« The John 3:16 Conference and its Critics: Founders & Justin Taylor: Part I | Main | Dr. David Allen, His Critics, and the Future of Live-Blogging: Part I »



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


Hola Peter,

Thanks for the review. The reason my friend's reply is so short is because he was only asked for his initial thoughts. The students actually have to write a reflection paper and this is certainly not it. Maybe I should add this disclaimer to the post.

Who knows...maybe I can introduce you guys over coffee.


Greg Alford


Is it true that all Calvinist were issued "Yellow" armbands in order to attend this Conference?

Grace Always,

peter lumpkins

John Mark,

Albeit initial thoughts, my thoughts are certainly not thy thoughts...


I haven't the faintest idea about the armbands. I received a red one "for meals" that I never put on my arm.

With that, I am...



You biased? I'm apalled! Cancel my subscription!!

Or perhaps, I'll grow up!



Seminary Student

It was anonymous because I already turned in this exact text to my professor (who was a speaker at the conference) on blackboard, which is an internet posting site for schools. My assignment that must be turned in at a later date is an actual critique of the conference and speakers. That is why an in depth argument was not made. JohnMark and I were having lunch and he said if I wanted to ghost blog for him, to let him know.

However, since you seem to think I did not attend the conference, atleast not the same one. I will quickly address each presenter.

Hunt - Decent Introduction, although hosting the conference as SBC president was a bad idea.

Vines - What he did with John 3:16 was cute, (the verse when he broke it down saying it defeated all kinds of isms.) He also talked alot about the Aorist tense in Greek grammar, and Pas.

Patterson - The most engaging, it was more like a sermon than a lecture. His first two points were good (My notes are at my home, not my office so I can't remember them verbatim). His third was more of a collection of anecdotal stories than theology. Also, helicopters were not used in places except burma during WWII, and especially not over water.

Land - He spent the first 25 minutes talking about things other than election, and quoted the BFM over and over. If I wanted to read the BFM, I would have stayed home and done so, please lecture on election.

Allen - Stringing together quotes and raising your voice to get a crowd response is not an valid argument. He also quoted most of the men out of context and spent little time addressing the Biblical nature of the discussion, instead focused on quoting Calvinists out of context. With maybe the exception of Richard Baxter. He also told us in a class meeting he would refute the statement "Calvinism is the Gospel". Simply saying "Calvinism is not the Gospel" is not doing that.

Lemke - I will refrain from addressing Lemke. He as been addressed enough by others.

Keathley - his beginning joke is a mischaracterization of the reformed view of salvation, but really, what part of the conference wasn't? I did appreciate his approach as a molanist though.

Stanley - Good preacher, gave alot of examples.

I was at the conference. This conference is one of the reasons alot of the young guys in the convention are leaving. Its not Calvinism thats killing the convention, its the old way of doing things that is killing it.

peter lumpkins

Dear Seminary,

Thanks for logging on. And I am glad to know you attended the J316C. Perhaps you received a "yellow" band while I got a "red" one, which may could explain our irreconcilable perspectives toward the event. I'm sure that will help Greg out (wink, wink Greg).

Also, thanks for sharing the reason behind the anonymity, albeit I usually do not engage 'anons' and do not plan to go beyond this one rejoinder.

Unfortunately, Seminary, my initial grievance was not sufficiently addressed in your present log either, and that after you intended to address each speaker: "I will quickly address each presenter."

Granted you listed each platform personality by name. Yet, the explanatory comments you offered, Seminary, gives no factual assessment of the speaker's presentation and frankly revealed more or less your complaints about him than the content the speaker offered. Let me show you what I mean, if I may.

Johnny Hunt: You think his hosting the J316C is a bad idea. O.K. But what does that have to do with Dr. Hunt's presentation? Granted you said his introduction was "descent." But, please.

Jerry Vines: His message was "cute" and he mentioned the Greek grammar. For some reason, that just does not strike me as genuine engagement.

Paige Patterson: You liked him best, evidently. Nonetheless the only critical challenge was over a detail of an illustration, not a point of theology. Again, no substance. .

Richard Land: He you may very well have liked least. According to you, he rambled for 25 minutes (Did you time that, by the way, or is that a guess? If you did not time it, I would not put that in the finished paper, were it me) and the remainder was a long quotation of the Baptist Faith and Message.

David Allen By far. your longest engagement with any of the seven. Let's see what you said:
a) Dr. Allen strung quotes together
b) Dr. Allen raised his voice
c) The two above was for the singular purpose of whipping up the crowd
d) Dr. Allen mostly quoted out of context the Calvinists he cited (By the way, did you follow up on the several quotes to make sure he did what you allege? Care to post your research here to validate your sweeping charge?)
e) Dr. Allen quoted Richard Baxter correctly--maybe...
f) Dr. Allen spent little time with biblical discussion
g) Dr. Allen failed to accomplish a "class meeting" assertion

You had so very much to say, Seminary. Nonetheless missing is a single, itty bitty example of Dr. Allen's woefully inadequate scholarship to examine. I guess we'll just have to take your word for it. Telling.

Steve Lemke: Since others addressed him, you didn't. How that's supposed to count as engagement, I do not understand.

Ken Keathley: His joke was a mischaracterization of the reformed view of salvation like the conference in general. Also, you appreciate his "molanist" [sic] approach. Aside from the nature of jokes necessarily possessing a skewed sense about reality, exactly what about "appreciating" his Molinism constitutes an engagement with his views in any meaningful sense?

Charles Stanley: Good preacher with lots of examples.

For me, while virtually everything you have written is so generically stated as to be of no real help whatsoever to someone who did not attend the J316C--except to forge in their minds that you personally and unequivocally did not like the conference nor perhaps even agreed with having the conference--I will concede to your insistence, Seminary: You were at the conference. So be it.

Finally, you concluded that The John 3:16 Conference stands as "one of the reasons alot of the young guys in the convention are leaving." That may or may not be true. I simply don't know.

What I do know, Seminary, is your shallow evaluation stands as one of the reasons a lot of us old codgers see the need for these conferences.

With that, I am...


Greg Alford


You are either being nice because this is your blog… or you simply do not remember the history of when “Yellow Armbands” were issued to a certain segment of European Nation… Here’s a little hint – the yellow armbands also had some sort of star on them (wink, wink)

Peter, can you tell me why both the Founders Ministries and Rc Sproul's Legonier Ministries requested booth space at this conference and were turned down? What does the President of the SBC have to say about this extremely un-courteous if not openly hostile behavior by either the staff of First Baptist Church Woodstock Georgia or the staff of Jerry Vines Ministries? Whichever staff was handling this event Johnny Hunt is responsible as it was held at his Church under his authority.

Grace Always,

Seminary Student

My intent with posting was never to give me explanations about the speakers. Since I have to actually write out a paper for that, I am attempting to not write it several times over, but one time and use it as necessary. You made the claim that led itself to say I was not at the conference. I addresses that issue as I said I would. I never said I would address each speakers fault. When I finish the paper (before December 1st Lord Willing) I will email it to you, and we can meet for coffee (JohnMark informed me we all reside in the same metro-city) and discuss it.

However, I will address two things, The reason I never said anything about Lemke is because he is my Provost, and I will not address what he says in any form except to him. It is out of respect for my Provost and School that I do not discuss his arguments, no matter my feelings for them.

Allen made the claim that James White is a Hyper-Calvinist. James White and Phil Johnson (whose scale was used in this "assessment") have both come out and said how wrong that is, and that his statement is false. I would love to continue this "fun" internet exchange with you, but honestly, its not worth the time. 19 hours of Masters work > This Blog.

peter lumpkins


You should have received your email. No more anonymous posts here.

With that, I am...


peter lumpkins


You query, "can you tell me why both the Founders Ministries and Rc Sproul's Legonier [sic] Ministries requested booth space at this conference and were turned down?" You will need to ask them.

Again, "What does the President of the SBC have to say about this extremely un-courteous if not openly hostile behavior by either the staff of First Baptist Church Woodstock Georgia or the staff of Jerry Vines Ministries?" As for Dr. Hunt, ask him. I do not know. However, Greg, you assume guilt based upon what? Hearsay. Were you there? Did you hear the conversation? I didn't think so.

From the comment trail on J316C you've left around that I have read, Greg, I cannot recall one log actually engaging any point the presenters made. Instead, you simply sow personal spew. Take your gossip elsewhere, my friend. It won't happen here. Sorry.

With that, I am...


cb scott

Hitler made the Jews of Germany wear yellow armbands with stars on them that they might be easy to identify in the beginning. Later they were easily identifiable. They were either, slaves, dead or starving. The armbands were no longer needed after a while.

The practice of making Jews wear yellow armbands goes back even to the days when Nepoleon was in Italy. When he entered Ancona he saw the Jews being made to wear yellow armbands and yellow head coverings. They had also been made to live in a ghetto.

Napoleon freed the Jews from this burden and freed the Jews to live anywhere they pleased, closing down the ghettos even as far as Rome.

Greg, I noticed that when you asked the question. Now that you bring it up again, I must ask you why you referenced the yellow armbands of the Third Reich. Was that a joke or does it mean something else?
The yellow armbands meant then and still does mean something even worse than death to the Jews. I just wonder why you would reference it here?


Greg Alford


”you simply sow personal spew. Take your gossip elsewhere, my friend. It won't happen here. Sorry.”

Me sow personal spew? Gossip? Well, now that’s the Peter I have come to love and respect :-)

You accuse me of sowing personal spew and Gossip and give your readers not one example… Ahhh, would not that be classified as personal spew and Gossip? Would you care to give an example of where I am guilty of either of the above?


Forget it… I was just trying to point out to my friend Peter that one segment of the SBC were made most un-welcome at the recent Anti-Calvinist Love fest held in Woodstock Ga. Both the Founders Ministries and Rc Sproul's Legonier Ministries have publicly reported that they requested booth space and were denied… and because I mention this in my post my friend Peter here accuses me of Gossip.

O well, Peter has spoken so I must be guilty… I will now slink away and spew some more.

Grace Always,

peter lumpkins


If I may, you write: "You accuse me of sowing personal spew and Gossip and give your readers not one example… Ahhh, would not that be classified as personal spew and Gossip?"

To the contrary, Greg, the very comment to which I responded *IS* the example. You log on with not so much as one thin contribution to this thread, concerning the J316C proper. Instead, you make these hearsay accusations: "What does the President of the SBC have to say about this extremely un-courteous if not openly hostile behavior by either the staff of First Baptist Church Woodstock Georgia or the staff of Jerry Vines Ministries?"

You assume, Greg, based on second hand information that either the FBC Staff or JVM staff committed "extremely un-courteous if not openly hostile behavior." Were you there? Did you hear? Did you observe this? No? Then to openly and presumptuously condemn either for doing what you haven't a clue they actually did qualifies, in my view, as pure, unmitigated gossip.

Now, that's one, Greg. And, if you'd like I'll be glad to copy/paste some more of the same stuff you've posted on other blogs about the J316C.

So, if you--or others, for that matter--desire more evidence of such drivel about this that you've posted around, rather than offer an actual contribution to the discussion on J316C, just say so. It is not at all hard to find, I assure.

Now, back to my original point: challenge the ideas of J316C all you wish. Question the assumptions of me, my assertions, my facts, etc. But don't bring your unsubstantiated gossip about good, godly ministries here. I do not want it. Period.

With that, I am...


Jacob Hall (seminary Student)

"But don't bring your unsubstantiated gossip about good, godly ministries here. I do not want it. Period."

I would like to point out that YOU brought it here. You posted a critique of my reflections on YOUR blog. Not someone else, but YOU. If you dont want to have Gossip on your blog, than Don't be a part of it. Noone made or asked you to bring it here, you did it on your own accord.

I originally posted on your blog to address some of the issues you raised, but instead of trying to realize that this was not a Turabian style paper to be turned in for a grade but a mere reflection, you attempted to dispute is as though I had written my Doctoral Thesis on it.

Time after time I attempted to be cordial with you, saying I wanted to get coffee so that we could discuss this in person, only to have you act like an ass instead. Fine. Be an ass. I don't care. You also show yourself to be an internet tough guy that only can make claims online. I assume the reason you were so hostile to the idea of actually meeting was because you would be forced to say these things to my face, which you would be unwilling to do.

But know this, you and the old guard you align yourself with will not run the convention forever. The Convention will find its way back home to its reformed roots. Maybe the name of your blog should be changed to SBCYesterday, because everyday your views become more and more out of touch with the new generation of the convention.

Jacob Hall

peter lumpkins

Dear Jacob (Seminary Student),

Well at least now we know who you are, not to mention something of the temperament of the one posting the anonymous "evaluation" of The John 3:16 Conference.

But even more more, Jacob, I get the impression that a personal agenda was in play the entire time. You write"

"But know this, you and the old guard you align yourself with will not run the convention forever. The Convention will find its way back home to its reformed roots."

Really? So much for the objective evaluation. It is clear, however, why you insisted in your initial anonymous reflections on J316 that the conference was such a "bad idea."

It also explains, at least in part, why you focused exclusively on things like Dr. Hunt's message was "descent" or Dr. Vines' was "cute," while the best you could stomach offering as "critique" of Dr. Allen's stellar presentation was--of the many quotes he assembled, they were all twisted because quoted out of context, with the single exception being Baxter, "maybe."

Additionally, it is also clear that the questions many raise toward Founders vision of possibly "Calvinizing" the SBC is not at all unfounded, since lurking in the mind of some of these young, Calvinist stallions, bucking about their theology, is the revealing notion that "...you and the old guard...will not run the convention forever. The Convention will find its way back home to its reformed roots."

And, while I offer you my thanks for handing such to me on a silver platter--even if I have to bare the junior high school name-calling to get it--your comments also demonstrate quite nicely, Jacob, why I rarely allow myself to be suckered in to an engagement with "anonymous" posters. So few of them are interested in genuine exchange. Instead, like your posts, I am sad to say, anons possess hidden--and often times, ugly--agendas, and that completely by stealth, void of accountability.

As for the coffee, my Jacob, I am more than ever inclined to pass. From my perspective, it simply is uncomfortable for me to attempt good conversation with someone who, more likely than not, has a concealed, negative agenda stuffed under the table.

For me, authentic fellowship must assume some semblance of trust--even if only a small trust, it must be true trust nonetheless. Incidentally, emptied of such would be a waste of fine java beans. And that, my young Jacob, would be a travesty, at least for me.

My hope for you, Jacob, is that our Lord will incomparably grace your life with faith, hope, love. With that, I am...


cb scott


I would never have thought of you as an "old guard." I would have always thought you to have been a safety or a cornerback.

Well, whatever you were, you still move pretty fast:-)



Jacob the Seminary Student said,"But know this, you and the old guard you align yourself with will not run the convention forever. The Convention will find its way back home to its reformed roots."

Wow, I thought that the Founders crowd wasnt trying to convert the SBC? I thought that they were not trying to convert Christians to Dortian Calvinism?

I guess, once again, for the umpteenth time, we see the agenda of the Founders types clearly spelled out. I've seen it over and over again..many, many times. Dortian Calvinists trying to convert Christians and Churches to the five points as they view them. They are the aggresive Calvinists that Dr. Akin calls them. They are the extreme Calvinists that I call them. They are obsessed with the five points. They make it their aim in live to "reform" Churches and Christians. It's sad.

But, Jacob, I do love my Dortian Calvinists Brothers and Sisters in Christ; and I really do appreciate them in many ways.




Well I guess my agaat the double nickel is the dead giveaway for the "old-guard" label.

With that, I am...


Jacob Hall

I have never said I was part of the founders ministry. The only interaction I have ever had with the founders group is a former pastor at a founders church was a classmate of mine. I also never said that the Calvinists were going to arrange any takeover of the convention. Although I would dare to say that when Adrian Rogers did it, no one here would have complained. Perhaps its because a resurgence of something is only ok when its the resurgence you like. The convention was founded by Calvinists. The Sandy Creek Baptists were Particular Baptists. I have a desire for the convention to find its way back to those beliefs, the beliefs that sustained the convention for so many decades.

Most of my friends are not calvinists, and I have no issue with non calvinist. My statement is what I believe will happen, because the smartest and brightest students are coming out of Southern Seminary, not the other 5. I attend one of the other five, so this is no cheerleading attempt for my school.

I do not care if someone is a calvinist or not, I hope that the man centered nature of Arminian theology is exposed and the Convention comes back to its reformed heritage and beginning, but that doesn't mean I will fight to convert non-calvinists into calvinists.

I never said my reflection was an objective evaluation. It was a reflection. And in that second sentence I wrote that I am a 5-Point Calvinist. I made it known where I stood from the outset.

I do owe you an apology for how I worded things towards you. I do regret my hostile tone in my writings, and I do ask for your forgiveness. I truely would like to get coffee with you because it is easier to discuss things in person, when inflection and tone are easily seen and heard.
And if you are worried about wasting Java Beans, I will buy decaf so atleast I won't be wasting the good part of it.



Jacob Hall, I agree with your last comment entirely. But, with all due respect, I think you should not have posted anonymously at the first. To your credit, however, you are owning up to your identity. And I have great hope, because I see the rise of Dortian Calvinism in the SBC as a move of God, which will continue, with or without the cooperation of some in the SBC.

Jacob Hall

Thank you for the kind words Byron. And I will be the first to say that I am the last person that deserves respect.

I would have posted under my name intially had I realized how much of a backlash it would have caused. At the time I figured posting as Seminary Student would be the easiest way to follow the story for someone who was just reading the blog. As for the original post being anon on a different blog, it was simply because neither JohnMark or myself thought it to be a big deal. We never even discussed whether my name should be posted or left blank.


Greg Alford


You really make me laugh…

You post nothing but glowing reviews of this conference, and you say of the Seminary Students review “it's hard to reconcile we attended the same meeting…” and then close with this: “Frankly, it''s really a good thing the evaluation remains anonymous. If it in fact was a seminary student who wrote it--Calvinist or Non-Calvinist notwithstanding--the professor may have a hard time being convinced that the student really did attend The John 3:16 Conference.”

If that’s not posting slander and gossip I don’t know what is… Laughing!

Peter, you may not agree with my opinions of the men, ministries, and messages connected with your John 3:16 Anti-Calvinist Love-fest at Woodstock… But I stand by every word I have posted… NOT ONE WORD IS GOSSIP!

Cut and paste all you want… I could care less.

Peter, you can drivel and spew all the accusations you wish here on this blog… I have stated what has been posted in the public for all to know… that my friend is not gossip!

But if you wish to be proven wrong just call the Founders Ministries and Rc Sproul's Legonier Ministries and ask first hand if they were denied booth space… If they deny that they were told no… then I will apologize… but it they confirm that they were denied booth space then you… well… never mind that’s never going to happen.

Grace Always


Greg Alford,

You do not appear to understand what gossip is. Merriam-Webster very succinctly states that it is “a rumor or report of an intimate nature.”

I will venture to guess that most of the readers of this blog did not attend the J316 conference. I will also guess that a huge majority of the readers do not work for Founders Ministries, RC Sproul’s Legonier Ministries or First Baptist Woodstock. So, when people visiting this blog read about the J316 conference, they are, by and large, not intimate with any details of the organization of the event.

So, when you posted this question, “Peter, can you tell me why both the Founders Ministries and Rc Sproul's Legonier Ministries requested booth space at this conference and were turned down?” you were sharing a rumor or report of an intimate nature. Only an “insider” would know whether or not your accusation against the conference host was true or not.

Peter asked, “Were you there? Did you hear? Did you observe this?” You failed to relate your personal experience of how you became aware of these intimate details.

So, use all caps if you like, but I totally disagree with your assessment. What you brought here is pure gossip.



I am glad I was able to pass a little laughter your way. But for me, I will resist any personal participation just yet. Perhaps later.

As for your latest entry, Greg, exactly why you fail to grasp the nature of gossip I cannot tell. Nonetheless fail you do. Nor do the statements you offer compare in the least to the blatant condemnation you hurl toward First Baptist Church Woodstock and/or Jerry Vines Ministries.

If there is valid comparison, please point it out. But just to quote a statement I write and conclude "See, you spew too" is hardly acceptable. Neither is it believable as indicative of Katie's comment to you.

Now, for the record, it is not up to me to prove either Ligioner or Founders actually called and were turned down. You obviously skirt the issue by even mentioning such, Greg. Frankly I neither affirmed nor denied any communication took place.

The question is, why you tacitly assume that "extremely un-courteous if not openly hostile behavior by either the staff of First Baptist Church Woodstock Georgia or the staff of Jerry Vines Ministries" actually took place when you were evidently not there to experience such?

I say evidently because it's theoretically possible you were. I may be dead wrong! Am I? Did you hear the conversation which, according to you, morally indicts these ministries? If you did not, upon what moral, biblical right do you spread such gossip, Greg?

Nor does it ease your moral paradox to claim someone from either Ligioner or Founders told you that extremely un-courteous if not openly hostile behavior was committed bt these ministries. Did they offer you proof to substantiate such? Do you have a recording of this alleged extremely un-courteous if not openly hostile behavior? If not, what gives you the moral authority to publicly spread such negative remarks about a brother's ministry apart from solid evidence?

Of course, that you have no evidence or were there to hear for yourself this alleged extremely un-courteous if not openly hostile behavior is an assumption on my part. All you have to do is demonstrate my assumption false. Know if you do demonstrate such, I will openly concede and beg forgiveness for my wrong-headed assumption.

Nevertheless, if you cannot demonstrate your allegation that either First Baptist Church Woodstock or Jerry Vines Ministries committed extremely un-courteous if not openly hostile behavior apart from hearsay, then, Greg, you yourself have committed unfair, biblically-void, godless public gossip toward a brother's ministry and need, therefore, to publicly repent. For me, it is just that simple.

Hence, I will say this one last time: Greg, do not bring your rumors and unsubstantiated gossip here. It won't stand.

With that, I am...


Greg Alford


This is not about me… no matter how much you carp about what I have posted being gossip. I have reported what two “brothers in Christ” have openly published and then given my opinion concerning the matter… If that is somehow gossip in your mind then I can’t help you bro.

Both of my sources report this as first hand “witnesses”… “by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established” (Deut.19:15)

Now you may not like my opinions of these men and their ministries, but to state my opinions of them (no matter how harsh) is not sin… I think Jesus spoke some very harsh words to those who opposed the Gospel calling them “blind leaders of the blind” and saying “let the dead bury the dead”.

I have not sinned brother, and have nothing to repent of.

With that, I think I am done here…

Todd Burus

I was wondering if you had had a chance to read through my remarks? I tried to give my best account of what the speakers said and then responded to them from my (similarly biased) Calvinist point of view. There is one for each TULIP speaker (well, two for David Allen, cause he's special) and a couple of additional comments, such as a look ahead (particularly in light of David Allen and Check Kelley's comments) and a recommendation on how SBC Calvinist's should go on from here. It's all on my site, ToddOnGod.com. Thanks.

peter lumpkins


Thanks. I did not thoroughly read your posts but scanned them. A couple of thoughts: first, it was a sound decision for the mp3s to come down. Secondly, pertaining to Dr. Allen's paper, I think there are some flaws in your critique but know I am unprepared to argue such presently. I plan a post on Dr. Allen's presentation and his critics.

One quick tidbit--while I was pleased to see you quoted Dr. Allen correctly concerning his final statement (so many bloggers misquoted him) you sadly slipped back to the misquote in some of your exchanges on the comment thread; namely, the mistaken notion that Dr. Allen lamented that a move toward Calvinism is a move away from the Gospel, when, in fact, as you recorded accurately on the main post, it is a move toward Five Point Calvinism that concerns Dr. Allen.

With that, I am...


peter lumpkins


To attempt to frame the concern I raised about your unsubstantiated condemnation of Jerry Vines Ministries and/or FBC Woodstock in terms of it being a "personal" thing with you is absurd. I have consistently questioned whether it was/is morally proper to indict ministries/men with "extremely un-courteous if not openly hostile behavior" without the solid evidence to back it up, concluding such is unmitigated gossip.. And, sadly, Greg, you have consistently avoided that question.

Nor is it a good idea to compare your own use of criticism to that of our Lord: "Now you may not like my opinions of these men and their ministries, but to state my opinions of them...is not sin I think Jesus spoke some very harsh words to those who opposed the Gospel..." Whatever we may term the provocative words Jesus employed, we surely cannot place His words in the category of mere "opinion," Greg.

Nor can we place His words in the category of questionable, since what He spoke was infallibly factual. Your words fit neither of these criteria.

Hence, to positively compare yourself with Jesus' practice, Greg, is both risky and may very well be morally disrespectful.

I think it is good that you are not coming back on this post, Greg. Know, however, you are welcome to challenge ideas here as much as you like. But negative, unsubstantiated accusations are not welcome.

With that, I am...


peter lumpkins

Test comment

peter lumpkins

test again

The comments to this entry are closed.