Answering John Samson’s Charges Against Hyper-Calvinism

According to Effectual Grace, John Samson is “the founding pastor-teacher of King’s Church in Peoria, Arizona, as well as an author and conference speaker. He has a passion for the local Church and for the free offer of the gospel to be proclaimed far and wide. He has been a contributing writer at the monergism.com blogsite and of www.reformationtheology.com since 2005.” It is therefore not surprising to discover articles submitted by Samson to Monergism.com regarding the free offer of the gospel. One such submission was made on January 19, 2011, entitled, “Calvinism vs. Hyper Calvinism”.

Monergism.com has more than thirty articles listed on its website in opposition to Hyper-Calvinism. Not one publication accurately identifies its leading tenets. I have decided to answer these articles, each in turn. Some are less worthy of attention, such as the one before me. Since Samson hides behind the arguments of Phil Johnson, I am left to engage the latter rather than the former, therefore negating, in some measure, the need to respond to Samson himself. Nevertheless, I do so and trust the answer will be helpful to the reader.

Samson begins his article with the following quote:

“Remember… while some Arminians are Armenians and some Armenians are Arminians, Armenians and Arminians are two very different groups. Second, while it’s true that some Calvinists can be a bit hyper, that doesn’t make them Hyper-Calvinists.” – Justin Taylor”

What exactly does Taylor mean by “a bit hyper”? Since I do not have access to his entire statement, I cannot say. But it is strange Samson should select a quote that is both ambiguous and misleading, as a preface to his article against Hyper-Calvinism.  

“It is indeed unfortunate that a man’s name (John Calvin) has come to be associated with the doctrines of grace. It is actually something that I am sure Calvin would have opposed himself. Calvin was a humble man of God who spoke very rarely about himself. Even his greatest critics will acknowledge that it is indeed hard to find personal references in his sermons. He actually made his wish known that he would be buried in an unmarked grave so that no undue adulation or veneration would occur at his gravesite after death. This wish was carried out (by the way). In visiting Geneva, Switzerland, I was never able to visit Calvin’s grave for the simple reason that, even to this day, no one knows where it is.

“Calvin was by no means the first person to articulate the doctrines of election and predestination. For example, there was nothing in Calvin that was not first in Luther. Yet it was Calvin who was the chief systematizer of these doctrines through his widely influential book “The Institutes of the Christian Religion.””

It is good Samson understands the reason sovereign grace is labeled “Calvinism”. However, it is odd he opposes the name on the sole basis that Calvin himself would not approve. I suspect he has other reasons for rejecting the label, but he has not made them known.

“I think what is even more unfortunate is the fact that some errant doctrines, having no basis in Scripture, has come to be called “Hyper Calvinism.” It would better to describe these doctrines as “sub” rather than ” hyper” Calvinism, as they are so far below the dignity and, dare I say it, “the balance” of the doctrines espoused by Calvin.”

The Reformed teachings of the 16^th century, among which were Calvin’s “Institutes”, were not set in stone. There remained a steady advancement and development of various doctrines, culminating in the 17^th century confessional statements of the Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Baptists. There are in all three confessions “hyper” teachings when compared to Calvin’s “Institutes”. It may be argued the aforementioned Denominations have added to Calvin’s teachings thereby formulating their own shade of Hyper-Calvinism. Apparently, Samson is (or was—the article is from 2011) either unaware of these 17^th century “hyper” views, or, he knows there are differences, but sanctions his “hyper” Calvinism while condemning that of others. Perhaps this is the reason he chose Taylor’s statement at the beginning of the article—he understands himself to be “a bit hyper”, but exonerates himself from Hyper-Calvinism. 

“Hyper Calvinism denies the need for evangelism. More than that, it opposes evangelism. In contrast, Calvin’s doctrines of predestination and election did not make evangelism a rarity, but Geneva, under Calvin, was something of a missions center, as men were sent out to many nations with the Gospel – many of them, knowing full well that certain death awaited them. A great missions movement began under the ministry of John Calvin.”

Samson has brought a serious charge against Hyper-Calvinism, and therefore it is required he back it up with evidence. Name the Hyper-Calvinists who deny the need for evangelism. Name the Hyper-Calvinists who oppose evangelism. Search the writings of John Gill, John Brine, John Ryland, William Huntington, William Gadsby, John Kershaw, Robert Hawker, Joseph Philpot, James Wells, etc. These men were historic Hyper-Calvinists (denouncing duty faith and the free offer of the gospel). They ministered to thousands of sinners, preaching a full and free gospel to all. One reason they opposed the free offer is because they viewed it as unscriptural proselyting. Whereas preaching a full and free gospel was understood to be biblical evangelism. As the result of evangelizing their communities, preachers were trained under their ministries and many churches organized. Samson is failing to distinguish between gospel preaching (biblical evangelism) which is carried out by the Hyper-Calvinists and free offers (unscriptural proselyting) which is peddled by the Moderate-Calvinists.

“Pastor Phil Johnson writes, “some critics unthinkingly slap the label “hyper” on any variety of Calvinism that is higher than the view they hold to. Arminians like to equate all five-point Calvinism with hyper-Calvinism (as Calvary-Chapel author George Bryson does in his horrible little book, The Five Points of Calvinism: “Weighed and Found Wanting” [Costa Mesa: Word for Today, 1996]). That approach lacks integrity and only serves to confuse people.””

Phil Johnson is the last person to consult on the subject of Hyper-Calvinism. His “Primer” is based on false presuppositions which lead to erroneous conclusions and ludicrous allegations. In any case, as pointed out above, Samson and Johnson are “hyper” Calvinists of the 17^th century mould. To ignore or deny this fact lacks integrity and only serves to confuse people. 

“Pastor Johnson goes on to define hyper Calvinism in the following way:

“”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.”

I should reserve a fuller answer to these charges in a separate response to Johnson’s “Primer on Hyper-Calvinism”, from whence the above points are taken. In short: 

1. The gospel proclamation belongs to the preacher, whereas the gospel call belongs to the Spirit of God. It is the Spirit’s role to call unto salvation all that should be saved. The preacher’s duty is to preach (proclaim) the gospel to all (ALL); it is the Spirit’s work to call the elect unto Christ by regenerative power. That is how Hyper-Calvinists evangelize, my dear friends. It appears Johnson would like to jump start the process by making ineffectual calls unto salvation. Having said that, Hyper-Calvinists are not opposed to extending invitations to all who thirst for salvation. To such who have ears to hear, eyes to see and a thirst to quench, we say, “Come unto Christ and take the water of life freely…if you are labouring and are heavy laden with sin, come unto Christ and He will give you rest; take His yoke upon you, and learn of Him; for He is meek and lowly in heart, and your soul will find rest.”

2. Saving faith is a gift which is imparted to the soul as the result of regeneration, so it is certainly not a spiritual duty imposed upon the unregenerate. “But,” says one, “the sinner’s inability doesn’t negate his/her responsibility.” This would be true if saving faith were a duty imposed by God under the authority of the Covenant of Works. However, saving faith is a privilege granted by God under the authority of the Covenant of Grace (Redemption), and therefore only those who are experientially brought under that jurisdiction (via the new birth) are given the warrant (legal right) to savingly believe on Christ. Johnson and Samson will not understand this point, as they dichotomize the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace, imposing saving faith on the latter as a condition for salvation. Another will ask, “What then is the responsibility of the unregenerate if it is not to savingly believe on Christ?” So long as they remain in an unregenerate condition, they are duty bound to the law inscribed upon their hearts, under the authority of the Covenant of Works. God therefore requires of them to believe in Him as Creator and Lawgiver, but this is a natural faith which has no saving virtue.  

3. First, Johnson must show biblical support for his free offer system. The word offer is never used in the Scriptures with reference to the presentation of the gospel to sinners. Rather, the Bible sets forth the gospel as a message that is to be heralded, proclaimed, preached, taught, etc. And that is exactly what Hyper-Calvinists do—they proclaim a full and free gospel to ALL sinners. They do not view sinners as the “elect” and “non-elect”, preaching to the one but discarding the others. Rather, they preach the gospel to all sinners, waiting upon the Lord to reveal by His regenerative power those who are set apart by the redeeming grace of Christ. Second, Hyper-Calvinists do not believe the free offer is a free gospel. The nature of an offer puts salvation into the hands of the sinner, thereby imposing upon him/her a tax, or duty, of faith and repentance. Although Johnson and Samson are under the impression their offer of grace is “free” because it is called a “free offer”, they actually preach an unfree gospel by making their offers contingent upon the decision, faith and repentance of the sinner. Listen carefully to their sermons. The first forty minutes will be, “Sinner, YOU CAN DO NOTHING to earn your salvation!” The last five minutes will be, “Sinner, if you want to be born again, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO is accept the offer by believing and repenting.” Which is it? A free gospel or a free offer? A saving faith or a duty faith? 

4. There is a common grace unto creation which extends to the entire human race—God causes the sun to rise and the rain to fall on the elect and the non-elect. There is also a special grace unto salvation which extends only to the elect. However, what Johnson and Samson mean by common grace is an infinite virtue in the atoning blood of Christ that is able to save the non-elect, if only they savingly believe on Him. It is on this basis they offer the gospel to the non-elect—although Christ did not intentionally die for them (Particular Redemption), yet the non-elect can potentially become partakers of His redeeming grace (General Atonement), if only they will accept the offer by believing and repenting (Free Offer and Duty Faith). Richard Baxter taught something similar, out from which sprung Neonomianism, a heresy fiercely opposed by John Owen and Benjamin Keach. In fact, it was Baxter’s heresy which led Keach to abandon the covenantal framework of the 1689 Confession (that which Samson and Johnson embrace) in favor of that which became the basis for 18^th century Hyper-Calvinism. 

5. According to the logical order of God’s decree, the Father (depicted as a potter) envisioned the human race without sin. From the same “lump”  of clay, He set some persons apart as objects of special love, making them vessels unto honor, setting aside the others as objects of less love, making them vessels unto dishonor. Thereafter the Father decreed the human race would come into the world under the headship of Adam, and therefore in sin. The non-elect would be left in their sins, made the vessels of wrath and fitted to destruction, whereas the elect would be saved from their sins, made the vessels of mercy and prepared unto glory. From this perspective, the Father exercised a “love” towards the elect and the non-elect within His decree, but according to a different measure. However, He certainly does not extend a saving love towards the non-elect, from eternity or in time. 

“Hyper-Calvinism, simply stated, is a doctrine that emphasizes divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility”. 

Here is one of Johnson’s false presuppositions. Understanding not the basis for Hyper-Calvinism, he assumes it must be founded upon a false balance between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. He could not be further from the truth. The leading tenets of historic Hyper-Calvinism are: (1) duty faith is not a spiritual or legal duty imposed upon the unregenerate; (2) the gospel is not to be offered in its proclamation to sinners; (3) the gospel is the rule of conduct for the believer’s life. All three tenets are derived from a covenant theology unique to 18^th century Hyper-Calvinism. 

The Covenantal Basis For Hyper-Calvinism

A covenant is an agreement between two or more persons, with certain obligations (laws) binding them together. Every relationship is based upon the authority of a covenant. Every covenant is governed by its own law (obligations). Every person is duty bound to the law which governs the covenant under which he/she is subject. 

There are two spiritual and perpetual covenants running throughout the course of history. First, a Covenant of Works, made between God and Adam on behalf of the human race, under which all unregenerate sinners are accountable to God and duty bound to perfectly obey the law inscribed upon their hearts. Second, a Covenant of Grace (Redemption), made between the three Persons of the Godhead on behalf of the elect, under which all regenerate sinners are accountable to God and privilege bound to savingly believe on Christ. 

So long as the sinner remains in an unregenerate condition, he/she is duty bound to the heart law, under the authority of the Covenant of Works—there is no gospel promise or saving privileges under this covenant, and therefore the unregenerate are not duty bound to savingly believe on Christ. However, when the sinner is born again, he/she is delivered from the authority of the Covenant of Works, being brought experientially under the authority of the Covenant of Grace, thereby given the warrant (legal authority) to savingly believe on Christ. 

My dear friends, Hyper-Calvinism rightly defines human responsibility, distinguishing between the two spiritual covenants and the duties/privileges belonging to the unregenerate and the regenerate. Johnson and Samson, on the other hand, subscribe to an entirely different covenantal framework, thereby imposing privileges (as duties) upon the unregenerate which belong only to the regenerate. They have concocted a mixed gospel of law and grace, making an uncertain sound to believers and unbelievers alike.

“To call it “hyper-Calvinism” is something of a misnomer. It is actually a rejection of historic Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism entails a denial of what is taught in both Scripture and the major Calvinistic creeds, substituting instead an imbalanced and unbiblical notion of divine sovereignty.””

Historic Calvinism? Johnson would have to go back to the 16^th century and confine himself to Calvin’s “Institutes”. The major calvinistic creeds of the 17^th century are just that—“calvinistic”. They are not pure statements on Calvin’s teachings, but a series of “improvements” brought about by the Reformers and Puritans of the 16^th and 17^th centuries. Why does Johnson allow for his improvements to Calvin’s teachings, but not those of the 18^th century divines? He falsely presents himself as a Calvinist purist, unfairly condemning those who have brought further reforms to the teachings. 

Johnson embraces an unbiblical framework of covenant theology, leading to erroneous views on sovereign grace and sets forth a convoluted message to sinners. He is doing what Richard Baxter and Andrew Fuller did for their generations—unequally yoking law with grace, an abominable union responsible for the offspring of Duty Faith and the Free Offer. 

“I completely agree and very much recommend the rest of Phil Johnson’s insightful article on this here.”

Why Samson submitted this article for publication I do not know. Rather than making a personal contribution to the discussion, he has copied and pasted the allegations and arguments of Phil Johnson’s “Primer”, then pointing the reader to examine the rest of that “insightful” e-pamphlet. Nevertheless, Samson’s approach to the subject provides an excellent example on the main problem with those who opine on Hyper-Calvinism. Rather than examining the issues without bias, and seeking answers from the horse’s mouth, they parrot the ignorant views of non Hyper-Calvinists, creating an echo chamber of nonsense. 

Lastly, Monergism.com must also answer for the section on their website which lists Hyper-Calvinism as a “heresy”. In so doing, it has condemned faithful gospel preachers of past and present, among whom are John Gill, William Gadsby, Joseph Philpot and others today whose names I withhold lest Monergism.com creates a new list on their blog for “heretics”. If Monergism.com truly seeks to be objective and fair in its definitions and appraisals, it should review its statement on Hyper-Calvinism and identify its tenets, history and proponents accurately.