Phil's bookmarks are posted HERE. He references several sites that he thinks are hyper-Calvinistic, and I would like to make some observations after his descriptions.
If you couple all of the above comments together with the contents of Phil's Primer on Hyper-Calvinism, with his comments on the Theology List, and with footnote #20 from God Without Mood Swings, how can Phil consistently say that his Primer is not making a point about God's universal saving desire or will? How can he consistently say that denying God's universal saving desire is not a form of hyper-Calvinism since it is the same as denying the well-meant gospel offer? After all, John Murray and others (according to John Frame) apparently feared they were dealing with hyper-Calvinism when opposing Gordon Clark's denial of well-meant gospel offers.
On this very subject, Robert Reymond sides with Clark. How does it not follow that if one agrees with Reymond (A), they also agree with Clark (B), and are therefore hyper-Calvinists (C) when it comes to the issue of the free offer of the gospel? A implies (>) B implies (>) C. It's not as though any of these men denied that one should preach to all men. As Iain Murray notes (and Curt Daniel agrees), "Hyper-Calvinists accepted that the gospel be preached to all..." What they are against is well-meant gospel offers given from God to any of the non-elect, which is to say that they explicitly denied that God desires the salvation of any of the non-elect. This is precisely what James White does, but adds scorn and the mockery of others to his explicit denials as well. To Mr. White, we, like Phil (speaking to other hyper-Calvinists), would simply say:
Protestant Reformed ChurchNotice that Phil associates the PRC with "a form of hyper-Calvinism." He says they deny "the free offer of the gospel." Actually, what they (Engelsma) really do is redefine the offer to be a bare presentation or proclamation. Phil has to know this. So, he would have to say that what they are really denying is the well-meant gospel offer (i.e. that God desires all men to be saved), which is the same as denying "the free offer." John Murray and Iain Murray certainly thought so. As John Murray and Ned B. Stonehouse observe, "It would appear that the real point in dispute in connection with the free offer of the gospel is whether it can properly be said that God desires the salvation of all men." See 'The Free Offer of the Gospel' in Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982), vol. 4, pp. 113-32. Cited in Iain H. Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), 90.
There are some helpful, even excellent, resources linked here. I deliberated long and hard about whether to put this in the "Helpful Resources" category. The problem is that the PRC holds to an extreme Calvinism that denies God's common grace and the free offer of the gospel. This is a form of hyper-Calvinism, and is fraught with many dangerous ramifications. I could not with good conscience give it a thumbs up. Not a few people have written to ask how I could class a denomination that adheres to the Three Forms of Unity in this category. But the PRC's most distinctive feature—its utter denial of the gospel's free offer—is, after all, bad theology.
Whosoever WillAgain, Phil associates the theology of Herman Hoeksema with hyper-Calvinism. One of the things he points out is Hoeksema's denial that the gospel invitation includes "a bona fide offer of salvation" to any of the non-elect, and says that this is "a kind of hyper-Calvinism."
These are Herman Hoeksema's writings on grace and the gospel call. His perspective on these issues amounts to a kind of hyper-Calvinism. He denies that the gospel invitation includes a bona fide offer of salvation to anyone but the elect. Hoeksema was brilliant, and a good writer. In fact, there is enough of real value here that I originally placed it in the "helpful" category. But the more I see of the fruits of this kind of thinking, the more convinced I am that it deserves to be plainly labeled as bad theology.
Pristine GraceNotice that he talks about their denial "that the gospel message contains a well-meant offer of divine mercy to all who hear." Because of this and the other ingredients, their teaching constitutes "classic hyper-Calvinism of the most virulent kind."
That's an odd name for a site that is doing more to befoul and degrade the doctrines of grace than practically any other Web site I have seen. This is classic hyper-Calvinism of the most virulent kind, teaching that the gospel is not to be preached indiscriminately to unbelievers; insisting that faith in Christ as Savior is not the duty of all who hear the gospel; and denying that the gospel message contains a well-meant offer of divine mercy to all who hear.
By the way, for an antidote to this site's historical revisionism about the doctrine of common grace, read Louis Berkhof or John Murray on the subject.
If you couple all of the above comments together with the contents of Phil's Primer on Hyper-Calvinism, with his comments on the Theology List, and with footnote #20 from God Without Mood Swings, how can Phil consistently say that his Primer is not making a point about God's universal saving desire or will? How can he consistently say that denying God's universal saving desire is not a form of hyper-Calvinism since it is the same as denying the well-meant gospel offer? After all, John Murray and others (according to John Frame) apparently feared they were dealing with hyper-Calvinism when opposing Gordon Clark's denial of well-meant gospel offers.
On this very subject, Robert Reymond sides with Clark. How does it not follow that if one agrees with Reymond (A), they also agree with Clark (B), and are therefore hyper-Calvinists (C) when it comes to the issue of the free offer of the gospel? A implies (>) B implies (>) C. It's not as though any of these men denied that one should preach to all men. As Iain Murray notes (and Curt Daniel agrees), "Hyper-Calvinists accepted that the gospel be preached to all..." What they are against is well-meant gospel offers given from God to any of the non-elect, which is to say that they explicitly denied that God desires the salvation of any of the non-elect. This is precisely what James White does, but adds scorn and the mockery of others to his explicit denials as well. To Mr. White, we, like Phil (speaking to other hyper-Calvinists), would simply say:
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.
