# Phil Johnson's Blog



## pastorway (Jun 1, 2005)

check it out - great article on June 1!

http://phillipjohnson.blogspot.com/2005/06/quick-and-dirty-calvinism.html


----------



## Poimen (Jun 2, 2005)

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.




[Edited on 6-2-2005 by poimen]


----------



## Authorised (Jun 2, 2005)

Ouch. 

He nailed it. 




It's quite...humbling...


----------



## turmeric (Jun 2, 2005)

I aspire to being a beardless Calvinist!


----------



## Robin (Jun 2, 2005)

Wow ....we needed to hear that!



Robin


----------



## govols (Jun 2, 2005)

And to believe he's with MacArthur and a historic Dispensational.

  

Great article.


----------



## BobVigneault (Jun 2, 2005)

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!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 2, 2005)

It was good that in the blog Phil mentioned 5 Sola's and not us (PB)!


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Jun 2, 2005)

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.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 2, 2005)

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.


----------



## Augusta (Jun 2, 2005)

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.


----------



## Reformingstudent (Jun 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> It was good that in the blog Phil mentioned 5 Sola's and not us (PB)!



If he wants to see hyper he ought to check out some of the Yahoo groups.


----------



## cupotea (Jun 2, 2005)

I'm in China and the link is dead, could some one post the whole article
or u2u me? Thanks.


----------



## Joseph Ringling (Jun 2, 2005)

> _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.



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.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 2, 2005)

The article in full:



> Quick-and-Dirty Calvinism
> 
> Bashing Calvinism is the latest fad in blogdom. My turn.
> 
> ...


----------



## AdamM (Jun 2, 2005)

> 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.



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).


----------



## cupotea (Jun 3, 2005)

Fredrick thank you for posting!


----------



## Poimen (Jun 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> > What was is it Sproul said "if you think a converted drunk is bad try a converted arminian."
> ...



Yes preach it brother!

But just remember that Reformed is not enough.


----------



## Myshkin (Jun 3, 2005)

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]


----------



## wsw201 (Jun 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by AdamM_
> ...



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.


----------



## AdamM (Jun 3, 2005)

> 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.



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.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 3, 2005)

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.


----------



## john_Mark (Jun 3, 2005)

> _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.



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

Good to see you posting, Rich. It's nice agreeing with you.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 3, 2005)

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


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 3, 2005)

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.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2005)

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.


----------



## Bryan (Jun 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Phil is mature and isn't going to say anything rash.



But no doubt many weird things!

Bryan
SDG


----------



## govols (Jun 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by john_Mark_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> ...



Mark,



You were supposed to call back to do lunch


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 8, 2005)

I'm glad this was posted.


----------



## heartoflesh (Jun 8, 2005)

What's all this about Rob SchlÃ¤pfer "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?


----------



## Bryan (Jun 8, 2005)

To quote Phil Johnson (This bit appears as the listing regarding The Discerning Reading on Phil's bookmarks) on what happened over there:




> The story of this company's sudden meltdown is one of the saddest and most bizarre sagas of the Christian Web. The Discerning Reader is a Medford, OR-based bookselling business that over the years sponsored several excellent and well-designed Web sites"”including Antithesis, Christian counterculture, and a colorful critique of postmodernism. At least ninety percent of their book recommendations were excellent and insightful. We highly recommended them for more than two years.
> Then complaints began to multiply about customer service problems at The Discerning Reader. Customer-service difficulties per se are inevitable and an understandable part of doing business by mail. What was disturbing here was the coarse and pugnacious way owner Rob SchlÃ¤pfer lashed out at his customers with profanity-laced abuse. We know this is a fact, because (even though we never complained about customer service,) as we have sought to understand and make sense of the changes taking place on the various Discerning Reader-sponsored Web sites, we have more than once been on the receiving end of some choice but unprintable expletives from Mr. SchlÃ¤pfer.
> As the controversy grew regarding Mr. Schlapfer and his abuse of customers, he began to attack the theological stance he himself had at first claimed to represent. He hypocritically wagged his finger at Reformed Christians, suggesting that their theology made them abusive and unloving. He has now given a wholesale endorsement and his highest rating to a book calling for evangelicals to embrace postmodernism. Since we once recommended this site and its sister sites with the highest accolades, we think it only fair to issue an equally strong warning: Discernment seems to be in very short supply these days at The Discerning Reader. Caveat emptor.



Bryan
SDG


----------



## govols (Jun 8, 2005)

> _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.



Rich,

Questions for you and / or others (please sir):

- What is the difference between Historic Premillennialism and Covenantal Premillenialsm?
- How / where has Phil rejected Futuristic Premillennialism and embraced a more "covenantal" stance?
- Has Phil stepped down as an elder?
- Where can you verify the information that Phil is truly covenantal?

Not saying that anything is wrong with any of the above. 

Just wondering b/c what I say and what is true can be skewed sometimes (Heard from so and so OR could have sworn I read that somewhere). I am in no way saying that anyone is skewing the truth !!! :bigsmile:
I just want verification other than word of mouth. 

[Edited on 6-8-2005 by govols]


----------



## heartoflesh (Jun 8, 2005)

Ah yes...Antithesis. I forgot that one. 

I found this on his site....

http://www.antithesis.com/apology.html


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by govols_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> ...



I think covenantal premillennialism is the same thing as Progressive dispensationalism. I don't know for sure...

As for the next three questions I, for one, could not verify; however, I think for the most part his embracing of covnenatal premillennialism is one of semantics: He is still not friendly towards amillennialism/postmillennialism. When writers such as Ligon Duncan and others write superb articles on justification, imputation, etc., then he is willing to overlook their "hardline, doctrinaire amillennialism and sacramentology," taken from his review of pressiechurch.org.


----------



## Reformed1 (Jun 16, 2005)

Phil just posted this link on his blog: http://steve.poling.info/theofun.html

It's hilarious! It's meant to be "a virtual cheat-sheet so that when you can't think anything truly clever, you can still sound theologically erudite." LOL!

How's this? - "Most scholars seem to have forgotten that the introduction of gnosticism necessitates that urgent consideration be made of undue reliance on derivative materials." 

[Edited on 11/04/2004 by Reformed1]


----------



## turmeric (Jun 16, 2005)

I don't have the gnosis to follow that!


----------



## jacobiloved (Jan 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Reformed1_
> Phil just posted this link on his blog: http://steve.poling.info/theofun.html
> 
> It's hilarious! It's meant to be "a virtual cheat-sheet so that when you can't think anything truly clever, you can still sound theologically erudite." LOL!
> ...



very good !!! :bigsmile:

I am sure glad the Bible doesn't read like that ............ what would Peter have made of Paul then


----------

