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



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


Stephen M. Garrett said, "Where are the Calvinist soul winners today?"

Well, I guess there really aren't that many out there. I'll try to think of a few names you might recognize. There's Sproul, Piper, Dever, Riddelbarger, MacArthur, Washer, Duncan, White, Horton, Ascol, Mahaney, Packer, Baucham, Driscol and Begg.

Hope that helps.

Oh yeah, and Dave Hunt!:)


In regards to Dave Miller's comment #69...

Dave, thank you for offering your appraisal. I respect your willingness to state the obvious. I think you are correct in your understanding of what Dr. Allen did and it is the same conclusion that I have reached after having read all of the articles referred to in this post. I believe your reservation about Phil Johnson being the final authority is well taken. But in comparing what Phil proposes as being a hyper-calvinist and what Dr. White's transcription revealed him as saying, I believe that Dr. Allen's conclusion is justifiable or to use the proper term, valid. Whether it amounts to a hill of beans or not, it was refreshing to see someone actually deal with the logic and parameters of what Dr. Allen proposed.


Stephen M. Garrett

Dear volfan007:

Bob Ross recently wrote on this matter and referred to James White as a "hybrid" Calvinist, rather than a "hyper."

See here

I do believe he is "hyper" for the reasons I gave.

It is one of the leading points of the Hardshell or "Primitive" Baptists that one is born again, apart from gospel means and faith, and then, once born again, then the person can respond to the gospel and be "saved" (not "regenerated").

The only difference between White and most of today's Hardshells is that they do not believe all the elect, after being "regenerated," will come to Christ in faith, or be "converted." Some of them, historically, did believe all the regenerated would be converted, but few believe this today.

Most of the original Hardshells believed "regeneration" was the "begetting" while "conversion" was the "birthing," like the Old Regular Baptists, and like Hendryx and other Pedos (monergism.com).

White and the Hardshells believe that regeneration is apart from faith and means, while conversion is by faith and by means.

All White has to do on this point is to tell us HOW the gospel is a means in regeneraion. Can he do it?



Debbie Kaufman

Peter:Again, what is the proper interpretation of 2 Peter 2:9? If all(every single person in the world) were to actually be saved, all would be saved, which is not the case is it? So what is the proper interpretation? All does not mean every single person, but those whom Christ brings to himself. Those Christ spoke of that the Father gives him. And God is not slack concerning his promise as Christ will not return again until all who are to come to him will. To get the proper context of 1 Peter 3:9, all the chapter must be looked at along with other scriptures.

Thus James White is right on target. Do you think God is wondering who will come to Him? And if this passage means every single person in the world we have Universalism. No, scripture interprets scripture. We give the gospel because we can't help it. We long for those we give it to to come to Christ, but we also know that not all will.


The simple reason that White would deny that 2 Pet 3:9 teaches a desire on God's part to save all men is an exegetical one. The text says that "...[the Lord] is patient toward you..." The words any and all which follow, and which people make much of, have the word "you" as an antecedent--the plural you of Peter's audience. In other words, "any" and "all" refer to "any of you" and "all of you." This is the clear meaning of the passage and does not require linguistic back flips to explain.

For example, if I were teaching a class and said to them, "I want to be really nice to you. All are getting some ice cream." Does that mean that I'm taking the entire world to Cold Stone? At $5 a pop, I certainly hope not, unless I'm getting some bailout money. The obvious meaning is that all in the class-- the "you" I had already mentioned-- were the target of my benevolence.

Debbie Kaufman

Stephen: James White is classic, historical Calvinist. Period.

Debbie Kaufman

That should be 2 Peter 3:9. Sorry for the confusion. Typing too fast.


I agree with you Peter.

For Dr. White, proclaiming the Gospel of Christ through debate is Dr. White's life and we would do well to follow his example.

Oh, he's also written a few books, he serves as an elder in his church, and he hosts a radio program.



Correct me if I err but is this the basic outline of Dr. Allen's argument?

A. If, according to Johnson, that a mark of hyper-calvinism is "that the gospel message 'includes any sincere [emphasis mine] proposal of divine mercy to sinners in general'"

B. If, according to Dr. White, "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."

C. Then, Dr. White, according to Johnson's marks, is a hyper-calvinist.

Is it fair to boil it down to that?



Peter, I'm replying specifically to comment 97. I was not thinking about that aspect of debate, so concerning its competitive nature (and resulting abuses), you won that point against me in my view. I have to acknowledge such is possible, maybe frequent or perhaps even the norm. What I don't necessarily agree on that I think you are implying, is that debate is always unfruitful or unnecessary. Maybe I'm reading too much into your words, so if you say that I am, I'll drop that immediately. My thought is, whenever there is disagreement in philosophy or theology or just about anything else, it will always be "competitive" in that sense. Anyone listening who is persuaded from neutrality to one of the views contested will produce a "winner" and a "loser" by default, and that's not necessarily a bad thing (or accurate, as far as that goes). But anyways, you won your point with me here.


I think my comments disappeared.

Just a note. Dr. Allen's use of the phraseology "God wills all men to be saved" is ambigous. He should have defined first what he means by "God wills or desires". Others have used the term "universal saving will". But what does that mean?

Does it mean that God longs and yearns with all His power to save all men but is frustrated to do so because of man's free will?

Does it mean that God effectively saves all men so that no one will go to Hell?

Does it mean that God wills for the proclamation of the Gospel to all men commanding them to repent and believe but does not necessarily will to save all men?

The term "God wills or desires" is ambigous. Surely such anthropomorphic language have meaning. It conveys similarities on how humans "desire" but also conveys differences much like when the Bible tells us that God repents but counter balances that He is not like a human who repents.

To be a hyper-calvinist, the anthropomorphic language has no meaning at all and does not convey a true expression of that exclamation. But I have not found Dr. White denying that terms "God desires" or "wills" finds no true expression when we read them in the Scripture. He seems to believe that such terms are truly expressed but not in the same level or definition or expression as when we human desires and experience frustration when it does not come to pass. He seems to define the true expression of such anthropomorphism through God's purpose for the Gospel to be preached both to the elect and non-elect.

Dr. White rightly asks what his critics mean when they say "God wills all men to be save". And Dr. Allen must answer that question first before he asserts that Dr. White is a hyper-calvinist or he might be engaging in a strawman.

unbiased chadwick

The following comment is totally unbiased (in my humble & correct opinion): ;)

Dr. White CLEARLY said:"that any person who repents and believes in Jesus Christ will be saved."

That should settle the issue.

I believe that Dr. Allen would be wise to take Dr. White at his own words, rather than trying to create another straw man 'white paper' on how someone who states "that any person who repents and believes in Jesus Christ will be saved" is a hyper-calvinist.

Unbiasedly Yours,
John 5:21

Terry Thomas

Professor Allens comments and "defense" of his criticism of James White are typical of those within our convention who seek a monolithic theology. They "believe" in priesthood of believers until one of them happens to hold a different position.

Notice that Prof. Allen cannot point to any actions or contextually accurate statements that mark Mr. White out as a hyper-calvinist. The term Hyper-Calvinist is thrown around by our non-calvinist brothers as a perjorative, designed to stop the discussion in it's tracks. It is used much like the question "When did you stop beating your wife"
When all else fails call people names.
That is all the John 3:16 conference did - you know, I noticed that some of the same people who attended and spoke at the so called "Building Bridges" conference were burning them down in Georgia.
It is time for these folks in the convention to come clean and admit that they would prefer for us "Calvinist types" read "hyper-calvinist's" in their thinking to just leave the SBC.

Ron Phillips, Sr.

To my calvinist brethren,

You are welcome in the SBC! No one that I know of wants you to leave. As Southern Baptists, we have always had calvinists and non-calvinists, and we have and can continue to, come together to cooperate for the sake of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

However, the rancor of calvinists within the SBC is troubling. The response to the J316 conference (and the participants) in general, and to Dr. Allen's paper specifically, are illustrative of such. The fury and umbrage directed towards Dr. Allen, for illustrating and using a definition of hyper-calvinism, from a well known and respected calvinist, is telling.

Since the conference, and especially for the last two days of this post, not a single calvinist has actually invalidated Dr. Allen's use of Phil Johnson's definition in his Primer. A definition that would allow one to conclude that Dr. White is a hyper-calvinist. If you do not want to use the Phil Johnson's Primer, fine. If you think Phil Johnson is wrong, fine. But Allen's use was justifiable and appropriate given what Phil Johnson has written and Dr. White has spoken.


Ron P.


It is probably safe to say that in the popular and common usage of the epithet "Hyper-Calvinist," most Christians who are at all interested and semi-informed about the issues surrounding this term understand it to be pejorative and incendiary, as it is nearly always employed by the detractors of all things Calvinistic. It is also generally understood to refer to anyone who believes it is unnecessary to evangelize and who supposedly holds a niggardly view of God's love and mercy.

Whether Dr. Allen correctly understood and applied Phil Johnson's definition is inconsequential to the objections that have been raised by Calvinists, here or elsewhere. Peter, you have opined this very point, as if this is the critical issue - it is not. Dr. Allen's decision to employ the term at all is the troubling point, especially in light of the fact that James White seemingly fits Johnson's description at only one point. That Dr. Allen concluded this alone was sufficient grounds to press his point constitutes the core of the objection.

Dr. Allen is, of course, a free moral agent who can address attendee's of the conference in question any way he likes. Praise the Lord for such a privilege, but he ought not to be surprised when men object to his highly provincial, and highly incendiary, characterization of their theological beliefs, for the ostensible purpose of - what? Dis-fellowship? This, again, seems far beneath someone of such station and responsibility as Dr. Allen.




I recommend flipping over to to Phil Johnston's post today over at Pyromaniacs, You May Be a Hyper-Calvinist If...

Here is a small sample:

Evidently, Dr. Allen isn't buying my explanation of my own position. He has a totally different interpretation of my notes on hyper-Calvinism, and he says he's going to "wait to see what Phil Johnson says" after I read his exegesis of my words. For those who have wondered: No, he didn't actually write me with any questions before undertaking to explain my views—or afterward, for that matter. Unless he used a pseudonym, he didn't comment on my blogpost here, either. (That would probably have been the best place to interact with me about the issue if he had been so inclined.) But I've heard nothing from him directly. If a friend had not pointed out that Dr. Allen had posted that response on another blog, I would have had no way of knowing that he is "wait[ing]" to hear from me at all. So I gather he is not exactly waiting with bated breath.

Nevertheless, Dr. Allen's "defense" demonstrates conclusively that he doesn't understand my definition of hyper-Calvinism. He relentlessly ascribes to me a position I have frequently refuted. He insists on paraphrasing my opinion in precisely the kind of ambiguous language I have emphatically repudiated. And (most frustrating of all) he utterly ignores everything I said in my earlier response to his lecture that might have helped shed light on the very things he misconstrues so badly.


Ron P,

I wanted to address your statement:

Since the conference, and especially for the last two days of this post, not a single calvinist has actually invalidated Dr. Allen's use of Phil Johnson's definition in his Primer. A definition that would allow one to conclude that Dr. White is a hyper-calvinist.

For the record, on November 7th Phil Johnson wrote a blog post regarding this very thing. It was actually a restatement of what he commented on Tim Challies blog post which first reported Dr. Allen's use of Phil Johnson's primer.

In both places Phil Johnson raises issue with the language Dr. Allen used in his attempted paraphrase of the primer's points.


"Dr. Allen suggests that according to me, the essence of hyper-Calvinism is a denial of "God’s universal saving will; namely, that God wills and desires to save the non-elect." But none of the expressions he employs in that assertion are mine. Nor would I ever use or endorse unqualified language like that. Nor is that a close paraphrase of anything I did say."

As well as:

"Every word of the expression "universal saving will" is problematic, particularly when Dr. Allen's only explanation of that idea is the phrase "namely, that God wills and desires to save the non-elect.""

Isn't that discussion enough, from Phil Johnson?

From Dr. White:

"I see no evidence that God will be standing upon the parapets of hell weeping for eternity because of His failure to accomplish His will. I can proclaim God's command to repent and believe to all men, and I can do so with passion, not because I pretend to look into God's heart and mind, but because I know the reality of God's wrath, the sin of man, and I believe implicitly the promise of God that anyone who turns in faith to Christ will be saved. And as I noted on the DL yesterday, while the synergists get a lot of mileage out of preaching "Jesus loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life if you will only let him into your heart" the absolutely necessary counterpoint to their feel-good proclamation is "however, I can never tell you He can truly save you perfectly and completely because, after all, my entire point is that He is helpless aside from your cooperation." Do they consistently follow through on that point? Of course not. Most embrace the "I have my ticket punched and I'm on my way to heaven, don't bother me about consistency or the work of the Spirit in my life" viewpoint."

The absolute lack of reference from Dr. White's work in Dr. Allen's initial presentation, his follow up, and in the comments here, from those in opposition, is breathtaking. I have "The Potter's Freedom" sitting in front of me on my desk - that work is exactly the work you want to reference if you want Dr. White's viewpoint on will, hyper-calvinism, biblical exegesis of verses like 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:4, and a discussion of the Biblical under-pinnings of not only limited atonement, but the rest of Calvinism. While the discussion here seems to be generating quite a bit of heat, there is precious little light to be found - because you're completely ignoring the published work of an author who has written exactly about the issue in question. The Potter's Freedom, incidentally, was written in response to Norman Geisler's Chosen but Free, wherein he was writing about Calvinism in general, and making claims that all historical Calvinists were, basically, hyper-Calvinists; despite all protests to the contrary, it seems that Dr. Allen is trying to tell us the same thing - that historic Calvinists are hyper-Calvinists. The reason that he is telling us this, I would posit, is because he seems to have a fundamental problem conflating desire, will, and the historical uses of those terms across a variety of authors, in context. I would submit to you that these definitions, for him, are presuppositional - he assumes that the definition he holds is the only true one, and everyone else's definition must agree with his own. He assumes that Mark Dever would assume that along with him at one point in his talk - when, obviously, Mark would assume no such thing! The very fact of the matter is, Calvinists do not assume your definition of a universal saving will of God. As Phil pointed out, the entire phrase is problematic. It is not universal, it is not saving, and it is not the will of God. The entire thing assumes a position antithetical to historic Calvinism, and he would seem to completely misunderstand historic Calvinism, if this is what he thinks we believe now, or believed in the past. It conflates 2 things:

1) God's command to repent and believe the Gospel, which is the only way of salvation;

2) God's command to preachers, to preach the gospel to all men, that they may thereby be saved.

As I have heard Dr. White say, time and time again, when discussing the error of hyper-Calvinism!!; God uses means. In other words, God uses the means of preachers of His gospel to give that command to repent, and believe. Preachers set forth the offer of salvation to all men, if they will believe - by exhorting them to obey God's command. Hence - God gives the command in a two-fold manner.

a) A command to unbelievers to repent and believe, via the means of preachers who have obeyed that command already.
b) A command to believers to preach the gospel, offering salvation to all who will repent and believe.

Who will? The elect will! Who will not? The reprobate will not! Thus, we have the offer of the gospel - we have the preacher giving the gospel without fear or favor - because he can proclaim a gospel that saves perfectly - a gospel that is not contingent upon the will of the hearer - but upon the will of God. All the bases are covered, ladies and gentlemen; thus, all accusations of hyper-Calvinism can be laid to rest. If you have _ever_ actually watched Dr. White, heard Dr. White, or had anything to do with Dr. White, you will know he does NOT refrain from preaching the Gospel.

Dr. Allen confuses them, then, along with other terms, in using Phil Johnson's primer - he confuses them when applied to Calvin, Bunyan, Edwards, and a variety of other sources. Those who believe in particular atonement also believe in the sovereign grace of God in election. As Dr. White pointed out, that seems to be the problem Dr. Allen is really pointing at. As if hew were saying - "Those men believe God elects people apart from any will of their own!" Yes, Dr. Allen, we DO. (...who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God...) If you toss out election, you could believe in a particular atonement via application. Some have, and some may not realize they have done so in practice, while they have done so in theory. However, you will find very, very, very few consistent 5-pointers who do so. The problem is, when God, of His own good pleasure, elects certain men to be saved - this does, in fact, have interaction with limited atonement, in the Calvinist system. As do all of the other points with each other. To selectively pick one point out, run it through a definitional mangle wherein will, desire, and all other preconditions are all conflated, and come out the other side saying "these men say the opposite of what you say", with no contextual discussion, and certainly no exegesis to speak of to support your case, just leaves us shaking our heads!

Friends, we're not out to go headhunting. The problem we are having with discussions such as Dr. Allen's is that they are, I'm sorry to have to say, completely devoid of sound argumentation, and utterly bereft of consistency. When we examine talks like this, from men who we should be respecting, we are left in a tough position as regards to where people like Dr. Allen think we stand. I am a member in good standing at a reform(ing) SBC church. Am I a hyper-Calvinist too, by these arbitrary, ahistorical definitions? Will I be the next to be demonized, because I am a firm believer that God is able to save His own perfectly, to the uttermost? When I have to defend my views from Scripture, there seems to be a common theme in the responses of those who oppose the doctrines of grace. A dearth of Scriptural support for their position. A dearth of contextual study. A dearth of exegetical argument, and a dearth of non-emotional argumentation. Friends, one of my Sunday School teacher made a better argument than this, using far more Scripture, in a far shorter time. It was still very light in comparison to my reply, but it was head and shoulders above the reply made by an SBC seminarian. Brothers, these things should not be so. Should you want to be convincing, go to the Scriptures. Use the Scriptures. Exegete and Exposit the Scriptures. Show us how these things are so.

No, I didn't use a lot of Scripture in my reply here, to anticipate the objection. If you read carefully, though, there are quite a few "soft" quotes of various passages scattered throughout. I would, however, convince you to read The Potter's Freedom, since you are objecting to Dr. White so strenuously. He addresses the passages you seem to have an issue with. Many, many passages besides those, as well. If you're really interested, my discussion with my SS teacher, I made available online, as well. Just to close - I'd love to see a lot more discussion of the actual issues myself. This "he said, she said" is making me dizzy. interact with what both Dr. White and Phil Johnson have said - and more importantly, interact with the book he wrote on the subject!

Sincerely, Joshua "RazorsKiss" Whipps

peter lumpkins


You are welcome to post a reasonably lengthy comment here. It is not acceptable to post an entire blog post. Hence, I removed your comment.

Preferably, you wouldn't want to just cut/paste. Use your own words.

But, if you do not want to do that, link it.

With that, I am...



You think that's long? Y'all have an interesting idea of what constitutes a long comment! :D

For the record, 90% of that comment was my own words. Good thing I backed that up. I had a feeling that comments that weren't "kosher" wouldn't be acceptable, though. It's okay, though. Did you have some sort of written policy concerning the length of comments that I missed? My comment was a measly 1447 words. The initial post above was far, far lengthier - over 3,000 words, with multiple lengthy cut and pasted sections. That's fine, though. It is your blog - but I do get the impression that some comments are welcome, while others are not. I've been blogging a long, long while - and I have _never_ had a comment deleted because of _length_ before.

peter lumpkins


I did think the comment excessive. Period.

Secondly just how you get the impression that "some comments are welcome, while others are not" is a new revelation to me. I usually don't bother with moderating at all unless the comment is excessively nasty. Yours was definitively not nasty but it was excessive. So how you judge such is odd.

Thirdly, you need a new word counter. The comment was 1574 words not your 'measly' 1447.

Fourthly, I did not delete the comment. I removed it from publication--or "unpublished" it (moderation). I don't delete comments. That will bite you later on when some hothead says I deleted his comment when I did not, a comment of which had a devastating critique of what I may or may not have said. Instead, I saved it--"unpublished."

Fifthly, your part of the comment was not 90% but more like 80%. And this is where I do owe to you an apology. The way the comment appeared on screen looked like one, long drawn out quote. I was wrong.

For mistaking such, I am very sorry and will put your comment back online asap.

In the future, if you would make some breaks in the format, that could assist me and prevent the comment from going into moderation.

Finally, if you decide to log back on in the future, Razorkiss, all that will be needed if your comment mysteriously vanishes, is to ask. I'll respond.

There is no reason to assume it went away because we here cannot stand a strong challenge to what we post. Your are welcome to check out the guidelines under the subject heading on the sidebar.

I hope you and yours have a great Thanksgiving.

With that, I am...



I apologize for ascribing motives to you that were not the case! I was a bit perturbed, given the problems with the commenting system, so that explains some of my annoyance, but not justifiably so.

My problem was that I was trying to respond to your comment above that none of the Calvinists had answered Dr. Allen's use of the Primer - but it ate my comment twice in that mileau - so I posted a straight reply. Also, it isn't listed what html tags are acceptable for quoting - the comment form only lists bold, italics, and underline, so I was using what I thought I had available to style quotes!

Where is it that you have your comment policy? I still can't find it. Mine, for example, is listed under "Policies" at the very top left, in the main "menu", and linked in the comment form itself, as can be seen on that post. As to unpublishing, or deleting - if it's gone, it's gone. That is a neat feature, but I can hardly be expected to know that, can I? :D

As I said, I'm sorry for being overly harsh - and yes, you're right - it's 80% - I was doing a ballpark estimate. I do need a new word counter, apparently! Or, I posted the wrong number. Meh.

In any case, thank you for reinstating the comment, and I'm sorry for being overly harsh in my reply. I should not have been.

I assume blockquote is the tag used to do quotes here?

Ah, very good. I do, however, encourage you to read The Potter's Freedom, as it addresses almost exactly the same issues, in response to Dr. Geisler's book. You have a great Thanksgiving as well.

peter lumpkins


Thanks, brother. No sweat. As for TPF, I have read it and have it w/i reach of my keyboard (not that I reach that often :^) I have read Geisler's works as well. For me, Geisler trumps White and raises the stakes.

I am heading to eat turkey with my little granddaughter.

With that, I am...


Oh, the guidelines are listed in the sidebar subject matter linked "guidelines"


Peter, I owe you an apology. You have always been a fair and often gracious blog host to me. It wasn't right of me to imply your unfairness in handling blog comments, and for that I'm sorry. Hope you had a great Thanksgiving!

Coram Deo

As providence would have it Phil Johnson has responded to Dr. Allen on Wednesday November 26th in a piece entitled You May Be A Hyper-Calvinist If...

Hopefully this article will help clarify the matter before us.

In Christ,

Coram Deo


My apologies. For some reason no comments dated after 11/24 were visible to me until after I posted my comment linking to Phil Johnson's article. After the screen refreshed suddenly numerous other comments appeared. Strange...

At any rate I see others have already linked to the piece.

In Christ,

Terry T

If my comments seem harsh I apologize, as a "layman" who has felt the sting of similar attacks I see what is happening and take it a little personally.

What would really be nice in all of this debate would be for those who participated in the "Building Bridges" project were other than double dealing, back stabbing, hypocrites. I know that is harsh but hear me out for just a moment please.

Dr. Allen was a part of that project as were several fellow faculty members from Southwestern Seminary and a couple of his fellow J316 Conference speakers. Not only did they participate in the Building Bridges conference but they also published a book of their talks and for a time there was an active blog monitored by Mr. Setzer a missional specialist (whatever that is) of the convention. All began with an air of we may disagree, we need to understand each other better so we can work TOGETHER for the GOSPEL. That has spiraled rapidly downward since the end of the BB conference.
From the perspective of the street where I live work and teach at my local congregation it seems that the whole project was a sham, it was great tactics though; get your "opponent" to the peace table and talking while you launch an all out offensive against them in the field.
The truth of the matter is that Dr. Allen, Dr. Vines, Richard Land and their cohorts want nothing less than a purging of the SBC of anyone who bears the new scarlett letter "C".
Dr. Allen, a man of letters can only resort to ad hominin attacks and mis-characterization of the like that would warrant his students failing grades! He and all of the J316 crowd should be ashamed of themselves.
The least they could do would be to honestly and openly state their desire to send the rest of us packing to an obscure place that Dante would be proud of.

peter lumpkins


You are correct; your words are harsh. Thus, I am unsure why you would apologize "in advance" if you think the words are inappropriate. If they are inappropriate, why do you post them? If they are not inappropriate, why do you apologize?

In addition, I think you have tangled up a few of the facts about BBC. First, I don't think Dr. Allen had anything whatsoever he contributed to BBC. Perhaps you're thinking of Dr. Yarnell, who did present a paper there. Further, the only other SWBTS participant was Professor Greg Welty. However, Dr. Welty is a card-carrying 5P Calvinist!

Nor did any of the speakers publish a book. Lifeway collected all the papers given and published them under the title "Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue."

You write again: "The truth of the matter is that Dr. Allen, Dr. Vines, Richard Land and their cohorts want nothing less than a purging of the SBC of anyone who bears the new scarlett letter "C"."

To the contrary, Terry, Dr. Allen explicitly told one very aggressive non-Calvinist during the Q/A that such purging is not only not right, we could not do it even if we wanted, given our ecclesiastical structure--local churches are free to call whom they wish as Pastor.

Thus, much of the info you received is wrong, Terry. Were I you, I'd wait for proper documentation before I publicly perpetuated false info.

Grace to you. With that, I am...


The comments to this entry are closed.