Phil Johnson's Blog

Status
Not open for further replies.
:ditto:
And especially:

Yes, Calvinism is virile; it's relentless when it comes to truth; and it's not always easy to swallow. But it is full of truths that should humble us and fill us with compassion rather than swagger and conceit. The best Calvinism has always been fervently evangelistic, large-hearted, benevolent, merciful, and forgiving. After all, that's what the doctrines of grace are supposed to be all about.

Until we get back there, some of the lumps the Reformed movement is currently taking are well-deserved.

And meanwhile, my advice to young Calvinists is to learn your theology from the historic mainstream Calvinist authors, not from blogs and discussion forums on the Internet. Some of the forums may be helpful in pointing you to helpful resources. But if you think of them as a surrogate for seminary, you're probably going to become an ugly Calvinist"”and if you get hit in the face with a rotten egg, you probably deserve it.
Click to expand...


[Edited on 6-2-2005 by poimen]
 
Thanks Pastor Way, good link.

Conservatism with a swagger is repugnant and Calvinism with a swagger is worse because we should know better. I've said it before, when we forget that our purpose and polemics are for the glory of God alone we quickly become the pharisaical brood of vipers that our Lord chastised so harshly. Soli Deo Gloria!
 
John said, "And to believe he's with MacArthur and a historic Dispensational."

I do not think Phil Johnson is dispensational. I think he's somehting like a covenantal premill, or something like that.
 
If you take the time to go through all the comments, you will see that the Reformed Catholics (now Communio Sanctorum so that they can use more Latin and not sign their posts and not take comments) - Tim Enloe and Kevin Johnson responded with typical broad brushes.
 
:banghead: What was is it Sproul said "if you think a converted drunk is bad try a converted arminian."

I know I went through that initial stage where I needed to be locked :chained: up with my bible and some good teaching. You live and learn.
 
I'm in China and the link is dead, could some one post the whole article
or u2u me? Thanks.
 
Originally posted by Rich Barcellos
John said, "And to believe he's with MacArthur and a historic Dispensational."

I do not think Phil Johnson is dispensational. I think he's somehting like a covenantal premill, or something like that.
Click to expand...

I believe you are correct Rich. I had the opportunity to hear him preach last April at a conference on Justification and then He preached the Lord's Day A.M. service at my church.
 
The article in full:

Quick-and-Dirty Calvinism

Bashing Calvinism is the latest fad in blogdom. My turn.


Three years ago Rob Schläpfer had the best Reformed website and book business bar none. It was the place to go if you were looking for material responding to Dave Hunt. Schläpfer's online magazine, Antithesis, was the best-looking and most consistently interesting website I knew"”and it was thoroughly Calvinistic.

Michael Spencer, aka the Internet Monk, runs one of the most successful group blogs around. It's a lively theological discussion cast as a virtual tavern. The iMonk gained fame earlier this year by "outing" Joel Osteen's frivolous non-gospel. One of the iMonk's famous early blog entries was titled "Why Calvinism Is Cool." Judging from the network of links, the iMonk's group blog, The Boar's Head Tavern (BHT), has attracted a lot of Calvinist readers.

But last year with little warning, Schläpfer renounced all things Reformed and started giving rave reviews to almost every postmodern oddity and "emergent church" manual that the evangelical publishing houses could crank out. With a bit of fanfare, Schläpfer's mail-order company dropped some of the best Reformed books from their line. Meanwhile, Schläpfer was posting some fiery blasts both publicly and privately against Calvinists and Calvinism. (Some of them"”including one sent to me personally"”were pretty much in the spirit of Mark 14:71.)

Recently, the iMonk followed suit with a controversial essay, "I'm Not Like You . . . (Calvinists especially)." He closed it with a paragraph that began, "I am not like you. Every day I wander further from the safety of Calvinism into the wideness of God's mercy." Although the text is still in the process of deconstruction at the BHT, it seems like the iMonk and his drinking buddies have decided postmodernism is a lot cooler than Calvinism.

Schläpfer and the iMonk are by no means alone. More serious Calvinist leaders, including John Armstrong and Andrew Sandlin are saying similar things, albeit usually with just a smidge more subtlety.

Jumping off the Calvinist bandwagon and lobbing rotten eggs at the attitudes and culture of "Reformed" folk is clearly le dernier cri in the blogosphere and beyond.

Before we vivisect these gentlemen and their views (something I may eventually want to devote some bloggage to), I think it would be helpful to ponder why Calvinism, which seemed to be the flavor of the month not so long ago, has suddenly become so odious to so many of its one-time friends.

I have to say with all candor that I can somewhat understand the feelings expressed by some of Calvinism's recent critics. Sniff around some of the Calvinist forums on the Internet and it won't be long before you begin to think something is rotten in Geneva.

But I hasten to add that I don't think the problem really lies in Geneva, or in historic Calvinism, or in any of the classic Reformed creeds. I especially don't think the stench arises from any problem with Calvinism per se. In my judgment, the problem is a fairly recent down n' dirty version of callow Calvinism that has flourished chiefly on the Internet and has been made possible only by the new media.

Internet Calvinism and historic Calvinism sometimes have little in common. Consider:

1. Fanaticism. The strains of hyper-Calvinism that are flourishing today are more harsh and more hyper than any of the historic hyper-Calvinists ever thought about being.

If you doubt this, check Marc Carpenter's infamous website and read his ridiculous "Heterodoxy Hall of Shame." Carpenter is so hyper-Calvinistic that he has even labeled Calvin a hell-bound heretic for not being Calvinistic enough! He damns Spurgeon, Iain Murray, and even Gordon Clark (whom no one during his lifetime ever accused of not being Calvinistic enough).

There are some well-trafficked discussion forums out there that look like they're having a contest to see who can be most extreme in their condemnations of Arminianism or most overblown in their affirmation of über-high Calvinism.

There is a radical extremism among hypers on the Internet that is utterly unheard of even in the darkest corners of hyper-Calvinist history. At least the early hypers like Huntington and Gill had some profitable things to say when they exegeted Scripture.

2. Non-evangelism. Among more mainstream Calvinists, there are certainly some outstanding men who are earnestly evangelistic (Piper, MacArthur, and even Sproul). But it would be stretching things more than a little bit to insist that modern Calvinism as a movement is known by its passion for evangelism. Where are the Calvinist evangelists? I can think of only one outstanding example: John Blanchard. (There are surely more, but at the moment I can't think of any other famous Calvinists now living who have devoted their ministries primarily to evangelism).

Of course, I fully realize that the Arminian caricature of historic Calvinism as anti-evangelistic is a total lie. But one could hardly argue that evangelism is a key feature of modern Calvinism. Neither the writings we produce nor the conferences we hold focus much on evangelism.

3. Polemicism. Today's rank-and-file Calvinists are more in the mold of Pink, Boettner, and J.I. Packer than they are like Spurgeon or Whitefield. In other words, modern Calvinism is producing mostly students and polemicists, not evangelists and preachers. That's because Internet Calvinism is simply too academic and theoretical and not concerned enough with doing, as opposed to hearing, the Word (James 1:22). To a large degree, I think that's what the medium itself encourages.

4. Anti-intellectualism. This may sound like a contradiction of my previous point, but both tendencies contribute to the superficiality of Internet Calvinism. Want a sample? I recently received an e-mail inquiry that is all too typical of what I have observed for years among Internet Calvinists. Someone whom I do not know and whose name I will not divulge wrote me to ask:

Can you explain in one paragraph or less how to make sense of the distinction you make between the "decretive" and "preceptive" aspects of God's will? Please don't give me a reading list of books and articles. One paragraph. One sentence if you can do it. Because the whole idea seems loony to me. So far, no one has been able to describe it in a way that makes any sense. I don't have time to read 10 volumes of dead guys' reflections in Puritan prose. And don't refer me to Piper's article on the subject. It's too long and convoluted. I just want a short answer.


Right. The quick and dirty approach to untangling the mysteries of the universe. And every forum on the Internet, it seems, has at least one or two freshly-enlightened, beardless Calvinists who are convinced that their understanding of everything suddenly became perfect when they embraced the sovereignty of God. Some of them imagine that whatever difficulties they still can't explain can be easily solved by simply moving to a more extreme position.


The upsurge of Calvinism on the Internet in the 1990s seems to have spawned a large and unprecedented movement of jejune Calvinists who wear arrogance as if it were the team uniform. That kind of hotshot, shoot-from-the-hip Calvinism is ugly. I don't blame anyone for being appalled by it. I'm worried about those who think it's a good thing.

Obviously those criticisms are mostly generalizations, and they don't necessarily apply to every Calvinist on the Internet. But (and here's the hard part) I'm willing to admit that there have been times when every one of those criticisms could be legitimately applied to something I wrote or posted to a public forum somewhere. I'll especially confess to my shame that I'm too much of a polemicist and not enough of an evangelist.

Historic Calvinism is not supposed to be that way. Yes, Calvinism is virile; it's relentless when it comes to truth; and it's not always easy to swallow. But it is full of truths that should humble us and fill us with compassion rather than swagger and conceit. The best Calvinism has always been fervently evangelistic, large-hearted, benevolent, merciful, and forgiving. After all, that's what the doctrines of grace are supposed to be all about.

Until we get back there, some of the lumps the Reformed movement is currently taking are well-deserved.

And meanwhile, my advice to young Calvinists is to learn your theology from the historic mainstream Calvinist authors, not from blogs and discussion forums on the Internet. Some of the forums may be helpful in pointing you to helpful resources. But if you think of them as a surrogate for seminary, you're probably going to become an ugly Calvinist"”and if you get hit in the face with a rotten egg, you probably deserve it.
Click to expand...
 
What was is it Sproul said "if you think a converted drunk is bad try a converted arminian."

I know I went through that initial stage where I needed to be locked up with my bible and some good teaching. You live and learn.
Click to expand...

Yep!

At the risk of painting with that broad brush, does anyone else notice that many of the "Calvinists" who seem to dislike most things about Calvinism and the NPP, FV, reformed catholic types came into Calvinism from fundamentalist backgrounds? It seems to me that for lack of better term, a "rebound" danger exists, where some people who come into a movement eventually get disillusioned with it and then do two things, look for something new (NPPism, FV & etc.) and also turn their guns on the movement they once embraced (the mad Calvinists).
 
Originally posted by AdamM
What was is it Sproul said "if you think a converted drunk is bad try a converted arminian."

I know I went through that initial stage where I needed to be locked up with my bible and some good teaching. You live and learn.
Click to expand...

Yep!

At the risk of painting with that broad brush, does anyone else notice that many of the "Calvinists" who seem to dislike most things about Calvinism and the NPP, FV, reformed catholic types came into Calvinism from fundamentalist backgrounds? It seems to me that for lack of better term, a "rebound" danger exists, where some people who come into a movement eventually get disillusioned with it and then do two things, look for something new (NPPism, FV & etc.) and also turn their guns on the movement they once embraced (the mad Calvinists).
Click to expand...

Yes preach it brother!

But just remember that Reformed is not enough.
 
I am an alumni of the so-called "cage rage", and have been recovering from it for the last two years. My road to recovery began when God providentially put JI Packer's "Knowing God" in my hands. The first three chapters of that book absolutely floored me, especially chapters 2 and 3.
In a certain sense, this book saved my life. I have made a vow that if I am ever to become an officer/teacher/pastor/ in the church, I will require these 3 chapters to be read immediately by all those who become calvinists under my ministry. The most profound and obvious stuff I have ever read, yet for some reason it is something so many of us never learn. I think it was a puritan who said: "One can know the doctrines of grace without having the grace of the doctrines."

In regard to the comments on youth, I agree wholeheartedly that this is sin that a young/newly converted calvinist is more likely to commit, but it doesn't help when the young in their new understanding of God look around for guidance from the older crowd and don't see it. A baby or youth is not instantly mature obviously, and we shouldn't downplay the lack of maturity they have, but I think the older crowd needs to look at themselves more often and ask "why are we failing in our raising the next generation to know God and live rightly before Him?" Not only is intellectual pride a part of our fallen nature, and an area where idealistic youth are particularly vulnerable, but it is also hard to learn not to be this way when the youth are looking for humility in adults and we simply don't see it for the most part. So while I think theologically (and from personal experience) that hyper-calvinism is a huge sin, we have to remember that it isn't so much the theology itself but the sin of pride that we are vulnerable to that is really behind it all. The youth can only learn to temper this pride through the grace of God, and by the experience of being around older believers who model this grace in the attribute of humility.

As William Wallace supposedly said to Robert the Bruce in "Braveheart": "If you would just lead, they will follow".

May God grant us humble leaders, not just knowledgeable ones; and may He grant my and the next generation the enabling grace to humbly follow.

(Thanks for posting this link Pastorway)

[Edited on 6-3-2005 by RAS]
 
Originally posted by poimen
Originally posted by AdamM
What was is it Sproul said "if you think a converted drunk is bad try a converted arminian."

I know I went through that initial stage where I needed to be locked up with my bible and some good teaching. You live and learn.
Click to expand...

Yep!

At the risk of painting with that broad brush, does anyone else notice that many of the "Calvinists" who seem to dislike most things about Calvinism and the NPP, FV, reformed catholic types came into Calvinism from fundamentalist backgrounds? It seems to me that for lack of better term, a "rebound" danger exists, where some people who come into a movement eventually get disillusioned with it and then do two things, look for something new (NPPism, FV & etc.) and also turn their guns on the movement they once embraced (the mad Calvinists).
Click to expand...

Yes preach it brother!

But just remember that Reformed is not enough.
Click to expand...

Adam,

I think this goes to the crux of it. I have seen it in congregations that I have served. Those who have come from a non-reformed background, especially a fundementalist background, have the hardest time staying with historical Reformed theology. They have tended to be attracted to more extreme positions. Maybe its because they have come from such extreme Churches that they are more inclined to accept them. But what is also interesting is that those who have come from a RC or liberal background (PCUSA, UMC, etc.) seem to be able to comprehend and hold to the historic Reformed faith more easily.
 
Adam,

I think this goes to the crux of it. I have seen it in congregations that I have served. Those who have come from a non-reformed background, especially a fundamentalist background, have the hardest time staying with historical Reformed theology. They have tended to be attracted to more extreme positions. Maybe its because they have come from such extreme Churches that they are more inclined to accept them. But what is also interesting is that those who have come from a RC or liberal background (PCUSA, UMC, etc.) seem to be able to comprehend and hold to the historic Reformed faith more easily.
Click to expand...

Wayne, I agree completely!

That has been my experience too that you find few if any former Roman Catholics or liberals in any of the new "œmovements" plaguing the Reformed church (I know Fred is thankful someone believed in evangelizing RC´s). *Almost every time* when I encounter a person who is into NPPism, FV, or Ref-c a little digging below the surface reveals a fundamentalist background that in some sense I believe they are reacting against. At the risk of being tarred and feathered by my Christian Recon and theonomy leaning friends here, I do find a dabbling in those movements is almost always present too in the background of folks that find the new perspectives attractive. Of course there are plenty of ex- fundamentalists who are well balanced and some of the fiercest opponents of the new perspectives are themselves Theonomists, so there certainly isn´t a one to one correlation, however if you look at the roster of the leading voices, it is amazing how often you find this linkage.

I think it goes to the importance of understanding how our background and bent leave us (and churches) all with blind spots and vulnerabilities that can get us out of balance if we are not aware of them.
 
Yes Adam, I am thankful.

I can also say that in my experience, no one I can think of who has FV/NPP sympathies has ever actually had any real interaction with Roman Catholics. They are not former RCs, and they don't have any experiential interaction with RCs. Now that does not mean that you have to experience something before you can critique it, but I find it odd that these RC-symps have no real idea what the Roman Church is like.

They are far too fascinated with new and cute Latin phrases and pie in the sky dreams of finding common ground with Rome.
 
Originally posted by Rich Barcellos
John said, "And to believe he's with MacArthur and a historic Dispensational."

I do not think Phil Johnson is dispensational. I think he's somehting like a covenantal premill, or something like that.
Click to expand...

See that, John? Different eschatologies and still able to be an elder! ;)

Good to see you posting, Rich. It's nice agreeing with you. :cool:
 
Alan,
Good post in my old church I was often discouraged by my own leaders over their sense of pride without any sympathy towards what I was thinking.

Blade
 
I really appreciated Phil's article. It was truly humbling. When I first became reformed I was prone to the Hyper(dark) side as well coming from my relativistic charasmatic background. Thankfully, the Lord helped me get grounded in historic Reformed theology to keep me more even. I hope everyone on the PB takes note of this article. It is true reminder for us to be more gracious and edifying in our posts. That's why were here after all, to build each other up, not just to debate theology.
 
I think we all agree that we tend to say things in writing we wouldn't say in person--myself most of all.

On a humorous side note, knowing the danger of Calvinist blogs, I think Phil now has the most popular reformed blog out there. But I am not worrying. I have been keeping up with Spurgeon.org for a long time. Phil is mature and isn't going to say anything rash.
 
Originally posted by john_Mark
Originally posted by Rich Barcellos
John said, "And to believe he's with MacArthur and a historic Dispensational."

I do not think Phil Johnson is dispensational. I think he's somehting like a covenantal premill, or something like that.
Click to expand...

See that, John? Different eschatologies and still able to be an elder! ;)
Click to expand...

Mark,

:p

You were supposed to call back to do lunch :cool:
 
What's all this about Rob Schläpfer "denouncing all things Reformed"? I used to frequently check out The Discerning Reader a couple of years back, mainly the Dave Hunt/James White controversy brewing at the time, but now when I go there it's just a bookstore. What happened?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Staphlobob
  • Locked
Phil Johnson Defends Calvinism
Replies
5
Views
3K
MrMerlin777
MrMerlin777
JM
  • Locked
Common Grace Considered (blog)
Replies
0
Views
1K
JM
JM
B
  • Locked
Blog 77: (04-22-2009 08:41 AM)
Replies
0
Views
2K
Blog Feed
B
B
  • Locked
Blog 193-197 (10-13-2009 02:43 PM)
Replies
0
Views
2K
Blog Feed
B
B
  • Locked
Blog 244: 4.20.27 - 4.20.32 (12-18-2009 05:17 PM)
Replies
0
Views
6K
Blog Feed
B
Back
Top