Here is a clip from Dr. White's latest Dividing Line broadcast, in which he refutes the false allegations made by David Allen about him being a hyper-Calvinist.
In other news, Neo-Amyraldian schismatic Tony Byrne continues his ill-founded and sinful crusade against Dr. White. His action in attempting to tell Phil R. Johnson what Phil actually meant in his own written article (check out the meta in the post by Phil here) has backfired on him and destroyed whatever credibility he has (If you cannot even allow a living author to interpret his own words, why should anyone believe you can interpret the words of departed saints in any meaningful fashion?). As it is, Byrne's actions in this entire fiasco in siding and aiding the militant Arminians has proven that he is no friend of Reformed theology, protestants notwithstanding. He can call himself a "Dordtian Calvinist" or whatever labels he fancies, but his behavior and Amyraldian beliefs show he is a crypto-Arminian; a Trojan horse for Arminian theology. It is written: You shall recognize them by their fruits (Mt. 7:20), so with such fruits by Byrne, can anyone continue to believe he truly is a Calvinist?
It is time to call a spade a spade. Byrne is bearing false witness against both Dr. James White and Dr. Robert Reymond, and is thus sinning against them and against God. Both Dr. White and Dr. Reymond are seminary professors and respected leaders in the Church, and should be respected at the very least. What makes it even more deplorable is that Byrne does not interact with the Word of God in this matter at all, attacking others based upon the writings and interpretations of theologians (or rather how he "understands" their writings acontextually). It is time to denounce Bryne as a schismatic and call him to repentance for his despicable behavior, failing which to treat him as the schismatic that he is.
Addenum: Timmy Brister has a timeline of the events that has been occuring in this latest controversy here. [HT: The Crumbs which fall]
It's interesting that White would cite Reymond refuting Murray's "The Free Offer of the Gospel" in the other video and even Phil Johnson in support. Evidently White is confused, because Johnson can be of no aid to him or Reymond, because he writes in his "Primer on Hyper-Calvinism":
3. The denial of the gospel offer. Type-3 hyper-Calvinism is based on a denial that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect. An alternative of this view merely denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal. For an excellent discussion of this issue, see "The Free Offer of the Gospel," by John Murray and Ned B. Stonehouse (also available at the Orthodox Presbyterian Church's Web site).
White and Reymond are Type-3 Hyper-Calvinists according to Johnson and for Johnson to suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst. My guess is Johnson is now embarrassed that his broad brush has now painted White into a corner.
I think it is more of [Phil] Johnson that is confused. Anyway, my opinion is that [John] Murray et al are Quasi/Neo-Amyraldians in this aspect of God's Will so I don't exactly much care about their calling consistent Calvinists "hyper-Calvinists". Since they do not have a biblical and thoroughly Calvinistic view on the subject, they are disqualified to judge between Calvinism, Hyper Calvinism and Neo-Amyraldism.
I have been blessed visiting your blog.
Post a Comment