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

[Doug]

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!:)

[Luke]

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.

Blessings.
Luke

[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?

Blessings,

Stephen

[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.

[Joe]

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.

[Doug]

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.

[Luke]

Peter,

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?

Luke

[Byron]

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.

[JoeyHenry]

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]

Peter,
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,
chawick
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.

Blessings,

Ron P.

[Timotheos]

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.

Peace,

Timotheos

[DJM]

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.

[DJM]

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.

[RazorsKiss]

"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]

RazorKiss,

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...

Peter

[RazorsKiss]

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]

RazorKiss,

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...

Peter

[RazorsKiss]

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]

RazorKiss,

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...

Peter

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

[Byroniac]

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,
CD

[Coram Deo]

Ooops!

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,
CD

[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]

Terry,

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...

Peter