« Hyper-Calvinism: Professor David Allen Responds to Critics... | Main | Tom Ascol, The John 3:16 Conference and Widening the Divide: An Appraisal: Part I »

Nov 24, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451a37369e20105361cdd45970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hyper-Calvinism: Professor David Allen Responds to Critics:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Luke

Peter,
Thanks for posting Dr. Allen's response. It sure would be nice if a lot of the sleeping giants would be able to clarify themselves as Dr. Allen has been able. Kinda gets the middle man out of the way.

Luke

peter lumpkins

Luke,

You're welcome. And I think you are correct. It's best when the one who made the statements under question has the time to respond to misunderstanding and/or to clarify.

It would have been good in this case, however, had bloggers mentioned some of the rationale book-ending Dr. Allen's assertions, instead of just brashly saying "Dr. Allen says 'James White is a hyper-Calvinist.'"

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

Tony Byrne

Dr. Allen said:

Notice here how White denies 2 Peter 3:9 teaches God has a universal saving will!

Dr. Allen's point is not that an orthodox Calvinist cannot interpret 2 Pet. 3:9 in different ways. For instance, W. G. T. Shedd interprets the passage as referencing the elect, but he strongly affirms God's universal saving desire elsewhere. So, we see that there is theoretical agreement but practical differences on some given texts. Dr. Allen's point is that James White sees no biblical text (including 2 Pet. 3:9) as affirming that God wills, wishes or desires the salvation of all men. None of the texts that John Murray uses in The Free Offer of the Gospel (Ezek. 18:23, 32, 33:11; Matt. 23:37; 2 Pet. 3:9, etc.) to prove God's well-meant or "sincere" gospel offer to all will suffice for Mr. White. Dr. Sam Waldon's appeal to John 5:34 in his Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith has not yet persuaded him either.

Byron

Dr. Allen raises a legitimate question concerning five-point Calvinists (such as James White), but his concern (and assertion) is false. As I pointed out in my previous comment, this is already answered elsewhere, on other blogs. Too, Phil Johnson does not agree with Dr. Allen's interpretation of the text authored by Johnson (A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism). That does not negate Dr. Allen's assertion, but I think it shows his assertion is not nearly as strong as he presents it to be. James White is simply consistent in his five-point theology, as explained elsewhere at Thoughts of Franics Turretin, at Controversial Calvinism, and at A Rose By Any Other Name. It makes me wonder if Dr. Allen has ever had the misfortune to actually meet and interact with true Hyper-Calvinists such as Marc Carpenter and Darwin Fish. I admit I am nowhere near the scholar that Dr. Allen is, nor am I remotely objective on this issue, but I believe his concern is unfounded and his assertion is flawed.

Tony Byrne

Byron:

I have some questions for you:

1) Do you think that God desires to save all men in his revealed will?

2) Do you think that the denial of God's universal saving desire is hyper-Calvinistic?

3) Where specifically has any blog shown does think that God desires to save all men?

Also, Marc Carpenter represents the absolute kook fringe of hyper-Calvinism. No hyper-Calvinist in the past has ever gone to the extremes that he has. Carpenter condemns Calvin (even Gordon Clark!) himself as unregenerate. If no one is hyper unless they are as extreme as Marc Carpenter, then there were no hypers prior to the late 1900's, which is absurd.

Tony Byrne

Correction:

3) Where specifically has any blog (or any other source) shown that Mr. White does think that God desires to save all men?

Tony Byrne

Byron said:

"James White is simply consistent in his five-point theology,..."

Are you saying that "consistent five-point Calvinism" necessitates a denial that God desires to save all men? I think Dr. Sam Waldron would be surprised to hear that.

peter lumpkins

All,

Just a note on the new commenting platform. I just switched it over a couple of days ago. It is really tricky to get used to on this side.

    A Couple of Pointers:
1) You can reply to any commenter here by using the link--"Reply"--under his/her individual comment. This is called 'comment threading' and it is designed to continue a conversation going between 2 (or more) on a particular point as other commenters continue to post. It's really a cool feature.

2) Once you post your comment, you have five minutes to a) edit b) delete, or c) leave as is. I have often been asked to delete redundant comments or add links, change a word, etc. I cannot change a comment on this platform. All I can do is delete it, unpublish it, or spam it.

With that, I am...

Peter

Debbie Kaufman

Peter: I do not in any way see where James White gave a hyper-Calvinistic answer. Again, Total Depravity must be understood before limited atonement can be tackled. Yet, Total Depravity is washed over and limited atonement is focused on.

John Piper has written on this subject extensively and I agree. Here is what he says about the order in which we experience the five points:

#1 We experience first our depravity and need of salvation.
#2 Then we experience the irresistible grace of God leading us toward faith.
#3 Then we trust the sufficiency of the atoning death of Christ for our sins.
#4 Then we discover that behind the work of God to atone for our sins and bring us to faith was the unconditional election of God.
#5 And finally we rest in his electing grace to give us the strength and will to persevere to the end in faith.

Tony Byrne

These are some of the issues relavent to Dr. Allen's response:

1) Does Phil's Primer make a point about God's universal saving will? What about the Ezek. 33 passage at the top? What about "sincere proposals" language? What about his appeal to Piper and Murray on God's will?

2) Does Phil's Primer suggest or imply that one is a hyper-Calvinist if one denies God's universal saving will?

3) Does James White deny God's universal saving will? Dr. Allen believes so. Has anyone shown otherwise?

4) Are Dr. Allen's concerns about the SBC and hyper-Calvinism valid?

All other topics, it seems to me, represent red herrings. They distract from the main issues involved in Dr. Allen's response.

peter lumpkins

Stephen,

Thanks, my brother for the comment. However, even as good as it is, it is not only irrelevant to Dr. Allen's particular response, it is just too long for this comment thread. It would be better to link to your view and keep comments focused on Dr. Allen's particular frame of reference.

Hence, I going to unpublish your comment. You are most welcome to link to your view in another comment.

Grace, Stephen. With that, I am...

Peter

P.S. I have a cope of your comment in case it was uniquely composed here. Just email me for it...

peter lumpkins

Debbie,

I am unsure how you get that "Total Depravity must be understood before limited atonement can be tackled." The former concerns our state as sinners the latter Christ's surety for sin. Your point, thus, hardly makes sense to me.

As for what Piper said, he appears to be speaking experientially--that is, how redemption is teased out in us.--not propositionally. But even if he was, you are entirely skirting the issue of hyper-Calvinism by speaking of Total Depravity, where there is no stated disagreement here.

With that, I am...

Peter

peter lumpkins

Byron,

Thanks. Note Tony's specific engagement, Byron. He has some measured points you'll need to consider.

I would add one thing: While you are correct to assert that "Phil Johnson does not agree with Dr. Allen's interpretation of the text authored by Johnson" I would have to qualify that by adding "thus far."

The fact remains, 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.

When Johnson deals with the entire thrust of Allen's words and how Allen concluded as he did, then we can speak again of Phil Johnson "not agree[ing] with Dr. Allen's interpretation of the text authored by Johnson."

Grace, Byron. With that, I am...

Peter

peter lumpkins

Tony,

Thanks for your input. And, I have to believe the questions you raise are weighty and surely add a reciprocal dimension to Dr. Allen's paper.

Southern Baptists are fortunate that Dr. Allen has scooped the yuk from this open sore and exposed, perhaps more than any one else has to date, what is unhealthy Calvinism in contrast to what is healthy Calvinism.

Grace, Tony. With that, I am...

Peter

Ron Phillips, Sr.

Peter,

Thank you for posting Dr. Allen's response.

Just a few points that I would like to make:

1. Dr. Allen has demonstrated how and why he came to the conclusion that Dr. White is a hyper-Calvinist. He has provided the context and quotes that assures one that he has employed sound academic principles in his research.

2. Based on the provided verbatim text of his comments, I would agree that it does appear that several have embellished Dr. Allen's position as personal attacks on Dr. White. This is where you were correct about the need for accuracy in "live blogging". For example, I seem to remember seeing several who commented about Dr. Allen "attacking" Dr. White for being a hyper-calvinist while he was out evangelizing.

3. I think the uproar is partially to blame on ignorance. Most attribute a "hyper-calvinist" as one who does not believe in evangelism. That is paltry definition. Though hyper-calvinism logically and eventually leads to a flawed view of evangelism, it does not necessarily eradicate evangelism in and of itself. I think many might have been accusing Dr. Allen of saying Dr. White does not believe in evangelism, rather than actually letting Dr. Allen use the definitions of Phil Johnson's primer.

4. I would be interested in Phil Johnson's response to Dr. White's statements that Dr. Allen used to reach his conclusion. Would he not agree that Dr. Allen correctly understands his primer to teach that "denial of God's universal saving will is a component of hyper-Calvinism"?

5. One of the most important points is missed, because of the mis-characterization of Dr. Allen's arguments. It is that it is time for our calvinist brethren in the SBC to stand up and speak out against hyper-calvinism.

Blessings,

Ron P.

Debbie Kaufman

Peter: I believe that until Total Depravity is totally understood, one cannot possibly understand the Reformed view of Limited Atonement as I see the Bible teaching. It puts into perspective God's work through Christ in our salvation.

Debbie Kaufman

Tony: Has anyone shown otherwise? Yes, yes and yes.

peter lumpkins

Debbie,

As non-nonsensical as it sounds to me, you may believe that if you wish. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with Dr. Allen's position stated here or any claims he's made contra hyper-Calvinism and/or James White's views.

With that, I am...

Peter

Tony Byrne

Debbie,

Where, where and where? :-)

Tony Byrne

This is what Debbie is responding to:

3) Does James White deny God's universal saving will? Dr. Allen believes so. Has anyone shown otherwise?

Where is the contrary evidence?

Debbie Kaufman

In other comment threads dealing with this subject, other blogs, Timmy Brister has dealt extensively with it. Phil Johnson himself wrote a piece on James White not being Hyper-Calvinist. James White himself has said it. It's been done. Hyper-Calvinist is a label thrown around without the meaning of it being known by those who throw it around. John Gill, Arthur Pink, have been accused of being Hyper-Calvinist and that also is not true. For me, I'm learning to ignore the label by those who would wish to discredit not based on a full understanding or facts.

grosey

Many thanks Peter and Dr. Allen.
I believe you have demonstrated the necessity of Andrew Fuller's biblical Calvinism ("Fullerism", which "began" the modern missions movement with William Carey) as opposed to the High Calvinism that restricted the free off of the Gospel.
Fuller wrote:
'A Few Persuasives to a General Union n Prayer for the Revival of Religion,' though not bearing expressly on foreign missions, helped to stimulate the spirit out of which the enterprise sprang. The Baptist Missionary Society was formed at Kettering in 1792. William Carey (1761-1834) [q. v.] had been greatly impressed by Fuller's work, 'The Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation.' He became the first overseas missionary of the Baptists in England.
Thank you again folks for your balanced presentation.
Steve

John

Why your claim that White is a hypercalvinist is nonsense:

Because the view that regeneration precedes faith is not hypercalvinism. Because redefining terms which have a historical meaning is decepetive and dishonest.
Admit you were wrong and stop misrepresenting Calvinism. I find it more than a little troubling that so many of the SBC opponents of the doctrines of grace will stoop to misrepresentation, character assasination, and flat out dishonesty.
It's time for the semi-pelagians to come out and correct those who are willfully distoring Calvinism and using double standards. Example? "Doomed from the womb." Unless one is an open theist using this argument is dishonest, as your position is just a vulnerable to this attack. Another? "that WHOSOEVBER believes." Whosoever is not in the text, nor would it imply ability even if it were. John 3:16 neither proves nor disproves Calvinism, so quit misusing it.
Do I expect you to repent and apologize to Dr. White. Nope. You've said it yourself, "even if White could be shown not to be a hyper-Calvinist it would not negate..". Apparently your point justifies character assasination. Even the fact that Phil Johnson corrected you, stating plainly that James White is not a hyper-Calvinist and the quote you used did not apply in the way you used it, you refuse to relent. Perhaps you ascribe to the POMO view that the reader has no obligation to respect the authors intent.
No matter how you rationalize it you have wronged Dr. White and should apologize. May God grant you repntance.

peter lumpkins

John,

You write that Dr. Allen's claim is "nonsense" because the view "regeneration precedes faith is not hypercalvinism" and therefore "redefining terms which have a historical meaning is decepetive and dishonest."

You further insist that Dr. White "stop misrepresenting Calvinism" as apparently so many others "stoop to misrepresentation, character assasination, and flat out dishonesty" [sic]. You give examples of "Doomed from the womb" as distortions evidently folk like Dr. Allen make.

Furthermore, since "John 3:16 neither proves nor disproves Calvinism" Dr. White should "quit misusing it." Supposedly, Dr. White's assertions "justifies character assasination and even the fact that even Phil Johnson corrected [him], stating plainly that James White is not a hyper-Calvinist and the quote you used did not apply in the way you used it" does not push him to relent.

Tell, me John, is it spiritually edifying to make these assertions without a single, tiny, thin reference to what Dr. Allen actually stated in this response? You go on and on about nothing Dr. Allen mentioned.

The only quote you offered from this post to substantiate your complaint is a quote you either a) flatly misunderstood, b) unintentionally skewed, or c) intentionally skewed. To offer you the benefit of doubt, it is surely a) or b).

Grace, John.

With that, I am... Peter

peter lumpkins

Grosey,

You are welcome, my grosey! Andrew Fuller was surely instrumental in God's missionary enterprise to get the gospel to the world.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

peter lumpkins

Ron,

Thanks. I am unsure if Johnson will answer this response. But I anticipate it very much!

Also, kudos to a great point: "it is time for our calvinist brethren in the SBC to stand up and speak out against hyper-calvinism."

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

Byron

1) No, because God never promised or expressed desire to save people apart from repentance and faith that I know of.

2) No, and why would it be? I agree with James White: if God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and present everywhere, then if He desires something, how can He possibly be frustrated in that desire? What could frustration in the context of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence possibly mean?

3) I do not know, and to be honest, I do not consider it important. Limited Atonement itself requires a precision of scope concerning redemption. For God to sincerely desire the salvation of all men, five-point Calvinism it seems to me would have to be false. But besides that, Hyper-Calvinism is not a difference of degree, but of kind: its error is the same as Arminianism, which holds that ability and responsibility of mankind are coextensive.

Byron

Well, I believe it is relevant. If you accept that five-point Calvinism can be valid (i.e., including Limited Atonement), then you accept that atonement can be limited to a select few, and that election happened before any of these individuals were born, and that all of it is born out of God's will. The part I do not get is why the necessity of frustration in the Divine Plan for those whom God never elected in the first place (what matters is not how God "feels" about this anyway, but what He has determined to do in His sovereign purpose and plan). Seems to me that this is simply a grievance with orthodox, consistent Calvinism.

Byron

Ron P, whenever hyper-Calvinism becomes a problem in the SBC (it hasn't yet, to my knowledge), then at that time, yes, I will agree with you.

Byron

Ezek 33 in context was never meant to include every single person on Earth. Its context is limited to its audience, as seen in Ezek 33:2, "Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman:".

Also, seldom do I see the entire 11th verse quoted, "Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?"

The sad fact of the matter is, untold scores of people lived and died under the Old Covenant for whom the saving knowledge of Israel's God was never given. Is God unjust? No, all have sinned. God is not obligated to save a single person on Earth, in that Covenant, or this one.

peter lumpkins

Byron,

You believe what is relevant?

With that, I am...

Peter

Richie

Peter, I would call to your attention a statement you made to Debbie earlier.

"Debbie,

As non-nonsensical as it sounds to me, you may believe that if you wish."

You later responded to John:

"Tell, me John, is it spiritually edifying to make these assertions without a single, tiny, thin reference to what Dr. Allen actually stated in this response?"

Although your reply to Debbie certainly did not come across with the same force as the comments made by John, I would also ask you to consider whether or not your response to Debbie was spiritually edifying.

Although possibly not germane to the discussion at hand (which is arguable), I agree with Debbie that apprehension of limited atonement is better served by a fuller grasp of our total depravity. (Couple Romans 3:10-18 with Romans 9:6-29)

Atonement was made by Christ to God on our behalf (Christ was our surety in payment of sin). Limited Atonement speaks to the scope and application of this judicial transaction.

In Christ,

Richie

Doug

Looks like Dr. White has issued a debate challenge to Dr. Allen at his blog.

Perhaps Dr. Allen could use this debate as an opportunity to publicly expose Dr. White as the hyper-Calvinist he is.

C'mon Dr. Allen! Go for it.

Byron

Oops. I meant to say that I believe that Debbie's point concerning Total Depravity being necessary to fully understand Limited Atonement is relevant. Limited Atonement is the most dependent on the other four pillars of five-point Calvinism. It only makes full sense when the others are properly understood.

Byron

A debate would be a good thing, if done with the proper respect and honor, to which I believe both would hold themselves. The false charge of Hyper-Calvinism has been raised before by others (so it's hardly news), and will apparently continue to be an issue in the SBC for some time to come (and this accusation does not bolster the truth itself or the denomination in general). If Dr. Allen feels strongly enough that his accusation is accurate and he can prove it to be so, perhaps he should engage Dr. White on the issue.

John

Just so you know, Hyper-Calvinist have traditionally been identified as holding that God is in fact the author of evil, and that it is wrong to evangelize as God will save those he chooses without mans help. It is not defined by an argument over what God desires, ie he desires universal salvation. In fact the historic Calvinist view is that he does not "desire this", else he would save all.
Where hyper-Calvinist fall off the cliff is believing this somehow exempts them from proclaiming the gospel. We don't know who Gods elect are, so we freely proclaim the gospel to all and leave it in Gods hands.
The points made about "doomed from the womb" and "whosoever" are valid complaints and have been made repeatedly against Calvinist by various members who attended this conference. As to what Prof. Allen said specifically what is there to respond to? He writes "Why I said James White is a hyper-Calvinist", but then in the body gives no reason, apart from ranting about who Tom ascol links to, and how they are "hyper-Calvinist", but never demonstrating they are, and some generic accusations against Steve Camp, who wasn't even the subject of the heading. That and babbling about "Gods universal saving desire", which has never been held by historic Calvinism.
In fact the assertion is meaningless. If Gods desire was to universally save He would. But Dr Allen then takes disputed passages, such as 2 Peter 3:9, to attempt to establish this supposed desire. Dr. White is a hyper-calvinist because he disagrees. But not agreeing with Dr Allen eisegesis of these passages to establish this "universal desire" is not, nor ever has been, part of the historical definition of hyper-Calvinism.
It seems Dr. White can be slandered because he disagrees with Prof. Allen. But Prof. Allen doesn't see claiming that Dr White is a hyper-Calvinist is "insulting him". Nonsense, it is insulting when you mischaracterize someones position. The fact that someone who holds the doctrines of grace does or does not believe that "in some way" God wants all men to be saved has nothing to do with hyper-calvinism. In fact, given that the historic position of Calvinism that God saves those He desires with certainty claiming He desires "all men to be saved" would be illogical and unscriptural.
My concern for the SBC is that they have abandoned their reformed roots to buy into this pathetic Arminian soteriology which was not held by the SBC founders. If you really want to worry about something try worrying about the fact that SBC churches are filled with unbelievers and maybe 1/3 of those carried as members actually are involved with the church. Maybe this is a result of the unbiblical cattle calls, lack of church discipline, and failure to properly disciple new members. Maybe it's because most SBC churches teach people that they can walk an aisle, say a prayer, and that settles the deal. "Well gosh, your supposed to obey God and attend church, but if you don't your still saved because expecting a Christian to live like a Christian would be "works righteousness"" seems to be the message of many SBC churches. Maybe it's because they are told that their high and mighty will is the deciding factor in God's plan of redemption. God does not beg us to believe, He commands us to repent and believe.
Contrary to Prof. Allens claims the threat to the SBC is not hyper-Calvinism, it is the easy-believism and man-centered worldview prevelant among SBC congregations. This is nothing but the scaremongering which has been so common in the last few years, all in the name of defending the anthropocentric tradition which has dominated the SBC in the last century.
Prof. Allen of all people should know what hyper-Calvinism is, and it's not a means to win arguments that he and his Arminian brethren would otherwise lose on the merits. I pray that the SBC returns to its roots and once again puts God at the center of all of our theology,including acknowledging his sovereign rule over salvation.

peter lumpkins

All,

James White has linked to Dr. Allen's response.

Here's a an initial response I composed to White's complaint.  I may post it on the main page later.

With that, I am...

Peter

peter lumpkins

Byron

It is not surprising White issued a call for debate. For him, it's his life. However, debates are not necessarily the answer to disagreement--at least formal debates.

Nor have you, Byron, shown Dr. Allen to have made a false charge pertaining to White's hyperism. If you did, I missed it.

With that, I am...

Peter

peter lumpkins

John,

This post is about Dr. Allen's view, not others. Stick with the paper in your comments or just follow along and read.

Thanks. With that, I am...

Peter

peter lumpkins

Richie,

I mentioned in the first comment, the position made no sense to me. I reiterated such in the second. I do not know how that disqualifies for spiritual edification.

Secondly, I reject the hermeneutical construct that presupposes one must first understand "total depravity" before one can understand "limited atonement." Unless you are prepared to argue for the position--which is not really a part of this thread--that's enough said for now.

With that, I am...

Peter

Debbie Kaufman

Good answers Byron.

Do you guys really think that God is inactive or that he is sitting around hoping that people will choose him? Do you really think that the Fall was a surprise to God? That Christ coming to earth was an after thought?

Byroniac

Peter, there are much better responses to Dr. Allen than I can give which are freely available on the web for him (or anyone else) to engage (I posted a link to one by Phil Johnson himself). Dr. Allen can start with answering Dr. White's debate challenge (I believe even the call to the Dividing Line show is free), and then move on to the blogs, or vice-versa. In the end, this false assertion will be shown to be what all its previous brethren have been, unfounded. Whether that result is ever accepted by all, however, remains to be seen.

Byroniac

I do not understand your last comment concerning formal debates. Do you believe informal debates are better (as opposed to formal)? Depending upon the seriousness of the issue and the intensity of the discussion, the formal debate structure would be preferred over any informal setting. Formal debates can be overseen by an impartial (or at least a dutifully objective) moderator, and fairness in time and topic constraints can be enforced for the benefit of both parties. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Ron Phillips, Sr.

Peter,

It seems that Dr. White, in his post, nor anyone here, has answered Dr. Allen's reasoning that Phil Johnson's Primer would clearly lead one to believe that White, according to Johnson's definition, is a hyper-calvinist. Allen was clearly seeking to draw upon a calvinist's (Johnson) view of hyper-calvinism to address that a "denial of God's universal saving will is a component of hyper-Calvinism".

In my view, Johnson will either need to affirm his definition in his Primer, and agree with Allen or be forced to change it. I would argue that Allen has correctly interpreted Johnson's work and applied it to White.

Does White deny God's universal saving will? If so, does he not then fit Johnson's definition?

That question, according to what I am reading, is the basis for Allen's assertion. No where do I see a personal attack by Dr. Allen, but rather a reasoned argument against denying "God's universal saving will". Clearly, Dr. White was used to illustrate the point Allen was making, not the focus of the point. But Allen is correct, that the main point in all this has been missed because of the use of the term hyper-calvinist.

Blessings,

Ron P.

John

True, it's much better to make charges against someone in the fair and accurate way Dr. Allen did. To expect a person to defend such charges in public is a less desirable manner in which to resolve the issue.

John

You'll notice that I addressed Dr Allens "point" in the post. I guess false accusation takes the place of those unprofitable public discussions were the accused can answer his critic. Safer for those with the indefensable position too. But given that Dr Allen admited that even if his slander was disproven, it's not what's really important. Even if it could be shown that White is not a hyper, which still remains to be proven I might add, it would not negate the overall point I am making. I'll say it again, not holding to a "universal salvific will" is not what defines hyper-Calvinism. And calling someone a hyper-Calvinist is an insult.

With that I'm,
Saddened

John

Debbie,
they understand the facts, they just can't answer them, which is why they resort to name calling and then claim it's not an insult. It's also why they try to duck defending them and make a challenge to do so a fault.

John

Even were that so, which Phil Johnson denies, it would be incumbent upon Dr. Allen to show that such a denial was in fact hyper-Calvinism before accusing a brother of it.

peter lumpkins

Byron,

We're not speaking of the "pillars of Calvinism." If you want to talk philosophy, I'd be glad to oblige. Either the Bible teaches Limited Atonement (in the sense Five Point Calvinists accept it) or it doesn't. If it is doctrinal truth, it needs no crutch elsewhere.

With that, I am...

Peter

peter lumpkins

John,

Deal with Dr. Allen's assertions based on Johnson's primer. We do not need your own view of what hyper-Calvinism is.

What do you mean by 2 Peter 3:9 as a "disputed passage?"

With that, I am...

Peter

The comments to this entry are closed.