30 Bible Doctrine – The Emergence Of 17th Century Hyper-Calvinism

A transcript of the video teaching

I would like to welcome you back to another study in Bible Doctrine. In our previous study, I pointed out the broadest definition for Hyper-Calvinism is any teaching which goes beyond that of Calvin himself. It is in that sense I am using the label as we consider the emergence of Hyper-Calvinism during the 17^th century. 

I believe there are two branches of Hyper-Calvinism, one which came about during the 17^th century, beginning with the publication of John Calvin’s Institutes in the year 1536 and culminating with the 1689 Baptist confession; the other came about during the 18^th century, beginning with two sermons preached by Benjamin Keach in the year 1692 and culminating in the year 1770 with John Gill’s Body of Divinity. In addition to these branches are a couple of modifications made to the mainstream Calvinism of these centuries. The first came about during the 1630’s, led by men such as John Cameron and Moses Amyraut, and around twenty years after them, some further revisions were made by Richard Baxter. The second came about during the 1780’s, led by Andrew Fuller, whose views, though based on Almyraldism and Baxterism, made further revisions. One of the most famous exponents of Fullerism was Charles Spurgeon. 

For this study, I would like to concentrate my thoughts on 17^th century Hyper-Calvinism, tracing out its emergence during the 16^th and 17^th centuries. 

Calvinism emerged during the Protestant Reformation of the 16^th century. In the year 1517, a German preacher named Martin Luther (1483-1546) posted to the church doors in Wittenberg, Germany a statement against papal indulgences in what has become known as the Ninety-Five Theses. Almost twenty years later, a French theologian named John Calvin (1509-1564) published a body of divinity entitled “The Institutes of the Christian Religion”, wherein he systematically outlined the basic tenets of the Reformation. The central theme of Calvin’s theology was the sovereign grace of God unto salvation, with particular emphasis on the doctrine of predestination. His Institutes were published in four volumes. The first book has eighteen chapters, dealing with man’s knowledge of God the Creator; the second has seventeen chapters, dealing with man’s knowledge of God the Redeemer; the third has twenty-five chapters, dealing with God’s method of applying the grace of Christ to sinners; the fourth has twenty chapters, dealing with the doctrine of the church. In the year 1560, John Knox (1514-1572) organized the Presbyterian denomination, its church polity based squarely on the teachings of Calvin’s Institutes. Of course, the fourth volume of Calvin’s Institutes has little worth for Baptists, as the teachings run contrary to the basic tenets of congregational order and the simplicity of Christ in the church ordinances. However, the first three volumes, all of which deal with the sovereign grace of God unto salvation, are the foundation blocks upon which Hyper-Calvinism is built. Calvin’s Institutes, therefore, are the baseline upon which we measure the ‘highs’ and ‘lows’ of Calvinism. That is not to say, however, that Calvin’s Institutes represents a perfect expression biblical teachings. Not only are there many flaws and errors woven into the fabric of his writings, many of his teachings are rudimentary in form, standing in need of development and refinement. Nevertheless, it is his writings which largely encapsulate the essence of 16^th century reformed theology, and therefore they serve as the baseline against which subsequent teachings are measured. 

We may now return to the question, what is Hyper-Calvinism? Broadly speaking, Hyper-Calvinism is any form of doctrine which adds to the teachings of Calvin himself—that which goes beyond Calvin. This is an important definition if our goal is to trace the emergence of Hyper-Calvinism during the 17^th and 18^th centuries. According to this definition, the first notable Hyper-Calvinist was Calvin’s successor in Geneva, a French theologian named Theodore Beza (1519-1605). Although he was a student and close friend of Calvin, he was also an independent thinker and pursuer of truth. After Calvin’s death, Beza developed several important doctrines which were left open-ended in Calvin’s Institutes. For example:

1. Original Sin. Calvin maintained Adam’s sin is imparted to all those born of his seed, insomuch that they are spiritually corrupt. However, he says little about the imputation of Adam’s transgression to his posterity. It was Beza who developed this side of the teachings, setting forth a clear framework for the doctrine of judicial condemnation. Beza’s enlargement of this doctrine was adopted by both branches of Hyper-Calvinism.

2. Predestination. Calvin took the view of double-predestination, believing that God has chosen some to salvation (election), and others to damnation (reprobation). He also took the view of sublapsarianism, believing that God made this choice in election and reprobation while viewing the human race in sin. Thus, Calvin wrote in his paper on Predestination, “God chose out of the condemned race of Adam those whom He pleased and reprobated whom He willed.” Beza, on the other hand, nurtured a different view. While he also believed in double-predestination, he understood the logical order of God’s decree to be that of supralapsarianism. That is, God made his choice in election and reprobation before viewing the human race in sin. This was a significant departure from Calvin’s position. While not all agreed with Beza’s view, some of the leading theologians of the 16^th and 17^th centuries did agree, among whom were William Perkins and William Twisse. Nevertheless, 17^th century Hyper-Calvinistism maintained Calvin’s view on God’s order of decrees, whereas many of the 18^th century Hyper-Calvinists would adopt Beza’s view. 

3. Atonement. According to Calvin’s comments on 1 John 2:2, he maintained a distinction between the sufficiency and efficiency of Christ’s atonement—“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.” Henceforth, Calvin subscribed to a general atonement, with Christ’s sufferings sufficient to save the whole world, but also to a particular redemption, with Christ’s sufferings applicable only to the elect. 

Beza, on the other hand, having developed a robust framework on the logical order of God’s decree, took the view that Christ died only for the elect—the sufficiency of the atonement is in exact proportion to its efficiency in redemption. He wrote, “The one and only sacrifice of Christ once made, is sufficient for the abolishing of all the sins of all the faithful.” And again, “It is impious and blasphemous…to say that those whose sins have been expiated through the death of Christ, or for whom Christ has satisfied, can be condemned.” Properly speaking, therefore, the doctrine of limited atonement was developed by Beza, whereas Calvin only taught a particular redemption. 

However, when the synod of Dort drew up its canons in 1618, it appears they adopted Calvin’s view on the atonement, rather than Beza’s. Under the section on the death of Christ and the redemption of men, Article 3 states—“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.” This position allowed for the synod to advocate a conditional covenant of grace requiring faith and repentance of unregenerate sinners, for Article 5 states—“Moreover, the promise of the gospel is, that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified, shall not perish, but have everlasting 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.” The idea is, while Christ has made salvation possible through a general atonement sufficient for the whole world, it is up to the sinner to activate the atoning benefits by believing on Christ and repenting of sin.

Beza was not in agreement with this position, and though he was not alone in his view, it wouldn’t be until the 18^th century, during the second wave of Hyper-Calvinism, that his view would be widely accepted and adopted. Henceforth, the first wave of 17^th century Hyper-Calvinism maintained Calvin’s view on universal atonement, whereas the second wave of 18^th century Hyper-Calvinism adopted Beza’s view on limited atonement. 

4. Justification. Although Calvin took the view that the sinner is forgiven on the basis of Christ’s death (His passive obedience), he did not have much to say on the sinner being made right with God on the basis of His righteousness (active obedience). Beza, however, developed this doctrine, distinguishing between the passive and active aspects of justifying grace. Both branches of Hyper-Calvinism adopted Beza’s teachings.

5. Covenantalism. Covenant theology, as it exists today, was not formulated by John Calvin. Although the concepts of a covenant of works and an eternal covenant between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are alluded to in his Institutes, he does not make use of these labels. Nor does he enter into any meaningful discussion on how these covenants fit together or work themselves out in the grand scheme of God’s masterplan for the ages. He does, however, refer to a covenant of life, mercy and grace, which he understands to be one and the same with other major covenants of the Bible (such as the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants), the substance of which is administered differently before and after the birth of Christ. Henceforth, while the rudiments of Covenant theology are hinted at in Calvin’s Institutes, its enlargement and refinement is the result of other notable theologians. 

For instance, in the mid-1590’s, a minister in the Church of Scotland named Robert Rollock (1555-1599) referred to a “covenant of works” God made with Adam prior to the Fall, which may be the first time this covenant is called by that name. And then, in the early seventeenth century, an English Puritan minister name William Ames (1576-1633) formally distinguished between the covenant of redemption made between the three Persons of the Godhead from eternity and a covenant of grace God makes with sinners in time. It is this framework, set forth by Ames, which became the dominant view of 17^th century Hyper-Calvinism. Beginning with the covenant of redemption, they understood this to be an eternal agreement between the Father in electing love and the Son in redeeming grace, marking out the terms and promises of salvation for sinners. Some, but not all, believed this eternal covenant included the agreement of the Spirit in sanctifying power. However, they relegated this covenant to the backdrop of history, believing it to be a blueprint for God’s saving grace, rather than the actualization of it in time. Within the context of time, they believed God entered into two separate covenants with the human race. The first is the covenant of works, made by God with Adam before he sinned, requiring of him perfect obedience to the law inscribed upon his heart—the penalty for disobedience is death. The second is the covenant of grace, made by God with Adam (or promised to him) after he sinned, requiring of him saving faith in Christ—the penalty for not savingly trusting on Christ is death. Now, not all 17^th century Hyper-Calvinists would explain it in these terms, but generally speaking, this was the basic framework of their covenant theology. 

R. C. Sproul (1939-2017), a minister in the Presbyterian Church of America, and one who is highly esteemed as a Bible scholar by modern Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists, wrote a book entitled, “What Is Reformed Theology?” On page 132, a table appears with the title “Three Covenants”. For the covenant of redemption, he tells us the parties are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; the initiator is God the Father; the time is in eternity past; the conditions are none; the rewards are none; and the penalties are none. For the covenant of works, he tells us the parties are God and human beings; the initiator is God; the time is at creation; the condition is perfect obedience; the reward is life; and the penalty for disobedience is death (physical and spiritual). For the covenant of grace, he tells us the parties are God and sinful human beings; the initiator is God; the time is after the Fall; the condition is faith in Christ (who satisfied the condition of the covenant of works); the reward is spiritual life; and the penalty for unbelief is death.

Now, this 17^th century covenantal framework found expression in three major confessional statements of that century. The first of these was drawn up in 1646 called the Westminster Confession. This document was produced by the Westminster Assembly to be used by the Church of England, but it also became a standard of doctrine for the Church of Scotland and remains one of the most influential confessional statements among Presbyterian churches today. We read in chapter 7, under the title, “Of God’s Covenant With Man”—“The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe…It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man…(Chapter 8)”

The second major confessional statement is called the Savoy Declaration which was drawn up in the year 1658, to be used by the Congregationalists and Independent churches. The main body of the confession is one and the same with the 1646 Westminster Confession, and although there are additions and subtractions throughout the document, yet it subscribes to the same covenantal framework. We read in chapter 7—“The first covenant made with man, was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called 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, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe…It pleased God, in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus his only begotten Son, according to a covenant made between them both, to be the Mediator between God and man…(Chapter 8)”

The third major confessional statement is called the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith which was drawn up in the year 1677, but formally endorsed in 1689, by representatives of various Particular Baptist churches. Although the Reformed Baptists claim this confessional statement served as a standard of orthodoxy unifying the Particular Baptist denomination, it had no such purpose nor did it accomplished that end. The statement was drawn up and adopted by the churches for the sole purpose of earning the respect of other reformed groups and avoiding persecution from a tyrannical government. It is for this reason they used the 1646 Westminster Confession and the 1658 Savoy Declaration as doctrinal templates, subscribing to the same covenantal framework. We read in chapter 7—“The first covenant made with man, was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called 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, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe. This covenant…is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect…”

Now, according to these confessional statements, 17^th century Hyper-Calvinism revolved around a threefold covenantal framework—a covenant of redemption consigned to the backdrop of history; a covenant of works requiring perfect obedience to the heart law; a covenant of grace requiring saving faith in Christ. And, it is on the basis of this covenantal framework that three major doctrines were formulated, all of which would come under fire by 18^th century Hyper-Calvinism. 

The first doctrine is that of the free offer of the gospel—it is asserted that the free gift of God unto salvation is to be offered (rather than preached) to unregenerate sinners. (1) The 1646 Westminster Confession—“He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ”; (2) The 1658 Savor Declaration—“he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ”; (3) 1689 Baptist Confession—“he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ”. 

The second doctrine is that of duty faith—it is asserted that the unregenerate sinner is under a spiritual and/or moral duty to believe on Christ to the saving of his/her soul. (1) The 1646 Westminster Confession—“requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved”; (2) The 1658 Savor Declaration—“requiring of them faith in him that they may be saved”; (3) 1689 Baptist Confession—“requiring of them faith in him that they may be saved”.

The third doctrine is that of the believer’s rule of conduct—it is asserted that the regenerate sinner is responsible to walk with God according to his/her obedience to the moral law (ten commandments). All three confessional statements use the same language, under the same 19^th Article, On the Law of God: “The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly.”

Alright, well this, in a nutshell, is a brief overview for the emergence of 17^th century Hyper-Calvinism. By relegating the covenant of redemption to the backdrop of history and creating an additional covenant of grace God makes with sinners in time, the groundwork was laid for a conditional salvation to be brought to the forefront. Forthwith, the unregenerate would be duty-bound to exercise a saving faith they do not possess; the preachers would be duty-bound to make gospel offers to the unregenerate with a commissional authorization they have not been given; and the regenerate would be duty-bound to bring themselves under the yoke of the ten commandments. And, in addition to the groundwork being laid for these false doctrines, this threefold covenantal framework also opened the door for a number of grievous heresies, such as Almyraldism and Baxterism of the 17^th century, with Fullerism and Spurgeonism of the 18^th and 19^th centuries. 

Now, although this threefold covenantal framework was in wide circulation during the 17^th century, it would be brought under extreme scrutiny at the turn of the 1700’s. 18^th century Hyper-Calvinism would distinguish itself by making refinements to this covenantal framework. In turn, the doctrines of duty-faith, the free-offer and the moral law as a rule of conduct for the believer’s life would be strictly rejected; and the apostasy of Almyraldism, Baxterism, Fullerism and Spurgeonism would be concretely repudiated. And it is to that subject I will give attention during our next study. 

Before closing, I would just like to say something about the mainstream Calvinism of our day, represented by the Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist denominations. If you are at all familiar with their stance on these issues, you will know they invariably claim the high ground by calling themselves the true Calvinists; the balanced Calvinists; the Calvinists who are aligned with the teachings of Calvin himself. They then discard historic Hyper-Calvinism as a modification and/or deviation of true Calvinism. The fact is, the Presbyterians and the Reformed Baptists embrace a Hyper-Calvinism all their own. As I have pointed out in this study, they have adopted major views that were not taught by Calvin. They therefore do not have the high ground in this discussion. We are all Hyper-Calvinists in some measure. The question is, which type of Hyper-Calvinism is the most reformed and consistent with the Scriptures? My dear friends, if you subscribe to this 18^th century Hyper-Calvinism, then you belong to a proud lineage and rich heritage of gospel witnesses. I want you to know that. And, learning of this history is not an end to itself. It is a means to a greater end. We study this history in order to be better equipped to serve the Lord for today. These witnesses of past generations fought a good fight; they finished their course; they kept the faith; they made full proof of their ministries. What will the generations following say of you and me? May it please the Lord to give us that same testimony when the time of our departure is at hand! 

Alright, until we meet again, I wish upon you the blessings of the Lord!