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:  (☻)