John 3:16 Conference

For those of you that are unaware, there is currently a conference within the SBC called the John 3:16 Conference. The point of the conference is to deflect the growing Calvinistic movement withiin the walls of the SBC. Unlike the Building Bridges Conference sponsored by Founders, this conference has no Calvinists speaking nor is there any debate or discussion. This is simply a one-sided Conference.

Now if non-Calvinists wish to have a conference on Calvinism that is fine. Go for it. Yet, as usual, non-Calvinists keep repeating the same red herrings over and over again. Andrew Lindsey and my Georgian friend Mark Lamprecht are at the conference. I suppose we could call them Calvinist spies who are offering coverage of the conference from Tim Challies Blog and Mark's Sweet Tea and Theology Blog.

My friend Mark point out a few statements from David Allen's lecture on Limited Atonement.

"Robert Raymond - a hyper-Calvinist. Gives a logical, long quote."

Now I own Robert Reymond's Systematic Theology. Reymond is not a hyper-Calvinist. So I look forward to the MP3s and source that he cites. Oh wait. They seem to not be offering free MP3s? I was really hoping to interact with this material. I guess we will just have to move on.

Mark reports Allen as saying,

Sam Waldron - In Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue the free offer of the Gospel does not require that we tell people that Christ “died for you.” No where in the Bible is the Gospel proclaimed that Christ died for “you.”

Opposition to Waldron - 1 Cor. 15:3 - Paul that Christ died for their sins. Acts 3:26 on Peter. Luke 22:20-21 where Jesus states His blood was shed for Judas. Calvin says Judas was at the table.

Now I have listened to Waldron's lecture from Building Bridges. Waldron was clearly referring to the Gospel call to the unChurched. To then quote Paul in the context of a letter to the church at Corinth and writing to believers is simply mixing apples and oranges. Allen ought to know this. Again, without interaction and discussions and debates, how are we supposed to "get along"?

As for Allen citing Luke 22:20-21, Jesus speaks of the cup of the New Covenant.

20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. 21But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. 22The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him." 23They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this.

Jesus is very clear He is speaking to the disciples as a whole. Please notice however, that He singles out one and only one. He places that man under a "woe" or a curse. Doesn't the context speak clearly that Judas violates the Covenant and comes under its curses? Isn't there an aspect of the Covenant that seals those for whom it is made unto eternal life? I assume Allen believes in some form of eternal security. If so, what is the basis of that security? Is it himself? Ahhhh, the blessings of not having cross-examination. You simply immune yourself from criticism.