David Allen, Hyper-Calvinism, and James White: The Rundown

Tim Brister —  November 30, 2008 — 23 Comments

Timelines and an organized list of events can be helpful to see how things evolve (or devolve), so I thought I would provide a play-by-play run down of the events that have transpired (and will continue to transpire) since the John 3:16 conference, and more particularly the revival of the charge of hyper-Calvinism by Dr. David Allen, dean of the school of theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Here’s the rundown thus far (I will be updating this regularly in the future).

1.  [11.07.08] David Allen gives his message against limited atonement at the John 3:16 Conference wherein he charges James White (among others) as a hyper-Calvinist.

2.  [11.07.08] James White offers and immediate response while in the UK evangelizing Muslims.

3.  [11.07.08] Phil Johnson, author of the “Primer on Hyper-Calvinism“, comes to the defense of James White and refutes the charges made by David Allen.

4.  [11.08.08] Tony Byrne (YnottonY) storms the blogosphere as Dr. Allen’s apologist.  Eventually it was revealed that Byrne drafted the chart distributed at the conference and was influential in both the 34-page response by Allen to the Building Bridges Conference as well as the presentation on limited atonement.  The extent to which Allen’s presentation and thinking has been influenced remains uncertain.

5.  [11.09.08] Timmy Brister provides a compilation post of live-blogging entries along with some noteworthy items from the John 3:16 conference.

6.  [11.17.08] Gene Cook interviews Tony Byrne about his chart and understanding of hyper-Calvinism on the Narrow Mind.

7.  [11.24.08] David Allen responds with his reasoning behind the charge of hyper-Calvinism and James White (very similar to what Byrne had already been arguing).

8.  [11.24.08] James White responds to Allen’s “false accusation” on the AOMIN blog.

9.  [11.24.08] Tom Ascol addresses the widening of the divide in the SBC as a result of (1) Lemke’s article, (2) Allen’s PDF review, and (3) the John 3:16 Conference.

10. [11.26.08] Phil Johnson addresses (again) the issue of hyper-Calvinism, refuting point-by-point the argumentation by David Allen.

11. [11.26.08] James White responds to Phil Johnson’s refutation of Allen.

12. [11.26.08] James White addresses Allen’s historical sources for his presentation.

13. [11.26.08] The “open letter” by David Miller was published along with Jerry Vines’ response.

14. [11.28.08] R. Scott Clark, a non Southern Baptist and professor of Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary, chimes in on the shared rationalism of both hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism.

15. [11.28.08] Justin Taylor provides information to answer the question, “What Is Hyper-Calvinism?”

16. [11.28.08] James White plays the testimony of Thomas Dickerson who was “saved out of Calvinism” (to the applause of the crowd) and responds both to Dickerson’s mysticism and the panel’s reaction (YouTube video).

17. [11.28.08] Malcolm Yarnell, after having left nearly a dozen comments on Ascol’s post, takes his partying agenda elsewhere.

18. [11.29.08] James White addresses Allen’s treatment of the “double payment argument” and John Owen (YouTube video).

19. [12.01.08] David Allen writes a “rejoiner to Tom Ascol” regarding his recent blogpost.

20. [12.01.08] Bart Barber attempts to explain what this “fighting about John 3:16″ is all about.

21. [12.01.08] Wade Burleson explains that the antagonism against Calvinism is further evidence of the narrowing of parameters in SBC life.

22. [12.01.08] James White interacts with Jerry Vines on John 3:16, especially “whosoever will” (YouTube video).

23. [12.01.08] Tony Byrne lists the six arguments Allen uses for calling James White a hyper-Calvinist.

24. [12.02.08] James White addresses specifically the charge of hyper-Calvinism and universal saving will according to David Allen and Tony Byrne on The Dividing Line (YouTube video).

25. [12.02.08] Steve Camp responds to the charge of David Allen that he is a hyper-Calvinist.

26. [12.02.08] Quincy Jones shares the news that there will be an open forum at SWBTS with Dr. Allen to discuss his recent involvement with Calvinism on Thursday, December 4, 2008.

27. [12.03.08] James White addresses Tony Byrne’s comment on Brister’s blog where he argues seven points for clarification.

28. [12.03.08] Tom Ascol offers a response to David Allen and his previous rejoiner, revealing Allen’s logic, and addressing the example Founders Ministries has of standing against hyper-Calvinism.

29. [12.04.08] Ed Stetzer responds to David Allen’s critique regarding NAMB/LifeWay Research on Calvinism

30. [12.05.08] Timmy Brister writes about the charge of hyper-Calvinism by anti-Calvinists and how they are ultimately after Founders Ministries and Tom Ascol.

>> Last updated 12.06.08 <<

Share Button
Print Friendly

23 responses to David Allen, Hyper-Calvinism, and James White: The Rundown

  1. “Tony Byrne (YnottenY) storms the blogosphere as Dr. Allen’s apologist.”

    “Storms the blogosphere as Dr. Allen’s apologist”? Come on, Timmy. That statement is totally uncalled for. I no more “stormed” the blogosphere than the Conference critics, and even less so. I’ve even written less about the Conference than you have.

    Do you really expect these “non-Calvinists” to listen to what you have to say about Calvinism, Timmy? Do you think they’re getting any signal whatsoever that you’re actually interested in their well-being, such that they come to the knowledge of the truth? Or are they getting the sense that you’re only interested in refuting, embarrassing, crushing and scornfully dismissing them? Watch White in his responses (both in video and written form) and keep this crucial distinction in view. Granted, refuting falsehood is biblical and godly, but we should always do so with gentleness and respect, especially toward fellow believers in Christ. We should be especially winesome toward them.

    I say this sincerely; you and others are not conveying a sense of respect for these people that I can see. For goodness sake, I am a Dortian Calvinist and I’m even being disrespected and demeaned, and you’re allowing such things in your comment section elsewhere. I don’t sense any sorrow over this ungodly behaviour either.

    Also, consider this: Where are the Calvinistic bloggers who are even slightly supportive or glad that my chart was distributed to all those attending the conference (about 800)? I did it to help them all (even the speakers) to accurately understand the theological and historical differences among the varieties of Calvinism and Arminianism. Think of it: If the non-Calvinists read it carefully, they will not be so prone to straw man orthodox Calvinism (whether moderate or high) as hyper-Calvinism. They will have no grounds for portraying Calvinists as if they do not believe 1) God loves all mankind, that 2) God desires the salvation of all mankind in his revealed will, that 3) God is gracious to all mankind, that 4) the Gospel should be offered to all mankind, that 5) some Calvinists actually believe that Christ suffered for the sins of mankind, that 6) most Calvinists affirm some sense of ability (natural) in the unregenerate, that 7) all orthodox Calvinists believe that men are evangelically responsible to believe.

    Anyway, here’s a few points about your post:

    1) It is YnottonY. Tony backwards and forwards. Not YnottenY :)

    2) On Saturday, November 22, 2008, I addressed further questions about my sources and authorities on hyper-Calvinism on Gene Cook’s radio program. You may want to include this in your chronological list. The phone conversation occurs at the end of the show. You can listen to it HERE, or HERE. The last link has an edited audio version that only includes my call, instead of the entire broadcast, if you just want to hear that portion.

    3) My full name and links were included at the very bottom of the chart handed out at the conference. Therefore, it is misleading to say: “Eventually it was revealed that Byrne drafted the chart distributed at the conference…” It was on this blog and elsewhere that I mentioned that I functioned as a kind of research and writing assistant. That I assisted in his research should have been very obvious by the fact that my name and blog were mentioned by Dr. Allen at the conference. Furthermore, you can hear me talk about this very openly at the beginning of the Conference Chart interview conducted by Gene Cook on 11-17-08. I’ve said all that needs to be said about this. With the way you write about this, it’s as if you’re writing a sensationalistic tabloid story, instead of something for research purposes.

    Tony

    p.s. If you would ever like to engage in a written dialogue or debate on the subject of the design of Christ’s death, Timmy, just let me know (via email). We could do so in an irenic and thorough manner. This will allow for everyone to carefully read the arguments and check the primary sources. It might be edifying for people to see the differences between your variety of Calvinism and my variety of Calvinism on this subject.

  2. Hi Tony,

    You said,

    “Storms the blogosphere as Dr. Allen’s apologist”? Come on, Timmy. That statement is totally uncalled for.

    Really? On a blogpost that had a total of 738 words, you wrote a total of no less than 22 comments with 7,595 words or 18 single-spaced pages in a Word doc (a typical seminary research paper is 3,500 words). I’ll let the readers decide whether that was uncalled for or not. ;)

    Not to mention the numerous other blogs (Challies, JohnMark, TeamPyro, and others) you have commented, it is clear to say that you have been *the* dominating voice in the blogosphere since the John 3:16 conference, let alone your 22 blogposts since the start of the John 3:16 conference, all of which are intended to support your chart and argumentation about the one single issue that has been your hobby horse on the internet.

    You said,

    I say this sincerely; you and others are not conveying a sense of respect for these people that I can see. For goodness sake, I am a Dortian Calvinist and I’m even being disrespected and demeaned, and you’re allowing such things in your comment section elsewhere. I don’t sense any sorrow over this ungodly behaviour either.

    Tony, I call them as I see them. I have not charged any of these men as holding to heresy; yet you have made that charge regarding other people (either directly or vicariously through Allen’s presentation). Please don’t project on me the comments of other people. Guilt by association is a popular but unhelpful fallacy. I have allowed you freedom to make your case on my blog to the point that your words are more than all the other contributors combined. How then can you say that I have been disrespectful?

    As far as the non-Calvinist go, I have many friends who are such and many more who read the blog who do not align with or appreciate the anti-Calvinism of Jerry Vines, SWBTS, and NOBTS (in particular Lemke). I have absolutely nothing against non-Calvinists and welcome their thoughts (I have a decent record of this and can prove it if you like). The anti-Calvinists I will admit I do find problematic, not because of their right to speak, but because of the consequences that result (namely the division among good brethren in the SBC).

    Now to briefly respond to your points:

    Point 1: Corrected.

    Point 2: I’ll take a look.

    Point 3: Having your name on it and taking credit for it is not the same thing. Because I have not listened to the audio (and I imagine that 99% of everyone else will also not fork out the $50 to get the messages), people were not aware that Allen had credited you for the research behind his presentation and development of the chart. Nevertheless, your research and involvement in Allen’s presentations is interesting, to say the least.

    As far as your postscript, I have no desire to debate with you. Honestly Tony, I do not have the time to spend like you on the internet to go tit-for-tat on nuanced issues. I appreciate your desire to study and research the issues, and maybe sometime we can sit down and have a great, constructive dialogue. People can find “my variety of Calvinism” by my life, my writing, and my ministry. With all do respect, I do not need your help in soteriological disclosure. My cards have and will continue to be on the table for anyone to see. If people did not find “my variety of Calvinism” edifying, they would not read my blog. I’m sure there are others who would be a more viable candidate for a theological chess game. I would much rather stick to “Go fish.” :)

    And for future reference, I do ask that you consider the nature of this medium (meta) for writing so extensively when it basically kills the comments thread. I do not say that disrespectfully but simply to respect those out there who may have something just as important to say as you do and would like to have their voices hear as well.

  3. “Tony, I call them as I see them. I have not charged any of these men as holding to heresy; yet you have made that charge regarding other people (either directly or vicariously through Allen’s presentation).”

    This is complete and total slander, Timmy. 1) Where have I ever charged someone has holding to heresy? Document this charge or retract it. 2) Where has Dr. Allen said that someone is holding to heresy? Document this charge or retract it. If you’re trying to say that calling someone a hyper-Calvinist is equivalent to calling them a “heretic,” then you’re sorely mistaken. Listen to this exchange between me and Gene Cook. It’s calm, respectful and irenic. I acknowledge the two men with whom I differ as fellow believers that we can befriend and respect.

    “The anti-Calvinists I will admit I do find problematic,…”

    This is the kind of nonsense I am talking about. “Anti-Calvinists”?! Dr. Allen was instrumental in promoting Dr. Welty (a supralapsarian Owenist) to his position. Furthermore, he has been has worked with and promoted dozens of other high Calvinists. In my days at Criswell College, I had the privilege or knowing Dr. John Pretlove, a Spurgeonite Calvinist. Patterson hired him. This “anti-Calvinist” description is more slander.

    “Having your name on it and taking credit for it is not the same thing.”

    The chart says, “This chart was created by Tony Byrne.” You can’t get any more clear than that. Look at it. You’ve linked to it. Have you not scrolled down to see the reference yet? Since it says “This chart was created by Tony Byrne,” that is equivalent to “taking credit for it.”

    “…that Allen had credited you for the research behind his presentation and development of the chart.”

    Again, I merely assisted Dr. Allen with some of the research. You’re presenting things as if I am the sole or even the main source of the research behind his presentation. You should see the stack of papers and books in his own office from his own independent study. I just made him aware of further sources he could cite, and talked with him about what I have discovered. He’s read extensively on the subject, and yet you keep insinuating that he’s not well-studied on it, but just leans on my research for the presentation. Furthermore, he made it VERY CLEAR in the conference that I was the one who created the entire chart, just as it says at the bottom.

    Again, Timmy, you’re writing and commenting in this post like a tabloid blogger, instead of one engaging in objective and careful research. It’s also demeaning to dismiss my Calvinistic research as a mere “hobby-horse.” You’re showing no respect for it whatsoever. It’s most likely going to function as preparation for graduate work. The material I have compiled and blogged is very much like what Donald John MacLean is doing at the James Durham Thesis blog. I would encourage you to take a look at that as well. If you’re not showing me any respect, it’s no wonder that you’re not showing these leaders in the SBC any respect either. At least have some respect for Dr. Welty’s boss ;) You remember Dr. Welty, don’t you? He sought to correct your many confusions and misrepresentations in an earlier post here.

    Tony

  4. I read Dr. Yarnell’s comments at Peter Lumpkins blog. I made me sad for the state of Southern Baptist scholarship at one of our great institutions.

    Keep up the good work.

  5. That should be “It made me sad,” not “I made me sad.”

  6. it made me sick, to see well-known preachers leave the original basis of the SBC, The Doctrines of Grace.

  7. Tony,

    1. You have argued that White denies a universal salvific will in God(http://theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/2008/04/james-whites-denial-of-gods-universal.html), and according to your understanding of Phil Johnson’s primer (http://timmybrister.com/2008/11/17/voddie-baucham-reflects-on-anti-calvinism-in-the-sbc/#comment-38724), a hyper-Calvinist is such. Both Johnson and White have refuted this. Whether you have said, “James White is a hyper-Calvinist” or not, your commentary reveals that you think of him as such, and unless you can prove otherwise, the 9,600+ word defense on my blog alone is enough to see that this is a big deal for you.

    2. Dr. Allen (did he not? – http://timmybrister.com/2008/11/17/voddie-baucham-reflects-on-anti-calvinism-in-the-sbc/#comment-38715) say virtually the same thing in his message at the conference. This is affirmed in Allen’s reasoning with his recent response.

    Hyper-Calvinism is heresy. There is nothing orthodox about it. Calvinist have nothing to do with hyper-Calvinist as they would semi-Pelagians, and Calvinists have consistently and persistently rejected hyper-Calvinism, so to go on record placing someone in that category is a serious charge.

    There is a real anti-Calvinist movement in the SBC, spearheaded by the very man behind the John 3:16 Conference, Jerry Vines. The writings of Yarnell, Lemke, and Allen have also fueled this anti-Calvinism. The recent history of anti-Calvinism in the SBC is rather long and documented, and at this point it is not necessary bring all that out. To say that ant-Calvinism is a matter of nonsense is, in my opinion, absurd.

    This is markedly different in tone and disposition of the many non-Calvinists in the SBC as seen among leading Southern Baptists like David Dockery, Thom Rainer, and Danny Akin—all of which I would argue I have a good (if not great) relationship with. I am encouraged to see the direction of now President Johnny Hunt, who a one time had a very anti-Calvinistic approach but has apparently changed in the past year or so (which is a very positive thing).

    The degree to which you collaborated with Allen on his review and presentation I will leave for you to explain. Perhaps it is just coincidence that he is making the same arguments and using the same sources as you have been using. But to make the case that your fingerprints are not on these works of Allen is a rather hard one to make.

    Dr. Welty and I have, and continue to share friendly correspondence both on and off line. For the record, I have a great relationship with a goodly number of SBC leaders, many of which I am actively working to build a gospel-centered consensus and focus on church planting in the SBC. I do not have respect for people who are burning bridges rather than building them, and the John 3:16 Conference was nothing close to a bridge-building enterprise. It was agenda-driven, and it is not the agenda of many Southern Baptists today, including non-Calvinists that I have mentioned before.

    Should you choose to saddle up with Yarnell, Patterson, Allen, Lemke, and Vines, that’s your prerogative, but I believe you will find that other leading Southern Baptists are going a much different direction (and that is not necessarily towards Calvinism but certainly not against it).

    Tony, I responded to you at least 11 times in the past couple of weeks, giving you more time and attention than anyone else on my blog. In all of your comments, I have been fair and, when asked, made changes to reflect any misunderstanding that I may have had. Apparently, you continue to think I have been disrespectful, although I have allowed you to write more in the comments of my posts–five times as much–as I have said about the topic (9,600+ words). If everyone’s comments required as much time and interaction as yours, it would be virtually impossible to do anything else.

    As I said earlier, if you are wanting to play the game of theological one-upmanship, then I am sure there are other debate blogs out there who would welcome your eagerness. Please respect the fact that there are others, Calvinists and non-Calvinists a like, who would like to comment on these matters who are not writing a research paper or dissertation. Thanks.

  8. Tony,

    Let me see if I have got this straight.

    1. – You are a “Dortian Calvinist”? As defined by who? Who coined that title and exactly what do you claim that a Dortian Calvinist believes?

    2. – Ok you are a Calvinist of some sort… I’m cool with that. But you as a Calvinist are doing research for one of the most aggressive Anti-Calvinist in the SBC? What’s up with that?

    3. – Then your research is used as a supporting document at a conference where all 5 points of “Classic Calvinism” are addressed (and quite poorly might I add), and you have no problem with that at all?

    4. – And you appear to be at a loss as to why your Calvinist Brothers in the SBC are a little upset with you? Come on Tony, you have earned a little heat on this one.

    P.S. — So at this conference where they were not going to bash Calvinism, they actually had a guy give his testimony of how he was converted (saved) out of 5-Point Calvinism… and you as a “Dortian Calvinist” were not offended by this “Spiting in the face”? If I had heard a Calvinist give his testimony of how he was saved out of (insert any of the conference speakers names)’s doctrine I would have rebuked him on the spot. People are saved out of “False Religions”, “Cults”, and “Unbelief”. Come on Tony, how can you still be defending these guys. If you are indeed a Calvinist, then Brother these men have used you… stop defending them.

    Grace Always,

  9. Tony has been, earlier this month, outed by Carla Rolfe as basically a troublemaker who has no idea what hyper-Calvinism actually entails, and who has nothing better to do but talk about it and smear through misrepresentation (if not outright lying) those he thinks follow it. Upon further reading of what he likes to talk about, I closed my browser and went directly to the Tylenol.

    Further discussion with this deluded brother would be unfruitful. “Do not answer a fool according to his folly…”

  10. Here was Allen’s points on the subject of God’s will and hyper-Calvinism at the Conference:

    1) Tom Ascol affirms that God desires the salvation of all men in his revealed will.

    This is obviously true.

    2) James White scornfully denies that God desires the salvation of all men in his revealed will.

    This is a fact and no one has proven otherwise. In fact, White has said on his blog now that he sides with Robert Reymond as over against John Murray on this very point.

    3) James White disagrees with Tom Ascol.

    Given the factuality of #2, this obviously follows. No one whatsoever has challenged this, not even Dr. Ascol himself.

    4) James White is a hyper-Calvinist because of that specific denial.

    Few, if any, have actually addressed this specific point. All talk about how someone engages in “evangelism” and “preaching to all” evades this subject. Does the denial of God’s universal saving will constitute a form of hyper-Calvinism? Phil Johnson has come the closest to addressing it, but he plans on clarifying his position further. I believe he would say (and will say) that such a denial is a hyper-Calvinistic tendency, but not hyper-Calvinism per se. I have now quoted Iain Murray and Curt Daniel to support my claim that such a denial constitutes a form of hyper-Calvinism, even if not “full-blown” hyper-Calvinism.

    5) James White is a hyper-Calvinist based on the criteria in Phil Johnson’s Primer.

    This is really what Phil Johnson has sought to specifically address in his replies, rather than the first four propositions above. It is clear that he does not think his Primer suggests that someone is a hyper-Calvinist if they merely deny God’s universal saving will. Now, note this carefully: He has not explicitly said that his Primer does not make any point about God’s universal saving will. He has been talking about the fact that his Primer doesn’t make a point about God’s “desires,” since such optative expressions are, in his view, “always problematic.” The bottom line is this: Phil does not think that his Primer entails what Dr. Allen thought it said about this subject. That’s fine. He’s the authoritative author of it. Nevertheless, he hasn’t shown that it is unreasonable to conclude what Dr. Allen concluded, since there are obvious references in the Primer that make the point that one needs to rightly understand the orthodox Reformed teaching on God’s will, in contrast to hyper-Calvinistic distortions of it.

    The above summarizes where things stand right now, as I read things.

  11. Tony,

    Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’ (Isaiah 46:9-10)

    Any God that cannot accomplish his purpose, his will, in any matter, including the salvation of sinners, is no God at all.

    At the end of time God will have accomplished all the he intended to accomplish… If that makes me a Hyper-Calvinist, then I will wear that label proudly! Of course I will still do mission trips (I am leaving for Belize soon), and I will still Evangelize the Lost and seek their conversion, trusting that God will save some according to his will.

    12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12-13)

    I really don’t know how anyone could misunderstand the meaning of these verses without deliberately doing so. A sinner believes and is Born Again “not according to the will of the sinner, but according to the will of God”.

    Tony, as you are doing research and writing your dissertation the following two articles might be of interest to you:

    1. God’s Will and Man’s Will

    2. God’s Will, Man’s Will and Free Will

    Tony, you might also find it helpful to read The Bondage and Liberation of the Will :: John Calvin (1509-1564 … Tony, I am not trying to be a ‘wise guy’ here… if you have not actually read this work by Calvin, you really need to do so. I think that most of the Anti-Calvinist in the SBC would be hard pressed to disagree with what Calvin writes if only they would go read the man for themselves.

    Grace Always,

  12. Could someone explain hyper-calvinism please?

    What is it with the question and answer with everyone that God desires the salvation of all?
    If that is so would he not follow through with saving all? Or does God have a desire that just can’t be met?

    Just would like some clarification because I do know there are different takes on calvinism and that they still aren’t consider hyper though they differ.

  13. Tony,

    Greg asks some good questions. You classify yourself as a Calvinist. Of all the issues of this whole conference your only concern seems to be the atonement. Why?

    Do you think the rest of the presenters did such a wonderful job examining Calvinism that we should all be praising them? Where do you stand on this?

    If high Calvinism and moderate Calvinism are both Calvinistic positions which can affirm Dordt contra Arminian views of the atonement, then why are you so caught up on dividing up Calvinists for such a presentation as given at the J3:116C? What’s the deal here?

    I also don’t understand how you seem unaffected by Dr. Allen’s statement about five point Calvinism being a move away from the Gospel. Do you agree with this?

    With that, I am confused…

    Mark

  14. Where did Tony Go?

    Someone remind me never to answer this guys questions in the future…

    With that, I am ignoring Tony…

    Greg

  15. I am discussing things on Lumpkins blog now, if you want to ask me question there. Timmy’s willfully permitting disrespectful and abusive comments to be made here (example=Stephen’s comment above), so I’ve chosen to go elsewhere.

    There’s no reason for me to continue here. It’s not hospitable or conducive to irenic discussion.

    Bye,
    Tony

  16. Steve Camp has also responded via his blog. Link to Response

    Tony wrote: “There’s no reason for me to continue here. It’s not hospitable or conducive to irenic discussion.”

    I would second that idea and expand it. It is better for Tony not to continue, period. His methods of misinformation are not conducive to peace or love.

    -TurretinFan

  17. Tony,
    I’m one who rarely comments in part because of long comment threads like the ones you left here. I imagine you are still monitoring the comments here. The truth is important. If the truth about God is important then the truth about our motives is just as important. No one needs to know the answer and I expect you not to respond. In fact you shouldn’t respond. But I ask you to examine your motives honestly in this debate. In fact we all should diligently seek to ensure we are duly motivated not by our own pride or desires, but by the Spirit of God himself who Indwells us as people of God.

    Your brother in Christ.
    -Jim

  18. If I ever needed a reason (I don’t) for not flinging the meaningless C & A terms around as has happened here and throughout blogdom, and thinking anything meaningful has been communicated, the John 3:16 disaster and its aftermath is one candidate. Dear Lord please save me from my FRIENDS! I can take care of my enemies myself! NOT!
    Russ
    Proverbs 10:19
    1 Corinthians 1:1-20
    1 John 1:8-10

  19. I think Monica Dennington must have read this thread! ;-)

Trackbacks and Pingbacks:

  1. fight update status « Interstitial - November 30, 2008

    [...] in the status of the current internecine warfare in the SBC between Calvinists and Anti-Calvinists, Timmy has a chronological timeline with links. For those of you that don’t care, don’t [...]

  2. Hyper-Calvinism So-Called, Southern Baptist Bureaucrats, and Real Calvinists Like James White – PROPHEZEI - December 3, 2008

    [...] Brister writes: [...]

  3. Deouble-Payment, Double-Jeopardy: Three Documented Responses ¦ Theology Online: Theology, Back to the Basics - December 4, 2008

    [...] Recently I saw one blog reference the double-payment dilemma. You can see its very brief remark here. [...]

  4. On the SBC and anti-Calvinism : - May 27, 2010

    [...] to open up, I found Timmy Brister’s timeline very useful in organizing all of the commentary concerning the John 3:16 conference. While the [...]

Leave a Reply