07 July 2025

Twenty Years Ago Today

by Phil Johnson

arlene and I were in London 20 years ago today. I was preaching at the Metropolitan Tabernacle's School of Theology when suicide bombers detonated 3 bombs on the London Underground & one on a bus. 52 people died. More than 800 were maimed or injured.

We were not close enough to hear any of the explosions, but somehow word of the attacks spread through the Met Tab congregation, and when I finished my message, there was an eery silence. By the time I came down from the pulpit, the Tabernacle was already more than half empty.

I had never had a reaction like that to to any of my sermons, so I asked Darlene if I had said or done something unintentionally offensive. She told me there was some kind of emergency—explosions in the London Underground, possibly terrorism. The whole city was shutting down.

We didn't immediately understand the scope of it, but all of London quickly ground to a halt. There were no cars or buses moving on the roadways, but London's streets were filled with pedestrians trying to get home.

I had been posting regular updates from that visit to London. Here is what I posted that day.

...and I posted this the following day from the departure lounge in Heathrow as we waited to board our return flight to Los Angeles.

Hard to believe 20 years has come and gone since then.

Phil's signature


24 July 2024

If God is Good, Omnipotent, and Sovereign, Where Does Evil Come From?

by Phil Johnson

When bad things happen, has God lost control?

rminian reasoning: "If God is sovereign, doesn't that make him the author of evil? Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing, beneficent God permit evil in the first place?

The only honest way for an Arminian to avoid the difficulty those questions pose would be to answer the same way process theology and open theology deal with the dilemma: "God doesn't actually know the future; he is taking calculated risks."

That opens up greater problems than ever. It nullifies divine omniscience; it erases the doctrine of divine immutability (the truth that God is unchanging; that Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever). It is a full-scale attack on classic theism.

Calvinists are often targeted with the charge that they make God the author or the instrumental cause of evil, but the truth is no one has thought more carefully about this issue or written more clarifying material on it than the great Calvinist theologians across reformation history.

Jonathan Edwards, for example, covers it in detail in his book The Freedom of the Will. He has a whole chapter titled "Concerning that objection against the doctrine which has been maintained, that it makes God the Author of Sin." (In modern editions, that title is shortened to the question: "Is God the Author of Sin?")

Edwards says this:

[Those] who object, that [the doctrine of divine sovereignty] makes God the Author of Sin, ought distinctly to explain what they mean by that phrase, "The Author of Sin." I know the phrase, as it is commonly used, signifies something very ill. If by the Author of Sin, be meant [that God is] the Sinner, the Agent, [the] Actor of Sin, or the Doer of a wicked thing; so it would be a reproach and blasphemy, to suppose God to be the Author of Sin. In [that] sense, I utterly deny God to be the Author of Sin . . . such an imputation on the Most High . . ..is infinitely to be abhorred . . ..But if, by the Author of Sin, is meant the permitter, or not a hinderer of Sin; and, at the same time, [He has a holy purpose in all that He does, and he uses even the evil that is done by evil agents for His own] wise, holy, and most excellent ends and purposes, that Sin, if it be permitted or not hindered, will most certainly and infallibly follow: [and as we know, God deplores evil, and will defeat it and glorify himself in doing so] This is not to be the Actor of Sin, but, on the contrary, of holiness. What God doth herein, is holy; and a glorious exercise of the infinite excellency of his nature.

God is never the instrumental cause of evil. He does not does not advocate sin, sanction it, instigate it, condone it, approve it, or otherwise countenance it.

But the appearance of evil in God's creation did not take Him by surprise or catch Him off guard. It was part of His plan from the beginning. He doesn't delight in it. It is abhorrent to Him. He remains utterly untainted by its existence. And even in His absolute sovereignty, God is never the efficient cause or the agent of evil. James 1:13: "God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one." He "is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5). God is absolutely holy, and high above sin and evil, totally untouched by it.

Nevertheless, don't ever imagine that evil is something foreign to God's plan. The sudden appearance of evil at the dawn of the universe and in the early chapters of Genesis does not mean something went haywire in God's strategy. He planned for evil to enter His universe—indeed, He decreed that it would occur—so that He might use it to bring about an even greater good.

Not only that, but He also remains fully sovereign over every act of evil that is ever committed. The Old Testament book of Job gives us a little window into the workings of the Spirit world. It reveals that even Satan himself cannot act apart from God's permission. And God never allows evil agents to act unless His purpose is to overrule their evil intentions for His own wise and holy purposes.

He will glorify Himself in the defeat of evil, and He will make even the fruits of evil all work together for good, in accord with His good pleasure. He's doing it even now, for those who have spiritual eyes to see.

Phil's signature

PS: See also "Does Calvinism Make God the Author of Evil?"


08 June 2023

About that Missing Blogpost....

A note from Dan Phillips

After about seven years without a post, I posted a copy of a letter I sent to the congregation I serve in Houston, Texas. I wanted to help parents talk with their children about the ubiquitous "Pride Month" intrusions. Then I followed up with a sermon. But someone flagged it to Blogger, where it was ruled that my post was "Hate Speech." Their definition: "content that promotes or condones violence against or has the primary purpose of inciting hatred against an individual or group on the basis of their …sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or any other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization." This, of a post that literally says "we don't hate people who want bad things…. We love people who don't know Jesus…" But today, to believe in the actual Jesus is to be called a "hater." You will find my letter posted elsewhere, unedited.

Click HERE to read the post Blogger tried to censor.


Dan Phillips's signature



28 December 2022

Not Today, Devil

by Phil Johnson

any readers will remember a blogpost I wrote in August of 2011 analyzing Mark Driscoll's claim that he had a bizarre spiritual gift: an uncanny psychic ability enabling him to function as a kind of supernatural peeping Tom. He claimed to be able to watch vivid, full-color replays of his counselees' sexual sins on some sort of cosmic big screen. It was a tasteless claim—

No, it was worse. It was a rank blasphemy to claim such a freakishly prurient peculiarity had been given to him by the Holy Spirit.

A few weeks ago he filed a copyright claim to have YouTube remove that video. It was an ironic stance for him to take, given his own reputation as an unbridled plagiarist.

Anyway, I never received any notice of the takedown, and since I rarely look at my own YouTube channel, I didn't notice until YouTube's referees had already judged Driscoll's claim as legitimate. I nevertheless wrote three appeals pointing out that my use of the video clearly falls well within the 1976 Copyright Law's definition of "Fair Use," because I posted it in order to make critical commentary for a purpose that was both newsworthy and (in the proper sense) educational.

YouTube's judges held their ground, however—apparently because my actual criticisms of Driscoll's remarks were posted in the accompanying blogpost, and not in the video itself.

So I have corrected that problem by incorporating the gist of my critical remarks into the video and reposting it, together with a quotation from the relevant legal statute demonstrating why the Fair Use doctrine protects my posting of these excerpts.

If you'd like to see the revised video (unaltered except for the addition of my commentary), you can observe it where it is now imbedded in that 2011 blogpost, or at my Youtube channel. I won't imbed it here, because frankly it gives me nausea every time I see it. But I wanted to keep the matter well documented, because I hear that Driscoll has gained a sizeable new following of naive young people, and frankly, I think he is more dangerous and more unorthodox than he was at the peak of his original popularity.

 

Phil's signature


21 November 2022

Current Status

Still no response from Twitter:

19 December update: People keep writing to tell me they don't think I'm banned from Twitter because if they go to my Twitter account, they can see my Tweets. Here's the deal:

Anyone with Twitter access can see my old Tweets, up to the day I was banned (October 14, 2022). But I can't sign on, post, or read any Tweets using my own account. They are holding me hostage, insistent that I must first confess that I committed a crime of "hate speech."

What did I say? Well, I linked to a news story about a drag-queen crossing guard hired to work at a public elementary school. Then on that same day I linked to a TikTok video posted by an elementary-school teacher who insists it ought to be a very high priority for all public schools to indoctrinate kindergartners to embrace and celebrate gender fluidity, regardless of their parents' opinions. And then I said this is tantamount to government-sponsored, taxpayer-funded grooming.

Twitter demands that I delete the offending Tweet[s], and they say I can have my account back whenever I do that. However, they also add: "By clicking delete you acknowledge that your Tweet violated the Twitter [hate speech] rules."

I refuse to kowtow to such a worldview. Hence it seems I'm off Twitter permanently or until they acknowledge my right to have moral convictions that are shaped by Scripture rather than the opinions of humanistic elitists. It's not an insignificant fine point, in my judgment.

5 December update: Last week's promised "general amnesty" didn't materialize. Also, Twitter support has not replied to any of my queries. Apparently the old policy is still in place—namely if you want to be reinstated, you must plead guilty to the charge of "hate speech."

Twitter's staff are just as unresponsive as ever to emails and other queries from people they have arbitrarily banned.

Elon Musk needs to assign a cohort of capable employees to answering people's appeals, or (better yet) go ahead and implement the general amnesty he promised.

Phil's signature


14 November 2022

About my Twitter "Hiatus"

by Phil Johnson

witter banned me a month ago today because I said that local school boards' efforts to normalize sexual perversion in the minds of elementary school children is taxpayer-funded, state-driven grooming.

Twitter says I can have my account back if I will delete the Tweet that offended their censors' notion of civil propriety. For the record, I would be happy to do that. I have even written them and offered to to that.

However—

They also expressly stated that by deleting the Tweet I would be formally admitting I broke Twitter's rules against "hate speech," and that is something I cannot conscientiously do.

This is a classic example of how social media moguls are attempting to overrule and reshape the consciences of their users. My Tweet was not an expression of "hate" aimed at anyone—not even the drag-queen crossing guard into whose custody kindergartners have been placed (contrary to many parents' wishes)—not even the teacher who boasted on Instagram how she was inculcating LGBTQRSTU ideology into the minds of her elementary students while keeping her moral agenda secret from parents. My Tweet (like this blog entry) was a simple statement of my own moral convictions, without malice or ill-will.

Several have urged me to go ahead and delete the offending Tweet rather than be silenced. I will be happy to do that if Twitter will state in writing that they understand my compliance with their wishes is not a guilty plea.

I'm not asking for anyone to start a campaign about this. I'm simply explaining (for the sake of many who keep asking) why I'm off Twitter and why I haven't done what Twitter is asking me to in order to get my account restored.

Phil's signature


22 November 2021

Spurgeon to Archibald Brown

by Phil Johnson
(Click for a hi-res image.)

n October 28, 1887 (a Friday)—well into the Down Grade controversy—Charles Spurgeon wrote the Secretary of the Baptist union to withdraw his membership in the Union.

The following Tuesday, November 1, he hand-wrote this letter to his friend Archibald Brown, urging him to withdraw from the Union as well:

Westwood
Beulah Hill
Upper Norwood
1887 Nov 1

Dear Mr Brown,

Mr. Booth recd a formal notice from me on Friday. Let him have yours too, for otherwise they will not know of yr going with me. We are to sink or swim together. Blessed be God for so dear a comrade.

Did you see Clifford's Appeal in Pall Mall on Saturday? Deceivableness of unrighteousness!"

The fire is catching in Scotland. God will I trust work by this discussion.

The Lord bless you

Yours Heartily

C. H. Spurgeon

My most treasured item of historic Baptist memorabilia is the handwritten original of that letter. Some details about the context:

"Clifford" is John Clifford, who had written an unctuous "Appeal to Mr. Spurgeon" in the Saturday edition of The Pall Mall Gazette. (That article is what Spurgeon is referring to in his letter to Brown.) Clifford was serving at the time as Vice-President of the Baptist Union. A year later he would be elected president, and in that role he would preside over the Baptist Union's infamous censure of Spurgeon. In his mostly excellent biography of Spurgeon, W. Y. Fullerton charitably tries to portray Clifford as "one of Mr. Spurgeon's most ardent admirers." He was anything but. He was analogous to those who call themselves "progressive" today.

When Clifford first came to London at the age of 20 in 1856, he came to the city specifically to hear Spurgeon. But even in those days, Clifford was hardly a solid Bible-believing evangelical. He was enthralled with Ralph Waldo Emerson and had seriously contemplated becoming a Unitarian. Ultimately, however, he remained at least nominally evangelical and in 1858 took a position as pastor of the Praed Street Baptist Church in London, where he remained until his retirement in 1915.

By the late 1880s, Clifford had concluded that Spurgeon and the brand of evangelical conviction he represented were oldfangled and out of fashion—and Clifford thus helped lead the modernist effort to silence Spurgeon's concerns about doctrinal down grade. Tom Nettles describes Clifford as an "irrepressible liberal. Personally, I like Spurgeon's description of Clifford's passive-aggressive approach to Spurgeon and the Down Grade: "Deceivableness of unrighteousness!"

A month later, Spurgeon wrote the secretary of the Baptist Union Council, declining the council's plea for him to reconsider his resignation. In that letter, Spurgeon said candidly, "I regard full-grown 'modern thought' as a totally new cult, having no more relation to Christianity than the mist of the evening to the everlasting hills."

 

Phil's signature