Talk:Hyper-Calvinism/Archive 1

Historical only?
It seems to me that Hyper-Calvinism is still with us today in some ways, among some Calvinists (though certainly not all). This article reads as if it is only an historic phenomenon, not living reality. Could someone with more expertise re:Calvinism "update it" a bit to show the ways in which Hyper-Calvinism is still with us? Thanks for considering. KHM03 13:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a duplicate post (I added the same to discussion under Calvinism)


 * KHM03, I think you are right that some forms of "hyper" Calvinism still exist today. I am aware of the Gospel Standard Baptists (which would probably fit the technical definition).  I'm also aware of the Protestant Reformed Church which has been labeled hyper-Calvinist because they deny God's common grace and have theological issues with some contemporary evangelism styles.  However, I have had association with PCA churches and have not found evidence of the extreme views which might be considered "hyper" in the technical sense or the general sense.  Jim Ellis 17:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Revert from [User:206.149.212.4] entry
Reverted to previous entry because the distinctions made by [User:206.149.212.4] were already covered under the "non-technical usage." They are not part of a technical distinction and most often reflect persons opinions rather than fact. I think scholarly sources (references) should accompany such comments. I would be glad to discuss. Regards, Jim Ellis 12:13, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church
Phelps and company might have hyper-Calvinist leanings, but they have diverged enough even from this extreme position (which I find horrible) that they simply cannot be listed here. Hyper-Calvinism is bizarre enough; they don'y need the help of a bonafide un-Christian cult. KHM03 23:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Phelps represents Hyper-Calvinism on its purest. His teachings are verbatim correct and according to the Bible - and extremely perverse. The Phelps cult certainly deserves to be on the link page - if not for else, to warn on what sticking to the letter of the Bible and forgetting the spirit completely will lead into. (an anonymous user)

I agree with your assessment of Phelps and company, but am uncomfortable linking them in any way to even the most misled Calvinists; Phelps might be Calvinish, but he's not Calvinist. I think there's a difference. But I'm no Calvinist either. Let's let some of our Calvinist friends weigh in on this before proceeding, if you don't mind. KHM03 23:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * To call Phelps a "hyper-calvinist" is meaningless rhetoric. "Hyper" yes. "Calvinist" so he says. But not a hyper-calvinist; and not notable enough to list together with important influences.  It's trivia and sensationalism, not information. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's create a new term for Phelps and c/o, in it self Phelps being "Phelpsian" is trivial, but not the behavior of other people. Something like "like a taliban" which (at least in Sweden) has become an adjective used to describe "enter violently and forcibly, and destroy mindlessly". Said: Rursus (☻) 17:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

But how do you really feel? KHM03 23:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Really, I think we should all just love one another. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with KHM03 and Mkmcconn that neither Phelps nor his church is appropriate to be listed in the Hyper-Calvinism article. This is a concensus of interested parties .  Until the unregistered interloper gets concensus otherwise, this matter should be considered closed. Jim Ellis 01:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. --Flex 15:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Fred Phelps IS a Hyper-Calvinist. His theology fulfills all the requirements for a Hyper-Calvinism:


 * that God is the source of sin and of evil

=> Phelps has himself declared God has made homosexuals the way they are so that they would sin and God would have a reason to reprobate them.


 * that a sign of election is to be sought prior to repentance

=> Phelps has claimed only the elect can even think about repentance. The rest are massa perditionis.


 * that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect

=> Phelps has claimed humans are nothing but tools of either God or Satan and have no free will.


 * that the number of the elect at any time may be known by men

=> Phelps has claimed the 144,000 mentioned in Bible are the only elect


 * that it is wrong to evangelize

=> Phelps has claimed evangelizing serves solely the purpose of intimidation and spreading hate


 * that God does not command everyone to repent

=> Phelps has claimed God demands people tasks they are impossible to perform so that God would have an excuse of punishing them


 * that there is no common grace, i.e. God cares only for his elect and has nothing but hatred for the non-elect.

=> that is exactly Phelps's view


 * that only Calvinists are Christians

=> Phelps hates Lutherans and Catholics, and consider only Calvinists as true Christians. He is a vehement Anti-Semite.

Mere disliking Phelps is no excuse to exclude him from Hyper-Calvinism, as his theology fits perfectly in this category. If something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and swims like a duck, it most likely is a duck even if it is called a seagull.

Only that, while Phelps does indeed adhere to these points, he, or perhaps the church, claims salvation only through membership in his church. JW also believes this, and this is considered one of the reasons as to why they shouldn't be called Christians at all. The Bible doesn't say anything about church membership being a requisite for salvation, so I'd agree with that. Hence, WBC are not hyper-Calvinistic.


 * Adolph Hitler claimed to be a Christian. Shall I link to Mein Kampf from the Wiki article on Christianity?  Let's not attempt to tar serious thought by exemplifying it with a fringe element.  Westboro does not need to be in this article.  In fact, the tar in this article needs to be removed altogether or cleaned up and presented as "objections to Hyper-Calvinism."  Amity150 04:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I would also question the link to this page on the Westboro Baptist Church Wikipedia page. See my comment "Guilt by association?" on the talk page of that Wikipedia page.

Also, having statements on Wikipedia such as "New Efforts to Warn the Flock" violates NPOV. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it should describe hyper-calvinism (with a section on objections to / criticism of Hyper-Calvinism if the criticisms meet Wikipedia notability criteria), not try to refute Hyper-Calvinism. Take a good look at the Wikipedia page on Jehovah's witnesses for an example of how Wikipedia should treat a religious view that many people criticize in a fair and neutral fashion. 75.84.237.246 (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Feb 2006 additions
To User:Williamo1: Hi, William. Your addition was quite POV and completely unsourced. You claim that "many" misuse the term, but cite no examples. You claim, "Some Christians have been taught to label anyone who believes in the historic Calvinist position a hyper-calvinist...", but provide no evidence or source. You claim, "In many evangelical circles today, if you believe in the final preservation of the saints, the fifth of the five points of calvinist theology, you are a Calvinist. If you believe any of the other four points you are automatically denounced as a hyper-calvinist...", but, again, provide no examples or ecidence for that information. Who is misuing the term? Who has been taught to label Calvinists as hyper-Calvinists, and who has taught them? What evangelical circles label someone who holds to the first four TULIP pieces "hyper-Calvinist"? I'm simply asking for evidence from a reputable academic source. I removed the addition because it was unsourced and seemed to be going only on your opinion (please review WP:NOR). I truly hope you can improve the section and add it again at some point. Thanks...KHM03 19:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with KHM03. These articles are to be encyclopedic in nature and tone.  While Williamo1 may have personally come across misunderstandings such as he describes, they seem to be merely examples of theological ignorance rather than positions held by reputable sources.  Jim Ellis 20:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Good to see you in action again, Jim. KHM03 20:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The most recent additions were way over the POV line, so I edited them, keeping the "meat" but removing the point of view. I have asked Williamo1 to make his case here. KHM03 21:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the most recent version, which, again, was in violation of WP:NPOV. My last revert for the day. KHM03 23:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Williamo1 has been reported for violating WP:3RR. KHM03 02:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

2nd notice before RFC
Please discuss POV issues here prior to reverting. If we can't reach consensus, we can WP:RFC. Lbbzman 22:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The section advocated by User:Williamo1 is way over the line in terms of POV. I suggest that William review WP:NPOV, which is official policy.  KHM03 22:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC Created
All, I have created an RFC entry at Requests for comment/Williamo1. One more person is needed to certify the request. Please respond on the RFC page with any comments, questions, or concerns. Lbbzman 17:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Evangelization and repentance
It's incorrect or at best an oversimplification to claim that hyper-Calvinists believe it is wrong to evangelize and that God doesn't command everyone to repent. The opposition to evangelism is the way it's conventionally carried out, like saying to a specific person that God loves him or her and wants him or her to be saved. As for repentance, God does command everyone to repent, only that there's no free offer of salvation. Salvation is offered to those who will accept the gospel, but the reprobate won't. So those two points should either be removed or at least explained. Jack Daw 16:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV - hyper-Calvinism and Primitive Baptists
There is so little in the body of this article that seems to accord with Primitive Baptist belief, and in fact NONE of the sources cited are Primitive Baptist, so perhaps it would be better to just leave Primitive Baptists off the list altogether, or else find a PB source that holds these positions. You have possibly found a printed source that claims that PBs are hyper-Calvinistic by these criteria, but that source is uninformed!

Perhaps we should eliminate the section on "non-technical hyper-Calvinism" altogether as it sounds like an article about misapplication of the term, which amounts to name-calling and mis-interpretation or mis-representation of core beliefs, rather than identification of what those beliefs themselves are. This is more about what opponents of "hyper-Calvinism" think "hyper-Calvinism" really is. (Few PBs would admit to even being "Calvinist" let alone "hyper-Calvinist"!) Amity150 21:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read this article several times and am even less satisfied than previously. You imply that the term "hyper-Calvinist" is a pejorative. The issue of whether anyone actually believes the things attributed to them by those who coined this term is really left up in the air. At least define the term objectively first, and then keep the present content under a section entitled "criticism of hyper-Calvinism" or something similar. Some critics may think that these beliefs are implicit in the doctrines taught by some 'hyper-Calvinists,' but let's see some of the view from the 'hyper-Calvinist' perspective first. Those few quotes you came up with do not substantiate the alleged beliefs ascribed to these people, IMO. Amity150 22:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just placed an NPOV tag on this article asking for review. Amity150 22:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So I looked up the website of the Protestant Reformed Church following the link under their wikipedia article, which this article links to. I found this statement:

"The Protestant Reformed Churches believe that, in obedience to the command of Christ, the King of the church, to preach the blessed gospel to all creatures, baptizing, and teaching them to observe all things which Christ has commanded, it is the explicit duty and sacred privilege of said churches to carry out this calling according to the measure of our God-given ability."

Here: http://www.prca.org/Missions/index.htm

So it seems unlikely that they would ally themselves with the doctrines which this article states that they, as "hyper-Calvinists," supposedly endorse either. So far my Google searches have turned up no faiths that endorse "hyper-Calvinism", but only websites attempting to discredit beliefs which no denomination seems to admit to having in the first place. Amity150 01:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a poor definition
This is poorly written at present. The definition is hard to understand as it is at present. May I suggest this definition:

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR  2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR   3. Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR   4. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR   5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.


 * Please remember to sign your posts, anonymous. No, the definition you propose is a poor one, even if Phillip Johnson defends it. Klaas Schilder denied #4, and Arthur Pink denied #5, but neither of those men can properly be called Hyper-Calvinists. I agree, however, that it takes a while for the article to say what HC actually is - is there a one-sentence summary with which we can lead the article? StAnselm 09:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Anonymous'es list of criteria seems too simplified, but in the criticism of the article, I'm inclined to agree: maybe I'm too far below my usual IQ today for my brain to be of any use, but for me the article is quite incomprehensible. The backgrounds of Calvinism must be evolved in some ways, the legalistic-styled techno-logic of Calvinism, and the premisses must be elaborated somewhat in order to describe how Hyper-C differs. There is some need of a list of commom deviations that so called Hyper-C:s claim to be true (while we of course remember that there are no Hyper-Calvinist adherents, just a pejorative term for C:s that go to far according to the main stream C:s). Said: Rursus (☻) 17:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong Rursus! The second link in the next section links to a "professing" Hypercalvinist. 8-O Said: Rursus (☻) 18:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Two resources in support of Hyper-Calvinism
Here are two articles that address Hyper-calvinism. One of them addresses all five points presented by Phil Johnson.

1) http://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=404 - "Hyper-Calvinism is the Truth" a response to Phil Johnson by Brandan Kraft

2) http://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=400 - Confession of a HyperCalvinist by Brandan Kraft —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Predestinarian (talk • contribs) 09:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC).


 * They're good links, but Brandan Kraft claims he is an "original-styled" Calvinist, and that the C:s accusing him of Hyper-C:s in fact are lending towards Arminianism. Maybe we should try to find the texts that "accuses" him, to see what the user of this label claims is Hyper-C. Said: Rursus (☻) 18:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, the article should be clear on why pristinegrace.org "accepts" Hyper-C - he does so in order to rebut attacks against his interpretations of Calvinism, and "accuses" the opponents of being Arminians (whatever danger that can be -- said the Lutheran). Said: Rursus (☻) 18:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's very very odd. Being a Lutheran opposed to Calvinism for exactly the five points of Calvinism, I observe that this Hyper-Calvinist is attacked for exactly those things that make me furious about what I believed Calvinism preach to me. This is like in TV seeing a monster standing beside a TV, wherein there is a monster standing beside a TV, a.s.o. ad infinitum. Weird in the extreme! Said: Rursus (☻) 19:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the article is quite wrong. That guy finalize by saying:
 * So while I specifically don’t approve of the label, “hyper-Calvinist,” as I personally do not believe that the doctrines of grace have any business being named after a man, I am honored to be known as such. That is my confession, and I call upon all who agree with the doctrines briefly described in this paper to make this confession as well. - BJK
 * He claims there's nothing such as a "hyper-Calvinist", he claims to be "one of a few true 'Calvinists'" (quote in quote¹) and feel good for being mentioned in the same sentence as other of the same temper. ¹ This means he doesn't (?) approve on the term Calvinist either. Said: Rursus (☻) 20:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Quotations
Below are some lengthy quotations added by an anon to this article. They seem useful enough, but they don't belong in the article in this form. So I have transported them here to allow someone to incorporate them in a more appropriate way. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 16:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Hyper-Calvinism is that school of Supralapsarian "Five Point" Calvinism which so stresses the sovereignty of God by over-emphasizing the secret over the revealed will and eternity over time, that it minimizes the responsibility of Man, notably with respect to the denial of the word "offer" in relation to the preaching of the Gospel of a finished and limited atonement, thus undermining the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly with the assurance that the Lord Jesus Christ died for them, with the result that presumption is overly warned of, introspection is overly encouraged, and a view of sanctification akin to doctrinal Antinomianism is often approached. This (definition) could be summarized even further: it is the rejection of the word "offer" in connection with evangelism for supposedly Calvinistic reasons."


 * Curt Daniel, "Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill" (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1983), p. 767.


 * "It was a system of theology, or a system of the doctrines of God, man and grace, which was framed to exalt the honour and glory of God and did so at the expense of minimising the moral and spiritual responsibility of sinners to God. It placed excessive emphasis on the immanent acts of God – eternal justification, eternal adoption and the eternal covenant of grace.  In practice, this meant that “Christ and Him crucified”, the central message of the apostles, was obscured.  It also often made no distinction between the secret and the revealed will of God, and tried to deduce the duty of men from what it taught concerning the secret, eternal decrees of God.  Excessive emphasis was also placed on the doctrine of irresistible grace with the tendency to state that an elect man is not only passive in regeneration but also in conversion as well.  The absorbing interest in the eternal, immanent acts of God and in irresistible grace led to the notion that grace must only be offered to those for whom it was intended.  Finally, a valid assurance of salvation was seen as consisting in an inner feeling and conviction of being eternally elected by God.  So Hyper-Calvinism led its adherents to hold that evangelism was not necessary and to place much emphasis on introspection in order to discover whether or not one was elect."


 * Peter Toon, The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity, 1689-1765 (The Olive Tree, 1967), pp. 144-145. [see external link below]


 * "Hyper-Calvinism in its attempt to square all truth with God's purpose to save the elect, denies that there is a universal command to repent and believe, and asserts that we have only warrant to invite to Christ those who are conscious of a sense of sin and need. In other words, it is those who have been spiritually quickened to seek a Saviour and not those who are in the death of unbelief and indifference, to whom the exhortations of the Gospel must be addressed. In this way a scheme was devised for restricting the Gospel to those who there is reason to suppose are elect."


 * Iain Murray, The Forgotten Spurgeon (Banner of Truth, 1998), p. 47.


 * "A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:


 * Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
 * Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
 * Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
 * Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
 * Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect."


 * Phillip R. Johnson, A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism [see external link below]

Merge from Double predestination (Hyper-Calvinist)
I propose a merge from Double predestination (Hyper-Calvinist), which does not seem substantial enough to warrant its own article at this point. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 14:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Aw, man here we go again, yes it does, and I mentioned I will add to it, besides Double Predestination (hyper-calvinist)... the "hyper-calvinist" is not what is known as "hyper calvinism" which is a different thing all together, it's only "hyper-calvinist" in the sense that there is a large view of God's sovereignty and supposedly in error. And in fact, people don't even mention that, they just say "Double Predestination" and what they mean is "double Predestination" in the hyper-calvinist sense ("hyper-calvinist" is only there because that's what opponents accuse it) Avielh 14:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Who are these opponents? We need reliable sources to verify the notability of this article. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 14:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Then place "citation needed", but don't delete important valid verifiable parts, and placing tags for the sole purpose of hindering the article. I give up on this, cause you're bullying me. And I leave it to God, may He judge between us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avielh (talk • contribs) 15:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way. As I see it, I'm trying help you, a new-comer, abide by the spirit and standards of the Wikipedia and improve the quality of the content here, not bully you. I have repeatedly made gentle suggestions to you and had my advice confirmed by independent third parties. I have also tried to clean up some of the things that I have seen that could be easily fixed. Remember the notice at the bottom of every edit page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." It's ego-less editing we need here. I'd still like to see you contribute, but you need to accept the fact that the Wikipedia aspires to be a compendium of neutral, verifiable, and notable accepted knowledge, not a theological tract or polemical argument. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 15:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just search google for "John Calvin Double Predestination" and see many supporters/papers identifying Calvin as Double Predestinarian (not in the reformed sense), and not to mention all the Arminians who say Calvin believes in that, which is by far the the majority of all bible believing Christians. Piper believes in DP, he plainly says so, that's why I qouted him, and so does Grudem. You edited it unfairly, deleting contents that are true and verifiable, even specific words/phrases to promote your religious bias.


 * "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it"


 * I know, that's why I said I leave it to God, if the majority of reformed Christians want this article stopped without really looking into it, they can do that, not even giving the author to finish the article (what is it, 1 day now), if they want to put tags, edit it to shorten it, then try to merge it to other pages unrelated to it with the hopes of deleting it, then vote to delete it, there's nothing I can do, that's why I leave it to God, so that at the judgement I can put the blame in people like you who do this things (or He can say I was wrong). But I will pursue this until you eventually stop me, because it is true, verifiable, notable, accepted (notoriously) by the majority of bible believing Christians.


 * Avielh 13:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your accusations are both in bad faith and incorrect. Please try to be more civil. If you want time to finish an article without others editing it, don't make the page an article proper. For instance, edit User:Avielh/Double predestination -- that's your "private" version of it where you can tune it as you see fit for as long as it takes until you are satisfied that it meets WP guidelines and policies. If it's a public article, then it's fair game for anyone to edit (that's the very foundation of the Wikipedia!). You can even request feedback and have other editors contribute to your page before it goes "live". --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 22:49, 30 September 2007

(UTC)

5solas link removed, why?
I noticed the 5solas link I once added has been removed, why? It's the most exhaustive internet site dealing with hyper-calvinism. I think it has its place in the external links section no doubt. Permission is no problem, I know Brandan Kraft who maintains the site, I had his permission last time I added the site and probably have the permission to add it again. I would like to see arguments against including the link. Jack Daw (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like it was removed by an anon with no explanation given. It is generally better to incorporate links as references (see WP:EL), but I have added PristineGrace.org since it seems to be the parent site for 5solas.org. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 02:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Free Offer and ...
Before anyone starts working on anything related to the controversy "Offer", check-out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Free_offer_of_the_gospel#Offert, where I've included information regarding the historical use of the term.

Also, the PRCA, a group also debated upon whether it's hyper-calvinist, has an interesting qualification of what they mean (which is actually quite, historically, consistent), in a paper befittlingly titled "Is Denial of the "Well-Meant Offer" Hyper-Calvinism?":

The doctrinal issue involved in the question, "Is denial of the 'well-meant offer' hyper-Calvinism?" is precisely addressed, and thoroughly explained, by our Lord's teaching in the parable of the wedding of the king's son in Matthew 22:1-14. God calls many men, both Jews and Gentiles, to the salvation that He has prepared in the death and resurrection of His Son. Many of those who are called by the preaching of the gospel refuse to come: "and they would not come" (v.3). Some do come to the marriage with the true faith that receives the wedding garment of the imputed righteousness of Christ. The reason for this twofold outcome of the call of God in the preaching of the gospel, Jesus gives in the concluding verse of the parable: "For many are called, but few are chosen" (v.14). There is a call of God by the preaching of the gospel to many more persons than those who have been elected. This call, however, is sharply distinguished from the call that God gives to the elect. The parable, thus, warns against hyper-Calvinism on the one hand, which tries to restrict the call to the chosen, and against Arminianism on the other hand, which denies any distinction between the call to the elect and the call to the reprobate. The Reformed doctrine and practice of preaching, obedient to the instruction of Christ in the parable, is concerned to avoid error on either side.

tooMuchData 00:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC) <--(that's where the tilde's go, but it always says "too much data" and gives the date: so I'm guessing the system will autosign for me after this arrow--)-->

Flawed subsection
Subsection Comparison to the Primitive Baptist doctrine:
 * Inter Alia, Primitive Baptist Churches predate John Calvin, and Calvin was never a member of a Primitive Baptist church, the Primitive Baptists or Hardshell Baptists rejected all forms of Calvinism, though they are often mistakenly accused of being Calvinistic.

This is not a comparison! It's an extremely non-NPOV apology. Either the section shall be deleted, or it should be rewritten to contain a real comparison, no dealing with Calvin's membership in this or that group at all, maybe explaining that the Primitive Baptists are not Calvinists proper, but have moved in a direction that by outsiders or themselves is perceived as in a Calvinist direction. Then a theological comparison would be proper, listing similarities and differences. We very certainly know that Calvin wasn't a Primitive Baptist, we aren't idiots! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 21:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

introduction confusing
I've added a cleanup template to the beginning section of the article, as it appears to be written in some odd form of english which I can't decipher. Perhaps it could be translated into standard english. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 07:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's written like an essay (WP:NOT). I didn't see that before, but now I saw and added a template accordingly. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 20:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Especially the existence of sections with names such as Common Misunderstandings and Conclusions indicate that an earlier author actually imagined that WP is an essay collection. This is very improper for an encyclopedia, since we do no primary research here. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 20:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What is this Comparison to historic doctrines??! Comparing with Luther who called Zwingli a "wicked man" and condemned all Calvinists! And Quotes from teachers who had Hyper-Calvinistic views! Did there ever exist a Christian calling him/her-self "Hyper-Calvinist"? I think the article smells WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 20:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Examining the history I found that there is actually one single user IP 71.119.74.205 that during the time 23 January 2010 to 25 February 2010 rewrote the article from a badly formatted real Wikipedia article and instead produced an apologetic essay for a kind of a denomination that nobody actually profess. I think the current state of the article is very fishy, and that we should consider restoring it to the state of 23 January 2010 when it was an article proper, although not a very good one. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 20:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * My suspicions are going towards http://www.pristinegrace.org/ where one of the bloggers might have gotten the idea that he could use WP as his private propaganda tool. I'll be back. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 21:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll delete all street preacher sermon stuff that originates from IP 71.119.74.205 in User:Rursus/Hyper-Calvinism. Established users may opt to comment or edit as they wish. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 14:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

introduction response
The introduction may be refashioned to suitable English, but it should relate to the historical facts that have been documented from sources. Opinions and personal experiences do not define the subject properly, so I have sought to provide historical sources in relation to the doctrines in question. The quotes and citations are from historical sources that dealt with the doctrines in question. "Duty faith" and the "Free offer" are the doctrines in question. Before January there was little citations from those who have been labeled Hyper Calvinists (among Calvinists) and consequently there was not a proper representation of the doctrines in question. No, this was not put together by anyone from prestinegrace.com as far as I know. Luther and the others listed are commonly accepted as Calvinistic in regards to their understanding of election and the bondage of the will. I will be removing the conclusion section so it does not appear like an essay. --98.119.191.168 (talk) 05:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Improper Complaints
I deleted the complaints about citation problems because no specific quotes are addressed as lacking proper citation. Many of the original sources have been provided at the bottom of the page for further study. The quotes from historical sources are the only means of fairly addressing this subject. It is often misunderstood, redefined, and confused by modern sources. (whether Arminian or Calvinist) Someone appears to not like what is being quoted, and is now seeking to delete the article entirely. The page may need some refashioning to have more of a wiki appearance and additional helpful information can be added. But, it should have a focus on historic sources. Modern criticism and theological gossip can easily obscure historical facts. --98.119.191.168 (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for notifying us about citation problems here, but 1. you also removed essay problems, footnote problems, notability problems without notiying us, 2. you cannot (= are not allowed to, because then you're ) remove templates without either fixing the article so that it fulfills Wikipedia standards marked as missing from this article. I'll put them back, and await your explanation on how it is going to be fixed, because it doesn't describe hyper-calvinism, it describes someones own personal religious opinion, and that is violating a long series of rules on what is allowed to survive within Wikipedia, f.ex. WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOT (personal opinions), WP:NPOV, etc. etc.. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 13:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And to add to my complaints: I think you are believing the current form of the article is acceptable, which it isn't. None can determine whether the discourse is a concoct of one individual editor or not (WP:OR with WP:SYNTH and a flood of personal opinions). For a while the text seemed to be written like an anonymous self styled street preachers sermon who thinked of himself as a hyper-calvinist, and it is darned hard to understand how much of this desinformation which is still there.


 * Anyways the main discourse must be attributable to at least two or three independent reliable sources, which means theologicians, preferrably Calvinists, preferrably those called "hyper-calvinists" and those calling someone "hyper-calvinists". The main discourse must reflect those sources. Individual arguments in the text must be attributable to those sources. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 13:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying the readers about your complaints and opinions. I fixed the specific essay problems that you first made note of. Please address the content directly when you make new complaints. Thank you.--98.119.191.168 (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of the Word 'Pejorative'
I would say that this is not a fair word to use in discussing Hyper-Calvinism, it is true that an Historical Calvinist that follows theologians like Calvin, Berkof, Kuyper would have a natural tendency to let his lip curl, the same happens I suspect when Hyper-Calvinists hear the traditional view of the 'Gospel Offer'. I don't think you article is balanced in that it does not provide any creed, the Canons of Dordt would be an excellent test of the orthodoxy of the Hyper-Calvinist position. Mnay Hyper-Calvinists like to be called 'High-Calvinists' as if to ease their dicomfort with the word 'hyper'. But in my opinion their rejection of 'Common Grcae' and free offer of the Gospel to all men and other points places them outside of the Calvinist camp.

I would like to post on your article [actually it is not your article but you seem to be the main editor] some aspects from the Canons of Dordt (1619) and plan to do that soon. I would like to encourage cooperation if you would allow me without getting into a revert war.

Ieuan Sant (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No ownership! Be bold, but preferrably source your additions in order to protect them. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 11:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

A new section on the orthodox Calvinist position
A new section on the orthodox Calvinist position is encouraged. In my editing, I have sought to maintain reliable sources that address the doctrines in question. The topic ought to at least define the doctrinal position of these men, unless we are seeking to hide historic information in order to satisfy the constant complaints of someone who obviously doesn't like the position of these men. The person that has made these complaints should perhaps help polish the content into a wiki style. But, rather he appears to have an agenda to delete the content, while accusing it of being someones opinion. This is a false accusation rooted in his own opinions. Let the reader judge. There are clearly dozens of reliable sources and quotes.

Why is it a Pejorative term? Many of the ministers who hold to these doctrinal positions do not welcome the name "Hyper-Calvinism." It comes across as a form of name calling (whether good or bad intentions are involved). Let us be honest with how the word is used, what it is used for, and who uses it. It is a "pejorative" term whether you want to be or not. The term is often used to express one's distaste towards the views of others. Arminians (see John R. Rice) and Calvinists use the term in this manner to describe different predestinarian doctrines which they oppose. It is no surprise that a wiki member is persistently seeking to remove the historical information on these doctrinal convictions.

Historically, it is not an accepted theological term used by any of the hundreds of churches that held these doctrinal positions. For example, see the ministries of the bible commentators John Gill and Robert Hawker. See also the ministries of John Brine, J.C. Philpot, William Huntington, and William Gadsby. Hyper-Calvinism was not used by them to define their doctrine.

Here is a quote from the reformed minister John Brown. You might want to add this information in the new section. John Brown writes in his Shorter Catechism,

"Q. Doth God command every man that hears the gospel to take his gift Christ out of his hand ?—A. Yes ; under pain of his most dreadful wrath, 1 John iii. 23. Q. What mean you by Christ's offer of himself?—A. His holding forth himself as able and willing to save, and inviting sinners to receive salvation from him. Q. To whom doth Christ offer himself?—A. To every one that hears the gospel, without exception, Prov. viii. 4. Q. In what manner is Christ offered in the gospel ?—A. Fully, freely, earnestly, and indefinitely, Isa. lv..."

"Q. How is Christ offered indefinitely ?—A. The gospeloffer of him suits every hearer's case as exactly as if he was named in it, Rev. iii. 17, 18. Q. What do you understand by embracing of Christ as offered in the gospel 1—A. A particular persuasion that Christ in the promise is mine; and made of God to me wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption; and trusting on his word, that he will act up to all his saving characters to me in order to promote my everlasting salvation..."

"Q. How do we receive him in agreeableness to his being indefinitely offered?—A. By applying the offer as particularly to ourselves as if it had pointed us out by name, and were not to another, Gal. ii. 20."

Source: http://books.google.com/books?output=text&id=TA9FAAAAIAAJ&dq=shorter+catechism+john+brown&q=doth+God+command#v=snippet&q=doth%20God%20command&f=false --98.119.191.168 (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Re-installment of the 'Doctrine' Section
Upon reading through the previously deleted section regarding 'doctrine', I felt it beneficial to undo that deletion. The information provided there seemed to enhance the historical context surrounding the doctrines of 'Duty Faith' and the 'Free Offer of the Gospel', by showing the relationship and historical interaction between those who supported and those who opposed these doctrines. --98.177.221.85 (talk) 08:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Pruning definitions
I like the idea of giving a few people's statement of the definition, but I have problems with a couple of them. First, Kendall is the glaring discrepancy. Holding the idea that one must not say "Christ died for you" is not Hyper-Calvinism at all. But more to the point - Kendall's definition doesn't fit with the others. I would also exclude Croft, simply because he is an older writer, using the words in a way which is confusing to the modern reader - words like "high" and "moderate" are vague, and have been used in lots of different ways since 1825. On the other hand, it looks like Ferguson, Toon, Daniel, Murray and Engelsma are in basic agreement about what it means - though some of them describe it in terms of emphasis. StAnselm (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the touch up on the definition section. It looks good. I added the historic definition sub heading and placed "george croft" and "the protestant dictionary" there. Historical accuracy is helpful. Blessings.--98.119.191.168 (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Pejorative?
I removed the Pejorative tag until someone is actually able to supply a source that indicates that this title is pejorative in nature. ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A good article to read on this subject is http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/jim_ellis/jim_ellis.Hyper.html which gives a very clear technical definition of what Hyper-Calvinism is, and notes that we should keep it distinct from the term "Calvinism" ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There is both a "technical" or academic meaning and a "common" meaning. As used commonly, it is a pejorative. Theopedia: "The prefix 'hyper' may be used generically to refer to anything that is considered 'extreme' or which goes beyond the accepted norm. There is therefore a sense in which one may refer to Calvinistic views regarded as going beyond normal Calvinism as 'hyper.' This non-technical use, usually as a pejorative term, has been applied to a variety of theological positions which fall outside mainstream Calvinism ..." — Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Theopedia sure is WP:RS... oh, wait... no it isn't. The technical use is as follows (From an actual WP:RS)
 * When we use it simply to mean "REALLY REALLY CALVINIST," That is a pejorative... however, just because something CAN be a pejorative does not mean that it IS a pejorative in all contexts. ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Outside a fairly narrow group of academic writings, it's primary usage in the world is pejorative. (Kind of like "dipshit". It can technically be used very narrowly to mean something actually dipped in feces, but generally that's not how it's used. I'm not suggesting a parallel between the two concepts. I'm just providing an example of the overwhelming pejorative sense compared to a technical definition.) Just sayin'. There are real-world usages out there. If WP wants to limit itself to the technical definition, that's another matter. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You better go get on Conversion Therapy's case too. They just decided that "Pray the Gay Away" is a legitimate term to use... and that it is okay to call it a pseudo-science. There are all sorts of other cases that are MUCH more significant. This is a case of CLEAR theological distinction... why would we use it in any sense other than the technical term. This is an encyclopedia... not urban dictionary. ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Ellis article you cite acknowledges the real-world usage of the term in its very first sentence: "Hyper-Calvinism is a term of derision that today is often used to negatively label anyone with a strong theological view of God's sovereignty in the affairs of men." One reason I would say we would not use it is that those to whom it is applied rarely self-identify with the term. It is a term invented and, for the most part, applied, by its opponents. Anyway, I'm interested in what other editors think about the issue. (I see the issue has arisen before, see above.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, as I said, the recent precedent that was set in Conversion therapy was that if WP:RS uses the term, even if it is critical or as an opponent... it should be reflected in the article. ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the comparison is imprecise. The article Conversion therapy is not named Pray away the gay. Here, the name of the article is the usually-pejorative term. I am not arguing the term should not be used in the article or even that the article be named what it is named. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually... the article is called that. If you type "Pray the Gay Away" into Wikipedia... you get "Conversion Therapy." They are equating the two. Either way, the point stands... when a WP:RS applies a term to a subject... that term (critical, derisive, or pejorative may it be) should be used in the article. Hence why "Pseudo-Science" was deemed acceptable in the Conversion therapy article... those deemed experts said it is a Pseudo-Science... so despite the fact that those engaged in it consider it to be an actual science... Pseudo-Science is in the leed. ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Pray away the gay is a redirect to Conversion therapy, which is what I meant. The article is not named "Pray away the gay". Redirects and article names are not of equivalent status in WP, and users spend inordinate amounts of time discussing what specific article names should actually be. Anyway, I'm not sure of the issue's relevance here though because as I said above, I am not arguing the term should not be used in the article or even that the article be named what it is named. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, you're just saying that we shouldn't use the term to classify people who fit the description that the article describes... ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As a category for BLPs and biographies, no. But that's a different issue than the one you've raised here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Either it is a legitimate label to be used, or it is not. Which is it?ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't see it in those either/or terms. It's fine to have an article about the term; but because the term has a popular pejorative meaning, I don't agree with applying it via categories to BLPs and other biographies. I think we should see what others think, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * IMO the article should not be categorised as 'pejorative' under any circumstances. This is categorisation by a property of the name of the article; and the article could be renamed to 'High Calvinism' or similar. Oculi (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't get it, the term is a pejorative either way, but that doesn't mean it's not the best title for the article. Most RSes are using the technical theological term pejoratively as far as I can tell (they see it as extreme and contrary to proper Calvinism). Despite the non-neutrality of the title, POVTITLE says we go with the commonly used term. If someone had adopted the term, you'd have a case for it not being pejorative, but I've never heard someone do so. --JFHutson (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I did a quick look at the category and found a similar example: Patent troll. The article is about people who engage in a certain action commonly called patent trolling by RSes. These people do not like the term (see Patent troll), but the title remains because it's the most common usage in RSes. --JFHutson (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, I looked through the article and saw that one person has adopted the term. I still think that because this is fairly rare, and because most RSes are using the term pejoratively, you have a pejorative. --JFHutson (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And you have a source that uses it as a pejorative? ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess that is OR, it just seems obvious to me. Anyway, I'm just saying that even if we establish that it is a pejorative (we'll need to find some source stating the obvious), that doesn't mean it's not the best name for the article, which now that I look over Good Ol'factory's posts, I guess that's not even at issue here. --JFHutson (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with tag removal Because the prefix "hyper-" may be used pejoratively in certain contexts doesn't mean that is the case here.  Miniapolis  ( talk ) 22:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 *  I propose  that we create High Calvinism and associated category tree, and redirect Hyper-Calvinism here. That term, although refering to the same thing, is less likely to be used pejoratively, but it still retains the theological distinction that is important. ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No objection from me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly object. "High Calvinism" is something different - it has been historically used of a belief in double predestination, or even of an acceptance of limited atonement. StAnselm (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Object, what StAnselm said. I don't see how the fact that a word is used pejoratively figures in to how we name the article or category. Is there some reason we can't categorize someone with a pejorative? --JFHutson (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with tag removal - moving to "High Calvinism" would simply be inaccurate. Hyper-Calvinism is the proper term to be used here and is the way I have seen it used in a technical sense. Against the current (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with tag removal - the common usage of pejorative does not belong on the top of the page.Whiteguru (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Atonement, etc.
I'm not sure why the article is discussing the atonement - clearly both orthodox Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism accept Limited Atonement. I think we can remove the GS article on Particular Redemption. StAnselm (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Orthodox Calvinism holds to limited atonement (a limited efficiency) with a general design (a universal sufficiency). Some would extend a general design to greater lengths than others. However, the Gospel Standard Baptist (among others) would deny a general design whatsoever. Can the GS article title and observations use clarity on this note? The Canons of Dort (as an example of Orthodox Calvinism) state, "The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world." Others (as an example of Non Orthodox Calvinism) have stated, "The sufficiency of the atonement extends no further than its efficiency. The statement "sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect" has no Scriptural foundation." (Gery Schmidt, The Theological Foundation of the Modern Missionary Movement) A careful study of the controversy on Hyper-Calvinism (which Andrew Fuller addressed in the 18th century) will highlight a controversy over the extent of the sufficiency of the atonement. This was at the root of the controversy and is also why High Calvinism denies general offers of the gospel (concerning how Christ died for our sins) and a duty to receive such an offer. William Rushton in his book "Particular Redemption" writes, "Whenever the Scriptures speak of the sufficiency of redemption, they always place it in the certain efficacy of redemption. The atonement of Christ is sufficient because it is absolutely efficacious, and because it carries salvation to all for whom it was made. It is sufficient, not because it affords men the possibility of salvation but because, with invincible power, it accomplishes their salvation. Hence the word of God never represents the sufficiency of the atonement as more extensive than the design of the atonement, which Mr. Fuller has done."

Though Calvin denied that the sins of the reprobate (non-elect) have been expiated, he maintained that Christ died sufficiently for the whole world and efficiently for the elect. "And not for ours only. He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel. Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world." (John Calvin, Commentary on 1 John 2:2)

See also Tony Byrne's Comparison Chart notes on Moderate Calvinism in the Modern Source Section.

Blessings66.215.216.111 (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I can see that we can include a denial of the atonement being sufficient for all. But sufficiency is not the same as a general design. The thing is, Baxter is not representative of orthodox Calvinism, and many orthodox Calvinists would reject a "general design" in the atonement. So Article 28 should go, though I'm happy to keep the Rushton and Schmidt quotes - if we can source them properly. All we have is a name and a title - are they books? StAnselm (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe I mixed the Schmidt source with the Baxter source. It's from source; he is a minister at Providence Strict Baptist Assembly in Canada. Historical quotes/ sources have been provided instead. The point of rejection in Article 28, is to deny a residue of grace sufficient for all and offered indiscriminately to all for their acceptance or rejection. It is on the doctrine of Christ's sufficiency that Hyper-Calvinism differs from Baxterianism and Calvinism. I added some clarification in the intros and headings. Calvin and Baxter are very close on the intent of Christ death being an offer for the salvation of all persons in the whole world. "God’s Son came into the world to bring all men salvation, men are so ungrateful that they gnash their teeth against the teaching and try to kill those who seek to help them in this way." (John Calvin, Sermons on Acts 1-7, Sermon 21, Acts 5:33-35, 38-39, p., 277) "He was given not only to the Israelites, but to all men, of every people and every land, to the end that by him human nature might be reconciled to God." (John Calvin, ‘Preface to Olivetan’s New Testament,” in John Calvin: Commentaries, trans., and ed., by Joseph Haroutunian (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1958), pp., 61 and 63.) Blessings 66.215.216.111 (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realise the GS articles are responding to Baxter, but the fact that he does not represent mainstream orthodox Calvinism still troubles me. I think one of the issues here is that we just have a bunch of quotes. Eventually I would like to see this converted to prose. Something like: John Calvin believed X,(ref) and in this he was followed by most orthodox Calvinists, as well as by moderate Calvinists like Baxter.(ref) In responding to Baxter's view's, the Gospel Standard articles asserted Y.(ref) StAnselm (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I added a sentence about Richard Baxter, which might help clarify things. StAnselm (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Quotations 2
This article is little more than a long string of quotations. That is not ok on Wikipedia accoding to WP:LONGQUOTE. That is why I tagged it, not becuase of concern with the quality of the primary sources. The problem is this is not much more than primary sources. This was pointed out before (Talk:Hyper-Calvinism), but the article seems to have gotten worse. Novaseminary (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

To avoid an essay or personal reflection appearance, much of the article is referenced to sources. But, the mere Quotes can use some in-line review to avoid a string of quotes appearance.--96.229.32.180 (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

As of now the article is cleaned up from the former "long string of quotations" appearance. Blessings66.215.216.111 (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

New Sections Added: Opposition and Support of the Doctrine
I added 2 new sections with the intent of presenting the historical arguments that were presented. Your thoughts, concerns, and input is appreciated. I intend to add observations with references of how ministers have understood certain passages of scripture. Among the sources I intend to use are ministers who opposed High-Calvinistic views and the scripture texts that were used (from Andrew Fuller, Charles Spurgeon, John Wesley, Daniel Whitby, Albert Barnes). It should be noteworthy, that opposition came from both Arminians (Wesley and Barnes) and Calvinist (Fuller and Spurgeon). To keep a balanced presentation, I will be including observations from minsters like John Gill, Robert Hawker, Wiliam Styles, and others who have held to views above genuine Calvinism. I intend to keep the observation format concise with no lengthy quotes.66.215.216.111 (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have also provided verification sources in the intro to show that these passages were a matter of the controversial views which became (or were) termed as High-Calvinism and eventually Hyper-Calvinism. The scripture citations are provided from the King James Version as this was the Bible version referred to by the historical sources. Links have been provided to Biblegateway for further context and (if preferred) a modern translation of the scriptures may be selected there.66.215.216.111 (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to have a list of scriptures like this, it only adds bulk. A better option would be to fill the section with content and place references to scriptures throughout. ReformedArsenal (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. It is a bit bulky. I'm reducing the extent of the scripture quotes, but for the sake of clarity in observations, I think it is needful to at least contain a brief phrase quotations from the scripture citations. I'm also considering a healthy limit to the amount scripture per section to maintain a concise reading. I'm thinking it would be good to have a sub section under each heading for a more extensive scripture list.66.215.216.111 (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hyper-Calvinism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120919133747/http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/dort.htm to http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/dort.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)