There are a few different ways to be a Calvinist.

1.) There is the consistent soteriological view as represented by such thinkers/writers as Gordon Clark; R.K. McGregor Wright; John Gertsner; Thomas Nettles; David Engelsma. These writers see that there are no Arminian verses in scripture and they affirm that God designs the atonement to save the elect. There is no desire in God to save the non-elect.

2.) There are Calvinists that are less consistent such as John Piper, Thomas Schreiner, Iain Murray, John Murray, J.I. Packer. These are also five pointers but they affirm a two will solution to God's saving plan, so they speak of God's desire to save the non-elect, which grounds the so called "Free offer of the Gospel." They would affirm that God designed the atonement to save the elect, but they concede an Arminian reading of such passages as 1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, John 3:16 (See Schreiner's Comm. NAC on 2 Peter for example).

3.) There are some who are so-called 4 point Calvinists. The do not hold to limited atonement. Bruce Ware is a case in point (some are more reformed and some are dispensational) such as several at Dallas Seminary. They tend to be more inconsistent than the second group. This view has a strange mix of election and a general intent in the atonement.

Remember all these views have several variations and some people are hard to be categorized.

The obvious group that are really Hyper-Calvinists are the Gospel Standard folks in England. One of their articles states that they deny that we should preach the gospel to every person. Also they deny that it is the duty of every person to believe or repent. Though I personally don't agree with their exposition of this doctrinal distinctive, I believe they have a legitimate concern. I do not advocate the "free offer." Thomas Nettles has a very good discussion of this issue in His wonderful book, By His Grace and For His Glory. This work has two main sections: A Historical survey, and A Doctrinal Exposition survey. In the earlier portion Nettles exonerates Joh Gill from charges that he was a Hyper-Calvinist, and in the latter section he exemplifies a "consistent Calvinism" showing variations within the fold but recommending a consistent path, especially on the Atonement. His discussion on the practical ramifications of Calvinism and the serious commitment to the sufficiency of Scripture is alone worth the price of the book.

Not all Calvinists are created equal!