I do try to think the best of folks, and I had hoped that after the fallout from David Allen’s false accusations against me at the failed John 3:16 Conference in November of 2008 that some clarity had been brought to the issue. I had hoped that despite his over-reliance upon Tony Byrne and others of his particular persuasion he would accept the correction that had been offered and stop trying to use the “hyper-Calvinist” label as a bludgeon, as so many in the SBC do. But when word started coming out of a book based upon that less-than-helpful gathering, I wondered what would happen. So much of the material had been so poorly presented, and so poorly thought out, that it seemed better to just leave it alone and hope its memory would gradually fade. But I began hearing that Dr. Allen had succumbed to the temptation to defend his false accusations in an extended footnote, and today I was able to verify this by reference to a Google Books preview of the book that will come out in a few days.
The abuse of the term “hyper-Calvinist” should bother any truth-loving person for a simple reason: hyper-Calvinism is a tremendous error, just as hyper-Arminianism is. Evidently the idea has been promoted by certain sub-Calvinists (mainly Amyraldians) that any high Calvinist is, in fact, a hyper-Calvinist, thereby not only erasing important historical distinctions but likewise introducing confusion into a vitally important area. Instead of recognizing that hyper-Calvinism is a rationalistic position with a number of distinguishing features, these men have decided that any one element of belief will automatically place you in the hyper-Calvinist camp, even if, in fact, one does not hold to that position. It is a convenient way of black-balling people and shutting down meaningful exchange, especially on the part of those who know they could never survive a public examination of their own positions.
Sadly, Dr. Allen’s footnote is so false it is libelous. I suppose he could claim ignorance, but those who followed my responses to he and others in November/December of 2008 know that I posted the following videos:
Sadly, Allen simply follows his own student in repeating the false accusation, now of me, that I reject that God desiring the salvation of the non-elect “in any sense” (italics in the original of the newly published book). The above video was posted in early December of 2008. David Allen has no excuses for including this glowingly false accusation in this newly published book despite the clarity I provided therein. This speaks loudly to the intentions of the editors and authors of this new book, a book, ironically titled upon a very commonly misunderstood phraseology that in and of itself speaks of the peculiarity of God’s electing grace.
Here are a few others relevant to the facts of the matter, the first being a repudiation of Allen’s error long before he insisted upon putting it into print. I will happily allow the listener/viewer to decide if the men behind this new book have provided adequate response. Likewise, you can judge why it is those on the other side seek monologues, not dialogues, on these issues.
