(Please note how David Ponter was in his element here during the subject matter discussed!)
I blogged about it here.
The comment below by Phil, together with his Primer about Hyper Calvinism, helps fuel the nonsense espoused not only by the likes of Byrne and Ponter, but also what is coming out of the SBC.
Like I said yesterday, I aprreciate the comments Phil has recently made in order to clarrify, but I truly wish he would see the damage that results too. He sometimes (on this issue) is not as clear as I wish he could be and certainly is capable of being, as shown by his comments yesterday that I quoted.
Phil has previously stated,
Many Calvinists, swayed by Arthur Pink's assertions in the unabridged edition of The Sovereignty of God, falsely imagine that real Calvinism must assert that God's hatred for the reprobate is an absolute loathing of their very beings, unmitigated by any compassion, tenderness, or benevolence that could reasonably be called love.
No Calvinist, whether High or even those called Hyper, have ever even come close to saying what Phil says above. It sends a wrong message. Pink never ever said what Phil is saying here either, and that bothers me. Pink needs to be rescued from such statements, and I will do so whenever I come across this kind of comment.
Even real Hyper Calvinists (whom I oppose) would not say what Phil has said above, and of course, the High Calvinists like Dr White get no favors from those who misinterpret Phil and what he has said.
If we are swayed by Pinks assertions, we should rather be more balanced, not what Johnson writes above.
Common grace and the love of God from a balanced point of view, teaches that the Loving nature of God is most certainly a benefit that all men receive in common ways in this life, and more so, is a love which also holds back the wickedness of man, ensuring that common goodness can still be seen in man, and that the nature of God is hence shown as loving toward all His creation.
The Reformers and robust Calvinists of the past called this love, a kindness and benevolence of God, but never what Phil says above in that quote. It was unhelpful and only helps those opposing Calvinism to flex more of their ignorance and rain down more scorn against those who are holding the balance.
As I said yesterday, thankfully Phil has went also on the record by saying,
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.
Hopefully Phil will get why I am raising this and think some about it all.
I am trying to be part of the solution NOT part of the problem.