Spiritual Declension: Lessons from Early 18th Century Particular Baptists, Part 3-The Chilling Effect of Hyper-Calvinism
Posted by jsmitheasley on January 17, 2009
Let me begin with a definition. What is Hyper-Calvinism. The hallmark of Hyper-Calvinism is the rejection of the free offer of the gospel to all men. It is the belief that preachers should not give indiscriminate invitations and exhortations to sinners to believe the gospel and come to Christ and to come to Christ immediately. The Hyper-Calvinist sees the doctrines of sovereign grace (unconditional election, particular redemption and human inability) in the scriptures and on the basis of that he rejects, or minimizes, human responsibility and the free offer of Christ to all. On the other hand, Biblical Calvinism, or what is sometimes called Evangelical Calvinism, embraces both of those truths because it believes they are both taught in the Bible. The Evangelical Calvinist recognizes that there is a tension in the bible that our puny minds are not able to fully reconcile. There is mystery here because we are dealing with God. As you can imagine, Hyper-Calvinism tends to squelch evangelistic and missionary zeal in the church.
The early 18th century Particular Baptists began to be heavily influenced by Hyper-Calvinism. In 1707, Joseph Hussey, a congregational pastor, published the book, God’s Operations of Grace but No Offers of Grace, in which he advocated Hyper-Calvinist views. These views were embraced by a member of his church, John Skepp. Skepp later became a Baptist and then a pastor of a Particular Baptist church. Skepp, together with another Particular Baptist who came to Hyper-Calvinistic views, John Brine, had a major influence in bringing those views into Particular Baptist churches. Also they became close friends with perhaps the most influential Particular Baptist pastor of that time, John Gill.[1] Gill was a very gifted scholar and preacher who pastored in London. There is considerable debate among scholars as to whether Gill himself should be classified as a Hyper-Calvinist. However there is little doubt that he was at least tinged with Hyper-Calvinism and many of those who identified with Gill were Hyper-Calvinists. Spurgeon later said, “The system of theology with which many identify his name has chilled many churches to their very soul, for it has led them to omit the free invitations of the gospel, and to deny the duty of sinners to believe in Jesus”[2]
Andrew Fuller gives a typical description when he describes the preaching of a Particular Baptist pastor named John Eve. In 1752 Eve was ordained pastor of the Baptist church in Soham, a small village north-east of Cambridge. He ministered there until 1771. Fuller grew up under his ministry. Later Fuller had this to say about that ministry. “Eve”, he says, was “tinged with a false Calvinism” and “had little or nothing to say to the unconverted.”[3] Generally there was no pleading and no exhortations to sinners come to Christ. The most the average Hyper-Calvinist might say to the unconverted was something like this, “Attend to the means of grace, and may the Lord call you in due time.” It shouldn’t surprise us that churches coming under this influence tended to be marked by a lack a passion for evangelism and missions that brought an appalling deadness to the churches.[4]
What should we learn from this as Reformed Baptists at the beginning of the 21st century? You might say, obviously the lesson is that we need to stay away from Hyper-Calvinism. True, and I don’t think any of us want to be a Hyper-Calvinist. We need to be careful, however, because a man may reject Hyper-Calvinism in name and still be tinged with Hyper-Calvinism in his practice or in his preaching. John Murray gave this warning shortly before his death,
The passion for missions is quenched when we lose sight of the grandeur of the gospel…. It is a fact that many, persuaded as they rightly are of the particularism of the plan of salvation and of it’s various corollaries, have found it difficult to proclaim the full, free, and unreserved overture of gospel grace. They have labored under inhibitions arising from fear that in doing so they would impinge upon the sovereignty of God in his saving purposes and operations. The result is that, though formally assenting to the free offer, they lack freedom in the presentation of its appeal and demand.[5]
So here is the question for us: Are we really preaching the free offer of the gospel? This raises the question, what is the free offer of the gospel? It has been well defined as,
that gracious and authoritative offer of salvation, in which God freely and indiscriminately commands and entreats lost men to come to Christ in repentance and faith; because He sincerely desires and delights in their salvation; so that any who are willing to have Christ on his terms may have him.[6]
This definition highlights three very important elements of the free offer of the gospel.[7] There is the essence of the free offer. “It is that gracious and authoritative offer of salvation, in which God freely and indiscriminately commands and entreats lost men to come to Christ in repentance and faith.” There is the motive of the free offer, “because He sincerely desires and delights in their salvation.” And there is the consequence or result of the free offer, “so that any who are willing to have Christ on his terms may have him.”
The element in this definition that we especially need to be careful about and clear about is that of the motive of the free offer. Is it true that God commands and entreats lost sinners freely and indiscriminately to come to Christ, because he sincerely desires and delights in their salvation? John Calvin himself certainly believed that. Commenting on John 3:16, he said, “Although there is nothing in the world deserving of God’s favor, he nevertheless shows he is favorable to the whole lost world when he calls all without exception to faith in Christ.”[8] As mysterious and difficult as it might be for our finite minds to comprehend and to reconcile with the doctrines of particular grace, the Bible does teach that in the general call of the gospel to all God is sincere and that the invitations of the gospel are an expression of His compassion and common love for men. In Ezekiel 33:11 God swears by his own self-existence that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but sincerely desires that they would repent. It is God who says, “O that there were such a heart in them, that they would fear me and keep all my commandments, which it might be well with them, and with their children forever” (Deut. 5:29). See Him in the person of His Son weeping over Jerusalem, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets, and stones those who are sent to you; how often would I have gathered your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you would not” (Lk. 13:34). I was willing, but you were not willing. Remember the story of the Rich Young Ruler. This young man was beginning to feel something of the emptiness of his possessions. He came to Jesus but sadly he rejected our Lord’s message to him. Yet the text says, “And Jesus looking upon him loved him.” We shouldn’t get twisted up with the question as to whether that was the eternal love of divine election or what it was. We can take the scriptures at their face value, and leave the unsolvable mysteries to God. The Bible says that Christ looked upon that man with a heart of genuine love for him. In Luke 19 we read that, “When He was come nigh unto Jerusalem, Jesus beheld the city and He wept over it,” and He said, “If you had known, even you, at least in this your day, the things which belong unto your peace! But now they are hid from your eyes.” He wept, and He wailed over the city and I John 2:6 tells us that, “He that says he abides in Him ought himself also so to walk, even as He walked”
It is a distortion of historical Calvinism that cannot tell sinners that the offer of Christ to them in the gospel is an expression of God’s sincere and common love for their souls. John Owen said, “Love towards all mankind in general is enforced upon us by the example of Christ’s own love and goodness which are extended unto all.”[9] At one point He encourages his hearers, to dwell on “the love of Christ in his invitations of sinners to come unto him that they may be saved.”[10] We must warn them of God’s wrath to awaken them but we must also tell them of God’s love in Christ to woo them. As Bunyan said, “It is not the over-heavy load of sin but the discovery of mercy…that makes a man come to Jesus Christ.”[11] Owen says that this love is to be proclaimed as ‘good news’ not to men as elect but to men as sinners.[12] The great reformer John Knox once said this, “By what means Satan first drew mankind from the obedience of God, the Scripture doth witness: To wit, by pouring into their hearts that poison, that God did not love them.”[13] Part of the business of gospel preaching is to extract that “poison” from the hearts of men and we will never do that with passion and urgency unless we really believe that God is sincere in his offers of mercy to sinners.
We will consider in blogs to follow the reaction of early 18th century Particular Baptists to the early stages of the Evangelical Awakening; how some reacted, why they reacted as they did, and what we can learn from it.
Jeffery Smith
Covenant Reformed Baptist Church
Easley, South Carolina
[1] Merck, 263.
[2] Iain Murray, Spurgeon and Hyper-Calvinism, 127, as quoted by Merck, 264.
[3] Haykin, Sutcliff, 19.
[4] I’m aware that there were some Hyper-Calvinist ministries that were well attended. See Oliver, History of the English Calvinistic Baptists: 1771-1892.
[5] John Murray, “The Atonement and the Free Offer of the Gospel,” in Collected Writings (Carlisle PA: Banner of Truth Trust,1989), 1:59,81
[6] Adapted from Greg Nichols, “The Doctrine of Christ” (manuscript for course taught for Trinity Ministerial Academy and Reformed Baptist Seminary: Lecture 32)
[7] Ibid.
[8] John Calvin, The Gospel According to John, 1-10, trans. T.H.L. Parker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 74, quoted by Iain Murray, The Old Evangelicalism: Old Truths For A New Awakening (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2005), 1112.
[9] John Owen, The Works of John Owen, Vol.15 (1850-53 reprint, Carlisle PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1976), 70.
[10] Owen, Works, Vol.1, 422.
[11] John Bunyan, The Works of John Bunyan, vol. 1 (1850 reprint, Carlisle PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1991), 286.
[12] Murray, Old Evangelicalism, 121. Owen, Works, Vol. 6, 523.
[13] John Knox, Works of John Knox, ed. David Lang, Vol. 5 (Edinburgh: James Thin, 1895), 24, quoted by Murray, Old Evangelicalism, 157.
13 Responses to “Spiritual Declension: Lessons from Early 18th Century Particular Baptists, Part 3-The Chilling Effect of Hyper-Calvinism”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
January 18th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
[...] Spiritual Declension: Lessons from Early 18th Century Particular Baptists, Part 3-The Chilling Effec… __________________ For the Glory of our King, Joe Johnson Slave of Christ, husband, father, Preacherboy at Cornerstone Community Church, Escanaba, MI. and TMS graduate. Personal website – SoundLife.org I do not know, and I do not say, that a person cannot believe in Revelation and in evolution, too, for a man may believe that which is infinitely wise and also that which is only asinine. ~ CHS [...]
January 20th, 2009 at 6:13 am
I have enjoyed reading Parts I and II of your series, but I cannot say I enjoyed this post.
James White is an incredibly active Reformed Baptist evangelist, yet he denies the free offer of the gospel as you have defined it and as John Murray defined it.
Your thesis, that denying the free offer of the gospel as defined by Murray leads to cold, stale, inactive churches, is utterly refuted by the example of James White.
I humbly suggest it’s time to go back to the drawing board. I look forward to the rest of the series.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTgOH4WRXz0
January 20th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Brandon,
I’m glad you’ve enjoyed the first two parts of this series. I’m sorry Part 3 was not quite as edifying. I won’t speak for Pastor Smith or for Dr. White (whose position on this topic I am unfamiliar with).
I suspect that the position you hold (and allege Dr. White holds) is akin to “High Calvinism.” Exponents of this view would include Dr. Gordon Clark, John Gerstner, David Engelsma, and Matthew Winzer. These men do in fact believe that we should command all men everywhere to repent and believe. What we may not do, however, is to portray God as in any sense desiring the salvation of the non-elect. At best, God delights in a universal command but not a sincere, well-meant offer to all sinners indiscriminately. Some concede that the preacher (since he’s not omniscient) may communicate indiscriminately his own human desire for the welfare of all his hearers. But he may not depict God as entertaining this same desire.
This is certainly a different position from that represented by men like Hussey. But I agree with Pastor Smith that it’s an unhealthy and unbiblical view. It colors our presentation of the “good news.” It conditions our view of God. Hence, it’s not inconsequential. I hope, God willing, to publish a series of posts, in which I plan to argue that both Hyper-Calvinism as well as “High Calvinism” (which in my view is just a softer view of Hyper-Calvinism) are untenable in light of careful exegesis and are non sequitur deductions from other doctrines.
Sincerely yours,
Bob Gonzales
January 20th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Bob,
Thanks for the reply. I understand High Calvinists are not Hyper-Calvinists like Hussey… but no one reading this article would understand that. You may not believe High Calvinism is Biblical, but it is just incorrect to say that it results in dead churches that do not engage in evangelism.
If you are not familiar with Dr. White’s position, please view the video link in which he very strongly rejects Murray and his claim that God has a desire to save the reprobate. Again, you can argue how Biblical that view is, but to associate it with Hyper-Calvinism, with a refusal to evangelize, is simply wrong and terribly misleading.
January 20th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Dear Brandon,
I have great respect for James White and very much appreciate his ministry. I have heard or read comments by others implying that his view of the free offer is one of denying the concept of “sincerity” or “sincere desire” in it while acknowledging that we should preach the gospel to the lost and call them to repent and believe with the promise of salvation to those who do. This is a much milder view then what characterized some early 18th century PB’s, though I still believe it is an error. However I am unfamiliar firsthand with what Dr. White says on this matter and, therefore, must refrain from assumptions about his position.
I would point out that you slightly misrepresented me in your response. You say, “Your thesis, that denying the free offer of the gospel as defined by Murray leads to cold, stale, inactive churches, is utterly refuted by the example of James White.”
That is not exactly what I said. Here is what I said, “Hyper-Calvinism TENDS to squelch evangelistic and missionary zeal in the church”….”churches coming under this influence TENDED to be marked by a lack a passion for evangelism and missions that brought an appalling deadness to the churches.”[4]
Under this last statement I have footnote 4 which says, “I am aware that there were some Hyper-Calvinist ministries that were well attended. See Oliver, History of the English Calvinistic Baptists: 1771-1892.”
These statements are an implied acknowledgement that there are exceptions. Thus none of them are refuted by the evangelistic example or zeal of James White as you state.
Also exceptions to a rule do not refute the general correctness of a rule that is stated as a general rule, not an absolute one.
I notice in Dr. Gonzales comment above that he will write further on this subject and I will therefore leave that to him. He has addressed it well in other contexts. Hope your dislike of this post will not keep you from reading and enjoying the remaining posts in my series.
Every Blessing to You in Christ,
Jeff Smith
January 20th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Brandon,
I wanted to make a further comment after reading your brief response to Dr. Gonzales’s comment. I grant, brother, that there is a distinction, as some define terms, between High Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism.
However you will notice that my statements about “sincere desire” were in the portion of the blog in which I was defining the free offer of the gospel, not defining Hyper-Calvinism.
My definition of Hyper-Calvinism is given in the first paragraph of the blog…Here is the definition I give… “What is Hyper-Calvinism? The hallmark of Hyper-Calvinism is the rejection of the free offer of the gospel to all men. It is the belief that preachers should not give indiscriminate invitations and exhortations to sinners to believe the gospel and come to Christ and to come to Christ immediately”
It is my understanding that this is an accurate historical definition of Hyper-Calvinism and I think you may agree. However I grant that an element of confusion may be there because the free offer has not yet been defined at that point and my definition later is not accepted by some who are more in the category of “High Calvinists”
Perhaps in the latter part of the blog when I give a definition of the free offer (an element of which you don’t agree with) I should have opened up the fact that some accept two of the points of that definition but not one of them.(the one I was underscoring)
I wonder though, brother, did not the fact that this is the point I argued for and emphasized as the one we need to be careful about imply that some are okay with two of the points but not this third one? Why else would I be defending it?
However, again, it probably would have been a more precise section if at some point I had clearly mentioned that the definition I give of the free offer is not accepted by some who nonetheless would define themselves as believing in the free offer(according to a different definition)
Thank you for your input.
Jeff Smith
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Hey Robert,
I had to wonder at this:
Exponents of this view would include Dr. Gordon Clark, John Gerstner, David Engelsma, and Matthew Winzer.
David: I think you wont help our understanding if you blur the distinctions between high and hyper-Calvinism. If we take Phil’s primer–and I confirmed this recently by way of a phone conversation–he is primarily concerned with marking hypercalvinism as the denial of the well-meant and sincere offer.
For Phil, and rightly so, one who denies that should be classed as hyper. Yet this is the very thing Gordon Clark, John Gerstner, David Engelsma, and Matthew Winzer have done.
Gerstner in his first edition of Wrongly Dividing denied that even the non-elect are called by the Gospel. They only hear the call to the elect. In his preface to Engelsma’s Hypercalvinism and the Call of the Gospel (second edition), he explicitly denies the well-meant offer. Winzer has said much the same. Clark the same.
If we reduce (wrongly so I believe) the marker of hypercalvinism to a denial of the well-meant offer, then by all standards, the men I’ve listed above all qualify.
Take care,
David
January 24th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Dear David,
I appreciate your thoughts and am sympathetic with your concerns. I believe that the error of so-called “High Calvinism” is driven by some of the same faulty reasoning as the kind of thinking represented in Hussey’s God’s Operations of Grace but No Offers of Grace. Moreover, insasmuch as this position fails to reflect the balance of Scripture, I believe it’s a detriment to the gospel and the church. I am planning, DV, to post a series of blogs that will support the free and sincere offer of the gospel. The study will be primarily exegetical and theological. But I will likely be seeking your guidance for good historical materials that support the exegetical and theological conclusions. Please keep in touch.
January 24th, 2009 at 1:54 am
Dr. Gonzales,
Blushing, I must admit that it was my great grandfather’s publishing house that resurrected Hussey. To my knowledge, the Primitive Publications 1973 abridgement of God’s Operations of Grace but No Offers of Grace is still the only edition to appear in modern times. The original 1792 edition is still here among my great-grandfather’s books. It was procured from an antique book dealer in Belfast for a $1.
While I have no sympathy for his hyper-Calvinism, I believe my great-grandfather at least gave modern Calvinists a mental reference point to guide them away from the obvious dangers they might have otherwise have stumbled into.
Regarding the comments of others, I must say that I believe Pastor Smith and others have probably understated, if anything, the destructive nature of this hyper-Calvinistic theology on the 18th Century Baptists. The other reasons specified in this series can just about all be traced back in one way or another to the entrance of that tragic doctrinal error. Like older Baptist historians such Armitage and Cramp, I am of the opinion that hyper-Calvinism is almost singularly to blame for the decline of these dear people.
When the Gospel is deliberately stifled to suit a man-made theological system, one cannot comprehend the umbrage God takes to the churches that are so unfaithful to their stewardship of Truth.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:33 am
hey Robert,
I am still looking forward to your series. I think it is much needed. I just read Jason’s comments. His thoughts their echo what Ive also come to conclude. I know I beaten this drum before, but back in the ’90s I was corresponding with a lot of RBs, Calvinist Baptist churches, and Maurice Roberts of the Banner of Truth in the UK. The men I corresponded with were all able to see the killing effects of hypercalvinism. Anyway, they could see what hyperism does. When I came to the States and talked with RBs here, its as if they had no real appreciation for what hyperism does to churches and to Christians. That’s been a concern for me since then.
I know what hypercalvinism does to the church as a whole and to individuals from my own experience back in Australia. It has a cultic impact as well which is also under appreciated.
Regarding the labels: the term “high” has been used–even in 19thC literature–to cover Bezarian Calvinism, Supralapsarian, Double-Predestinarian Calvinism, etc. These wings are not hypercalvinist, in themselves. I think it is best if we do not use a term which is broad enough to even include Bezarian types of Calvinism. Hypercalvinism, on the other hand, has a solid established definition which includes the denial of duty-faith, to the denial of the well-meant offer, and God’s revealed will. It’s a well-recognized term defined by Calvinists themselves who are academics or Scholars.
Of course, this is all my own opinion, and does not count for much. I just think we need to stay with the firm label of hypercalvinism to describe folk like Gill, Brine, Hussey, Hoeksema et al. I say this because we are not saying that these men simply had a more emphatic Calvinism, stressing some aspect of historic Calvinism. Hyperism is a real break from all forms of mainstream Calvinism.
Anyway, thanks.
Take care,
David
February 19th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
[...] 10 comments Site has moved. Click here. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)A Rejoinder to Nathanael SmithThe Sincere [...]
April 6th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
I agree with Brandon. There is a huge difference between believing that God does not desire the salvation of all men and throwing aside evangelism. How are we to know who the elect are? When the gospel is preached, all men are commanded to repent and believe. All those who are ordained to eternal life will believe. Just because someone does not believe in the well-meant free offer does not mean that they are anti-evangelism. A man can desire to see souls saved and not believe in the free offer.
April 7th, 2010 at 9:07 am
John,
While I agree there’s a distinction between the views above, I also believe there are similarities:
(1) Both views deduce from God’s decree to save a limited number of sinners the idea that God cannot desire (in any sense) the salvation of men who never experience that salvation.
(2) Both views, therefore, color the portrait of the God we present indiscriminately to sinners. Does this God feel compassion toward the unconverted man to whom I’m speaking and desire that this person comply with the terms of the gospel? Both views require us to refrain from answering that question in the affirmative.
(3) Both views influence the way we do evangelism. The view that confines evangelism to the elect requires us to try to detect signs or evidences that God may be convicting a man of sin and drawing him to look to God for mercy as probable indications that he’s one of the elect before evangelizing him. The view that says we’re to command all men everywhere to repent and believe the “gospel” (which I put in quotes since according to this view the “goodness” of the news is completely conditioned on whether the audience is elect or non-elect) forbid us to suggest that God might desire them to comply with the terms of the gospel and be saved since we’re not omniscient. Interestingly, one of the advocates of this positions concedes that we (the preacher) may express our desire that each and every sinner we preach to believe and be saved since we don’t know God’s decree. This he calls “blind compassion.” But I agree with Pastor Smith that the restricting of any kind of divine desire toward the salvation of fallen humanity considered indiscriminately has, as history often shows, a tendency over time to stifle a passion for the lost.
(4) John Calvin affirmed that God so loved “the world,” which he defined as fallen humanity in general and not the elect, that he send his Son so that whoever (from the ocean of fallen humanity) believed should not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). Calvin also interpreted 2 Peter 3:9, which speaks of God’s unwillingness that any should perish but that all should come to repentance, as referring to all fallen humans indiscriminately. Inasmuch as both positions restrict the scope of these passages to the elect based on an inference from God’s decree, they are going beyond (hyper) Calvin.
So while neither of the positions censured above completely denies all forms of evangelism, I believe they color evangelism for the worse. I am quite convinced that the free and well-meant offer of the gospel is exegetically, theologically, and logically sound. I believe an affirmation of the free and well-meant offer of the gospel represents the best and most biblical form of Calvinism.
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales