Isn’t it ironic? I am in London, England, preparing to do public debates with Islamic apologists, seeking to present and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ and His Lordship, and the Arminians are all gathered at Johnny Hunt’s church to try to convince folks not to listen to the Calvinists. Don’t you find something just a bit ironic in that? I’m out on the front lines pressing the claims of Christ and calling Muslims to bow to His lordship while those who will falsely accuse me of being a “hyper-Calvinist” are safely ensconced in the friendly environs of Georgia, sniping at Reformed folks—who, of course, were not invited to participate, debate, or discuss.
I noted in a report of today’s presentation by Dr. David Allen (provided here) these words:
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.
Let it be known that I believe God uses the proclamation of the Gospel as the means by which He draws His own unto Himself; be it known that I believe we are commanded to evangelize, and any Arminian Southern Baptist who has not been in Salt Lake City at the General Conference or outside the District Convention of Jehovah’s Witnesses or outside the national convention of the American Atheists or who will not be calling men to faith in Jesus Christ after defending His deity here in London next week need not attempt to argue this point with me. If you believe you have to affirm that God is disappointed in Christ, disappointed in His attempts to do something He tries to accomplish but can’t, to avoid being called a “hyper-Calvinist,” then let’s stop playing games about the meaning of words. If you can evangelize, call men to Christ, believe in common grace, etc., and still end up smeared by the “hyper” name, then clearly the debate has devolved down to a level beneath what is proper for believers.
I did notice with some sadness that, as usual, the main thrust of the presentation was not biblical at all. And this will always remain the difference between the Reformed and those who cling to man’s sovereignty. One side will be able to open the Word, the other will always have to gloss over surface-level discussions. Such is the nature of the situation.
So once again I contrast the difference between how Reformed folks address these issues (seeking debate and dialogue, providing in-depth exegesis, taking our beliefs to the marketplace, proclaiming Christ on the front lines) and how it is approached by others (monologue, never dialogue, shallow, surface-level interpretation).
