In religious speak, various views are often labeled some type of “hyper-ism” – Hyper-Calvinism, Hyper-Dispensationalism, Hyper-Arminianism, and so on.[i]
“Hyper…ism” can be a useful description. The English prefix “hyper” means excess or exaggeration. It comes from the Greek ὑπέρ (huper), which means over or above. Some belief systems go “over and above” what is normally described by certain theological terms, such as Calvinism or Dispensationalism. A “hyper” belief may take some point of a particular theology to excess. Hyper-Calvinism probably most generally and historically describes a view that says it is unbiblical to exhort someone to repent and believe the gospel unless the preacher has some evidence that the person so exhorted is one of God’s elect.[ii] Hyper-Dispensationalism normally describes a belief that the church age or New Testament age does not begin until sometime in the middle of the book of Acts or later. This can get really confusing because some people divide these “hyper” views into “Hyper-Dispensationalism” (church begins Mid-Acts, e.g., Acts 9 or Acts 13) and “Ultra-Dispensationalism” (church begins in Acts 28 or later).
“Hyper…ism” can be an unhelpful description, because it often has no set meaning. The meaning often is determined by its distance from or relation to the speaker or writer using the term. For example, some non-Calvinists may speak of any type of Calvinism as “Hyper-Calvinism.” A non-dispensationalist may speak of any kind of dispensationalism as “Hyper-Dispensationalism.” Such uses are usually pejorative and polemic. It is also problematic because such a description is usually used about or against someone rather than it being how a person or group describes themselves. In other words, a church or denomination will not likely say, “Oh, yes, of course we are ‘hyper…ists.” They see their view as correct, not hyper. “Hyper…ism” is describing by comparison and according to the extreme, whether correctly or not.
When used for the better, a “hyper” issue is an overemphasis on a part of the Bible or theological teaching while disregarding a corresponding part of the Bible or theological teaching. The terminology exists and cannot be avoided. Nevertheless, it is probably best used sparingly, and when using it we should carefully define what we mean.
No comments:
Post a Comment