Well folks. It has been amusing and sad watching the hoopla unfold regarding comments made at a conference on "John 3:16" and in particular comments made by Dr. Allen during his talk. He actually said,
James White is a hyper-Calvinist by the definition of Phil Johnson. Oct. 10 on the Dividing Line White denied God wills the salvation of all men which is against Tom Ascol.
Now, just a couple of things to say.
First is the irony that Dr White is currently in London defending the faith once again, whilst these shameful people are nicely tucked up at home enjoying the freedom to cast assertions against the evangelist James. Yes, the evangelist. The very thing that is supposed to define what a Hyper Calvinist IS NOT! Oh the irony and hypocrisy of it all.
James has made his own comments here and here.
Phil Johnson has also commented here.
It seems my old foe Tony Byrne's material was part of the material used by the confused Dr Alan.
Why do these Ponterites show up in these exchanges all the time? Where are they when Calvinists are debating Muslims, Roman Catholics, Mormons, JW's and others?
That is right folks. They are nowhere to be seen, except hiding behind their keyboard lobbing bombs over the enemies heads and hitting the evangelistic Calvinists. It is a shame and a sham.
Now my next point is a serious one, and it is something I have said for years.
Whilst I truly support Phil Johnson and his ministry, I have tried in the past to suggest that his Primer on Hyper Calvinism is not quite up to scratch.
Now I realise, he never envisioned how others would use it against other Calvinists, but maybe now is the time to revise it a wee bit.
It has been used several times and publicly against true Calvinists.
I am also thankful for Phil's comments found here, where he articulates a clarity that I find encouraging, and personally wish I had these comments to produce against the people who have beat me over the head with the charge of Hyper and using Phil's Primer as the blunt instrument at times.
Phil has stated,
Let me go on record here: I know James White well, and he is not a hyper-Calvinist.
At the same time, I recognize and affirm the equally-valid point being made by those who steadfastly reject the language of "desire" or "will" when we are dealing with God's overtures of mercy to the reprobate.
Moreover, although my notes on hyper-Calvinism are just notes and not an academic treatise, in the section of those notes where I dealt with the issue of God's will toward the reprobate, this was all carefully qualified. I expressly acknowledged that there is a strain of classic high-Calvinists who deny that God's expressions of goodwill toward the reprobate may properly be called "love," but who are not really hyper. I said, "They are a distinct minority, but they nonetheless have held this view. It's a hyper-Calvinistic tendency, but not all who hold the view are hyper-Calvinists in any other respect." I cited Arthur Pink as the best-known example of that view.
Let me finish with this thought. Go to Byrne's website and read it.
The man has one subject and one subject only. The extent of the atonement, free offers and universal views about the atonement.
That should be enough for any serious person who wants balanced theology to run away from his site. The people he quotes are all dead and cannot answer for themselves the selective quoting done to their writings and CERTAINLY cannot get the opportunity to CORRECT the presuppositions contained in the views that Byrne and Ponter and the rest of the Ponterites hold to.
It seems to me that when Calvinists like Dr White speak and act, out comes the Loonies who have escaped from the Asylum, all holding hands and together. Whether it be the dishonest Arminian/Semi-Pelagian "historically challenged" element at the SBC, or the "one trick Ponies" called the Ponterites, or the "unable to parse theological terms about the ordo salutis" such as those like Bob Ross and his ilk, they all tend to raise their ugly heads at the same time.
Interesting times we are in.