David Allen, Peter Lumpkins, and their cohorts

A blog exchange has once again re-enforced my evaluation of most of the man-centered traditionalist as cowards and slanderers. The usual synergist playbook has been dragged out of course. Accuse the opponents of a heresy, redefine terms, repeat disproven arguments (as if repeating them often enough will make them true), and refuse to defend your statements in a forum where your opponents can actually confront you. Given this sort of behavior on the part of some of the most visible pastors and educators in the SBC it’s no wonder that our churches are in the mess it is. Our churches are full of the unregenerate, ignorant, and absent. The SBC is dying a slow death because of its emphasis on professions of faith and baptismal numbers while ignoring the real concern, genuine conversions. The pews are full of people who do not only know church history but are unschooled in their own Southern Baptist heritage. Well, save for the falsehood that the SBC was synergistic originally, that having been redefined as “moderate Calvinism” (This as opposed to “extreme Calvinism”, which is historical Calvinism.)
Dr. Allen, dean of a SBC seminary, recently accused James White of hyper-Calvinism during the 3:16 conference. This conference was little more than a bash Calvinist session where all the usual canards were offered. Allen based the accusation on a post by Phil Johnson. Now Phil has clearly stated that his post was misused, and that he personally knows Dr. White is not a hyper-Calvinist. Further, Dr. Allen did not use what the law would call due diligence before making the claim, that is evaluating for himself whether Dr. White was in fact a hyper-Calvinist regardless of Phil’s post. His basis for making the claim is that Dr. White does not agree with his claim that “God wills the universal salvation of all men”. This of course is not the historical definition of hyper-Calvinism. He also seems to think that Gods offer is not valid because unregenerate man will not of himself accept it. Now of course all Calvinist believe that God sincerely makes the offer, anyone who repents and believes will be saved, but he is under no obligation to enable rebel sinners to overcome their willfulness. But Dr. Allen makes the further makes the requirement that rebel sinners must of themselves desire to respond or it’s not a “real” offer. Essentially what this means is that God must enable everyone for the offer to be “real”, which is one of the basic disagreements of historic Calvinism with synergism. Based upon such ahistoric assumptions Allen then slanders Dr. White while claiming he wasn’t attacking his character.
Allen then says that even were it demonstrated that Dr. White was not a hyper-Calvinist it wouldn’t invalidate his point that Dr. Ascol and others in the SBC are linking to hyper-Calvinist; which in his mind is some great problem in the SBC these days. Of course the fact that he redefines hyper-Calvinism to mean many of the doctrines of historic Calvinism escapes him, so wed is he to his unbiblical view of man and his abilities. The real purpose of all this is not to combat rampant hyper-Calvinism in the SBC but to hide the fact that these hyper-Calvinist hunters simply have no response to the arguments of their opponents so they seek to poison the well by using pejoratives.
So what we see is that Allen objects to historical Calvinism. It has become fashionable of late for Arminians to claim they are “moderate Calvinist” or some other falsehood of the type. Let me make it clear for them, they are not Calvinist of any sort, they are Arminians. Norman Geisler tried to pull this same sort of dodge in his book “Chosen But Free”, but upon examination the claim turns out to be smoke and mirrors. One will also often hear things such as “I’m not an Arminian or a Calvinist, I’m a biblicist (which is similar to saying I’m not a bird or a reptile, I’m green; it’s a category error)” or “I may be a country preacher (false humility) but I know that all means all (assuming that the group the all refers to is all men)” from these “moderate Calvinist”.
It is telling that these folks refuse to interact with critics in any forum where their mendacity can be exposed. In fact Lumpkins recently turned Dr. Whites challenge to a moderated debate into an accusation against him. Now what sort of twisted logic Lumpkins uses to rationalize his position that moderated scholarly debates aren’t the best way to settle such disputes, as opposed to dueling blog article where the synergist can ignore correction and repeat disproven arguments, I cannot fathom.
Lumpkins also objected to my pointing out that another member of the cabal, who I did not name, was misusing John 3:16, putting emphasis on the word whosoever which is not in the Greek text, and even if it were would not demonstrate ability. I must apparently limit myself to the argument made by Allen without listing other false claims made by members of his conference that show their phony attacks on Calvinism. There’s also the ever-popular criticism among this group that Calvinism makes one “doomed from the womb”. Never mind that the argument invalidates their own position, unless they want to own the heresy of open theism. Or pointing out that Allen and his cronies take passages like 2 Peter 3:9 out of context, claiming “any” must refer to every human or you’re a hyper-Calvinist! (Never mind that the group referred to by any is defined by its usage) All this while safely ensconced in their Georgia hideaway. Do not expect these folks to put themselves in a position where they have to actually defend these arguments, why for a Calvinist to ask them to demonstrates a character flaw on his part. Just accuse them of being “debate junkies” or other pejoratives of the sort and you can avoid having to defend your argument rather than assert it. Given this behavior one is left to conclude that they are dishonest and cowardly. And notice I didn’t even have to redefine terms to demonstrate it!