Hyper-Calvinism: Professor David Allen Responds to Critics

Update:  James White offered a response to this post here.  I offered some initial remarks toward White's response which I may, after a coat of polish, post on the main page in due time.

Since the John 3:16 Conference, there has been an excessive amount of attention to my comments concerning James White on the various Calvinist blogs. Allow me to set the record straight on three fronts: 1) what I said, 2) the context in which I said it, and 3) why I said it.

By Dr David Allen

What I said

The following is taken verbatim from the John 3:16 Conference recording: 

“This is important. Here is the reason why this stuff is important. Limited atonement creates a situation where there is a diminishing of belief in God’s universal saving will. Dr. Tom Ascol sums up the historic Calvinist position when he wrote ‘I believe that God desires for all people to be saved but has purposed to save His elect. I see two (at least two) dimensions in God's will: revealed and decretive. Failure to make this kind of distinction is a failure to read the Bible's teachings on the will of God accurately.’ This statement was made in 2006 just before the time when the debate with the Caner brothers was scheduled to take place and Dr. Tom Ascol was supposed to join forces with James White to oppose the Caner brothers.

Ladies and Gentlemen, James White is a hyper-Calvinist. By the definition of Phil Johnson in his A Primer of Hyper-Calvinism, Phil Johnson 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. Now whatever we do in Baptist life, we don’t need to be teaming up with hyper-Calvinists. It’s fine for Calvinists to get together and have debates with non-Calvinists. Fine dandy and wonderful; let that happen all day long. But it is time for Calvinists within the convention to come out and say some strong words about hyper-Calvinism.

By the way, James White is a Baptist, he is not a Southern Baptist. On April 10, during a phone call on the “Dividing Line” web cast, James White scornfully denied there is any sense in which God wills the salvation of all men. That is the total opposite of what Tom Ascol said. By the way, Ascol is right that God wills the salvation of all men. White is the one who’s wrong. The denial of God’s universal saving will is a problem.”

Please note I did not insult James White or attack his character. I never suggested that the basis of my charge regarding White’s hyper-Calvinism was that he does not engage in evangelism or that he does not proclaim the Gospel.

Again, the actual basis of my charge was that White denies that in any sense does God desire the salvation of all by God’s revealed will. White did not answer the actual grounds of my charge in his replies. Rather, he evasively changed the basis of my charge, creating a straw man argument which he then sought to refute.

The Context in Which I Spoke

Here is a section in my paper which I did not use at the John 3:16 Conference due to time constraints. It immediately followed my comments about White and Ascol above:

“My point here is to help you see James White’s connection of his denial of God’s universal saving will to his view of limited atonement. White says, ‘What does it mean to say that God desires to do something he then does not provide the means to do?’” [This is a direct quote from White’s radio broadcast, April 10, 2008; see below.]

I continued:

“It is clear that he does not think there is a means in Christ’s death to save any of the non-elect. His strictly limited atonement view of God’s provision in the work of Christ on the cross seems to drive him to deny God’s universal saving will, which is one of the tenets of hyper-Calvinism.  When I speak of hyper-Calvinism, I am using the definition of Phil Johnson, a highly respected Calvinist. Hyper-Calvinism denies the universal saving will of God, without which there can be no well-meant offer of salvation from God to the non-elect that hear the gospel call.  Phil Johnson, in A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism wrote in a 1998 online article:

“I wrote and posted this article because I am concerned about some subtle trends that seem to signal a rising tide of hyper-Calvinism, especially within the ranks of young Calvinists and the newly Reformed. I have seen these trends in numerous Reformed theological forums on the Internet.  . . . . History teaches us that hyper-Calvinism is as much a threat to true Calvinism as Arminianism is. Virtually every revival of true Calvinism since the Puritan era has been hijacked, crippled, or ultimately killed by hyper-Calvinist influences. Modern Calvinists would do well to be on guard against the influence of these deadly trends.” [Emphasis mine.]

In his “Primer,” here is what Phil Johnson posted concerning hyper-Calvinism:

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:

1.    Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2.    Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3.    Denies that the gospel makes any ‘offer’ of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4.    Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” OR
5.   Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect. [www.spurgeon.org]

I would encourage the reader to take a look at this Primer for himself. The Primer clearly leaves the reader with the impression, if not out and out states, that a denial of God's universal saving will is a component of hyper-Calvinism. Notice the Primer begins with a very obvious posting of Ezekiel 33:11: "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."

Johnson, against the hyper-Calvinist tendency to blur the distinction between the secret will and the revealed will of God, appeals to John Piper who affirms the necessity of both within the Calvinistic system (with the latter aspect including a saving desire for all men). Johnson also appeals to the John Murray and Ned Stonehouse book, The Free Offer of the Gospel. These men say that “the real point in dispute in connection with the free offer of the gospel is whether it can properly be said that God desires the salvation of all men.”

Finally, notice Johnson’s reference to hyper-Calvinism’s denial that the gospel message “includes any sincere [emphasis mine] proposal of divine mercy to sinners in general.” If I was mistaken in reading Johnson’s Primer in the way I have, then I would be happy to drop my appeal to his Primer and simply go with the scholarship and very clear statements of Iain Murray and Curt Daniel instead on this very subject.

I will wait to see what Phil Johnson says about his Primer in this respect. 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? It appears to me this is exactly what he is saying and I agree with him completely.

My point is this: if this is what Johnson is saying, it is not what White is saying. In fact, White is saying just the opposite. White denies the well-meant or “sincere” nature of God’s offer of the gospel to all men “in general.”

Notice that according to #3 above, by Phil Johnson’s criteria, James White is a hyper-Calvinist, based on what he himself has said. All I said at the conference was James White is a hyper-Calvinist based on the criteria for hyper-Calvinism laid down by White’s fellow Calvinist, Phil Johnson.

James White denies God’s universal saving will; namely, that God wills and desires to save the non-elect. Such a denial of God’s universal saving will also constitutes a denial of the well-meant gospel offer. This is clearly contrary to confessional Calvinistic orthodoxy. James White is a hyper-Calvinist on the issue of the well-meant gospel offer because he denies such an offer.

Prior to the John 3:16 Conference, I had listened to White’s radio broadcast “The Dividing Line” and read the transcripts carefully to make sure I was quoting White accurately. While the transcript is too lengthy to place here, I will list a portion of that exchange in White’s exact words.

I encourage the reader to go to here for the entire manuscript so the reader can see I am not taking White out of context. I have emboldened the crucial sections: 

White:  “Let's get to Jason over in the United Kingdom...What's up Jason?”

Jason: “Well, yeah, I have a question for you regarding your Reformed theology, and it has to do with the free offer of the gospel. My question is simply this: Does God offer Christ, salvation or mercy to the non-elect, and does he in any sense will their salvation?”

White:…“First of all, from the human aspect, the free offer of the gospel goes out to all people because humans do not know the identity of the elect. And since no one will have that knowledge other than God, the only way a human being can possibly answer the question is to say what scripture says; and that is, that any person who repents and believes in Jesus Christ will be saved. But I think the question as it is often--I think somewhat unnecessarily asked, because again it forces us into a similar situation as the last discussion of Adam [the previous call topic]--to ask the question, Well, if God has not eternally decreed the salvation of John Brown, then can we really say that there is a free offer of the gospel to John Brown?…

Jason: “But, I mean, there are Calvinist theologians such as John Murray and Phil Johnson, for example, who hold that view. Phil Johnson would even say that it's a hyper-Calvinist tendency to deny that God in some way offers salvation to the non-elect.”

White: “Again, if I just said that it is our job to offer salvation to the non-elect because we don't know who they are, then yes, the salvation is being offered to the non-elect. But when says [Jason: but the offer is being made...] someone in some way, then I need something more of a definition of in what way. Are we going to say, for example, that Christ gives, intercedes, or gives his life for the non-elect, even though it is not God's purpose to grant to them the freedom from their sins so as to accept this? When we say ‘some way,’ I interpret ‘some way’ as the free and open proclamation of the gospel.

Jason: “I think the understanding is that, although God has reprobated certain people, there is a desire on his part that they should be saved, even though he has a higher purpose. [Therefore] that doesn't happen. I think one example, one verse, that might indicate that would be Ezekiel 33:11, which says that, ‘As surely as I live, says the Lord God, I have no delight in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their way and live.’ And that's the claim for the whole of the nation of Israel, not just the elect within that community.”

White: “Yeah, and that's one of the problems I have with Ezekiel 18 or 33 being read into this particular issue, because I feel like we're being forced to somehow attribute to God some kind (for some reason)...some kind of an attitude or desire that I just never see, not only do I never see expressed, but it would likewise force us to say that God has an unfulfilled desire, but it's not really the same desire as he chooses to fulfill with other people. And we're left not only--you're not only left with the two-wills conundrum--now you've got multiple desires conundrums, which I don't, I just don't see a reason for it.

.. . But, I just don't, if someone can explain to me where the idea comes from that we have to attribute to God a desire that he then does not fulfill. And then in fact, evidently, causes him to have an unfulfilled desire, unhappiness, pain, or something. …I fully understand how given the means that God uses to draw the elect unto himself, that there is a free offer of the gospel, that I can never look at someone. . . I do not have the right to reprobate anybody. I can't do that. I have to proclaim to everybody. But, I have a problem then saying in my proclamation of the gospel to others means that I then have to affirm some kind of a partially salvific desire...cause it can only be partially salvific. If it's truly a salvific desire, and it's truly a desire of God, does he not do whatever he pleases in the heavens and the earth? . . .

And I know that there are those who look at 2 Peter 3:9, and they see there that universal salvific will. I think that I am giving a pretty consistent exegetical response to that, to say...well, ok. I have respect for men who have held that view, but I have not at any time seen any of those who take that view respond to what I said about the text” [James White’s radio broadcast, April 10, 2008].

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

. . . And, I don't know how many times I have to say we don't know who the elect are, and therefore we proclaim the gospel to everybody. But there are some who would say, ‘…and if you don't add to that that God has a partially salvific desire . . . you can go ahead and differentiate that he has a truly salvific desire for the elect, but you have to have a partially salvific will’. . . I just go, what does that mean?! If you could tell me what it means, you know...is that common grace? Does that mean that God is kind to the non-elect?

Ok. I've said that a million times. But that's not what I'm hearing.  You know. And I just go, what does it mean to say that God desires to do something he then does not provide the means to do? What does that mean? And no one's ever been able to tell me. So, once somebody can tell me, then I can jump on the bandwagon I guess, if there is a bandwagon to jump on to. But if you can't tell me what it means, then...what can I say? Can't, can't go there. So, anyway, that's what that particular discussion was all about.” [Emphasis mine.]

It seems clear to me by these comments that James White is a hyper-Calvinist given the “sincere proposal” criteria stated by Phil Johnson in his Primer. I, therefore dispute that, with regard to Mr. White’s denial of a universal saving will for the salvation of all men, that this is just a matter of semantics.

Why I said James White is a Hyper-Calvinist

My main point, which seems to have been lost on so many people, was not to focus on James White and his hyper-Calvinism. My point was to show the unwisdom on the part of Tom Ascol in his willingness to team up with James White to debate within the Southern Baptist Convention. Many non-Calvinists within our convention are concerned not only about Calvinism, but about some hyper-Calvinistic tendencies in the convention.

We are consistently told by Calvinists within the convention that there are few if any hyper-Calvinists among us. It does not help the situation when Ascol is willing to team up with one in a debate within a Southern Baptist Convention context. That was my point.

Notice above the comments by Phil Johnson who has observed a growing tendency towards hyper-Calvinism in recent years with the resurgence of Calvinism in the overall evangelical world. If his warning, as a Calvinist, is valid, why would mine not be? 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.

Has anyone noticed how many of the Southern Baptist Calvinist bloggers, including Founders Ministries, link to James White’s website? I say this because I am concerned that hyper-Calvinism is being allowed to slip into the convention because well-meaning Calvinists are not being discerning on this point. They are uncritically endorsing hyper-Calvinist bloggers and therefore their ideas are slowly filtering into the SBC.

For example, Ascol, on the Founders Ministries website, even links to Steve Camp, who also denies God’s universal saving desire, with the additional explicit denials of common grace and general love. Can anyone say that Steve Camp does not meet Phil Johnson’s criteria on hyper-Calvinism?

Here are my relevant comments verbatim taken from the audio of my presentation:

“Now whatever we do in Baptist life, we don’t need to be teaming up with hyper-Calvinists. It’s fine for Calvinists to get together and have debates with non-Calvinists. Fine, dandy and wonderful; let that happen all day long. But it is time for Calvinists within the convention to come out and say some strong words about hyper-Calvinism” (The John 3:16 Conference recordings).

Therefore, I see no evidence from White, Phil Johnson, or anyone else that disproves my statement concerning James White’s hyper-Calvinism. The grounds for the charge have not yet been addressed by James White. Therefore, with respect to my blogger critics on this issue, I stand by my statement.

 

 

I offer my gratitude to Dr. David Allen for taking the time from his crowded schedule to address this provocative but significant issue. 

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[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