You gotta hand it to Phil- just a few days after he made his blog, he hit out at all the Anti-Calvinists out there. Including the IMonk. In case you ignorant of the controversy, Michael Spencer (The Internet Monk) posted an essay on why he did not want to be associated with the standard run of the mill Calvinists. See his Q & A here. James White has responded to one of his first essays that started it all. Here and here.

First off, although there were some hits and misses in Johnson's wonderful blog post, I did agree with it in general. What is surprising is that Spencer claims he represents Reformation Christianity better than Johnson (Okay, so Johnson is a dispensationist, but then again, Spencer doesn't really hold to Limited Atonement anymore-so wouldn't that make him an Amyraldinian and perhaps even further from Reformation Christianity?).

It is indeed reassuring that the iMonk claims he is not "actually" in league with the Emergents. But his defense of it of late from people like Challies has been disturbing. What's more, with his rejection of Biblical Inerrancy (along the lines of N.T. Wright who called it "that stupid American doctrine"), I've begun to read him with extra caution.

To close, Spencer doesn't like today's people who call themselves Calvinists (People like MacArthur). I don't really understand why. Most of them are godly people, and should really deserve our respect for their efforts in reforming the church. I wouldn't have any problem with Spencer not wanting to be referred to as a Calvinist (I myself would not want to be referred to that way, since it generally carries the connotation of being a follower of Calvin, rather than Jesus Christ), but his rejection of these people I don't get. He says it's because of their beliefs (i.e. YECism), but wouldn't that be doing the same thing that the people he condemns are doing?

This entry was posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 at 9:09 AM. |