Decisions, decisions: choosing to serve the Lord

by Dan Phillips

I've remarked before (notably here, and in all these posts) that I think some highly-caffeinated Reformed types don't help The Cause much when they pick apart just about every word that comes out of most Christians' mouths.

Another example is the use made of Joshua 24:15 — "And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

Popularly, two clauses are singled out from this verse: "choose this day whom you will serve," and "as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." The popular use is to call people to decision, to call them to decide for Christ, to choose to serve Him.

Hypercaffeinated Calvinists (imho) retort with a sneer that this is "decisional regeneration," or "decisionalism," or something like that. Forced to expand, they point out that Joshua is not saying "Choose whether or not you will serve Yahweh." Rather, he is saying, "If you will not serve Yahweh, then choose what false god you will serve."

Fair enough, as far as it goes. That is what the verse says. And anyone who's read the whole eighth chapter of TWTG, which is devoted to the Biblical doctrine of regeneration, knows that I don't see the Bible as teaching that new birth is caused by a human decision.

But don't humans make a decision? Is it helpful simply to dismiss the whole thought? I mean, dude, bro — what is repentance, if it doesn't involve a decision? What is faith? Don't we say that it has a volitional element? And what is the volition, if not the faculty that chooses? Don't we teach that we're all born heading south, and we have to do a 180? Isn't a reverse direction — though enabled by a work of sovereign grace — a decision?

Even putting all that aside, I don't even think the exegesis of this text stands up as a hypercaffeinated Calvinist critique.

Isn't context an important element of exegesis? Hypercaf critics do do a better job that popular Christians, in that they go back to verse 14, read all of 15, and note that the specific words are not a call to choose whether or not to serve Yahweh. Fair enough, as far as that goes.

But.

Keep reading. Read verses 16-27, and what do you see?

16 Then the people answered, "Far be it from us that we should forsake the LORD to serve other gods, 17 for it is the LORD our God who brought us and our fathers up from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, and who did those great signs in our sight and preserved us in all the way that we went, and among all the peoples through whom we passed.  18 And the LORD drove out before us all the peoples, the Amorites who lived in the land. Therefore we also will serve the LORD, for he is our God."

 19 But Joshua said to the people, "You are not able to serve the LORD, for he is a holy God. He is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions or your sins.  20 If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, then he will turn and do you harm and consume you, after having done you good."

 21 And the people said to Joshua, "No, but we will serve the LORD."

 22 Then Joshua said to the people, "You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen the LORD, to serve him." And they said, "We are witnesses."

 23 He said, "Then put away the foreign gods that are among you, and incline your heart to the LORD, the God of Israel."

 24 And the people said to Joshua, "The LORD our God we will serve, and his voice we will obey."

 25 So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and put in place statutes and rules for them at Shechem.  26 And Joshua wrote these words in the Book of the Law of God. And he took a large stone and set it up there under the terebinth that was by the sanctuary of the LORD.  27 And Joshua said to all the people, "Behold, this stone shall be a witness against us, for it has heard all the words of the LORD that he spoke to us. Therefore it shall be a witness against you, lest you deal falsely with your God."

The people retort that they will serve Yahweh. Joshua replies that they won't be able to, because of their fickleness. They insist that they will serve Him. So Joshua formalizes this declaration, indicating his approval — first saying "you have chosen the LORD, to serve him" (v. 22).

In other words, they did choose Yahweh, in response to Joshua's challenge. They did choose Yahweh.

And, in conversion, so do we.

---

A Word to Squeamish Preachers and Hyper-Calvinists

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "Lingerers Hastened," a sermon preached Sunday morning, 12 January 1868, at the Met Tab in London.

f you really long to save men's souls, you must tell them a great deal of disagreeable truth.

The preaching of the wrath of God has come to be sneered at nowadays, and even good people are half ashamed of it; a maudlin sentimentality about love and goodness has hushed, in a great measure, plain gospel expostulations and warnings.

But, my brethren, if we expect souls to be saved, we must declare unflinchingly with all affectionate fidelity, the terrors of the Lord.

"Well," said the Scotch lad when he listened to the minister who told his congregation that there was no hell, or at any rate only a temporary punishment, "Well," said he, "I need not come and hear this man any longer, for if it be as he says, it is all right, and religion is of no consequence, and if it be not as he says, then I must not hear him again, because he will deceive me."

"Therefore," says the apostle, "Knowing the terrors of the Lord we persuade men." Let not modern squeamishness prevent plain speaking concerning everlasting torment. Are we to be more gentle than the apostles? Shall we be wiser than the inspired preachers of the word? Until we feel our minds overshadowed with the dread thought of the sinner's doom we are not in a fit frame for preaching to the unconverted. We shall never persuade men if we are afraid to speak of the judgment and the condemnation of the unrighteous.

None was so infinitely gracious as our Lord Jesus Christ, yet no preacher ever uttered more faithful words of thunder than he did. It was he who spoke of the place "where their worm dieth not and their fire is not quenched." It was he who said, "These shall go away into everlasting punishment." It was he who spake the parable concerning that man in hell who longed for a drop of water to cool his tongue.

We mast be as plain as Christ was—as downright in honesty to the souls of men—or we may be called to account for our treachery at the last. If we flatter our fellows into fond dreams as to the littleness of future punishment, they will eternally detest us for so deluding them, and in the world of woe they will invoke perpetual curses upon us for having prophesied smooth things, and having withheld from them the awful truth.

When we have affectionately and plainly told the sinner that the wages of his sin will be death, and that woe will come upon him because of his unbelief, we must go farther, and must, in the name of our Lord Jesus, exhort the guilty one to escape from the deserved destruction. Observe, that these angels, though they understood that God had elected Lot to be saved, did not omit a single exhortation or leave the work to itself, as though it were to be done by predestination apart from instrumentality.

They said, "Arise, take thy wife and thy two daughters which are here, lest thou be consumed." How impressive is each admonition! What force and eagerness of love gleams in each entreaty! "Escape for thy life; look not behind thee; neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed." Every word is quick and powerful, decisive and to the point.

Souls want much earnest expostulation and affectionate exhortation, to constrain them to escape from their own ruin. Were they wise, the bare information of their danger would be enough, and the prospect of a happy escape would be sufficient; but they, as they are utterly unwise, as you and I know, for we were once such as they are, they must he urged, persuaded, and entreated to look to the Crucified that they may be saved. We should never have come to Christ unless divine constraint had been laid upon us, neither will they; that constraint usually comes by instrumentality; let us seek to be such instruments. If it had not been for earnest voices that spoke to us, and earnest teachers that beckoned us to come to the cross, we had never come. Let us therefore repay the debt we owe to the church of God, and seek as much as lieth in us to do unto others as God in his mercy hath done unto us.

I beseech you, my brethren, be active to persuade men with all your powers of reasoning and argument, salting the whole with tears of affection. Do not let any doctrinal notions stand in the way of the freest persuading when you are dealing with the minds of men, for sound doctrine is perfectly reconcilable therewith.

I recollect great complaint being made against a sermon of mine, "Compel them to come in," in which I spake with much tenderness for souls. That sermon was said to be Arminian and unsound. Brethren, it is a small matter to be judged of men's judgment, for my Master set his seal on that message; I never preached a sermon by which so many souls were won to God, as our church meetings can testify; and all over the world, where the sermon has been scattered, sinners have been saved through its instrumentality, and, therefore, if it be vile to exhort sinners, I purpose to be viler still.

I am as firm a believer in the doctrines of grace as any man living, and a true Calvinist after the order of John Calvin himself; but if it be thought an evil thing to bid the sinner lay hold on eternal life, I will be yet more evil in this respect, and herein imitate may Lord and his apostles, who, though they taught that salvation is of grace, and grace alone, feared not to speak to men as rational beings and responsible agents, and bid them "strive to enter in at the strait gate," and "labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life."

Beloved friends, cling to the great truth of electing love and divine sovereignity, but let not this bind you in fetters when, in the power of the Holy Ghost, you become fishers of men.

---

A Primer on Antinomianism

by Phil Johnson



ntinomianism is one of those theological terms that is notoriously hard to pin down. It has an admittedly sinister sound, and when many people hear the term, they think it speaks of wantonly advocating sin ("Why not do evil that good may come?"—Romans 3:8). Indeed that kind of extreme antinomianism exists. It was the doctrine of Rasputin, for example.

But in normal theological discourse the term antinomianism usually refers to theoretical antinomianism. Theoretical antinomians don't necessarily advocate extreme libertinism (or practical antinomianism). In fact, a great many theoretical antinomians are known for their advocacy of holiness. (And conversely, many who adhere to "Holiness doctrine" and various other perfectionist schemes are also theoretical antinomians.)

In totally non-technical terms, antinomianism is simply the view that Christians are not bound by any of the precepts of Moses' law—moral, civil, ceremonial, or otherwise.

The Reformers saw three proper uses of the moral precepts of Moses' law. Here's a summary from Article VI of the Lutheran Formula of Concord (the "Epitome," or short form):

"The Law has been given to men for three reasons: 1) to maintain external discipline against unruly and disobedient men, 2) to lead men to a knowledge of their sin, 3) after they are reborn, and although the flesh still inheres in them, to give them on that account a definite rule according to which they should pattern and regulate their entire life."

In other words, the "third use of the law" makes the law's moral standards the rule by which the faithful must order their conduct. In this sense, the moral strictures of the law remain binding on Christians, even though we are "not under the law" in the Pauline sense—i.e., not dependent on our own obedience for any part of our justification. (By the way, the entire Formula of Concord's Article VI is a brilliant refutation of antinomianism, and well worth reading.)



Calvin said the third use of the law is "the principle use." He wrote,

The third use of the Law (being also the principal use, and more closely connected with its proper end) has respect to believers in whose hearts the Spirit of God already flourishes and reigns. For although the Law is written and engraven on their hearts by the finger of God, that is, although they are so influenced and actuated by the Spirit, that they desire to obey God, there are two ways in which they still profit in the Law. For it is the best instrument for enabling them daily to learn with greater truth and certainty what that will of the Lord is which they aspire to follow, and to confirm them in this knowledge; just as a servant who desires with all his soul to approve himself to his master, must still observe, and be careful to ascertain his master's dispositions, that he may comport himself in accommodation to them. Let none of us deem ourselves exempt from this necessity, for none have as yet attained to such a degree of wisdom, as that they may not, by the daily instruction of the Law, advance to a purer knowledge of the Divine will. Then, because we need not doctrine merely, but exhortation also, the servant of God will derive this further advantage from the Law: by frequently meditating upon it, he will be excited to obedience, and confirmed in it, and so drawn away from the slippery paths of sin. In this way must the saints press onward . . .

Antinomianism, in essence, is a denial of the third use of the law, claiming that the moral law is not binding on Christians.

There are at least three major strains of theoretical antinomianism:

1. Hyper-Calvinistic antinomianism: Advocates of this view and variations thereof include Tobias Crisp and William Huntington, both 18th-century English preachers. (Some would dispute whether Crisp really fits in this category; I think he does.) They insisted that grace eliminates the moral law as a rule of life.

Hyper-Calvinism places emphasis on God's decretive will at the expense of His preceptive will. Hyper-Calvinists suggest that God's real character is to be discerned from His secret decrees, rather than from actual His commandments and precepts. If God really wanted people to obey this or that commandment, He is sovereign and could have brought it about by His sovereign decree. Since He didn't, it cannot be what He really desires. So the seriousness of the law as an expression of God's will is naturally downplayed by hyper-Calvinism, making most hyper-Calvinists susceptible to antinomianism.

Thus hyper-Calvinistic antinomians deny that the moral law applies in any way to believers, because grace (in their view) is totally incompatible with any law. Furthermore, they deny that the moral law applies to unregenerate people, too—because the unregenerate are not able to obey it.

Nineteenth-century British hypers were notoriously prone to theoretical antinomianism (see Iain Murray, Spurgeon & Hyper-Calvinism, p. 68, n. 1). They concluded that since sinners are unable to obey the moral law, it is wrong to preach that they are obligated to do so. Obviously, if moral inability excuses a sinner from the duty to believe, then on the same grounds he or she can be under no obligation to obey the Ten Commandments, either.

(Iain Murray's excellent book includes an appendix titled "The Injury Done by Hyper-Calvinism and Antinomianism—Words of Witness from Spurgeon"—taken from one of Spurgeon's New Park Street sermons. I happen to have that very sermon on line as part of The Spurgeon Archive. It's "The Minister's Farewell," and to read the bit Murray quotes, do a search for the words "the true minister of Christ"—and start reading at that point.)

This hyper-Calvinistic brand of antinomianism is far more common in England than in the US, but it is not unknown among the "Gospel Standard" people on this side of the Atlantic.



2. Dispensationalist Antinomianism: The idea here is that the relevance of the law was confined entirely to the Mosaic dispensation. The whole law has been abrogated in this dispensation of grace. All passages with a legal emphasis, such as the Sermon on the Mount, are assigned to other dispensations.

This type of antinomianism is found in differing degrees. Lewis Sperry Chafer's book Grace is the classic statement of the view. Charles Ryrie advocates a modified (softened) version of Chafer's view, but he still would fall in the dispensational antinomian category. Zane Hodges, on the other hand, went miles further than Chafer, and he devised a novel, radical antinomianism that deserves a category of its own:

3. No-lordship antinomianism: Those who hold this view make sanctification an optional aspect of the believer's experience. This view (like the other two) makes a hard-line dichotomy between law and grace, treating the two as utterly incompatible. (It is closely related to dispensationalist antinomianism, using the same fundamental rationale—but pushing antinomianism to much further extremes.)

This version of antinomianism suggests that if salvation is by grace through faith, then nothing can possibly be viewed as essential to salvation if it involves the believer's obedience, or surrender, or submission to Christ's lordship—or anything more than a notional "assent." In this view, sanctification itself is seen as legal in character and is therefore regarded as an optional, purely elective, aspect of the Christian experience.

This is what the "lordship salvation" controversy was about a few years ago. Zane Hodges would be the most extreme advocate of this brand of antinomianism. Jody Dillow has tried (in vain, I think) to give this view some academic respectability with his book Reign of the Servant Kings.

Here's a classic sample of modern antinomianism from Bob George's booklet "A Closer Look at Law & Grace." Bob George has combined dispensationalist antinomianism and deeper-life passivity into his own designer variety of antinomianism. But note how plainly he states the antinomian agenda:

The purpose of the law is to show us our need for salvation and then point us to Christ. Once it has done this, the law serves no other purpose.

That's about as blatant a statement of antinomianism as you'll find anywhere. It is a straightforward denial of the third use of the law. It is also a significant departure from the historic evangelical perspective.

Someone will no doubt ask, "Doesn't Scripture itself set grace and law against one another? Doesn't the biblical idea of grace eliminate law?"

While it is true that Scripture never mingles grace and works as grounds for justification, it is not the case that grace rules out law altogether, or vice versa. Paul's whole point in Galatians is that the proper uses of the Law are all compatible with grace. In fact, the true purposes of the law are all gracious. Law only impinges on grace when the sinners own legal works are seen as means of salvation or as instruments of justification.

And when Paul says we are "not under law," he's speaking about our relationship to the law with regard to our justification (cf. Galatians 5:4).

Finally, here are some definitions of antinomianism from some standard theological dictionaries:

1. From Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), p. 57:

[Antinomianism] refers to the doctrine that it is not necessary for Christians to preach and/or obey the moral law of the OT.

2. From Baker's Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1960), 48:

ANTINOMIANISM. The word comes from the Greek anti, against, and nomos, law, and signifies opposition to law. It refers to the doctrine that the moral law is not binding upon Christians as a rule of life.

And here's a bonus, from John MacArthur's Faith Works (p. 95):

In short, antinomianism is the belief that allows for justification without sanctification.
    Antinomianism makes obedience [to the moral law] elective. While most antinomians strongly counsel Christians to obey (and even urge them to obey), they do not believe obedience is a necessary consequence of true faith . . .. And that is what makes no-lordship theology antinomian.

---

The Problem of Evil (Yes, it IS a Problem)

by Phil Johnson



omeone somewhere recently must have broadcast one of my messages where I mentioned the problem of evil and the sovereignty of God. Because I have been besieged lately by e-mails, Facebook messages, and Tweets from a handful of gung-ho Calvinists (currently veering at breakneck speed into hyper-Calvinism) who want to take issue with something I said. What I said is that God is neither the author, the agent, nor the efficient cause of evil. Evil is not something He created; rather, when He finished creating, He pronounced everything good. Nor does evil in any way emanate from Him, because He is light in whom there is no darkness. The responsibility (as well as the blame) for evil belongs to fallen creatures, not the Creator.

Anyway, these young men (who have recently discovered the doctrines of grace and are evidently still in the cage stage) have been writing me to dispute that point. "There is no 'problem of evil,'" a typical correspondent wrote. "What's the problem? God, who is the Creator of all things and who uses all things in the outworking of His eternal plan, Created evil for His own purpose. That poses no problem because God is above His own law and outside of it. Because He is subject to no law Himself, whatever He does is good, period. He can do anything, and when He does it, it becomes good."

"Can God lie?" I asked?

"Of course," my correspondent replied, flatly contradicting Titus 1:2.

The view that fellow was espousing is the ex lex theodicy—the notion that God can actively and directly cause evil, and that He can violate the moral standards of His own law because he is outside the law (Latin: ex lex) and therefore subject to no law and no set of principles whatsoever.

Let's stipulate that God is subject to no law and is Himself the ultimate Lawgiver, responsible to no one but Himself. (That is, after all, what we mean when we affirm that God is absolutely sovereign.) Nevertheless, it is blasphemous folly to conclude that God can lie, or deny the truth, or otherwise be the agent and efficient cause of evil. He cannot (and will not) do those things because they are contrary to His character. The law forbids such things precisely because the moral standard of the law reflects His character. God may not be subject to the law, but He will not deny Himself or act in a way contrary to His character.

Here's an excerpt from something I wrote and posted on this subject at my original blog several years ago:

ordon Clark wrote a short but very thought-provoking work titled "God and Evil: The problem Solved" (originally a chapter in his book Religion, Reason and Revelation, now also published as a standalone work). The work itself is not on the Web, but a sympathetic review and summary by Gary Crampton may be found here. In some respects, Clark's work is helpful, explaining clearly (for example) the principle of secondary causation and how it relates to the issue of culpability. (This is an important point which, as noted below, Clark then unfortunately proceeds to make moot.) Clark also gives several clear reasons why it's neither biblical nor rational to argue that God merely "permitted" evil without sovereignly decreeing it. (Without getting sidetracked on a secondary issue, let me go on record as saying I believe there is a permissive element in God's decree with respect to evil. That is, His decree doesn't make him the author or efficient cause of evil. But, as Calvin said, God's role in the origin of evil is not bare permission. In other words, it's not permission against His will, but a positive decree. In that respect, I think Clark is absolutely right, and his arguments on this point are cogent and persuasive.) But in the process, Clark makes much of the ex lex argument to absolve God from the charge that He is therefore culpable for the entry of evil into His creation. This, I believe, is not particularly helpful, and a lot of people who have been influenced by Clark and who think he has neatly and easily solved the problem of evil tend to fall into terribly sloppy thinking about divine holiness, God's instrumentality with respect to evil, and the relationship between causality and culpability. Anyway, I think John Frame's assessment of Clark's famous theodicy is helpful. Here it is. Frame's own footnotes are included in braces {and faint type}: [Clark's] argument is that God is ex lex, which means "outside of the law." The idea is that God is outside of or above the laws he prescribes for man. He tells us not to kill, yet he retains for himself the right to take human life. Thus, he is not himself bound to obey the Ten Commandments or any other law given to man in Scripture. Morally, he is on an entirely different level from us. Therefore, he has the right to do many things that seem evil to us, even things which contradict Scriptural norms. For a man to cause evil indirectly might very well be wrong, but it would not be wrong for God. {But on this basis, it would also not be wrong for God to cause evil directly. That is why I said this argument makes the indirect-cause argument beside the point.} Thus Clark neatly finesses any argument against God's justice or goodness. There is some truth in this approach. As we shall see, Scripture does forbid human criticism of God's actions, and the reason is, as Clark implies, divine transcendence. It is also true that God has some prerogatives that he forbids to us, such as the freedom to take human life. Clark forgets, however, or perhaps denies, the Reformed and biblical maxim that the law reflects God's own character. To obey the law is to imitate God, to be like him, to image him (Ex. 20:11; Lev. 11:44-45; Matt. 5:45; 1 Peter 1:15-16). There is in biblical ethics also an imitation of Christ, centered on the atonement (John 13:34-35; Eph. 4:32; 5:1; Phil. 2:3ff.; 1 John 3:16; 4:8-10). Obviously, there is much about God that we cannot imitate, including those prerogatives mentioned earlier. Satan tempted Eve into seeking to become "like God" in the sense of coveting His prerogatives (Gen. 3:5). {John Murray said that the difference between the two ways of seeking God's likeness appears to be a razor's edge, while there is actually a deep chasm between them.} But the overall holiness, justice, and goodness of God is something we can and must imitate on the human level. So God does honor, in general, the same law that he gives to us. He rules out murder because he hates to see one human being murder another, and he intends to reserve for himself the right to control human death. He prohibits adultery because he hates adultery (which is a mirror of idolatry—see Hosea). We can be assured that God will behave according to the same standards of holiness that he prescribes for us, except insofar as Scripture declares a difference between his responsibilities and ours. {Oddly, Clark, who is usually accused of being a Platonic realist, at this point veers into the opposite of realism, namely, nominalism. The extreme nominalists held that the biblical laws were not reflections of God's nature, but merely arbitrary requirements. God could have as easily commanded adultery as forbidden it. I mentioned this once in a letter to Clark, and he appreciated the irony, but did not provide an answer. Why, I wonder, didn't he deal with moral law the same way he dealt with reason and logic in, e.g., The Johannine Logos (Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1972)? There he argued that God's reason/logic was neither above God (Plato) nor below God (nominalism), but God's own rational nature. Why did he not take the same view of God's moral standards?} [From: Apologetics to the Glory of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1994), 166-68.] Frame concludes that Clark's ex lex defense "simply is not biblical." I think he's right.

I hope that helps.

---

Here's your problem: you really, really don't get Deuteronomy 29:29

by Dan Phillips

Moses writes, “The secret things belong to [Yahweh] our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law" (Deuteronomy 29:29).

This revelatory nugget sets up two distinct, discrete categories.

1. Secret things, which (A) belong to Yahweh, and therefore (B) do not belong to us, and therefore (C) are neither our business to know, to do, nor even to be concerned about; and
2. Revealed things, which (A) belong to us and our children, and therefore (B) are not Yahweh's concern to do in our stead, and therefore (C) are our sole business and responsibility to know, to do, and to be concerned about.

I'm going to belabor those two points, then I'm going to apply them. (Note: the following assumes, rather than repeats, the Biblical case developed in previous posts and comments on this subject.)

Belaboring

God will not do Category 2 for you. That is, He will not love your wife in your stead. He will not raise your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord in your stead. He will not think about the Word in your stead. He will not go out and disciple the nations in your stead, hold out the Word of Life in your stead, shine in the darkness in your stead, nor be ready to give every man an answer for your hope in your stead.
 
He told you to do it. He told me to do it. We mustn't try to twit God — fool's errand! — by playing ultra-Calvinistically dumb.

Now, you cannot do it without His grace, His enabling, His Spirit. But do it you must. Do it you must. Do it you must. If you refuse — however complex, noble, nuanced and pious-sounding your excuses reasons — you are sinning, and you must repent.

Equally, you cannot do Category 1 for God. It isn't your responsibility. Look on the "Need-to-know" list, and you'll only find one name. It isn't yours, nor is it mine.

What's more, you cannot prevent God from doing Category 1. Unlike you and me, God always does what He sets out to do; and, also unlike us, nothing prevents Him from doing it. No matter how lazy or hyperactive, how wise or foolish, how stupid or bright, or how bold or timid you and I are, God can and will see to every last one of His "secret things." It is sheer unbelief to reason or act otherwise.

Applying

Now, just about every one of you thinks you believes those things. But dissonant strains in metas like this one really make me wonder.

If you believed Category 2, then you wouldn't worry about whether or not it is "doctrinally proper" to call people to come to Christ, to decide, to believe, to repent, to turn, to accept Christ, to get reconciled to God, or even to get saved. Because God issues all these commands, and authorizes us to echo them in His name (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:19-20).

We wouldn't waste our (and others') time, and embarrass ourselves, by trying to find longwinded ways of making the Word not say what it plainly does say. We wouldn't write 200-page essays on how the number 2, when doubled, actually equals Varfnod. We wouldn't get out our electromicroscopes and hyper-examine every possible implication of simply doing what God says to do, rather than simply doing it.

If you believed Category 1, then you wouldn't worry about whether or not you were issuing these invitations and commands to an elect person or a reprobate person. That's not your business! That's no part of your concern! If he's reprobate, he won't hear and respond anyway! If he's elect, he will! That's a secret thing. Let God worry about it.

That's it.

Maybe you expect another 2000 words, making this all nuanced and complex and deep.

But that's really all I have to say.

Except this: if the shoe doesn't fit, feel free to drive on.

But if it does... your issue's really not with me, now, is it?

---

You May Be a Hyper-Calvinist If...

by Phil Johnson



ithin the militantly Arminian sector of the Southern Baptist Convention, it seems there are still those who insist that "by the definition of Phil Johnson," James White is a hyper-Calvinist.

That charge was made earlier this month by Dr. David Allen at the "John 3:16 Conference" in Woodstock, GA. I first read about it a day later from a couple of live-bloggers who were present at that conference—Andrew Lindsey and the blogger known as johnMark. I commented on Dr. Allen's accusation immediately—first at Challies.com, then here on the blog. James White also responded to Dr. Allen both on his blog and via his webcast.

I figured that would be the end of the matter. Evidently not.

My initial response to Dr. Allen was admittedly written very quickly. (After all, it was a comment on Tim Challies' blog, not a doctoral dissertation.) Reading it more than a week later, however, it still seems clear enough, and I stand by everything I said. The gist of it was that if Dr. Allen thinks James White is a hyper-Calvinist by my definition, then he doesn't understand my definition.

Dr. Allen has now responded to his "critics." I can't tell whether he includes me in that category. I hope not, because classifying me as a "critic" makes it sound as if I'm the one on the offense. For the record, that is not the case. I would never have replied to Dr. Allen's lecture at all if he had not misused and misquoted my "Primer on Hyper-Calvinism" in a way that seemed calculated to pit me publicly against a friend.

Evidently, Dr. Allen isn't buying my explanation of my own position. He has a totally different interpretation of my notes on hyper-Calvinism, and he says he's going to "wait to see what Phil Johnson says" after I read his exegesis of my words. For those who have wondered: No, he didn't actually write me with any questions before undertaking to explain my views—or afterward, for that matter. Unless he used a pseudonym, he didn't comment on my blogpost here, either. (That would probably have been the best place to interact with me about the issue if he had been so inclined.) But I've heard nothing from him directly. If a friend had not pointed out that Dr. Allen had posted that response on another blog, I would have had no way of knowing that he is "wait[ing]" to hear from me at all. So I gather he is not exactly waiting with bated breath.

Nevertheless, Dr. Allen's "defense" demonstrates conclusively that he doesn't understand my definition of hyper-Calvinism. He relentlessly ascribes to me a position I have frequently refuted. He insists on paraphrasing my opinion in precisely the kind of ambiguous language I have emphatically repudiated. And (most frustrating of all) he utterly ignores everything I said in my earlier response to his lecture that might have helped shed light on the very things he misconstrues so badly.

For example, I made the point on November 7 that contrary to what Dr. Allen claimed in his lecture, my "Primer on hyper-Calvinism" deliberately says nothing whatsoever about God's "desires" with regard to the salvation of the reprobate. The use of such optative terminology with respect to the divine decrees is notoriously problematic, because terms like desire and wish are usually loaded with Arminian freight. So I try never to use such expressions without taking the time to explain what I mean. (Read carefully, for example, footnote 20 in "God Without Mood Swings.")

Yet Dr. Allen continues to insist that by my definition, one valid litmus test for hyper-Calvinism is a yes-or-no question about "God's universal saving will; namely, that God wills and desires to save the non-elect."

Before I point out how thoroughly wrong that idea is, let me also note that the fellow who provided blog space for Dr. Allen's "Defense" insinuates that my earlier reply to Dr. Allen's remarks was based on a false report: "Johnson apparently has only responded to what was 'live-blogged' which is virtually limited to 'James White is a hyper-Calvinist according to Phil Johnson's definition.' I have not seen anything from Phil Johnson—or James White, for that matter—that comes close to dealing with what Dr. Allen actually presented at the J316C." (The fellow elsewhere wrote a whole post blaming the livebloggers' "mistakes" for most of the controversy generated in the wake of the "John 3:16 Conference." But I've been listening to recordings of the messages today, and in my assessment, the actual conference was ten times more of a travesty than I gathered from reading the livebloggers' reports.)

In light of all that; since people are still talking about this; and since Dr. Allen is apparently waiting to hear from me, here are my further thoughts on Dr. Allen's original remarks and his more recent defense (including his blog-host's comments):

Regarding the supposed misrepresentation by livebloggers

First, let me say that I am utterly mystified by the suggestion that my earlier reply to Dr. Allen's comments was based on misinformation I got from people who blogged about the conference. My post began by citing Andrew Lindsey, who wrote: "Dr. Allen asserted that Dr. James White is a hyper-Calvinist according to Phil Johnson’s primer on hyper-Calvinism, as Dr. White says that God does not have any desire to save the non-elect." Now, if a secondhand source like that proved to be wrong, I would indeed owe Dr. Allen an apology. But the other liveblogger there was johnMark, whose account said, "James White is a hyper-Calvinist by the definition of Phil Johnson. Oct. 10 on the Dividing Line White denied God wills the salvation of all men which is against Tom Ascol."

By the mouth of two independent witnesses, we had agreeing accounts.

I realize, of course, that while two eyewitness accounts might satisfy the biblical standard of evidence for capital crimes (Deuteronomy 17:6), they don't necessarily constitute infallible proof. So after reading Dr. Allen's "Defense," I listened to his complete "John 3:16" message for myself. (He sounds almost exactly like Jeff Foxworthy; hence the title of this post.) Not only am I very impressed with the accuracy and objectivity of the livebloggers' summaries, I have to say that the excerpts Dr. Allen himself quoted from his own message are worse, not better, than the summaries I had previously read. The full recording is worse yet.

Here are his exact words regarding me and James White: "Ladies and Gentlemen, James White is a hyper-Calvinist. By the definition of Phil Johnson in his A Primer of Hyper-Calvinism, Phil Johnson [founder] of spurgeon.org, who is the right hand man of John MacArthur, Phil Johnson tells you the five things that make for hyper-Calvinism, and James White by his teaching is a hyper-Calvinist."

Notice the ambiguity of the clause after that final comma, and the double ambiguity of the prepositional phrase "by his teaching." Who is the antecedent of the pronoun there? Is Allen saying that James White's teaching makes him a hyper-Calvinist, or that my teaching declares him to be so? And is he saying Phil Johnson "tells you . . . James White is a hyper-Calvinist"? Surely not, because that would be a complete lie.

Nevertheless, I would be interested in knowing how anyone could possibly think the livebloggers portrayed Dr. Allen's remarks as something worse than they really are, because I frankly felt his actual remarks were a far worse misrepresentation of my opinion than I was led to believe merely from the blog summaries.

Regarding my definition of hyper-Calvinism

Remember: in my notes on hyper-Calvinism I purposely avoided the use of optative expressions. The "Primer" was a short article (published in 2002 in Sword and Trowel, from London's Metropolitan Tabernacle), and I simply did not have space to delve into the difficulties such language presents. Besides, optative language is inherently ambiguous and usually loaded with Arminian freight. Ultimately, the question of whether and in what sense God "desires" the repentance of the reprobate is important, but declining to use such language does not ipso facto make someone a hyper-Calvinist. More important, the use or non-use of such expressions in the totally-unqualified way Dr. Allen insists on using them is far from the pivotal issue between historic Calvinists and hypers. In fact, his notion of "God’s universal saving will" sounds indistinguishable from Arminianism. (Is he suggesting that if you're not Arminian in your understanding of God's saving purpose, then you are a hyper-Calvinist? It sure sounds like that.) Someone of his stature and position really ought to fulminate less and define and qualify terms more.

I thought my November 7 response to Dr. Allen's comments already said or implied all those things. (I know I linked to a place where I had dealt more carefully with the problem of attributing unfulfilled "desires" to God.) For him to continue paraphrasing my position in terms I have expressly, emphatically, and repeatedly rejected makes a joke of his own claim (early in his lecture) that he is determined not to misrepresent any Calvinist whom he quotes. Moreover, his insistence on restating "my" position in his own terms (which I emphatically reject) runs counter to his own professed preference for "original sources."

Dr. Allen suggests that according to me, the essence of hyper-Calvinism is a denial of "God’s universal saving will; namely, that God wills and desires to save the non-elect." But none of the expressions he employs in that assertion are mine. Nor would I ever use or endorse unqualified language like that. Nor is that a close paraphrase of anything I did say.



The only biblical expressions of God's "desire" with respect to the salvation of the reprobate is His command regarding what they should do: "he commands all people everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). He has "no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live" (Ezekiel 33:11, etc.). Those texts speak of His preceptive will—His will with regard to what they should do.

God's decretive will—His intention with regard to what He Himself will do—is normally kept secret from us until His will is accomplished, but it is this aspect of His will that He refers to when He says, "My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose" (Isaiah 46:10).

The distinction between the two aspects of the divine will is vital to historic Calvinism. It is dealt with thoroughly by John Piper here. (My "Primer" contains a link to that article.)

Regarding Dr. Allen's definition of hyper-Calvinism

Every word of the expression "universal saving will" is problematic, particularly when Dr. Allen's only explanation of that idea is the phrase "namely, that God wills and desires to save the non-elect."

The word universal with no qualifying terms or explanation suggests that God has no specific intention to save one sinner as opposed to another. Presumably the term suggests that God's ultimate purpose with regard to all sinners is universally the same. So the question of who is saved is decided solely by the individual wills of sinners rather than the eternal purpose of God. That, of course, is precisely what Arminianism suggests, and absent any teaching to the contrary, I wonder if that is indeed the idea that Dr. Allen intends to convey. If so, he ought to say so clearly. If not, he needs to stop using the expression, or explain it better.

The word saving suggests that God's only sovereign purpose in the preaching of the gospel is salvation, and thus either His purpose will be thwarted, or all men will be saved. Either view is deplorable doctrine.

In a context like this, the word will must be disambiguated. Dr. Allen clearly knows about the classic Calvinist distinctions. Whether he understands them is unclear, because he never bothers to explain how he is using the word will in this expression. Is this a reference to the decretive will of God (his secret, eternal purpose, which He Himself will bring to pass without fail), or His preceptive will (His will with regard to what He commands sinners to do)? In my assessment, much of Dr. Allen's critique of James White hinges on equivocation between the two senses of that word.

And what, precisely, is the purpose of Allen's insistence on putting so much stress on the idea of God's "desire to save the non-elect"—without any comment on the problem of how optative terminology like that can properly apply to a God who is immutable, impassible, and sovereign; and without noting how infrequently such expressions are used in Scripture? Is he purposely trying to portray God as eternally frustrated by unfulfilled longings? Or does he recognize that those terms are anthropopathisms suited to our humanness but imperfect in their ability to explain the affections of God?

Dr. Allen never grapples with nor mentions any of those questions about the ambiguity of his key expression. That glaring omission makes it impossible to take his critique of Calvinism very seriously.

Regarding the sincerity of God's proposal of mercy in the gospel

Dr. Allen seems to build much of his case on my use of the word sincere. I use that word in the formal, straightforward sense of "not feigned or pretended."

He raises this question about my position: "Is he or is he not saying that a 'sincere proposal' by God to all necessarily presupposes his willingness to save all, such that a denial of God's desire to save all is the same as denying the well-meant nature of the offer?" First, I don't see how "willingness" necessarily implies "desire." I'm willing to get up early tomorrow morning if circumstances make it necessary; I am even prepared to do so. But as it is a holiday, I desire to sleep in. This notion that if God's offer is "sincere" it must be the exact equivalent of what we think of humanly as a "desire" is a classic case of Dr. Allen's equivocation.

I've said repeatedly that I'm convinced God's pleas for the reprobate to repent are well-meant. Those beseechings are not (as some sterner Calvinists often suggest) feigned entreaties designed only to increase the damnation of those whom God only hates. I believe God has a genuine love for the non-elect because they are His creatures, made in His image. But it is not the same love He has for the elect.

If Dr. Allen recognized those distinctions, he might be in a position to criticize high-Calvinist opinions meaningfully. As it is, his critique sounds like the classic Arminian misrepresentation: "Everyone more calvinistic than I am is hyper."

Regarding various personal connections I have to this debate

Dr. Allen cited David Ponter as a source for some of his material. I've known Mr. Ponter since the mid 1990s, when he himself belonged to a hyper-Calvinist denomination. He has gradually moved toward the opposite end of the spectrum of Calvinist belief. Meanwhile, he has compiled an impressive collection of material (mostly quotations from early Calvinistic source material) arguing that historic mainstream Calvinism was of a milder flavor than the style of Calvinism that currently dominates most Internet discussions. David's archives contain some excellent stuff, but it is definitely a very one-sided perspective. It is sometimes cited (and David is named) by Arminians and self-styled four-pointers who don't represent low Calvinism very well. David has lately tried very hard to keep his name out of debates like this. But since Dr. Allen cited him by name, I thought I would acknowledge his work and note that I don't necessarily fault him for every rhetorical and polemical faux pas made by people who gobble up his resources.

Curt Daniel, whose works are often cited favorably by "four-point Calvinists" and other types of Arminians, is likewise a friend of mine. He is perhaps the world's foremost authority on hyper-Calvinism, and no one who has not read Dr. Daniel's massive dissertation on John Gill should pretend to be well-informed on the history of hyper-Calvinism. Dr. Daniel might also hold to a milder sort of Calvinism than I do, but he is not the type who automatically labels every Calvinist who disagrees with him "hyper."

Regarding James White, he has been my friend longest of these three—dating back at least to the early 1990s. We did a conference together last week and did not get an opportunity to discuss Dr. Allen's lecture. If I had known the issue was going to resurface this week, I would have tried hard to make time for that discussion.

There may be points on which James White and I would differ on how to explain and defend Calvinism. He seems to be a higher sort of Calvinist than I am. That doesn't make him "hyper."

My own convictions are thoroughly and unapologetically Calvinistic—but more in the vein of Iain Murray than Arthur Pink. If you've read Murray's biography of Pink, you will know what I mean.

I often find myself standing in the middle, urging low Calvinists not to be so quick to label their high brethren "hyper," and likewise urging high Calvinists not to be so quick to dismiss their low brethren as crypto-Arminians. From my position, it is absolutely clear that there are many different hues of Calvinism; we are not a monolithic community.

Critics on all sides would do well to try harder to understand that. I rather suspect Dr. Allen would be somewhat perturbed if his Calvinist critics incessantly argued that his view of a god with eternally unfulfilled longings is really nothing more than the doctrine of Open Theism.

That, in my opinion, would be the exact equivalent of Dr. Allen's claim that high Calvinism's reluctance to make blithe use of optative language to describe God's demeanor toward the reprobate is nothing but the distilled essence of hyper-Calvinism.

I think he better think it out again.

---

James White

by Phil Johnson



ome of our Arminian brethren in the Southern Baptist Convention, led by the ever-colorful Jerry Vines of Jacksonville, have been holding a conference in Woodstock, Georgia, to discuss why they don't approve of Calvinism. Andrew Lindsey (who has far more patience than I) is live-blogging it and posting those notes as a guest-blogger over at Challies.

(How does one get a gig like that? Not going to a conference on Arminianism, but guest-blogging for Tim? Does Challies pay well? What kind of effect does that have on traffic at the guest-blogger's blog? One wonders about these things.)

Anyway, the following item showed up this morning in Andrew's notes from a session led by David Allen. Dr. Allen is Professor of Preaching, Director of the Southwestern Center for Expository Preaching, George W. Truett Chair of Ministry, and Dean of the School of Theology. He evidently has tried to pit me against one of my friends. According to Andrew Lindsey's notes:

Dr. Allen asserted that Dr. James White is a hyper-Calvinist according to Phil Johnson’s primer on hyper-Calvinism, as Dr. White says that God does not have any desire to save the non-elect.

Ack.

Here's a spelling-corrected and otherwise embellished version of a comment I left at Challies when I read that. (Sorry about my typos on your blog, Tim; I hit "publish" when I meant to hit "preview." I hate when that happens):

Let me go on record here: I know James White well, and he is not a hyper-Calvinist. The webpage Dr. Allen cited from me says nothing whatsoever about what God "desires." What I have consistently said elsewhere [check out footnote 20 in that link] is this: Optative expressions like desire and wish are always problematic when it comes to describing God's demeanor toward the reprobate. God does all His pleasure, and to suggest that He helplessly wrings His hands over unfulfilled "desires" is quite inaccurate—indeed, it is one of the central fallacies of the Arminian concept of God. So I try to avoid such terminology most of the time. I do, however, occasionally employ such terms in order to make a point—but only when I have an opportunity to explain the point: I do think there's crucial meaning in God's own pleas and expressions of willingness to be reconciled to any and all sinners (e.g., Ezekiel 33:11; 2 Corinthians 5:20). And I likewise think it is vital to see that all unbelief and sin is a rejection of God's will and purpose with regard to what we are responsible to do (Luke 7:30; 1 Thessalonians 4:3). At the same time, I recognize and affirm the equally-valid point being made by those who steadfastly reject the language of "desire" or "will" when we are dealing with God's overtures of mercy to the reprobate. We should not load those expressions with Arminian freight. Some choose never to use optative expressions with regard to God, and they might argue that the use of such language in any context is illegitimate. Dr. White may be of that persuasion. I don't know. In all our many private conversations, I have never had an occasion to discuss it with him. However, I would not call someone a "hyper-Calvinist" merely for holding that opinion. Moreover, although my notes on hyper-Calvinism are just notes and not an academic treatise, in the section of those notes where I dealt with the issue of God's will toward the reprobate, this was all carefully qualified. I expressly acknowledged that there is a strain of classic high-Calvinists who deny that God's expressions of goodwill toward the reprobate may properly be called "love," but who are not really hyper. I said, "They are a distinct minority, but they nonetheless have held this view. It's a hyper-Calvinistic tendency, but not all who hold the view are hyper-Calvinists in any other respect." I cited Arthur Pink as the best-known example of that view. Let me add this: if the average Baptist preacher were one-tenth as committed to evangelism as James White, Arminians in the SBC might actually be in a position to carp about hyper-Calvinism's detrimental effect on soul-winning. As it is, those who say these kinds of things ought to sit with their hands over their mouths and learn some things from Mr. White.

As an addendum here, let me note that Mr. White is currently ministering in London, and for any Pyro-readers who would like to hear him speak there, I happen to have his bio and full itinerary. We highly recommend these events, if it is at all reasonable for you to get to any of them:

James White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He is the author of more than twenty books, a professor, and an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. James has been married to Kelli for more than twenty-five years, and has two children, Joshua and Summer. He is an accomplished debater, having engaged in more than sixty moderated, public debates with leading proponents of Roman Catholicism, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormonism. Trinity Road Chapel, Upper Tooting, London (Doug McMasters, Pastor) is hosting the following events: Debate James White vs. Sami Zaatari: "Jesus: Divine Son of God or Prophet of Allah?" 8 PM Thursday, 13 November 2008 Men's Breakfast 8 AM Saturday, 15 November 2008 Ministry Morning An open session for all. James White will speak on the topic "Defending the Faith without Apology." 10 AM Saturday, 15 November 2008 Sunday Worship James White preaching 11AM and 6:30PM Sunday, 16 November 2008 Trinity Road Chapel 205-207 Trinity Road Upper Tooting, London SW17 7HW. Contact admin@trinityroadchapel.org or visit http://www.trinityroadchapel.org/ for more details. Other debates by James in London: James White vs. Adnan Rashid: "Does Belief in the Trinity Necessitate Shirk?" Tuesday, 11 November 2008 Westbourne Park Church Porchester Rd, London, W2 5DX James White vs. Shabir Ally: "Is Jesus prophesied in the OT?" and "Is Muhammad prophesied in the Bible?" 7:30pm Monday, 17 November 2008 Twynholm Baptist Church Fulham Cross, 324-326 Lillie Road Fulham, London, SW6 7PP. Contact leigh@twynholm.org or visit www.twynholm.org for more details.

PS: We're not going to use the meta of this post to debate the pros and cons of supra- and infralapsarian, the question of God's demeanor toward the reprobate, or the question of whose flavor of Calvinism is better. So save it. We'll do that another time, perhaps, but not today. I'm already busy.

---