When talking to one hyper-Calvinist on the Theology List on December 7th of 2001, Phil Johnson wrote:
The root of your problem is that you apparently imagine a conflict would exist in the will of God if God, who has not ordained some men to salvation, nonetheless desires all men to repent and seek His mercy. That is, in fact, precisely the false dilemma virtually all hyper-Calvinists make for themselves. They cannot reconcile God's preceptive will with His decretive will, so they end up (usually) denying the sincerity of the preceptive will, or else denying that the pleading and calls to salvation apply to all who hear the gospel.Also, on Mar. 29th, 2000 on the Theology List, Johnson said:
There are some who call themselves Calvinists but who deny that the gospel includes any _bona fide_, well-meant offer of mercy or sincere plea for all hearers to be reconciled to God. I have argued that such a view is not Calvinism at all; it is hyper-Calvinism. (I have an article posted on the Web that explains why I believe that label is justified.)
5 comments:
In light of this post, what are your thoughts on James White's recent explosion on this issue?
http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3197
Chris,
I think his "explosion" was about as significant as the popping of Rice Krispies. It's unworthy of a response, except to say that he would have to call his own friends, Phil Johnson and Tom Ascol, "Squeamish Calvinists," since they (like John Murray) also wholeheartedly affirm God's desire for the salvation of all men in the revealed will.
He mentions "Murray" which I take as a reference to Iain Murray's Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism.
But as you note, I wondered if he was not also throwing John Murray and the free offer under the bus as well. In that case, most serving in NAPARC denominations would likely qualify as "squeamish" as well.
Hi Chris,
To highlight the absurdity of his "squeamish" accusation, he would even have to say that Calvin was a "squeamish Calvinist"!
Further, he would have to say that William Bates, Louis Berkhof, Henry Bullinger, John Bunyan, Jeremiah Burroughs, D. A. Carson, Thomas Cartwright, Robert Candlish, Thomas Chalmers, Stephen Charnock, Ezekiel Culverwell, William Cunningham, R. L. Dabney, John L. Dagg, James Durham, Jonathan Edwards, John Flavel, John Frame, Andrew Fuller, William Greenhill, Andrew Grey, Rudolph Gwalther, Matthew Henry, Oliver Heywood, Charles Hodge, John Howe, Erroll Hulse, Andreas Hyperius, Hanserd Knollys, R. B. Kuiper, Hugh Latimer, Edward Leigh, D. M. Lloyd-Jones, John MacArthur, Thomas Manton, Iain Murray, Wolfgang Musculus, J. I. Packer, John Piper, John Preston, Edward Reynolds, O. Palmer Robertson, Samuel Rutherford, J. C. Ryle, Henry Scudder, W. G. T. Shedd, Charles Spurgeon, George Swinnock, Francis Turretin, Zacharias Ursinus, Vermigli, Nathaniel Vincent, Sam Waldron, Thomas Watson, William Whately, and George Whitefield are all "Squeamish Calvinists." Just check my posts on the will of God for the proof.
What's amazing is that none of his Calvinistic friends bother to hold him publically accountable for such absurd accusations. He just gets away with it time and time again. Even his ridiculous straw men get a pass, as if there's anyone on the planet saying that if you read or respect John Gill, you're a hyper-Calvinist on that basis. Think about it. There hasn't been anyone in human history who has ever made that claim, not even Ergun Caner (yet)! LOL It seems that White (a professional "apologist" mind you) is busy refuting holograms in that post, instead of real people.
Dr. Robert Gonzales addressed some of the comments in White's "squeamish Calvinist" post here [click].
Post a Comment