# Who is Phillip Johnson?!



## yeutter (Aug 14, 2005)

Phillip Johnson is taken by many to be an authority whose definition of hypercalvinsim should be taken seriously.
Who is he?
Why should I take him seriously?


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by yeutter_
> Phillip Johnson is taken by many to be an authority whose definition of hypercalvinsim should be taken seriously.
> Who is he?
> Why should I take him seriously?



He is an elder at John MacArthur's church. He has written extensively on the issue.


----------



## pastorway (Aug 14, 2005)

his definition of hyper-Calvinism agrees with many others, including our own webmaster, Matt McMahon.

Phil Johnson on hC
Monergism's page on hC
Matt's Article on hC

Phillip
PS - read Phil's excellent blog here:
PyroManiac

[Edited on 8-15-05 by pastorway]


----------



## yeutter (Aug 14, 2005)

Johnson clearly thinks Herman Hoeksema, David Englesma, John Gill and all who stand with them are hypercalvinistic.
Am I correct in reading his broad definition of hypercalvinism to consign John H. Gerstner, Addison Leitch, R. C. Sproul, August Toplady, Meredeth Klein, John Robbins, and Gordon Clark to the ranks of hypercalvinism?
Why should I accept Johnsons definition over that of Gerstner and Englesma?


----------



## Bryan (Aug 14, 2005)

On issues of Calvinism, Spurgeon, and strange things to eat, Phil Johnson must definitly be taken seriously...plus he's just fun to read.

Bryan
SDG


----------



## yeutter (Aug 14, 2005)

Pastor Way;

Your link to Monergism's page on hC is fascinating. They have it both ways. some of their articles agree with Johnson, some, including the lead off quote by Hanko, agree with Englesma.


----------



## pastorway (Aug 14, 2005)

Spurgeon himself said that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist, and HE WAS!

Phillip


----------



## yeutter (Aug 14, 2005)

Setting aside Gill for the moment, am I correct that the definition Johnson uses would make Toplady, Gerstner, Clark et.al. hypercalvinists?


----------



## Bryan (Aug 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by yeutter_
> Johnson clearly thinks Herman Hoeksema, David Englesma, John Gill and all who stand with them are hypercalvinistic.
> Am I correct in reading his broad definition of hypercalvinism to consign John H. Gerstner, Addison Leitch, R. C. Sproul, August Toplady, Meredeth Klein, John Robbins, and Gordon Clark to the ranks of hypercalvinism?
> Why should I accept Johnsons definition over that of Gerstner and Englesma?



I'm not sure Phil thinks that John Gill was a hypercalvinist since on his baptist section of the Hall of Church history he says; "The Particular Baptists have produced several fine theologians, including *John Gill*, James P. Boyce,". I can say with near certanity that he wouldn't view Sproul as a hypercalvinist and therefore Gerstner would not be one. In the Recent Stalwarts section of the hall of Church History Phil also says; "*Toplady* was a gifted theologian and one of the most ardent high Calvinists the Church of England ever produced." It seems that he is able to wisely distinguish between a high calvinist and a hyper-Calvinist. 

Bryan
SDG

[Edited on 8-15-2005 by Bryan]

[Edited on 8-15-2005 by Bryan]


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 14, 2005)

Gerstner was a fierce evangelist and Sproul knows that his books on God's sovereignty have converted people.


----------



## Bryan (Aug 14, 2005)

Just doing a bit more searching and if Phil thinks that Gill was a hyper-calvinist he seems recultant to use the name. On his Helpful Theological Resources Page he calls Gill's Calvinism "ultra-high" but not hyper....


Bryan
SDG


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 14, 2005)

One can be a little Hyper Calvinistic and be a good theologian. (ie John Gill) We are all off just a little bit in something.


----------



## yeutter (Aug 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Gerstner was a fierce evangelist and Sproul knows that his books on God's sovereignty have converted people.



True. How does Gerstner's view differ from Hoeksema's?


----------



## yeutter (Aug 14, 2005)

J. C. Philpot and the Gospel Standard crowd seem to be hypercalvinist. They seem to deny man's responcibility to repent and believe. That differs from what Hoeksema, & Englesma taught.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by yeutter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



I am not familiar with Hoeksema's view. I have read Gerstner's stuff on freewill and if he is a hypercalvinist, so is Edwards.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Aug 15, 2005)

Gill was just a hypercalvinistic calvinist, not a hypercalvinist...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bryan_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by yeutter_
> ...



Boyce was not a Baptist.


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 15, 2005)

Ahem,
James Petigru Boyce was a Baptist. He was the founder and first president of Southern Seminary.

James Montgomery Boice was a Prebyeterian. He was the pastor of Tenth Presbyterian - Philadelphia


----------



## CapnJ (Aug 15, 2005)

James Petigru Boyce was a 19th century Baptist and taught at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. I think you are thinking of James Montgomery Boyce a Presbyterian pastor and author.


----------



## CapnJ (Aug 15, 2005)

Oops, too slow. And I can't believe I spelled J.M. Boice's name wrong, since I can clearly see some of his commentaries from where I sit. Early Monday, I guess.


----------



## CalsFarmer (Aug 15, 2005)

One can check out Phils Blog @
www.phillipjohnson.blogspot.com

Very enjoyable, the blog is called PyroManiac


----------



## yeutter (Aug 15, 2005)

Let me raise the question again.
It would seem to me if Johnson were consistant he could not catagorize Hoeksema and Englesma as hypercalvinists without doing the same to Gerstner and Toplady.
What am I missing?


----------



## Athanasius (Aug 24, 2005)

Thomas,
It might help if you let us know under what exact criterial point you are coming to this conclusion. 

I would certainly say that Hoeksema and Englesma are hypercalvinists, for they deny Common Grace and the Free Offer of the Gospel -- two of the dearest doctrines of the Reformed Faith. Furthermore, I'd say that because of this...they are downright dangerous.

I have heard reports that Toplady did not believe the Arminian Christian was saved...if this is so, I am heartily saddened by it. He sure did write some great hymns, though!

*Edit:* In looking up Scott Clark's copy of the Free Offer of the Gospel (Stonehouse & Murray), it does indeed appear that Gerstner is a hypercalvinist.

*Scott Clark:*


> On the Reformed right (the so-called hyper-Calvinists), there is a strain of rationalism which one finds expressed by thinkers such as Herman Hoeksema, Gordon Clark and John Gerstner, which rejects the doctrine of the Free Offer of the Gospel as Arminian. They are rationalists inasmuch as they reject this doctrine fundamentally because they find it unreasonable. Reformed theology has been accused for its entire history of beginning with an a priori doctrine of divine sovereignty from which it is said to have deduced its doctrines of double predestination and the federalism. This charge has been shown by modern historical theology (e.g., the massive research of Richard Muller summarized in C. R. Trueman and R. S. Clark, ed., Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment [Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1999]) to be patently false when applied to the mainstream of historic, confessional Reformed theology. There have been exceptions, and on this question, G. Clark, Hoeksema and Gerstner lived up to the caricature of Reformed theology.



[Edited on 24-8-2005 by Athanasius]


----------



## Bryan (Aug 27, 2005)

Reading through Gerstner 's "Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth", and his section comparing the Kingdom offer to Calvinism reminded me of this thread. I can understand why your asking about him now. He makes some comments that can be interperated as to put him under the #3 type Hyper-Calvinists as defined by Phil (and says that the Protestant Reformed Churches have this idea right while Westminster has it wrong). Since the book isn't designed to be about Calvinism however I'll have to wait until I read some stuff by him that is actually on Calvinism before saying he actually does cross into some hyper-calvinistic territory.

Bryan
SDG


----------

