5solas.org and PristineGrace.org make Phil Johnson's bad theology page!!! Woo Hoo!!!

[Brandan Kraft]

Carla brought to my attention this morning in a private message that 5solas.org and pristinegrace.org made the list on Phil Johnson's Bad Theology Page. Indeed, 5solas.org is listed just right above the vineyard churches and Daniel Fuller's listing which promotes works salvation!

Here is the link: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/bookmark/bad.htm

Attached are the screencaps I made.

Carla with grace and beauty wrote this in her blog:

http://carla_rolfe.blogspot.com/2005...g-to-phil.html

Monday, January 17, 2005
Bad Theology - According to Phil

It was brough to my attention, that a web site where I help moderate (I help moderate this forum at 5solas.org), has been listed at Phil Johnson's Real Bad Theology page. Now before I go on with my thoughts on this - let me first say this:

I like Phil Johnson. He's made some quality contributions to the Christian community, and he seems to be a rather fair-minded man, from all I have read of his, and read OF him. I have never met the man personally, I only know him from his contributions on the internet.

Now, with that said, it really doesn't surprise me that he would list not only 5solas.org, but Pristine Grace as well. That he didn't list them sooner, is really more of a surprise.

Phil Johnson has a criteria list, that covers the bases on what it is exactly, that constitutes a "hyper-calvinist". Here's the list:

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

Based on this list - any man, ministry, church, association, publication or website that falls into the category of any one of these theological positions, would be considered somewhere among the meter of "the worst kind to a less extreme variety (which some might prefer to class as "ultra-high Calvinism") of hyper-calvinist. Johnson goes on to say: "All five varieties of hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message".

With all due respect to Phil Johnson's views on what makes a man a hyper-calvinist, it has been argued ad naseum (sp?) that he is not using the historical definition of a hyper-calvinist - but has created his own, modernized version. The historic definition being basically, taking the fatalistic approach to evangelism and using the excuse "well if God ordained they'd get saved, they will". This is what I had always been led to believe a hyper-calvinist was - until I encountered Phil Johnson's defintion.

Can I prove that? Nope... I can't, because I've never studied it out. I can't prove Johnson is wrong, anymore than I can prove denying any 1 of the above 5 positions, is going outside (beyond = hyper) what Calvin taught, and therefore rendering oneself a hyper-calvinist. I can't prove it because I've never studied Calvin, on these issues.

I study the Bible, I don't have the time required to adequately research all Calvin taught on these topics.

All of this leaves me with the same question that it always leaves me with: who decided Phil Johnson's defition for hyper-calvinism was infallible - and who decided that even IF John Calvin taught the opposite of the above list, that he was also infallible? Many, who clearly have more time than I do, have studied these things out, and come down in staunch disagreement with Phil Johnson, not only in regards to his definition of hyper-calvinism, but that Calvin himself ever taught what is being claimed. Likewise, many others agree with Johnson on this.

Going back to this list:

I deny that faith is the duty of every sinner - faith is a gift from God and cannot be exercised by spiritually dead men who do not have faith. Being commanded to repent and believe does not pre-suppose man has the ability to do so. God's command stands, because God can demand nothing LESS than 100% holiness. Unregenerate man does not have the ability to exercise faith, and God knows this full well - and yet his command stands, because He is God and does not allow for anything less than perfection. I know many disagree with me on this, and that's fine.

I deny that the gospel is an "offer" to anyone. The Bible says the gospel is to be preached: kerruso - to proclaim after the manner of a herald always with the suggestion of formality, gravity and an authority which must be listened to and obeyed

Contrast this verb with offer: To present for acceptance or rejection; to put forward for consideration; propose

And what's lost is, the gravity and seriousness and demand of obedience of the very message of the gospel. Some say it's no big deal, and it's just a matter of using different words, but I submit, if it's no big deal, and just a matter of words, where did the evangelistic catch phrase of "try Jesus" come from? And is it Biblical?

I deny common grace - I believe the grace of God is reserved for His elect, and put forth that what He bestows on the non-elect is a temporal mercy, or provision, while they live on this earth. Again it comes down to a matter of wording, but I believe the wording is important. Over and over again throughout Scripture where we're taught of the grace of God, it's referring to God's chosen people.

Because I disagree with Johnson on this - and those that also hold to his list of criteria, I'm effectively labeled as someone who undermines evangelism and twists the gospel message.

Because Brandan Kraft of 5solas.org disagrees with Johnson on this, he's also a gospel perverter and undermining evangelism, according to Phil Johnson. I dont know Phil Johnson personally, but I do know Brandan Kraft. He's been a friend for many years, and we've had numerous conversations about doctrine, about the gospel, about the lost, and pretty much every other topic you can imagine that burdens the heart of every true believer. I can say without a shadow of a doubt, that CONTEXT of Scripture, and seeing the lost saved, are 2 of Brandan's greatest burdens.

One might never realize that, if all they read were Phil Johnson's comments about how Brandan's sites are "takes hyper-Calvinism to new levels of absurdity" and "a site that is doing more to befoul and degrade the doctrines of grace than practially any other Web site I have seen. This is classic hyper-Calvinism of the most virulent kind".

Do I agree with every single position of Brandan Kraft? No, I certainly do not, but I have a high respect for him, and his passion for the truths of Scripture. He is my brother in Christ - and it's been a joy and a blessing to know him, and to see him grow in his faith over the years. I have jokingly told him he's the most misunderstood Calvinist I've ever known - and that's partly due to the impatience of some folks to simply write him off before they really take a close look at where he stands.

I also have a high level of respect and appreciation for Phil Johnson. I guess the reason this bothers me the most, is that (to quote a phrase so often used lately) this has apparently generated more heat, than light. The one thing that seems to be missing is a level of respect that ought to be present among brothers.

So... on we go. Another day, another controversy, another broken coffee pot in my kitchen. I'm tired of my coffee makers QUITTING on me. If anyone has a good recommendation for a quality coffee maker that will not die in 6 months, please let me know, this is getting ridiculous.

SOLI DEO GLORIA!!

Phil made particular attention to link to my article on hyper-calvinism here as well: http://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=400.

Since he has directed some attention toward me, it is now time that we address Phil. I am planning on writing an article that will directly address his article against hyper-calvinism. This will be done in the form of a letter.

Any comments?


Thanks Carla for bringing this to my attention and defending me.


In Christ,
Brandan

[Brandan Kraft]

Carla,

I use a Bunn-O-Matic - It's worked great for me for nearly 10 years!

[GraceAmbassador]

Brandan:

I have a great deal of respect for Phil Johnson. Lately, I have been concerned with some of his positions and the fact that he passes judgment on people based upon snippets of what they write about specific questions, responding to specific questions, dealing with specific issues, and not their overall beliefs and actions. It is like one judging the book of Job not by its overall context, but stating that Job teaches that God disputes with the devil, in a foolish childsh game, who wins or who loses our lives, only because of a specific verse dealing with a spefic problem... My comparison is absurd, but to me it is also absurd the way Phil judges people and label what they think "bad theology".

Phil belongs to FIRE as a speaker. This is an organization that I recently joined. I decided not to go to one of their conferences, both because I was not financially prepared for it, but also, I put no effort to be because Phil was going to be one of the speakers. Phil appears to be one of those guys who was converted from Arminianism but now is too ashamed of being called a Calvinist so he found a way to get as close to Arminianism as he can.

I did read 2 Cor 5:20. The scary part is that Phil is not an ignorant man. Quite the contrary. He knows what the text within the context means; he knows that "re ye reconciled to God" is not an offer but a command; he knows that the command is to Christians of the Corinthian Church; he knows that Paul is speaking about judgment. But Phil wants to make this text to be a "proof text" of the "well meant offer" or whatever, and we have to swallow it lest we be labeled "hyper Calvinists". I believe he deliberately misinterprets this text to fit his own "agenda", no different than what Benny Hymn, Kenneth Copeland, and a few others of that kind, do. At least these last two ones ARE THEOLOGICALLY IGNORANT, as an excuse!

I could, reading Phil's writings, label him "hypo-Arminianist". Or an Arminianist who has a tendency to be a Calvinist; or an Arminian who became a Calvnist but is still ashamed of what Calvinism entails. I could do that based on his apparent confusion between "specific and universal offer", "common Grace and a truce". He uses the term "grace" in His common grace teaching to indicate that God loves the un-elect to hell; either that or that somehow the love of God for the unelect is inneffective and produces nothing of eternal value.

Although no one denies that the unelect receives benefits of creation, such as sunshine and rain, and of Jesus' compassion when they were fed miraculously, and are allowed to prosper for a while as it is taught in the book of Psalms, and also receives a trickling down of the blessings bestowed to the elect, as in Mark 4 when they all benefited from Jesus calming the storm, the unelect ends up in hell. Call that "love" or call that "grace" and you made both love and grace, if coming from God, one of the "failures" of God, or something that God does without any objective whatsoever. Contextually, this is NOT the God of the Bible. The least one can say is that the "love" that God has for the unelect is a different kind of love He has for His elect. Then one must prove whether this kind of love for the unelect is really love at all. The same applies if you use the word "grace".

Grace in the Bible is always something that stemmed from a sacrifice! God has no sacrifice for the unelect if we are to believe Limited Atonement. Thus, calling it "grace" can only be done by drawing the concept of "grace" from the human language "dictionary" and not from the Bible. Pshaw! I don't take the meaning of the word "sin" from the human language dictionary... I take if from the Bible! Why then should I take the definition of "grace" from a source other than the Bible? If I do, I have to conclude that Grace, not "grace", is what God shows us via a sacrifice. A truce, which means by definition "a temporary cessation of hostilities" is more akin to what God demonstrates to the unelect.

Yes, I could call Phil "a hypo-Arminian", or an "almost calvinist arminian". But I will not.

I disagree with him in all his pet issues, such as "common grace" and "well meant offer". In his definition, I am one who does not care about sinners and deny sinners the preaching of the Gospel.

Well, Brandan, you know me. My challenge to people who label me that is the same to all of them: Let's go to some slum of South America, or Central America, where the devil is worshpped freely, where people are so full of demons that you wonder who is "minding hell", and let's preach to them... I did that, I will do that again. My wife is getting ready to do that again from July to about September this year. I could not identify the reprobates or the elect among these hell bound, sin benighted darkness lovers satan worshippers. Especially because in the case of Brazil, they are WHITE, RICH AND WELL EDUCATED. There is not even the chance of racist assumptions about who they worship and whether they are elect or not. You just know they worship the devil because they openly admit it to you. I look in their hopeless eyes and I just preach to them. I just announce Jesus, the Hope of Glory to them. I ANNOUNCE! I don't plead, I don't offer, I don't negotiate. I ANNOUNCE JESUS! (Of couse is doubtful that Phil believes in demon possession today...)

In spite of my announcing Jesus to these type of sinners, according to Phil, I have no care for sinners. Especially because I believe that these folk cannot believe Christ since they are depraved. If they do believe Christ is due to the "quickening" of the Spirt and not out of a "duty"... So, I would not be deemed a "preacher of the Gospel" in Phil's concept.

What to do? Should I then quit and ask "Apostle" Phil what could I do to be placed in his list of "Spurgeon like preachers"? Would it help if I start smoking a pipe, as it is alleged Spurgeon did? No! I will continue with my belief, continue with my ways, continue to respect Phil, but disagree with him and go on doing what God called me to do with the convictions he gve me to do what He called me to do... In the context of my life, and even theology, who is Phil Johnson anyway? He can write people off ministry in his pages, but can he actually remove them from God's ministry?

Phil is becoming to most people who disagree with him that which Mark Carpenter is to those who disagree with him. No difference! Except that one wants all to be Calvinists as he is and the other, wants us all to be Calvinists as he is... well, then there is no difference or exceptions after all!

Milt

[Ivor Thomas]

Phil Johnson's pastor is John MacArthur need I go on!, yes I will talking of extremes from a calvanist? which P.J. CLAIMS to be, here is a quote from him-John Wesley adopted Arminian doctrine and refined it with a strong evangelical emphasis on the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith.-end quote. Ivor Thomas...

[lionovjudah]

Once again we have a "watchman on the wall" as spoken of in Ezekiel!!!!!

Milt is correct in his assesment of the carpenteresque traits Phil presents.



Joe

[ray kikkert]

Phil is becoming to most people who disagree with him that which Mark Carpenter is to those who disagree with him. No difference! Except that one wants all to be Calvinists as he is and the other, wants us all to be Calvinists as he is... well, then there is no difference or exceptions after all!

Milt

When I see what this Mr. Johnson would have me advocate and why, I am all the more polemical against his views. They wreak of arminianism incorporated into reformed doctrine. Your point is well taken Milt with respect to John Calvin as well. If one would want to pick and choose to build their doctrine on their picking and choosing of Calvin's words it will be a dunghill they can sit on. As throughout church history it has been the visible church that has launched the massive assaults against the infallable Scriptures and the saints with ferocity. What makes us think that will change. Not a 15 minute theologian of this century

greetings and salutations, el rana

[doctr_of_grace]

Not that I ever had much respect for Mr. Johnson this only verifies his idea of reformed theology being HYPER to scripture.

Brandan, I guess I would have to consider it an honor to be counted as HYPER by the likes of sir Johnson the new hypo calvinist guru.

And nope Ivor you need not say more. MacArthur is someone we need to read with our EYES WIDE OPEN!!!!

Jan

[foundinHim]

Milt and Carla -- very well said ! Brandon , I am sorry that P.J. has misrepresented you . I sent him a polite but firm e-mail about a year ago and suggested he read George M. Ella on the subject of hypercalvinism . I did not get a reply . Again , there is much that I admire about him . But his take on some is MIStaken .

[Skeuos Eleos]

I find what he says quite annoying. I am not sure if it is even bordering on bearing false witness.

I should like to see him defend his definition of hyper-calvinism publicly - on unchained radio or something like that. Hey, Brandan, why don't you challenge him to a debate?

I should also like to see him refute Blacketeer's refutation of Berkhof and others on the WMO: http://www.prca.org/articles/ctjblack.html

Martin
Another cold-hearted Hyper

[GraceAmbassador]

I find what he says quite annoying. I am not sure if it is even bordering on bearing false witness.

I should like to see him defend his definition of hyper-calvinism publicly - on unchained radio or something like that. Hey, Brandan, why don't you challenge him to a debate?

I should also like to see him refute Blacketeer's refutation of Berkhof and others on the WMO: http://www.prca.org/articles/ctjblack.html

Martin
Another cold-hearted Hyper

Yeah! Great idea! Or invite him to this forum... Let's see if he can defend his views away from the comfort and loneliness of his lectern.

Milt

[foundinHim]

Phil J. also put the Protestant Reformed Church in his " bad theology " section . He said ... " The PRC's denial of the gospel's free offer is , after all , bad theology . " Those remarks of his have annoyed me . Also , he likewise put Herman Hoeksema's book " Whosoever Will " in his bad theology domain . That was the first of many PRC books that I bought several years ago . It was a blessing . While Johnson concedes that Hoeksema was brilliant etc. he generally puts the book down . For such a small book it really is clear , biblical and helpful . If Johnson tries to persuade folks from reading things of the high caliber of Hoeksema's works he is doing a disservice to the public both Christian and non-Christian .

[Brandan Kraft]

I consider it an honor to be placed on Phil's page. I have begun composing my letter to him. I'll post it here when it is complete. The challenge to a debate is a good idea!

[doctr_of_grace]

I wouldn't hold your breath for Johnson to agree to a debate. Who can know it for sure though.

Brandan I think it is a marvelous idea to invite him to join the forum though. If he truly believes us to be lost it is his duty to correct us all.

Out for now .... Jan

[ray kikkert]

Phil J. also put the Protestant Reformed Church in his " bad theology " section . He said ... " The PRC's denial of the gospel's free offer is , after all , bad theology . " Those remarks of his have annoyed me . Also , he likewise put Herman Hoeksema's book " Whosoever Will " in his bad theology domain . That was the first of many PRC books that I bought several years ago . It was a blessing . While Johnson concedes that Hoeksema was brilliant etc. he generally puts the book down . For such a small book it really is clear , biblical and helpful . If Johnson tries to persuade folks from reading things of the high caliber of Hoeksema's works he is doing a disservice to the public both Christian and non-Christian .

uh oh! I am feeling a little exercised here now. Excuse me while I move the punching bag around a bit

Did Mr. Johnson express what exegetical disagreement he had with the texts cited in "Whosoever Will"?

greetings and salutations, el rana

"Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour."
Eccl.10:1

[wildboar]

No. Phil Johnson does not explain what is bad about the book or show where the interpretation went wrong. There is a much longer review of Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel which says that Engelsma fails to prove that the PRC is not hyper-Calvinistic but the author of the review never real deals with the interpretation of various passages. With such a strong accusation it would seem that if these people were truly concerned for God's truth they would provide better explanation. Even those who hold to some form of common grace, including those from Calvin Theological Seminary gave Engelsma's book a positive review and said that although they didn't agree with all of it, it did show the PRC was not a bunch of hyper-Calvinists. I think Johnson is happy to occupy the position he does as neo-Calvinist-internet Pope declaring ex cathredra that such and such group is hyper-Calvinist without any real explanation and using the label to frighten others away from the groups. A debate would leave Johnson with little to gain and much to lose.

[tomas1]

Please don’t take this wrong
I condemn completely Johnson’s labeling of this fine forum as bad theology based on statements taken out of context with out taking the time to learn exactly why they were made and with out allowing the offending parties an opportunity to defend themselves.
I would just like to add a friendly peace of advice I have often witnessed on these boards the same sort of categorizing and labeling of fellow Calvinists both living and dead based on isolated statements. Let’s keep in mind we are all just saved sinners struggling to put into words truths too wonderful to describe.

Matt 7:2For with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with whatever measure you measure, it will be measured to you.

Peace

[Robert R. Higby]

Free advertising; this kind of gross, uncharitable, and calculated distortion will only increase our readership!

[Brandan Kraft]

Free advertising; this kind of gross, uncharitable, and calculated distortion will only increase our readership!

Amen Bob! That's what I was thinking!

[Robert R. Higby]

The one thing I found absolutely amusing: he actually took the Darth Gill satire seriously--as if it was a like a precise doctrinal statement or something!

[GraceAmbassador]

The one thing I found absolutely amusing: he actually took the Darth Gill satire seriously--as if it was a like a precise doctrinal statement or something!

Sorry, I pushed the wrong button... I pushed "edit" rather than "quote"... So please, do not find it strange that it seems as if I edited Bob's note...

Bob is exactly right! I wonder if this guy, other than to mock and scoff, can sometime crack a good laugh in plain fun or wholesome pleasure...

Milt