James White...Really? Frontlines?

I found out what happens when you question theology with someone who has their own radio show and following last year when I brought up some concerns with James White's theological convictions on the desire and will of God. What ensued was a belittling on his radio show, the normal thrashing at my character and yet another debate challenge on the subject. Which I find very interesting. I am not writing this to point to our differences in some of our theological convictions, but I am writing based simply on his arrogance of his ministry. I have had to delete and re-write this a couple of times, because I don't want my anger over this post to show it's ugly head.

I am not sure who this post is written to, but I find it disheartening with his opening paragraphs. Here is what he writes: (click here for the entire article)

Those who have not been on the frontlines find it amenable to sit in their comfy computer chairs and opine away at the keyboard. They know they will never be called upon to present a consistent defense of the faith, especially in the face of competing world religions. So they have little concern about the use of words like "tension" and "mystery," which are so often used to do little more than cover over contradiction and irrationality. Some actually think they are giving a meaningful apologetic when they openly confess the contradictions in their proclamation.

I wonder what White thinks the frontlines are? Does this only mean those that are on radio programs, debating, etc.? It seems like with White, if you aren't willing to debate him, you are a wuss and aren't allowed to bring complaints. I find that a tad bit odd. When I write posts, many in my congregation reads them, many of my friends read them and then others that pick it up from time to time around the world read them. But, this isn't all that I do. I don't just sit in my "comfy chair and opine away at my keyboard" hoping to stir up trouble and then get on with my life. My posts are simply to aid my small body of Christ that I influence for the sake of the gospel.

I find what White does in the public eye one form of ministry, but I also find those who administer a flock of God in the local church as the frontlines as well. I will be honest, I have been a pastor's kid my entire life, and my father (was a pastor) and pastors are on the frontlines far greater than one who makes these kind of absurd comments from his comfy couch with a camera for his youtube audience and online chat room.

I just get tired of these guys who believe that they are the only ones on the front lines because they have written a book or been in the public eye. The front lines don't have to do with what people see you doing Mr. White, the frontlines are what you do for the glory of God. I know I am just some "young man" to you who has no right to question your authority or what you say, but in my estimation it would in your best interest to stop with these ideas that you are the only one on the frontlines who defends the faith.

That is garbage. The correct understanding is that, yes, you are on the frontlines, but so are a lot of other people who question some of your theological convictions. The frontlines of Christ are a lot different than you seem to understand, or at least put forth in this latest post on the subject. I have seen you do this over and over in the past with people who challenge you. I am not sure why you feel like you need to degrade people who challenge your convictions. We might as well start telling "your momma" jokes...at least they're funny.

I wonder how far your followers (I use this loosely, not degrading here) will allow you to go with your arrogance before they recognize that if they use the same logic that use against us, that they are also being called out on this. They are also, not on the frontlines.

Personally I come into contact with struggling teens with their faith, struggling parents, struggling atheists, etc. all face to face. I see their pain, I see their struggles. I am asked about my faith and have to give a complete defense of it all the time. I am questioned constantly on who Christ is and how I can believe in a God that is all sovereign and still allows people to go to hell. Have I ever written a book? No. Have I ever had a recorded debate? No. Have I ever spoken at a conference? No. Am I on the frontlines? As much as you are Mr. White. There is nothing comfy about the couch that God has placed me on, it is just different than yours and I can see how God can work through different people in different ways, where you seem to think he only works through audio/visual equipment and published books.

Do I get questioned as much as you do as far as volume? No, but I do get questioned as much as you probably do in sincerity. I can't imagine how much it must suck to write a book or have a debate and have people always questioning you. That must really suck. But, please don't forget the little guys and put forth that all we do is sit anonymously behind a computer screen and never have to present a consistent defense of the faith. Far from it.

Have I enjoyed watching some of your debates in the past? Yes. Have I enjoyed reading your books in the past? Yes. Have they aided me in understanding different subjects? Yes. Will I continue to? Not if you believe that you are on the frontlines while the rest of us are just watching the show.

I hope this post of yours was just a rant and not your actual beliefs. Because they came off very condescending to those of us who fight the fight every day, just like you.

Read More......

Spurgeon vs. James White

I am basically done with the book Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism, as I only have the last part of Spurgeon's exegesis on 1 Timothy 2:3,4. The book is written by Iain Murray and I have found that if I merely started with this book it would have made more sense the fallacies that James White has been putting forth for some time. I am basically continuing something that I read from Kevin Williams in his post "Calvin disagrees with James White on John 3:16." This post could very well be Spurgeon, Iain Murray and T.J. Crawford disagree with James White on the desire of God, the well meant offer, John Gill and the exegesis on John 3:16, Matthew 23:37; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 Timothy 2:3,4 and any other verses on God's desire. But that would be a very long post heading. What is interesting is that what I, and others, have been saying is exactly what Spurgeon said of Gill in trying to explain his position on God's desire and love for the reprobate. Here is Spurgeon explaining some of Gill, whom Spurgeon and Murray both declare to be a Hyper-Calvinist (Gill is someone who White leans on and defends)

Very seldom does he allow himself to be run away with by imagination, except now and then when he tries to open up a parable, and finds a meaning in every circumstance and minute detail; or when he falls upon a text which is not congenial with his creed, and hacks and hews terribly to bring the word of God into a more systematic shape
Charles Spurgeon; Commenting and Commentaries, P. 9

Spurgeon basically says that instead of allowing Scripture to speak for what it says, Gill has to hack away at it so badly to fit into his creeds, that it makes no sense at all anymore. This is what we have seen when dealing with others as we try to look at John 3:16; Matthew 23:37; 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:3,4. It is laughable, except they don't seem to get the joke.

T.J. Crawford (1812-1875), Professor of Divinity at the University of Edinburgh speaks of the desire of God in this way:

It may be alleged, however, that the invitations of the Gospel, besides being expressive of the undisputed fact that whosoever complies with them shall obtain the offered blessings, are also indicative of a desire on the part of God that all sinners to whom they are held out should comply with them; and how, it may be asked, can such a desire be sincere, if it be the purpose of God to confer only on some sinners that grace by which their compliance will be secured?

Now, without pretending that we are able to give a satisfactory answer to this question, we are not prepared to admit, what the question evidently assumes, that God can have no sincere desire with reference to the conduct of all His creatures, if it be His purpose to secure on the part of this desire. For how does the case stand in this respect with His commandments? These, no less than His invitations, are addressed to all. Both are alike to be considered as indications of what He desires and requires to be done by all. Nor are there wanting, with reference to His commandments, testimonies quite as significant as any which are to be found with reference to His invitations, of the earnestness and intensity of His desire that the course which they prescribe should be adopted by all who hear them. Take, for example, these tender expostulations: 'O that there were such a heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children forever!' 'Oh that my people had harkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways!' 'O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments; then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea!'

But while the commandments of God are thus indicative of what God desires, approves of, and delights in, as congenial to the goodness and holiness of His moral nature, they are certainly not declarative, at the same time, of what He has fixedly purposed or determined in His government of the universe to carry into effect. For if they were so, it is certain that they would be unfailingly and universally obeyed by all His creatures; whereas they are frequently violated, without any interference on His part to secure their observance. Doubtless it is an inscrutable mystery that things should thus be done under the government of the Almighty which are in the highest degree displeasing and offensive to Him. It is just the old mystery of the existence of moral evil, which no one has ever been able to explain.

It is clear through the reading of this book that Spurgeon, Murray and others believed that God has a true inner desire for the reprobate and that those who oppose this idea are those believing in a tenant of hyperism. Murray quotes many men in this respect and labors to make the point clear. What I also found interesting is that when Spurgeon continued to make the point of God's desire and duty faith that he was called an Arminian, or at least one with some sort of Arminian leanings. This is exactly what I find every time I bring up these points. That if I believe that God has a true desire for something that does not come to pass, then I am an Arminian. I would rather stand on the Scriptures with Spurgeon on this, than what was historically labeled as Hyper-Calvinism.

One last note, and we'll be done. When speaking on 1 Timothy 2:3,4 Spurgeon makes this comment:

What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which is fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends (he is speaking of James Wells, Gill and other hyper-Calvinists) deal with this text. 'All men,' say they, - 'that is, some men': as if the Holy Ghost could not have said 'some men' if he had meant some men. 'All men,' they say; 'that is, some sorts of men': as if the Lord could not have said 'All sorts of men' if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written 'all men,' and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the 'alls' according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth...I never thought it to be any very great crime to be so inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it is a great crime to seem to be inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, 'God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.'

Does not the text mean that it is the wish of God that men should be saved? The word 'wish' gives as much force to the original as it really requires, and the passage should run thus - 'whose wish it is that all men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.' As it is my wish that it should be so, as it is your wish that it might be so, so it is God's wish that all men should be saved; for, assuredly, he is not less benevolent than we are.

Charles Spurgeon, MTP, vol. 26, pp. 49-52

It is undeniable what Spurgeon thought on the desire and love of God and also his thought that Gill was a Hyper-Calvinist. He would disagree with James White on this understanding and would also say, as I have said, if you do not believe in the fact that God desires the salvation of all men, including the reprobate, that is a tenant of Hyper-Calvinism. Not only this, but he would also exegete all the major passages of the love of God differently than James White and would say that White is hacking away the word of God to fit his creeds.

Again, I pray that James White would see his error in this and turn from it. I thank God that White believes in the preaching of the Gospel to the reprobate (and he does so mightily) and I also thank God that James White believes in duty-faith (which he also faithfully proclaims). I just pray that he could see the love that God has for all people and the true desire that He has for their salvation.

Read More......

Recap of My Allegation Against James White

There have been 4 posts and 83 comments on my allegation against James White and the thoughts on God's desire of the salvation of all men. I honestly did not know that this would cause such a "stir" when I wrote my first post and didn't expect James White to respond to it directly on his radio show. What I want to do is do a recap of what has gone on so far and show that I still don't have an answer on what James White believes on God's desire. I also want to show that I tried to answer what James White said was my "responsibility" to do. I will say that Turretinfan has been more responsive, although elusive at times. I just received an email from Turretinfan about the use of "desire" but will not post or comment on it unless I get his permission first. My post here is going to be with regards to James White, since he decided to "throw down" on his radio show. :)

I want to demonstrate that I went ahead and answered James White's questions and wondered what his thoughts were on the questions that he directly questioned me on.

So, I just want to make some remarks based on his show and then ask for further guidance on his thoughts on the subject. If you want to hear the show, you can find it here. (the conversation in regards to Contend Earnestly starts around the 34 minute mark and last for about 7 minutes).

James White starts his listeners off by saying that my site is "interestingly titled, Contend Earnestly", as if it was mis-titled by me questioning a theologian about his theological convictions. That is odd. He then reads the post and gets a little perturbed when he reads, "I don't think any of us are saying that James White doesn't go out and evangelize or defend the faith. That isn't what the question is here." He states, while laughing, "It isn't the question of what I do, but it is just a matter of what I..." Again, James white acts as though the question on someone's theological conviction can't be challenged because of what we see them do. Take that same logic to the extreme and we have to ask why we would question a Mormon who lives a good life and helps the poor, etc. I think he knew that he faulted in that response and why he abandoned it and went on.

James White then states that he has written numerous books, numerous articles and debated not dozens of times, but multiple dozens of times on this topic. Later he comments that I have never read any of his books, which I am not sure where he pulled that from, because I have read many of his books. Now, I will admit that while reading them, I was not focused on trying to understand his understanding of the desire of God. So, I would have to ask, "Can you, James White, please point me to those writings so I can go re-read or re-listen to them?" By the way, the original claim was based, not on his written material, but on an answer that he gave on his own broadcast. I don't know if he changed his mind on the desire of God from the time of his writings, but I would assume that what he states in his answer would be his current belief. So, that is what I went off of.

He then says that I am bearing false witness. Wow. I would like to know how I beared false witness when I linked to his response and said that the disbelief in the desire of God for the salvation of the reprobate is a tenant of hyper-Calvinism. If this could be explained, that would be much appreciated.

James White then goes on to explain that he is an elder in Reformed Baptist church and that I need to show where he would differ from the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, not only should I do this, but I was under "obligation to do so." So...I did...through someone I am sure he respects in Samuel Waldron. I not only did it through Waldron, but showed the differences he has with John Piper, John Murray, R.L. Dabney and Charles Spurgeon.

Dr. White then goes on to say that he doesn't respect someone who will not debate with him on these subjects. I have to say, debating is not the only tool within this and I can't answer for those who won't dialogue with him on this matter. But, with all that aside, I am not sure why he wouldn't respect a brother in Christ. That seems like a bit of an overstatement, but that is just my personal thought on the matter.

After this, James White decides to show that since he proclaimed the gospel and called for repentance then that means he is not a hyper Calvinist. This is what we would call "duty faith" and the "common call" of the gospel. Although most historical hypers didn't believe in duty faith or the common call, this does not mean that if you do these two things that one is cleared completely from the rest of the tenants of hyperism. I, again, know from watching Dr. White, listening to Dr. White, reading Dr. White, that he does these things. My question was on his denial of the desire of God for the reprobate. So, he is dealing with an issue that I didn't question him on. Very confusing.

He then describes my position of "desire" of God by using an Arminian explanation, not a Reformed one. He equates my question, by saying that if God desires the salvation of the reprobate that I must think that God is "eternally disappointed" because he decided he wanted to do something he didn't do. This is not the Reformed position on this, nor was it ever my question posed to him. He is drawing up a straw man, to try and make my claim sound ridiculous. The problem with this, is that I have many Reformed men who believe just as I do on the desire of God in regards to the Reprobate. And none of them believe that God would be "eternally disappointed" that an Arminian would hold to.

James White then says he gets upset that I took a potshot at him and that I hide behind the anonymity of the keyboard. What is pretty funny about this claim is that you can find out whatever you want about me. You could call my church and let my pastor know if I have offended you. You can know my convictions pretty easily as I use my real name in all my comments and all my posts. But the very one that brought this original post to James White, Turretinfan, is completely anonymous. James White says that he has very little respect for the approach of hiding behind the anonymity of the keyboard. I think what he meant to say is that he doesn't respect those who don't agree with him, because I believe he greatly respects Turretinfan even though Turretinfan is completely anonymous to anyone on the internet. That is very interesting to say the least.

I am not interested in debating with James White. I am not even interested in trying to "tear apart his ministry" in any way. I just want to know his understanding of the desire of God for the reprobate. I have demonstrated over and over through these posts and links that it is a Reformed position, both with the moderate and high Calvinist, to believe that there is a desire in God for the reprobates salvation. James White could very easily clear everything up by just saying,

"I am not sure about how it works, it is a mystery, but there is some way within God that he desires the salvation of the reprobate."

He has put forth some things that he believes I needed to do to substantiate my claims, and so I did. I would hope that if he is going to call me out on his radio show that he would have enough in him, to respond to what he stated that I was under responsibility to show. I guess we will wait and see. I am guessing that he just hopes that I go away.

There have been many jabs at some of my friends (Tony Byrne and David Ponter) through this discussion in regards to us "pulling statements out of context" but I have yet to see one actually demonstrated. It seems as though these few people like to claim these things, yet do not show these claims to have any merit. By way of understanding, unless you want us to post the entire book in a post, we are always going to have to pull partial quotes. That's kind of the point of pulling out quotes from books or longer theses.

Again, we will see if James White will give some sort of REFORMED (again not Arminian) response to the desire of God for the resprobate. I like what Tony posted:

It is blasphemous to think that God would be guilty of equivocation and deception, that He would say one thing and mean another, that He would earnestly plead with the sinner to repent and believe unto salvation, and at the same time not desire it in any sense of the word.

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), p. 462.

So, the question still stands, "Does James White believe in the desire of God for the salvation of the reprobate in the reformed understanding?"

We shall hopefully get a response.

Read More......

Desire of God: James White and Phil Johnson

So, Turretinfan decided to put this up as an answer to what does it mean that God desires the salvation for the reprobate. He quotes Phil Johnson on this:

"The word desires is problematic, however, because it implies an unfulfilled longing in the Almighty, and that is inconsistent with biblical affirmations of divine sovereignty such as Psalm 115:3 ("Our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased"). God doesn't have unfulfilled longings, frustrated wishes, or unsatisfied appetites. He doesn't "desire" anything in the sense we normally employ the term. Yet it is extremely difficult if not impossible to deal faithfully with the biblical passages describing God's demeanor toward the wicked who perish without employing the language of desire. Scripture itself freely uses such expressions (Ezek. 18:23, 32; 33:11; Lam. 3:33)."

I will say that I found out where this quote came from and this quote comes in the notes of something that R.L. Dabney wrote. In this part Dabney gives an example of how he sees God's desire for the reprobate. He states (the whole article can be found here) :

A certain Major André had jeopardized the safety of the young nation through "rash and unfortunate" treasonous acts. Marshall says of the death warrant, signed by Washington, "Perhaps on no occasion of his life did the commander-in-chief obey with more reluctance the stern mandates of duty and of policy." Dabney observes that Washington's compassion for André was "real and profound". He also had "plenary power to kill or to save alive." Why then did he sign the death warrant? Dabney explains, "Washington's volition to sign the death-warrant of André did not arise from the fact that his compassion was slight or feigned, but from the fact that it was rationally counterpoised by a complex of superior judgments . . . of wisdom, duty, patriotism, and moral indignation.

Further, we find Phil Johnson elsewhere showing what he means by desire on his blog Pyromaniacs. He states in this post (in the comments section):

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm strongly committed to the idea that God in some meaningful sense seeks and "desires" the repentance of every sinner. (Note: I use the d-word advisedly, acknowledging that optative expressions when used of God are always problematic and never quite accurate. But I don't know a better way to say it; and denying it outright would seem to suggest that God's commands and beseechings are not well meant.) Anyway, I believe God expresses a bona fide preference and sincere plea for the salvation of sinners rather than their damnation, and that it's perfectly appropriate to tell any sinner that God loves him or her.
Phil Johnson

Now this is how Phil Johnson clears up his thoughts on God's desire. It seems as though Phil would agree that although this desire is a mystery, as John Murray has said, it is still present and bona fide.

Here is where all this started. I compare the above with what James White said on his radio show The Diving Line and found something that denies God's desire for the reprobate. Here is that quote (full discussion and audio can be found here) :

"Yeah, and that's one of the problems I have with Ezekiel 18 or 33 being read into this particular issue, because I feel like we're being forced to somehow attribute to God some kind (for some reason)...some kind of an attitude or desire that I just never see, not only do I never see expressed, but it would likewise force us to say that God has an unfulfilled desire, but it's not really the same desire as he chooses to fulfill with other people. And we're left not only--you're not only left with the two-wills conundrum, now you've got multiple desires conundrums, which I don't, I just don't see a reason for it. The Ezekiel texts are talking to people who were saying that there was no reason for them to repent because they're already doomed because of the sins of their forefathers. That's why they repeated the parable of their teeth being set on edge because of the sour grapes that their fathers had eaten, and so on and so forth. And so what I hear Ezekiel as saying is an apologetic response to people who were saying there's no reason to preach to those people, there's no reason for us to even listen to the message of the prophets, because our repentance would never be accepted. Now that's different than Isaiah's commissioning where God specifically commissions him to proclaim a message of judgment, and says he's going to harden the hearts of the individuals who hear it. That's a completely different context. But, I just don't, if someone can explain to me where the idea comes from that we have to attribute to God a desire that he then does not fulfill.
James White

This is the conundrum. From my comparison of James White with Phil Johnson and John Murray, and others, James White errs in this thought.

The reason that I labeled this understanding as a hyper Calvinist thought is found when Ian Murray quotes Spurgeon at length of what constitutes a hyper Calvinist. You can find that here.

I still see a difference in James White and Turretinfan vs Phil Johnson, John Murray, R.L. Dabney and Charles Spurgeon.

Read More......

God's Desire of Salvation for All

We have been going back and forth here a little bit on what it means that God desires for all men to be saved. From what I have discerned from James White's response here, is that he is a little to soft in his assertion of God's will or desire. It seems as though that White would only agree to the fact that by the proclamation of the gospel to all, by men, would show his desire for all to be saved. What it seems White draws the line at is God's personal desire for all men to be saved. Although I believe that the way God displays his desire is found in the proclamation of the gospel, it doesn't merely stop there. I find that God truly desires or wishes in his person that all men be saved. To understand this more fully, one has to ascribe to the "two-wills" theory of God to be able to say that God desires fully for someone to be saved, yet also leaves them as the reprobate. Murray calls this a mystery as he states these two summations here:

II Peter 3:9. In view of what we have found already there is no reason in the analogy of Scripture why we should not regard this passage as teaching that God in the exercise of his benevolent longsuffering and lovingkindness wills that none should perish but that all should come to repentance. An a priori assumption that this text cannot teach that God wills the repentance and salvation of all is a gravely unsound assumption, for it is not an assumption derived from the analogy of Scripture. In approaching this text there should be no such prejudice. What this text does actually teach will have to be determined, however, by grammatico-historical exegesis of the text and context.

(2) We have found that God himself expresses an ardent desire for the fulfilment of certain things which he has not decreed in his inscrutable counsel to come to pass. This means that there is a will to the realization of what he has not decretively willed, a pleasure towards that which he has not been pleased to decree. This is indeed mysterious, and why he has not brought to pass, in the exercise of his omnipotent power and grace, what is his ardent pleasure lies hid in the sovereign counsel of his will. We should not entertain, however, any prejudice against the notion that God desires or has pleasure in the accomplishment of what he does not decretively will.

We can also see that John Piper would say the exact same thing in his short treatise on this subject:

To avoid all misconceptions it should be made clear at the outset that the fact that God wishes or wills that all people should be saved does not necessarily imply that all will respond to the gospel and be saved. We must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen, and both of these things can be spoken of as God's will.

Piper then tells a story given by Dabney about George Washington. The following is told:

Dabney uses an analogy from the life of George Washington taken from Chief-Justice Marshall's Life of Washington. A certain Major André had jeopardized the safety of the young nation through "rash and unfortunate" treasonous acts. Marshall says of the death warrant, signed by Washington, "Perhaps on no occasion of his life did the commander-in-chief obey with more reluctance the stern mandates of duty and of policy." Dabney observes that Washington's compassion for André was "real and profound". He also had "plenary power to kill or to save alive." Why then did he sign the death warrant? Dabney explains, "Washington's volition to sign the death-warrant of André did not arise from the fact that his compassion was slight or feigned, but from the fact that it was rationally counterpoised by a complex of superior judgments . . . of wisdom, duty, patriotism, and moral indignation [the wide-angle lens]."

Dabney imagines a defender of André, hearing Washington say, "I do this with the deepest reluctance and pity." Then the defender says, "Since you are supreme in this matter, and have full bodily ability to throw down that pen, we shall know by your signing this warrant that your pity is hypocritical." Dabney responds to this by saying, "The petulance of this charge would have been equal to its folly. The pity was real, but was restrained by superior elements of motive. Washington had official and bodily power to discharge the criminal, but he had not the sanctions of his own wisdom and justice." The corresponding point in the case of divine election is that "the absence of volition in God to save does not necessarily imply the absence of compassion." God has "a true compassion, which is yet restrained, in the case of the . . . non-elect, by consistent and holy reasons, from taking the form of a volition to regenerate." God's infinite wisdom regulates his whole will and guides and harmonizes (not suppresses) all its active principles."

In other words, God has a real and deep compassion for perishing sinners. Jeremiah points to this reality in God's heart. In Lamentations 3:32-33 he speaks of the judgment that God has brought upon Jerusalem: "Though he causes grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love; for he does not willingly afflict or grieve the sons of men." The word "willingly" translates a composite Hebrew word (milibo) which means literally "from his heart" (cf. 1 Kings 12:33). It appears that this is Jeremiah's way of saying that God does will the affliction that he caused, but he does not will it in the same way he wills compassion. The affliction did not come "from his heart." Jeremiah was trying, as we are, to come to terms with the way a sovereign God wills two different things, affliction and compassion.

This is all trying to answer the question of Turretinfan on what I mean when I say, "desire/wish." Turretinfan and James White both try and undercut this by answering a question with a question. They both ask, (my loose quotation) "Are you stating that God is somehow disappointed or frustrated with the fact that something he desired did not come to pass?"

To be honest, I will stick with Murray on this and say that it is a mystery how this comes to pass.

The way that Piper explains this mystery is as such:

Putting it in my own words, Edwards said that the infinite complexity of the divine mind is such that God has the capacity to look at the world through two lenses. He can look through a narrow lens or through a wide-angle lens. When God looks at a painful or wicked event through his narrow lens, he sees the tragedy or the sin for what it is in itself and he is angered and grieved. "I do not delight in the death of anyone, says the Lord God" (Ezekiel 18:32). But when God looks at a painful or wicked event through his wide-angle lens, he sees the tragedy or the sin in relation to everything leading up to it and everything flowing out from it. He sees it in all the connections and effects that form a pattern or mosaic stretching into eternity. This mosaic, with all its (good and evil) parts he does delight in (Psalm 115:3).
John Piper

So, to end this questioning, I believe and have found the Reformers to believe the same. Namely, that God's emotions are complex and we cannot understand them fully, but I do adhere to the fact that God does indeed desire/wish with deep compassion that all men be saved, but in his eternal secretive decree has chosen some and passed over others for his glory. To get a quick understanding of the two wills theory, please read Piper in its entirety here.

If James White or Turretinfan believe in these facts of God's actual desire/wish for all men to be saved (Ezekiel 18; Ezekiel 33; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9 and John 3:16) then I will retract what I have stated.

Read More......

Question for James White on God's Desire

It looks like yesterday's post created quite a stir with James White and Turretinfan. James White decided to bring up the post and talk on it for about 10 minutes yesterday on his radio program called The Dividing Line. James White wasn't happy so he attacked some, which I would have done as well, so I don't hold that against him in any way. It is cool, part of the process since we don't know each other at all. It must also be very difficult for him being in the public eye and getting complaints from all sorts of whack jobs and weirdos. Although Dr. White doesn't know this, I have read many of this books and have listened to many of his debates. Again, I greatly appreciate much of what White does on the "front lines" of evangelism and I went to his Shabir Ally debate here in Seattle and wrote a review of it here. I want to also express that I need to be more specific. On the desire or wish of God for all to be saved, if one denies this, it has historically been a tenant of hyperism. So, although James White might not be a hyper Calvinist as a whole, on this doctrine, based on this exchange, it would seem that in this specific area of his theology, he would be affirming a hyper Calvinist conviction. But, I feel as though I need to "make sure" of this so that is the reason of this post.

So, the one thing that has had me concerned with White is his thoughts on God's desire or wish for all men to be saved, which would then flow out of this the "well meant offer" of the Gospel to all men. One of the challenges that White posed to me was simply, "show me where I differ in regards to the 1689 Baptist Confession." (loose quotation). Now, lets be honest. White can run circles around me theologically. I am no fool to think otherwise, but I bet I could beat him in an arm wrestling contest :). What I am going to do is simply ask him if he agrees with the following statements and men, and if he doesn't I simply ask if he can define what he believes as far as God's desire or non-desire for all men to be saved and show historically any men that would agree with his definition. I will first quote Dr. Samuel Waldron from A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.


"The doctrine of this text that God earnestly desires the salvation of every man who hears the gospel and thus freely offers Christ to them is confirmed throughout the rest of Scripture. The Bible teaches that the good gifts which God bestows upon men in general, including the non-elect, are manifestations of God's general love and common grace towards them (Matt. 5:43-48; Luke 6:35; Acts 14:17). While they do serve to increase the guilt of those who misuse them, this is not the sole intention of God towards the non-elect in giving them. The Scriptures teach that God desires the good even of those who never come to experience the good wished for them by God (Deut. 5:29; 32:29; Ps. 81:13-16; Isa. 48:18). The Scriptures also teach that God so loved sinners that in the person of his Son he weeps because of the destruction they bring upon themselves (Matt. 23:37; Luke 13:34; 19:41-44). God emphatically expressses his desire that some should repent who do not repent (Ezek. 18:23, 32; 33:11; Rom. 10:11). The Scriptures teach a general gospel call which comes to the hearers of the gospel indiscriminately and which may be, and often is resisted (Prov. 1:24; 8:4; Isa. 50:2; 65:12; 66:4; Jer. 7:13-14; 35:17; Matt. 22:14).

This biblical witness does not overthrow the scriptural teaching of an unconditional election and an irresistable grace. When our finite minds contemplate the glory of the incomprehensible God revealed in the Scriptures we often will be unable to penetrate completely how two seemingly contradictory truths may be reconciled. It ought, however, to rid us of every hesitation in calling men indiscriminately, passionately, freely and authoritatively to embrace Jesus Christ as he is freely offered in the gospel."
Samuel E. Waldron, Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (Evangelical Press, 1989), p.122

I would also ask if James White would agree with John Piper and John Murray on this topic as well.

Also, if not, which historic men of the Christian faith would agree with his conclusions on God's desire and/or wish of the unregenerate?

That is all for now. These are mere questions and I hope to get a clear understanding of what James White believes on this desire. And next time he is in Seattle I will buy him lunch and let him tear me apart theologically.

Read More......

When Friends Err: Part I

This is a very hard subject. What do we do when our friends in ministry are in error on theological subjects and others point it out? Because I am not in the spotlight like some, although I have dealt with this subject, I haven't dealt with the subject in the public eye. I have had to correct friends of mine who have taught error and had to correct them in front of groups because of questions being posed to me because of the teaching of this individual. It wasn't easy, but it was necessary. Did this person hold it against me? Actually no. I went to him beforehand to let him know and then proceeded to do in a way that hopefully was very God honoring.

The issue I have is the fact that we have those in the public eye, who come up with formulas of labeling others, but when faced with one of their friends in this area they start to back peddle. It is really some sort of friendship bias because they "know" the person. To me, this doesn't make sense. What good is it to have clearly defined labels if they aren't followed through with? What good is it to clearly define some dangers in the modern evangelical circles if when these definitions are then put to friends that those who pose these definitions back off? This is clearly dangerous to do, and very confusing.

I know you are crying for examples so let me give you some. One is general and then the others will be specific. The most general one that I find are with those religions that we deem as against Protestant Christianity. We preach and defend against these, whether it is Roman Catholicism, Buddhism, Mormonism or Islam. What I find interesting is that preachers around the nation don't have the balls to follow through with their exclusive claims of the cross. If we believe that only those who believe in Jesus Christ are saved, then if someone doesn't not believe in the efficacy of the Christ and His atonement, then they are outside of the faith. What is found though, is that when some are pressured, they will throw up their hands and say, "I leave that to God." While I understand this to an extent, and the statement is ultimately true, we should have the guts to at least state, "If they do not believe in the Christ alone, and his efficacy, then they are outside of the faith and will go to hell." This is a far better response than what we have found with some within contemporary circles (here and here). Take a stand. Say something to defend Jesus, not your friend.

Specifically now.

Last year I visited the Resurgence Conference 2007 with Bruce Ware. I really like Bruce Ware and believe his thoughts on the atonement and his convictions in general are much like my own. Dr. Ware's most widely heard ministry is against Open Theism. The conference that I attended was called, "Where the Hands of God and Hands of Man Meet." It was about Calvinism (Reformed), Arminianism and Open Theism. Bruce Ware went through a complete weekend of just hammering Open Theist positions and called out their error quickly and succinctly. He even brought up a great passage when speaking to the Open Theist in Isaiah 41:21-24

“Present your case,” the Lord says.
“Bring forward your strong arguments,”
The King of Jacob says.
Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place;
As for the former events, declare what they were,
That we may consider them and know their outcome.
Or announce to us what is coming;
Declare the things that are going to come afterward,
That we may know that you are gods;
Indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look about us and fear together.
Behold, you are of no account,
And your work amounts to nothing;
He who chooses you is an abomination.
Isaiah 41:21-24

This put me over the edge of thinking that Open Theism is outright heresy. We then found out that Bruce Ware, under his own admission, was close friends with some of the major proponents to this thought. Bruce broke this passage down to show that the Open Theist is worshiping another god and not the God of the Bible. So, during the Q&A someone asked, "Would you then consider Open Theism as heresy?" Bruce Ware responded by saying, "no, I would not. I have close friends who are open theists and find them to love Jesus very much." I had issues with this, so I stood up and had to question this. I put forth the logic to Dr. Ware that if we can't say that my mormon friend loves Jesus, therefore he is "in" then how is this different than his Open Theist friends? He responded that it was different. I then asked, "How is this different? You taught that they worship another god and that those who choose this god is an abomination. Do you know of anywhere in the Scriptures where a regenerated elect person of God is ever called an abomination?" He quickly moved on and didn't really respond to my questioning. He, by this Q&A just tore down his entire argument for the past couple of days. I was thinking, "Why is this such a big deal if they are one of the elect and saved?" It seemed like double talk. I greatly respect Dr. Ware, but this made little sense to me. I felt like he was giving a "pass" because his friends were involved in this area of theology.

Another example is more recent. This one involves James White and Phil Johnson. I respect Phil a lot yet find him sometimes irritating, probably because in our demeanor we are a lot a like. Phil and others historically have given definitions of what is deemed as hyper-Calvinism. If you want to see a great break down of the different levels of moderate, high and hyper Calvinism, check out Tony's chart here.

One of the defining points of hyperism is the thought that God has no desire to save the reprobate. Historically, Calvinism has thrown this idea back and forth, but landed with the fact of the two wills theory that was a proponent of Calvin himself. Meaning, that God has a revealed will and a secretive will. Meaning that although God desires all people to be saved, in his secretive will, not all can be saved. He chose some, and past over others for his own glory by the consulting of his own will alone. This would fall in line with the following:

“Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord God, “rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?
Ezekiel 18:23

“Say to them, ‘As I live!’ declares the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?’
Ezekiel 33:11

There is much more to this argument and very easy to show that God does indeed desire for all men to be saved. Classic Calvinism would definitely agree with this as well. The problem here is that Phil Johnson has clearly laid out this definition of hyper Calvinism here and James White clearly denies the free offer and God's desire here. After reading the two, it is clear that James White falls into the historic definition (notice I said definition of, not labeling him as one outright) of a hyper Calvinist. But, we find Phil Johnson defending his friend here. I understand wanting to defend a friend, but this really is out of bounds to leave all definitions of what it means to be a hyper Calvinist and defend someone because you like them and have seen them in action. I don't think any of us are saying that James White doesn't go out and evangelize or defend the faith. That isn't what the question is here. The question and definitions are solely from a theological understanding on the free offer and desire of God. On this, James White is sorely in error, yet Phil Johnson seems to defend this error for only the reason of a friend being caught up in it. Just my perception.

This is disheartening for sure. What I hope happens behind closed doors is for Phil and James White to have some good discussions on the free offer and desire of God and for James White to be corrected in his error. But, I will tell you that James White's response to this allegation is immature and laughable. Instead of arguing from Scripture, like he tells all of his opponents to do, he merely tries to draw up straw men and argue from practice by belittling his opponents. Dr. White, just because you happen to be defending the faith on the weekend that this conference was going on, doesn't mean that this clears your name as a proponent of the historical claims of the gospel. At least be honest and respond in the ways that you desire your opponents to respond. Because if they would have made the same claims that you did in your response, you would have laughed at them and undercut them the first chance you got.

:::UPDATE:::

Let me say this. I would argue that because of White's definition and understanding of God's desire (found here) that this would at least be deemed as having hyper tendencies. He might not be a hyper Calvinist outright, but it would seem as though some of his thoughts on the desire and free offer would lean the way of the hyper Calvinist.

Tomorrow we will look at what we should do when a friend is found to be in error theologically and others notice this error and ask us about it.

Read More......