Dr. David Allen’s Points on God’s Will and Hyper-Calvinism at the John 3:16 Conference

Here are David Allen’s points on the subject of God’s will and hyper-Calvinism at the John 3:16 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 (2) that he sides with Robert Reymond as over against John Murray on this very point. His denial is categorical, and does not merely involve problems with optative expressions.

3) This denial by White is based on his atonement views.

Almost everyone has missed this vital point. This is why Dr. Allen brought it up during the conference. White said, “And I just go, what does it mean to say that God desires to do something he then does not provide the means to do? What does that mean? And no one’s ever been able to tell me.” Dr. Allen’s lecture was on the extent of atonement, and he made some practical observations at the end. He argued that a strictly limited atonement (in the sense of Owen’s limited imputation of sin to Christ view) diminishes God’s universal saving will. This point is not new. Edward Polhill and John Bunyan addressed the same subject.

4) James White disagrees with Tom Ascol.

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

5) Allen said James White is a hyper-Calvinist because of that specific denial.

Few, if any, have actually addressed this point. All talk about how White engages in “evangelism” and “preaching to all” is a red herring. It doesn’t address this subject, which is: 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. Perhaps he thinks that the denial would have to be coupled or mixed with other hyper-Calvinistic ingredients in order to properly call someone a hyper-Calvinist by this criteria. He has created the subjective, ahistorical label “über-high Calvinist” for some instead of labeling them “hyper.” 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 it’s not “full-blown” hyper-Calvinism. They both refer to the denial of God’s universal saving desire as a “main argument against free offers” (Daniel) or one of “the most serious differences of all between evangelical Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism” (Murray). Murray, in his book on Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism, said that “Spurgeon regarded the denial of God’s desire for the salvation of all men as no mere theoretical mistake. For it converged with one of the greatest obstacles to faith on the part of the unconverted, that is to say, a wrong view of the character of God.” Anthony Hoekema also associated the denial of God’s desire to save all  men, or the well-meant offer, with hyper-Calvinism.

6) Allen said 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 five 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. Rather, 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 knows what he meant to say by 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. Perhaps he thinks Allen could have been warranted in saying that White has a very serious hyper-Calvinistic tendency, based on Phil Johnson’s Primer. We shall see.

The above summarizes where things stand right now, as I read the posts. I find it very disappointing to see my fellow Calvinists not even admitting that Dr. Allen made any valid points whatsoever. Genetic fallacies abound. It’s as if the entirety of what he said is false, and “unthinking.” They should at least acknowledge that the first four propositions above are true and serious matters. Honesty demands that.

Calvinistic bloggers have not refuted Allen’s first four facts above, but they’re just taking exception to the characterization of those facts (#5 and #6). Fine. If you don’t like to label White’s scornful denial of God’s universal saving desire as a form of “hyper-Calvinism,” then just call it “Dead-Wrongism,” on a serious level, based on what the Scriptures and orthodox Calvinists historically affirm.