March 22, 2007

Why Phil Johnson is a Calvinist

Phil Johnson, of Team Pyro fame, is starting a series on "Why I am a Calvinist" at Pulpit Magazine. The first three parts are available to read (1, 2, 3). In his first post on the subject, he says the following:
But I don’t hear very many voices of caution being raised against the dangers of hyper Calvinism, and there are armies of Calvinists out there already challenging the Arminians, so I’ve tried to speak out as much as possible against the tendencies of the hypers.
I have tried to do the same thing and my blog is a testimony to that fact. Like Phil, I believe people should be reading the mainstream Calvinistic authors, hence all of the primary source quotes found here. In part 3 of his series, Phil mentions Erroll Hulse's book The Great Invitation. After he recommended that book on his blog several months ago, I decided to quote from that book on my blog:



Unfortunately, I think it's too late for the Reformed Baptist churches. The voices in that movement today are considerably higher in the Calvinism than Hulse. I believe David Ponter was correct when he said the following in a comment on my blog:
I am convinced that many in the Reformed Baptist moving are going higher and higher in their 'Calvinism' because of the recent attempts to re-introduce John Gill into Baptist circles, with the attempt to exonerate him of all hyperist charges. More and more are buying into his para-calvinist categories such as the denial of the well-meant offer, and that God desires the salvation of all men.

Sometimes I think folk have forgotten the work of Fuller, Carey and Spurgeon, and how Gillite-hyperism really did debilitate Baptist churches. I think some of these folk are the true revisionists.
I know of two leading and influential Reformed Baptist thinkers (Greg Welty and James White) who deny that God desires the salvation of all mankind (one [Welty] says that he wobbles on the point from day to day), and they erroneously think that such a belief is compatible with the mainline Reformed Confessions. If one denies that God wants, wills, or desires the salvation of all men, then there's no way they can consistently affirm a well-meant gospel offer. It seems to me that some of the leaders are at least on the verge of hyperism, and very few seem to be interested in considering that as even a possibility. Perhaps I've given in to pessimism, but I believe it's too late to recommend Hulse. The conceptual landscape has already been paved and Hulse's moderate interpretations of key passages (John 3:16, 1 Tim 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9 etc.) already seem ridiculous to the average Calvinist today. In fact, classical Calvinism is so thoroughly eclipsed now by Owenism that the former categories seem semi-Arminian to the those in the latter group.

Also, I don't think Phil's Spurgeonism will be a sufficient corrective to today's problem. Hyperism today is more sophisticated than an outright denial of duty-faith and our need to give indiscriminate offers. Rather, the problem today seems to involve a denial that God wills the salvation of all, and therefore he himself sincerely (or well-meaningly) offers Christ to all through the external gospel call. It also seems that mere lip service is paid to the doctrine of common grace as well. The doctrine has been gutted of any notion that God grants good things to men with a view to their ultimate well-being, i.e their eternal salvation. It's as if common grace involves nothing more than good crumbs (the common bounties of providence) falling off of the table of the elect into the hands of the non-elect, but not that God actually wills the ultimate well-being of any of the non-elect through these benevolent/loving acts. Far too many want to quickly jump to Romans 9 to talk about divine hatred and overlook the significance of what Paul says in Romans 2:4 (2) and Romans 10:1, 21. As Spurgeon said of some in his day, there seems to be a "smacking of lips over the ruin and destruction of mankind".

5 comments:

David Ponter said...

Hey Tony,

Just to be clear, I know you are not saying that Owenism is not Hypercalvinism.

Thanks
David

Tony Byrne said...

Hi David,

That is correct, just as I know you didn't mean to say "I know you are not saying that Owenism is not Hypercalvinism." I think you meant to say "I know you are not saying that Owenism is Hypercalvinism." There's one too many "not's" in there :)

I guess some readers may erroneously conclude that I was equating Owenism with hyperism because I jumped from one theological category (talking about hyperism) to the other (high Calvinism) without notifying the reader. Thanks for the clarification.

Anonymous said...

Tony,

I'm a Reformed Baptist and I don't hold to an Owenic atonement paradigm. Having been a member of a RB church for almost 13 years I have never run across the hyperism you are opposing in your post. What RB "leaders" are you referring to, if I may ask? To be fair, I think appropriate qualifications should be made for such a generalization as you have made here...

Thanks,

--SK

Tony Byrne said...

Hi Steve,

What Phil says he is speaking out against in his post are "tendencies" toward hyper-Calvinism. For that reason, he recommends Erroll Hulse's book. My point in the post was NOT to say that hyperism is rampant in Reformed Baptist churches. Rather, I was saying that the Reformed Baptist movement, as far as I can tell from online interaction, is going significantly higher in their Calvinism than Hulse. There are even some leaders who have gone so far as to deny God's universal saving will, which is at least IMPLICIT hyperism. That's not to say that this IMPLICIT hyperism is rampant in the RB church, but only that a couple of the leaders have passed through the "tendency" into a key tenet of hyperism, namely that God does NOT will the salvation of the non-elect.

My main point about the Reformed Baptist movement today is that it is higher (not hyper) than Hulse. How many of them take John 3:16, 1 Tim. 2:4, and 2 Peter 3:9 to reference God's will concerning the salvation of the elect, unlike Hulse? I would guess that most of them do that. Thus, some of the verses which underline God's universal saving will are being trimmed away. The very basis for well-meant gospel offers is eroding when that is done. Hulse knows it, unlike many in the RB movement that I've spoken with. Apparently David Ponter thinks the same thing and he has engaged in extensive conversations on the "Reformed Baptist List" that discusses these theological points.

Most hypers don't become that way instantly. They slide into that extreme error just like Open View Theists usually slide into their opposite extreme. It takes time as certain theological anchors are removed out of their minds.

There is no need to mention the names here. I have already mentioned one of the names in other posts. The point of this post is to discuss the IDEAS so that the church can be watchful and discerning, and not to go about naming names. If you want to discover who might hold the opinion that God in no sense wishes, wills or wants the salvation of the non-elect, then go ask people, particularly some of the more outspoken leaders online. Go ask some on the Reformed Baptist List.

If some happen to think that God does will the salvation of the non-elect, ask them what passages they think support that idea. They will have fewer to cite than Erroll Hulse would cite in favor of the idea, and that to me is indicative of a "tendency", as Phil terms it. THAT'S MY POINT IN THIS POST.

Anonymous said...

Fair enough, I missed your point then. Btw, I have read Gill with spiritual profit. If you are aware of his hyperism and filter it out, he can be quite good...

Solus Christus,

--SK