither are all men bidden to take Him as their Savior.”

Hyper-Calvinists, says Dr MacLeod, “maintain that Christ should be held forth or offered as Savior to those only whom God effectually calls.”

What does Dr. MacLeod think of this approach to the Biblical doctrine of sovereignty? It is “a kind of preaching that sidetracks the Evangel and fences and hedges with elaborate restrictions the enjoyment of God’s free salvation (and) like that of Hagar, engenders to bondage.”

However, those among the Scottish Calvinists who historically “have restricted the offer of the Savior and of salvation in Him to the elect only have been almost negligible minority.”

Hyper-Calvinism, then, refers to such an exaggerated emphasis on God’s sovereignty that the effect is to cripple evangelism.

Strictly speaking, this is the view that, because God has an elect people He will infallibly save, therefore He does not love all, there is no offer of salvation to all and so there is also no obligation on us to proclaim an offer of salvation to all.

Hyper-Calvinism in this technical sense is the official theological position of certain denominations, such as the Gospel Standard Strict Baptists in England and the Protestant Reformed Church (of Dutch background) in our own country.

Some writers, such as the late John R. Rice, unfairly charge that all who hold to the so-called Five Points of Calvinism are, by definition, Hyper-Calvinists. But this is to confuse orthodox Calvinism with the unorthodox, to confound the normal with the aberration, and to reject as anti-evangelistic some of the most powerful Calvinistic evangelists of history, including John Bunyan, George Whitefield, David Brainerd and C. H. Spurgeon.

In the formal sense there are few Hyper-Calvinists among us, because it is part of our theological training to know that orthodox Calvinists accept and teach the free offer of the Gospel. Moreover, this offer is clearly taught in our Westminster standards. Chapter 6 of the Confession of Faith, speaking of God’s work in the Covenant of Grace, says, “He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him that they may be saved.” (See also Larger Catechism question 32 and Shorter Catechism question 86.)

On the other hand, to say we are not Hyper-Calvinists in the formal sense because it is rejected by our creeds, does not mean that we have altogether escaped its influence. The spirit of Hyper-Calvinism is infectious. A person may still exaggerate God’s sovereignty so that his evangelism is crippled, even though he knows better than to say there is no free offer of the Gospel.

In other words, if a man’s understanding of God’s sovereignty prevents him from offering the Gospel freely to sinners, he is a Hyper-Calvinist in practice even if he is not one in theory!

Le me give some examples.

As Reformed (Calvinsitic) Christians see it, the Bible teaches that, while God has a special love for His elect, there is also a general love of God for all. “Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?” says Ezekiel 18:23. The passage continues: “Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!” And II Peter 3:9 says, “He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”

The Lord demonstrated a love for all. The rich young ruler hardly seems to be one of the elect, yet Mark 10:21 says, “Jesus looked at him and loved him.” And Jesus sorrowed over the unrepentant city crying, “How often have I longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing” (Matt. 23:37).

Yet there are those who tell us it is “un-Reformed” and wrong to say to [page 15 begins] an unbeliever, “Christ died for you.” Is this not Hyper-Calvinism?

Again, the orthodox Reformed faith teaches that, while the death of Christ was offered with special reference to the elect, it looks beyond, for it effects a free offer of the Gospel to all, it is sufficient for the sins of all and it removes all legal obstacles against anyone’s coming to God.

Yet there are those who tell us it is “un-Reformed” and wrong to say to an unbeliever, “Christ died for you.” Is this not Hyper-Calvinism?

I remember a seminary student who insisted at a conference that it is wrong to say to unbelievers, “God loves you” and “Christ died for your sins.” When asked what he did with John 3:16, he replied, “John 3:16 is a very difficult verse. I would never preach from John 3:16.”

Do we wonder that some Calvinists themselves show so little love and concern for the souls of those going to hell when, according to them, it is wrong to speak of God having such love and concern?

Hyper-Calvinists will say that God saves those that believe, but they will not invite any to believe, much less plead with any to believe, because that would appear to deny the teaching that none are able to believe unless they are elect.

There are even some who are more genuinely Reformed but who announce the terms of salvation without ever appealing to sinners to come to Christ. Is this not Hyper-Calvinism?

Some not only themselves avoid inviting sinner to Christ, but for supposedly “Reformed” reasons object to anyone who does invite them, especially if he gives an “open invitation” to respond to Christ publicly. Is this objection also not Hyper-Calvinism?

Hyper-Calvinists believe the Gospel offers we read in the Bible are intended only for those who, in their language, are “felt sinners.” That is, such persons feel the guilt and condemnation of their sin because they have received already such conviction as the Holy Spirit only gives to the elect. Gospel invitations, therefore, are for those who already evidence their election by severe conviction. Is this not Hyper-Calvinism?

But what of those who do not evidence this conviction? The Hyper-Calvinist would not tell him, “Come to Jesus, just as you are,” for he regards such counsel as spurious un-Reformed “decisionism.” The Hyper Calvinist would tell him to prepare himself for grace by reading and hearing the Word, through which God might sovereignly give him repentance and salvation.

The Hyper-Calvinist rejects “decisionism” in favor of “preparationism.”

By rejecting “decisionism,” the Hyper-Calvinist objects to more than simply inviting all men to decide for Christ. He protests also against attempting to give immediate assurance of salvation to those who decide. “I believe, therefore, I am saved,” is a type of assurance that offends the Hyper-Calvinist, who believes that one can know he is saved only when he has many good works to attest that he is truly elect of God.

Salvation may be by grace but, for the Hyper-Calvinist, assurance of salvation is more by works. For assurance they do not so much look to the cross of Christ as they look within for evidences of grace.

I remember once hearing a prominent Calvinist preacher inveighing against decisionism and the immediate assurance of salvation that God sometimes sends. “You must be saved for at least three years before you have accumulated enough good works to be sure that you are truly saved and not just a stony-ground-hearer,” he said.

This view affects evangelism. The message becomes, “Ho, everyone that thirsts: Come to the waters. But the waters will not assuage your thirst and you will not be sure you are drinking, until you have been drinking for three years.”

That preacher would object to being called a Hyper-Calvinist. But I wonder!

There are, I believe, many who profess to believe in the free offer of the Gospel, but are Hyper-Calvinists in practice. They fail to practice what they say they believe. They fail to tell people that God loves them and that there is benefit in Christ’s atonement for them. They refrain from pleading with people to come to Christ just as they are and from giving them assurance of salvation when they come.

David Brainard, the 18th-century Presbyterian evangelist to the American Indians, described an amazing spiritual movement which brought many of his hearers to Christ. He said, “This great awakening, this surprising concern, was never excited by any harangues of terror, but always appeared most remarkable when I insisted upon the compassions of a dying Savior, the plentiful provisions of the Gospel and the free offers of divine grace to needy distressed sinners; this work of grace having begun and carried on by almost one continued strain of Gospel invitation to perishing sinners.”

Such compassionate evangelism is what we lack and urgently need in our day.

Donald A. Dunkerley, “Hyper-Calvinism Today,” in The Presbyterian Journal 40.29 (November 18, 1981): 14–15. The article says, “The author is a full-time preaching evangelist with the Presbyterian Evangelistic Fellowship. Formerly, he was pastor of the McIlwain Memorial Church of Pensacola, Fla., and director of the Pensacola Theological Institute. He lives in Pensacola.” See also Donald A. Dunkerley, “For Whom Did Christ Die?,” The Presbyterian Journal 41.2 (May 12, 1982): 9–10. It further clarified his position and terminology.

Robert Peterson and Michael Williams on the Love of God and Hyper-Calvinism

We also affirmed that the Bible teaches two seemingly contradictory, but ultimately complementary truths: (1) God loves a sinful world, and (2) he has a special effective love only for the elect. Only by affirming these two truths simultaneously do we do justice to scriptural teaching. If we refuse to hold the two truths in tension and downplay the first, we err in the direction of hyper-Calvinism; if we downplay the second, we err in the direction of Arminianism.

Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams, Why I Am Not an Arminian (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004), 214.

Maurice Roberts on the Free Offer of the Gospel and Dutch-American Hyper-Calvinism

The Free Offer may be defined like this:

It is the invitation given by God to all sinners to believe in Jesus Christ, with the promise added that if they do so believe they will at once receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

Maurice Roberts, "The Free Offer of the Gospel," Banner of Truth 503–504 (August–September 2005): 39.

Implied in the concept of this Free Offer are the following ideas. The Offer made is for all who hear it, whether they be elect or not. The Offer is not to be restricted or modified by the preacher in his presentation. The Offer is an expression of love and grace on God's part towards sinful, unbelieving men. The Offer is sincere on God's part, and it is genuinely and well meant. The Offer is addressed to sinners as they are and requires of them repentance and faith.

Ibid., 39.

Roberts deals with two objections to the Free Offer. The first he calls 'English Hyper-Calvinism,' which involves the denial of 'duty-faith.' Here is the second:

(2) God gives no 'well-meant' offer to any but to the elect. This view might be termed 'Dutch-American Hyper-Calvinism', as it is associated with the Dutch American theologian of the twentieth century, Herman Hoeksema, the founder of the Protestant Reformed Churches in America. The argument is this: God has elected some sinners to eternal life and reprobated others; God makes no promise or offer in the gospel to any except the elect.

Implied in this view are the following points: God in no sense loves the non-elect. There is no grace of any kind, either Saving Grace or Common Grace, given or offered to any except elect persons. It would be insincere of God to offer Saving Grace to those whom he has eternally reprobated – and this is a thing impossible. God cannot be said to desire or to wish anything which he has not decreed to happen, since this would be tantamount to frustrating God's will. It is not proper for a preacher to 'offer' Christ promiscuously to a mixed audience of Christians and non-Christians. We may not teach that it is possible for God to will according to his precept what he does not will in his eternal decree.

Ibid., 40.

2. Dutch-American Hyper-Calvinism

The starting-point of this view is that God's will is one, not manifold. If he has eternally elected only some to eternal life it is wrong to suppose that he gives a well-meant offer of salvation to any but the elect only.

We would respond to this view as follows. The fact is that the Bible does speak of God as wanting and wishing all sinners to be saved. See the texts: Isa. 45:22; Ezek. 18:23, 30–32; Ezek. 33:11; Matt. 23:37; Luke 13:34; 1 Tim. 2:3–4; 2 Pet. 3:9. This is as certainly a matter of divine revelation as is his eternal election. Both are stated as revealed facts in scripture.

The way to interpret scripture is not to stress one truth to the detriment of another but to hold both truths at the same time. So we affirm both God's eternal election and his well-meant offer to all sinners who hear the gospel. We are obliged to do this because this is how God himself reveals his will to us. Put simply, it is this: God has fixed the number of the elect from eternity past; yet God desires every sinner who hears his gospel to receive it and to be eternally blessed in Christ.

Ibid., 42.

At the end of this article, Roberts supplies the readers with several quotes from orthodox writers affirming God's desire to save all men, such as John Calvin, Francis Turretin, William Greenhill, David Dickson, Thomas Halyburton and Patrick Fairbairn.

Iain Murray’s Review of David Silversides’s Book on the Free Offer

The Free Offer: Biblical and Reformed

David Silversides; Foreward: J. J. Murray Marpet Press, 16 Edward Street, Kilsyth, Scotland G65 9DL, 128 pp., £7.95.

This is a valuable addition to literature demonstrating that the gospel is good news for every hearer. It 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). The reasoning behind this belief is that God only has love for the elect and so the love revealed in the gospel can only have reference to them. Contrary to this position, Mr Silversides argues that ‘The overtures of the gospel are an expression of God’s love’, and he sets out to prove that, in addition to saving love, there is a love in God for all men. We believe he succeeds and he does so without any of the rancour that has sometimes disfigured disagreement among Christians.

The orientation of the argument as a response to PRC writers makes this work of value chiefly to those who have been influenced by the supposition that the PRC teaching represents the purest Calvinism. It is to counter that idea that the author makes effective use of many Reformed authors from the Reformation and Puritan periods, showing that divine love is not to be confined to the elect alone. The scriptural case is foremost but, for those unconcerned with the historical, the book is somewhat specialist. It is not impossible that the other side may also produce 17th-century quotations which appear to contradict those here given. The fact is that it was not until the eighteenth century that hyper-Calvinism really became prominent, and earlier Reformed writers were more concerned with answering Arminianism.

In order to keep what he considers the main point clear, Mr Silversides does not argue that the free offer proves that God desires the salvation of all to whom the message comes. But can the divine love, that the author wants to uphold, be without desire for the highest good of those loved? To side-line the question of desire will not, we think, blunt the hyper-Calvinist’s claim that a free-offer, expressive of love to all, attributes two wills to God—fulfilled in the case of the elect and unfulfilled in the case of all others. But that charge needs to be met (as the author to some extent does) on other grounds. We do not think that Scripture allows us to make the question of God’s desire secondary. In the words of Professor John Murray, ‘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’ (Collected Writings, vol. 4, p. 113). Further on this point, see the chapter by John Piper on ‘Are There Two Wills in God? Divine Election and God’s Desire for All to be Saved’ in The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will, T. Schreiner and Bruce Ware (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995). We hope and believe that David Silversides’ thorough work will be of help to many on this important issue.

Iain H. Murray

From the “Book Reviews,” in Banner of Truth 507 (December 2005): 22.

Note: Observe carefully that Iain Murray, like Phil Johnson, appeals to Piper's article, but Murray explicitly does so to answer the issue of hyper-Calvinism on the primary subject of God's desire for the salvation of all men. Phil Johnson links to the same article in his Primer on Hyper-Calvinism, but wants to make the issue of God's universal saving desire secondary (in order to protect his friend James White from the charge), explicitly contrary to Murray. There is some difference between Murray and Johnson on this particular subject. Johnson is more with Silversides in making the matter secondary, unfortunately.

Moreover, Murray thinks God's universal love necessarily entails that God desires the highest good (i.e. the eternal salvation) of all men in the revealed will, therefore he says: "But can the divine love, that the author [Silversides] wants to uphold, be without desire for the highest good of those loved?" In addition to refuting Silversides (as Murray does), this also answers the Gillite position that God loves all merely in a temporal sense, but doesn't desire their highest good, or in the sense of their eternal salvation. As mainstream Calvinism teaches, God's benevolent love for all is necessarily associated with His desire to eternally save all in His revealed will.

D. A. Carson on the Love of God, the Free Offer and Hyper-Calvinism

If the love of God refers exclusively to his love for the elect, it is easy to drift toward a simple and absolute bifurcation: God loves the elect and hates the reprobate. Rightly positioned, there is truth in this assertion; stripped of complementary biblical truths, that same assertion has engendered hyper-Calvinism. I use the term advisedly, referring to groups within the Reformed tradition that have forbidden the free offer of the Gospel. Spurgeon fought them in his day. Their number is not great in America today, but their echoes are found in young Reformed ministers who know it is right to offer the Gospel freely, but who have no idea how to do it without contravening some element in their conception of Reformed theology.

D. A. Carson, "On Distorting the Love of God," in The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2000), 22–23.

Dr. Sam Waldron on Rationalism and the Hyper-Calvinistic Denial of the Love of God for All

The following audio clip was extracted from Dr. Waldron's first lecture on apologetics, which can be downloaded from RBS here (or directly here).

Download Audio Clip Here

Dr. Waldron said:

Such proud reason produces both Arminianism (if men have free-will, God can't be sovereign), and hyper-Calvinism (if God elects certain people, He can't love anybody else).

Erroll Hulse on John 3:16 and Hyper-Calvinism

By selective use of Reformed Confessions it is possible to claim to be reformed but at the same time hide the fact that you are a hyper-Calvinist. The hyper-Calvinist denies that God loves all mankind and that the gospel is good news to be declared to all without exception. That is the very essence of hyper-Calvinism. Calvin, the great organiser of the evangelisation of France, writes on John 3:16: 'For although there is nothing in the world deserving God's favour, he nevertheless shows he is favourable to the whole world when he calls all without exception to the faith of Christ.'

Rev. H Hoeksema, in a booklet entitled The Gospel, denies that the gospel can be offered since fallen man is unable to repent. Hoeksema says that the promise of the gospel is not iven to all but only to the seed of Abraham (that is, to the elect).

It is typical of hyper-Calvinism to rationalise. By rationalising I mean that the hyper takes the doctrine of total depravity and reasons that because man's will is crippled by the fall it is futile to offer the gospel. Moreover it cannot be sincere of God to offer the gospel to all if he does not intend to save all. In other words this rationalisation effectively emasculates the gospel so that it is not good news for the sinner at all.

It is impossible for the hyper to proclaim the love of God for sinners. What he can proclaim is that out there in the world are God's elect and God loves them but he hates the rest! That is hardly good news!

The good news is that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that all who believe in him should not perish but have eternal life. Rightly did Calvin understand that it is this fallen, perishing world that God loved.

The gospel that came to me as a sinner was the gospel of God's love, that he loved me and found no pleasure that I should perish in hell. The good news was conditional. To be saved I had to repent and believe on Christ. That I had to do my very self. But in the event I could not because of my slavery to sin, yet I knew that to be saved I would have to repent and believe. There was only one thing to do and that was to look to Christ to do for me, and in me, what I could not do myself. When I looked to him in my hopeless state he saved me. Hallelujah! It was the love of God for lost sinners that drew me. It was the love of God that held before me Christ, crucified on the cross for me. The exact order of John chapter three applied: God's love for sinners and God's love expressed in the cross for sinners.

This is the love of God that we must take to all without exception. The conditions must be set before all sinners that to be saved they must repent and believe. If they discover the enormity of their sinful depravity then let them not despair. Point them to Christ. Do what the Methodist preacher did to the young Spurgeon when he exhorted him personally from the text from Isaiah" 'Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God and there is no other' (Is 45:22).

We accept truth by faith not human reason

The problem both with the Arminian and the hyper-Calvinist is that they rationalise according to human reason. The Arminian reasons that the sinner can of himself do whatever God commands. Therefore he believes that man has free will. The hyper does the same but rationalises in a different way. He reasons that because man is enslaved in his will, it is inconsistent for the Lord to offer him something that he has not the power to respond to. Can we who follow Calvin and the Puritans help Arminians and hypers?

It is much easier to help Arminians because most of them have not been faced with the doctrine of the fall and of election. I used to be a rapid Arminian. Hypers are more difficult to help because they tend to entrench themselves in their human rationalisation. But some have been delivered from that. The hyper-Calvinist (Standard Bearer group) in Northern Ireland referred to in RT 132 cannot endure the word antinomy used by Jim Packer in his book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. They cannot abide it and call it poison! This is not surprising because it challenges them to renounce their rationalisation. Since I believe in common grace and the love of God for all mankind I am called an Arminian by them. I am honoured to be placed in the company of John Calvin, Jim Packer, Prof John Murray, Dr Lloyd-Jones and the Puritans all of whom decline the rationalistic constrictions of hyperism. It might help to point to the fact that there are a number of subjects concerning God that are above human rationalisation as we read in Isaiah:

As the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are my ways above your ways
and my thoughts above your thoughts,
declares the LORD

Herman Bavinck in his book The Doctrine of God[1] begins his monumental study of the names and attributes of God by considering the fact that God is both knowable and unknowable. We can applaud him for his discernment. That certainly is the correct place to begin.

We must stress the knowability of God because to know him in the personal way of being reconciled to him and loving him is to enjoy eternal life, as Jesus said: 'Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent' (Jn 17:3). We may know God extensively and comprehensively according to all that he has revealed of himself in Holy Scripture.

Does God have Feelings?

Yet there are ways in which we cannot know God. We are finite and he is infinite. He is eternal and we are created. He is immutable and we are subject to change. There are some issues we can never fully grasp. We simply accept them. One such subject is the Trinity.[2] Another difficult issue which soars above us is what theologians call the impassibility of God. God in his divine being cannot suffer in the way that we do. He is not physical. He cannot be overcome with surprise. He is not subject to moods and passions. Are we to conclude that God is devoid of emotion or feeling? What are we to make of the statement, 'God is love'?

Surely we are to understand by God's love everything that constitutes true love, including emotion and feeling. There is no such thing as love which does not feel. Love as expressed in the Scripture is a love which comes from all the heart, that is all the affections. Yet how can an impassible God have feeling? This feeling is not confined to love. We read in Scripture that wrath is being treasured up against the day of wrath (Rom 2:5). This wrath must be conceived of in terms of controlled feeling. We know that God loves and hates, and loves and hates in a way we can understand. Yet at the same time he loves and hates in a way which is peculiar to himself, that is in a way which does not deny his immutability as God. Details of this subject transcend our ability to grasp. God is at one and the same time both knowable and unknowable.

A similar problem confronts us with God's love for sinners. How can he love and hate sinners at the same time? 'You hate all who do wrong' (Ps 5:5). At the same time we read, 'But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners Christ died for us.' The stress is on the fact that while we were sinners we were loved. This is not because we were better sinners or meritorious sinners. The text does not say that God loved us because he saw he could do something with us to make us attractive. We were children of wrath but at the same time we were loved. And God so loved us that he gave his one and only Son for us.

Righteous hatred and love mingle in our hearts at the same time. We are not permitted to hate with the hatred of vengeance. Vengeance belongs to God (Rom 12:19). It is not too much for us to believe that God contains within himself all that goes to make up perfect love and perfect hatred. We know that is so, but how it is so is unknowable. And it does not matter because we are required to believe, not to rationalise.

God loathes the wicked in their detestable, sinful practices (Ez 18:10-13). At the same time he says: 'Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked?' declares the sovereign LORD. 'Rather am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?' Moab deserved severe judgment. Her destruction as a nation was decreed yet at the same time the LORD declared, 'Therefore I wail over Moab, for all Moab I cry out... So my heart laments for Moab like a flute; it laments like a fulte for the men of Kir Hareseth' (Jer 48:31,36).[3] Jesus wept bitterly over lost sinners of Jerusalem (Lk 19:41). Being filled with his love we weep over lost sinners.

How then does God both hate and at the same time sorrow like a heartbreaking, mournful melody played on a flute? According to the hyper God only loves the elect and hates the non-elect. Hypers cannot take John 3:16 and say that God loves the fallen sinful world, that is, loves sinners as sinners. A hyper cannot say to a sinner, 'God loves you and wishes you to be saved and he has so loved you that he has given his only begotten Son that you might not perish but have eternal life.' We note well that John 3:16 does not say, for God so loved the elect. The Holy Spirit did not write the text that way. Are we to understand that 'the world' here means both Jews and Gentiles? The word 'world' must be interpreted in the way it is used throughout the Gospel, namely, all people without exception not all people without distinction. In John's Gospel the Jews do not stand in contrast to the world. The world is that whole world into which Jesus came, that world which did not recognise him (Jn 1:10).

I conclude by drawing attention to that little word so. 'God so (Greek houtōs) loved the world.' What a glory there is in that word so. We find the same word in 1 John 4:11, 'Beloved, if God so loved us.' How we could be so loved is as mysterious as it is wonderful. The word so fills the text with the sunshine of heaven and fills our hearts with wonder, love and praise. It fills our souls with a desire to tell the whole world of that great and marvellous love of God for lost sinners. 'Love so amazing, so divine demands my life, my soul, my all!'
_______________
1. Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, translated by William Hendriksen, 403 pages, Eerdmans, 1951, Banner of Truth, 1977).
2. Andrew King told us at the Carey Family Conference of a conversation he had with a Muslim. The Muslim said that part of his religion was belief in the transcendence of God. Andrew responded by asking his Muslim friend if he was prepared to accept the Christian doctrine of the Trinity since that truth also belongs to the transcendent. We can understand it yet we cannot. We know yet we do not know. God is transcendent.
3. Further proof that God loves sinners can be found by engaging in a word study of the Hebrew word hesed (loving-kindness) which occurs almost 250 times in the Old Testament.

Erroll Hulse, “John 3:16 and Hyper-Calvinism,” in Reformation Today 135 (September–October, 1993): 27–30.

Update on 9-1-2014:

Hyper-Calvinism—The essence of Hyper-Calvinism is to deny the common grace of the love of God to all men. In other words, it teaches that God only loves the elect and has only hatred for the non-elect. Further, Hyper-Calvinism denies the sincere free offers of the gospel to all men.

Erroll Hulse, Who Are The Puritans? And What Do They Teach? (Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2000), 24. 

The very essence of hyper-calvinism is the denial of common grace and the free offer of the gospel.

Erroll Hulse, “News: Hyper-Calvinism in Northern Ireland,” Reformation Today 132 (March–April 1993): 22.

As we see from the Westminster Confession and the 1689 Baptist Confession the Puritans believed in the doctrines of grace such as election and particular redemption (Rom 8:28-30). They followed Calvin in resisting false human rationalisations. For instance they resisted the idea that God only loves the elect and hates the non-elect. This error is called hyper-Calvinism. It is a very serious error which is recurring today. The Puritans were experts in their understanding of the concept of common grace although they did not use that term. Their teaching accords fully with the way in which the doctrine of Common Grace is expounded by Prof John Murray (cf Works). They believed that the Holy Spirit is constantly active in restraining evil and promoting good throughout society. The Puritans believed in the universal love of God for all mankind (1 Tim 2:1-6; 2 Peter 3:9). They believed in the universal provision of God for all mankind according to the covenant made with Noah as representative of the whole world (Gen 8:20-22 and Ps 145).

Erroll Hulse, “The Example of the English Puritans,” Reformation Today 153 (September–October 1996): 27.

Two heresies in particular destroy the Gospel as far as its evangelistic thrust is concerned. One is hyper-Calvinism in which the free offers of the Gospel are denied and in which an excuse is made of the fact that men are dead in sin and therefore there is no point in evangelizing. Total human responsibility (men know that they ought to repent and believe the Gospel) must be maintained together with faith in the sovereignty of God. These matters cannot be reconciled to human logic. The hyper-Calvinist in his desire to be logical comes to the wrong conclusion that it is inconsistent to command sinners to repent and believe when they are unable to do so, which is entirely an unbiblical and false conclusion!

Excerpted from an address by Erroll Hulse to The Carey Conference in 1975

Now it is true that the doctrines of grace misconstrued can lead to what we call hyper-alvinism—that is the denial of the free offers of the Gospel. Departing from the position held by John Calvin, the hyper-Calvinist thinks it inconsistent, indeed dishonouring to God, to offer the Gospel to all men. The main misunderstanding has centred around the issue of man's ability. Free offers seem in the eyes of the hyper-Calvinists to imply free will and this to them contradicts the sovereignty of God in His irresistible grace to call whom He wills to Himself.

To outline the history of hyper-Calvinism in all its branches, and in particular its fettering and shackling influence in the realm of persuading souls would take a College term to accomplish. A brief outline, however, is necessary.

Joseph Hussey (1660-1694) was one of the architects of hyper-Calvinism who applied strict logic to Christian doctrine and wrote a book the title of which testifies truly to its contents, God's Operations of Grace but no Offers of His Grace. Others associated with this position were Skepp, Wayman, Brine and the famous John Gill.

In the Dutch speaking world the question of the free offer has been debated down the years and there has been an overflow of the controversy into the American Dutch churches which in turn has affected the English world. The Dutch have given much more attention to the subject of common grace. Common grace is implicit in Puritan theology. John Owen gives it some of its best statements (See Owen's commentary on Hebrews 6:4-6. Also Works Vol. 3, p. 236, and Vol. 11, p. 640ff.). The question is of crucial importance because common grace teaches that, although man has fallen, God always addresses him as man, that is, according to His revealed will that He, God, desires the salvation of all men, and never addresses them in terms of His secret will. 'The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever.' Hence the Puritans used such texts as 2 Peter 3:9 and 2 Tim. 2:4, 'who will have all men to be saved', at their face value and without any equivocation; that is that God declares His will for the salvation of all sinners to whom the Gospel is addressed upon the terms proposed, namely, the obedience of faith.

A denial of common grace, which is the position of Herman Hoeksema of our century, turns the Gospel into a principle of divine power and causation. As James Daane, a contemporary American theologian points out, 'Such a Gospel can be announced—cooly, objectively, without pathos or human concern or tears—but it cannot be preached with persuasion' (The Freedom of God. A study of election and the pulpit. James Daane, Eerdman, 1973.).

From Adding to the Church: A Puritan Approach to Persuading Souls by Erroll Hulse. This article appeared in Adding to the Church: and other papers given at the Westminster Conference, (Westminster Conference, 1974) being papers read at the 1973 Conference." excerpts from Adding to the Church—The Puritan Approach to Persuading Souls by Erroll Hulse
 
Update on 9-15-14:

[Herman] Hanko speaks for a minority, Dutch, hyper-Calvinistic school, a group hostile to the doctrine of common grace that God loves all men and desires that all be saved.

Erroll Hulse, "Global Revival: Should We Be Involved in Concerts of Prayer?" Reformation and Revival 2.4 (Fall 1993): 29.

Update on 2-17-16:

Hyper-Calvinism denies both the free offer of the gospel and common grace. In essence, Hyper-Calvinists would emphasize divine responsibility to the exclusion of human responsibility. Since Calvinists believe that the work of salvation is entirely God’s work, Hyper-Calvinists would take that a step further and say that since men and women can do nothing to save themselves, it is wrong to call people to do what they cannot do — it is just for God to work in the heart, not for others to call them to repentance.

Erroll Hulse, Who Saves, God or Me? Calvinism for the Twenty-First Century (Darlington, UK: EP Books, 2008), 91–92.

Update on 6-20-17:

Thirdly there is the question of God’s love. If God only loves the elect and only hates the non-elect, what constraint is there for the sinner to turn and believe? Richard Baxter in his Call to the Unconverted drives home the strong language and reasoning used by the sovereign Lord, as expressed in Ezekiel 18. He has no pleasure in the wicked that he should die, but rather that the wicked person should turn from his wicked way and live. Our Lord made it clear that we are to love our enemies because God looks upon them with kindness (Luke 6:35). The love of God for all mankind, even the most terrible sinners, is well expressed by the Puritan John Howe in his sermon, ‘The Redeemer’s tears shed over lost souls’.

Clearly, God’s redeeming love for the elect goes beyond the ‘loving-kindness’ he displays to all men. But the Bible teaches clearly that God regards all his creatures with compassion and concern.

Erroll Hulse, “Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility,” Evangelical Times 33.9  (September 1999): ?.