A sneak preview of the next editorial in the British Reformed Journal: Johnson garbled the definition earlier in his “Primer” by quoting Peter Toon, who charges hyper-Calvinists with “undermin[ing] the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly in the Lord Jesus with the assurance that Christ actually died for them.” As we shall argue later, God does not command all sinners to be assured that Christ died for them—how could He, when Christ did not die for all men?—but He does command all sinners to believe in Jesus Christ, promising eternal life to all who do. Later, in his own five point definition, Johnson more accurately writes, “A hyper-Calvinist is someone who ... denies that faith is the duty of every sinner.” Here, finally, we have an accurate definition of hyper-Calvinism, to which we would add that a hyper-Calvinist also denies that repentance is the duty of every sinner. Had Johnson’s “Primer” defined hyper-Calvinism thus, he would have been historically and theologically accurate, and he would not have slandered the PRC (and by extension the BRF) as hyper-Calvinists. A denial of duty faith and duty repentance is the hallmark of genuine hyper-Calvinism. A denial of the well meant, free offer, a denial of God’s desire to save the reprobate and a denial of common grace are not hallmarks of hyper-Calvinism. Would that theologians would stop muddying the waters of theological discourse! (Hyper-calvinism! [3]: A Response to Phil R. Johnsons A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism).
Posted on: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 09:54:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015