Is James White a Hyper-Calvinist? - Conclusion (I hope)

New Developments

James White has changed the nature of this discussion as it relates to hypercalvinism. He recently posted a response to Tony Byrne on the AOMin blog, and also posted a video, which vitiates much of the discussion about whether James White is a hyper-Calvinist.

Having posted a link to the video, I must comment that some of what White says there is simply false and bombastic; and I don't post the video because I like it or approve of it, but because White makes an important doctrinal concession in it.

Taking the blog post and video together, we can say that White believes the following:

• God loves all men, though God's love is not monolithic
• God's will (his revealed will) is that all men obey his commands to repent and believe the gospel
• In that context (revealed will and command) we can say that God desires the salvation of all men

Having made those statements, much of what I (and others) have written in criticism of White as a hyper-Calvinist is no longer cogent. In my view, White has effectively exonerated himself from the charge.

I feel quite certain that White will take the position that this is nothing new for him -- this has been his position all along. That may be the case, but this is new as far as his statements on the record. I know of no other place in White's work where he has made these kinds of statements. I haven't read all of his work, and I freely admit that he may have held this position all along while I suffered under a cloud of ignorance. But I doubt it. Citations anyone?

And Tony Byrne has made the point on his blog that White's new position is unsupported by any scriptural analysis from White. How would White support his view that God loves all men? Or that God desires (according to his revealed will) that all men obey the gospel? I'm willing to grant White the benefit of the doubt on this; Byrne might want more trenchant statements from White.

The dispute could have been avoided

And should have. White could have answered this debate easily long before the John 3:16 conference by making these points clearly. He could have answered Allen simply by stating these things. But he didn't. He made these statements under a certain degree of pressure. He was forced -- or so it seems to me -- kicking and screaming into these admissions. Ok ... maybe I exaggerate; but that's the way I see it.

I also worry about the solidity of this "new" position. Will there be more "qualifications," and "clarifications?" We can only wait and see. For now I am willing to admit that White is not a hyper-Calvinist. But I worry.

Words have consequences

Having made these statements, White's previous statements on the subject become confusing and contradictory to the point of a hopeless muddle. One could go into long analysis of White's writings and parse his words, but that would be an entirely fruitless and jejune exercise. I won't do it.

More Consequences

There are two other important consequences. First, White is now on record (provided he doesn't start wiggling and provided we don't try to reconcile his recent statements with his old ones) as affirming an orthodox Calvinistic position. This is good.

Another important consequence is that Phil Johnson has gutted his hyper-Calvinism primer to the point of uselessness. Johnson (quite unnecessarily as it turned out) said in defense of White that Dr. Allen had misinterpreted his Primer. Now that is not exactly what Johnson said, but that is the way his statements are being interpreted (by both White and Tom Ascol, and presumably many others).

Johnson, who is normally careful with his words, began muddying the waters -- for the sake of his friend White -- by introducing qualifications about optative expressions, and alleging his personal knowledge of White's orthodoxy, and asserting the apparent misunderstanding of both by Dr. Allen. I deny that Allen misunderstood Phil's Primer ... he clearly understood it all too well. And White's statements up until recently put him solidly in the hyper-Calvinist camp, whatever Phil may say about "misunderstanding his primer."

As a consequence of Johnson's defense of White, other people have begun seriously to misunderstand it, and now Tom Ascol, for example, is saying that Steve Camp is not a hyper-Calvinist because Allen misunderstands Johnson's primer. Oh really!? Johnson would never (one hopes) say such a thing, but his sloppiness in recent weeks has given others a good deal of room to make these kinds of statements. The usefulness of his Primer as a benchmark has been eviscerated. And given Phil's qualifications on "optative" language, his primer as a teaching tool has been eviscerated as well. I would never, given his recent qualifying statements about optative expressions, point anyone to that Primer. I will point people to Tony Byrne for real instruction on the point from this time forward. (Byrne will point us to Curt Daniel and Iain Murray ... who presumably won't be issuing "clarifications" that arise out of personal motives and result in more confusion.)

Well, that's all I have to say on this matter of James White and hypercalvinism ... hopefully forever. If Johnson or White make additional statements that retract or clarify recent events I may revisit it. But I hope that doesn't happen.

For next time, I'm going back to my critique of Nicole.

Is James White a Hyper-Calvinist? - Part 3

James White's problem recapped

In the first two articles of this series, (see Is James White a Hyper-Calvinist and Is James White a Hyper-Calvinist, Part 2) I set out Dr. White's problem with the idea that God desires the salvation of all men. The Bible clearly presents God as willing the salvation of all, Calvin clearly taught it, and it has been held as important truth throughout the history of reformed theology.

In recent decades, a strict strand of Calvinism has become prominent in some Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist circles, which some of us see as dangerously close to (if not firmly ensconced in) the philosophy of hyper-Calvinism. But whether White is "technically" a hyper-Calvinist or not, he clearly denies that the gospel is a proclamation of God's love for all men.

God's "partially salvific desire"

One of the problems (see part 2) White has with the reformed doctrine of God's love for all men is that if we accept the notion, we would be required to see God as having a "partially salvific" intention. Here's White:

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.

* * *

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.

* * *

But, I have a problem then saying in my proclamation of the gospel to others means that I then have to affirm some kind of a partially salvific desire...cause it can only be partially salvific. If it's truly a salvific desire, and it's truly a desire of God, does he not do whatever he pleases in the heavens and the earth?"

* * *

~James White, from transcript of Dividing Line radio program cited at Theological Meditations.

More recently, White has characterized the debate this way:

The Pyromaniac himself has weighed in on the John 3:16 Conference allegations that if you don't believe God is eternally bummed about failing to save those He desires to save you are a hyper-Calvinist.

~James White from AOMin.org.

Eternally bummed?

White, ever the master of debate hyperbole, tries to paint his opponents into a corner. But it's a false dilemma. I doubt (I don't know, because I haven't listened to the recordings of the John 3:16 conference) that Dr. Allen said that God is "eternally bummed" (or the equivalent). And I know for a fact that this is not the position of Ponter or Byrne. Of course, these nice distinctions tend to get trampled whenever grotesque exaggeration is the preferred tool for debate. White apparently believes that any desire for the salvation of the non-elect on the part of God will necessarily involve God in eternal-bummed-out-ness. White has also said that he refuses "to portray God as having eternally decreed His own unhappiness...."

White, apparently, refuses to portray God in the way that scripture presents Him, or as Calvin presents Him. There are many places in Calvin's works where Calvin portrays God as desiring the salvation of all men. For example:

[F]or with respect to the law and the whole teaching of the prophets, God announces his wish that all should be saved. And surely we consider the tendency of the heavenly teaching, we shall find that all are promiscuously called to salvation. * * * Therefore God delighteth not in the death of him who dieth, if he repent at his teaching. But if we wish to penetrate to his incomprehensible counsel, this will be another objection: Oh! but in this way God is chargeable with duplicity; — but I have denied this, though he takes up a twofold character, because this was necessary for our comprehension. Meanwhile Ezekiel announces this very truly as far as doctrine is concerned, that God wills not the death of him that perishes: for the explanation follows directly afterwards, be you converted and live. Why does not God delight in the death of him who perishes? Because he invites all to repentance and rejects no one. Since this is so, it follows that he is not delighted by the death of him who perishes: hence there is nothing in this passage doubtful or thorny, and we should also hold that we are led aside by speculations too deep for us. For God does not wish us to inquire into his secret counsels: His secrets are with himself, says Moses, (Deuteronomy 29:29,) but this book for ourselves and our children. Moses there distinguishes between the hidden counsel of God, (which if we desire to investigate too curiously we shall tread on a profound abyss,)and the teaching delivered to us. Hence let us leave to God his own secrets, and exercise ourselves as far as we can in the law, in which God’s will is made plain to us and to our children.

~Calvin, Comm. Ezekiel 18:32

Does God desire obedience?

Surely the Bible says that God desires obedience.

22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.

~1Samuel 15:22, KJV

This verse is referred to in Hosea 6:6 and by Jesus on a couple of occasions.

But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

~Matthew 9:13, KJV

So clearly God desires obedience. But is this a "partial" desire as White has alleged? If we accept White's reasoning, this desire for obedience can not be a "true" desire, because (in the words of White), "If it's ... truly a desire of God, does he not do whatever he pleases in the heavens and the earth?"

White engages in idle speculation to the detriment of true knowledge of God. If we are to know God, we must know Him as He has revealed himself. Having revealed Himself as desiring obedience to His commands, we must refrain from engaging in philosophical argumentation to cause us to deny the very thing God affirms about Himself. White's statement about a "partial salvific desire" amounts to nothing more than this kind of unbelief, whether it be hyper-Calvinism or not. It certainly goes "beyond Calvin" -- into a profound abyss.

Is James White a Hyper-Calvinist? - Part 2

In my first article in this series, entitled "Is James White a Hyper-Calvinist?" I gave an overview of White's problem and the Biblical reason for entering into the difficulties James White alleges. Those problems are (probably among others he would name if pressed)

• The Two-Wills "conundrum"
• The "partial desire" and sovereignty problem
• "God wills the salvation of all men" is a meaningless statement.

I propose to answer these problems, insofar as I have been able to find an answer in the reformed literature. Admittedly, my answers will not be satisfactory to many, but I hope they may help some whose minds are not biased one way or the other and provide encouragement to those who are inclined to reject hyper-Calvinism.

I'm going to tackle these problems one at a time. This post will deal with the "two-wills conundrum," and the rest will have to wait for another day -- hopefully in the not-too-distant future.

Why enter into this question?

As I said in my previous blog post, I am not so concerned with whether White is or is not a hyper-Calvinist (though I think this is a legitimate concern), but whether good Bible interpretation is being upheld and the doctrines of the Christian faith adhered to.

The reason for entering into this debate is that White has denied, and leads others to deny, that God has any meaningful will for the salvation of the reprobate. The scripture plainly teaches the opposite of what White has claimed, and that is the bottom line for entering into the discussion. It is also the bottom line for tackling the admittedly difficult problems that accompany the Biblical concepts.

The "two-wills conundrum"

White has alleged that viewing certain passages of the Bible as teaching that God wills the salvation of those who are destined never to believe, forces us into an awkward position. Here's White again:

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.

~James White, from transcript of Dividing Line radio program at Theological Meditations.

According to White, attributing beneficent motives and desires to God in respect of the offer of salvation to the non-elect involves us in conundrums. God would have to have two wills: a will that decrees the damnation of some men, and a desire that those very men not be damned.

First, I would note that this is the very objection that most Arminians would raise against Calvinism! Election cannot be true, they would say, because it would involve God in willing the damnation of some men whom he has expressly said he loves. The Arminian objection and White's objection are one, the respective parties simply solve the problem in a different way. Both sides agree that the doctrines of election and universal love cannot both be true. One side rejects God's love for all men and the other side rejects the sovereign purpose of God in election.

Both are equally unbiblical, and both rest on the same philosophical objection.

Calvin's answer

Calvin, in answering an imagined objection against the doctrine of election based on Matthew 23:37 ("O Jerusalem, Jerusalem..."), answers by maintaining both God's love for all men and the sovereign election of God, while flatly denying that God has two wills in the matter.

But this will of God, of which we speak, must be defined. For it is well known what exertions the Lord made to retain that people, and how perversely from the highest to the lowest they followed their own wayward desires, and refused to be gathered together. But it does not follow that by the wickedness of men the counsel of God was frustrated. They object that nothing is less accordant with the nature of God than that he should have a double will. This I concede, provided they are sound interpreters. But why do they not attend to the many passages in which God clothes himself with human affections, and descends beneath his proper majesty? He says, "I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people," (Isa. 65:1), exerting himself early and late to bring them back. Were they to apply these qualities without regarding the figure, many unnecessary disputes would arise which are quashed by the simple solution, that what is human is here transferred to God. Indeed, the solution which we have given elsewhere (see Book 1, c. 18, sec. 3; and Book 3, c. 20, sec. 43) is amply sufficient: viz. that though to our apprehension the will of God is manifold, yet he does not in himself will opposites, but, according to his manifold wisdom (so Paul styles it, Eph. 3:10), transcends our senses, until such time as it shall be given us to know how he mysteriously wills what now seems to be adverse to his will.

~Calvin, Institutes 3.24.17, emphasis added.

Calvin calls us back from idle speculation and would have us simply accept the truths plainly taught in the scripture, holding our philosophical objections in abeyance until we are given to know more fully the mysteries of God's will.

The answer of R.L. Dabney

Dabney goes slightly further than Calvin. He attempts to explain the complexity of the Divine psychology in this matter, and raises and answers a possible objection of an opponent. The objection is this: if God is all-powerful, then he must be capable of fulfilling his wishes, and no propension would go unfulfilled. Since God is all-powerful, if he really has decreed whatsoever comes to pass, he could have no inclination to be merciful to sinners who ultimately receive no mercy. Here are Dabney's words in answer:

Now, it is obvious that this reply proceeds on the following assumption: that if the obstacle of physical inability be removed in God, by his consciousness of omnipotence, there cannot be any other rational ground, in the view of God's omniscience, that may properly counterpoise or hold back the propension of mercy. But the statement of this is its sufficient exposure. It must always be exceedingly probable that an all-wise mind may see, among the multifarious concerns of his vast kingdom, good reasons for his action, of which we cannot have the least conception.

* * *

When we have admitted this, we have virtually admitted that God may see, in his own omniscience, a rational ground other than inability for restraining his actual propension of pity towards a given sinner. The first objection, then, however plausible in appearance, is found to be empty. And it is especially to be noted, that while it professes a zeal for God's infinitude, it really disparages it. Our position is, after all, the modest and reverential one.

~R. L. Dabney, God's Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy, As Related to His Power, Wisdom, and Sincerity, quoted at Spurgeon.org.

Thus Dabney, too, would call us from idle speculation and call us immodest for raising the objection.

The attempt to reconcile God's sovereignty with universal love is, indeed, a difficult one. But we should not allow the difficulty to push us into unbelief. It is my contention that the Arminians and the hyper-Calvinists both (and White ... whether he be classified as a hyper-Calvinist or no) have allowed the difficulty to push them into doubting the plain witness of the Bible.

Is James White a Hyper-Calvinist?

The Genesis of the dispute

James White was recently accused of being a hyper-Calvinist at the John 3:16 conference. White reacted with a strongly worded denial. But the question persists for some folks -- myself included.

The question of characterization as "hyper-Calvinist" is certainly an interesting one, but is ultimately a question of semantics. Neither White nor his friends will accept the label, and perhaps it doesn't matter so much, unless one cares for history and the meaning of words.

The important question is what White thinks about God's love for men and the motive for the proclamation of the gospel. When the gospel is presented to men, does God intend to present Himself as loving, gracious, and ready to forgive? And if so, does that accurately reflect God's disposition toward men? Does God really intend and desire that all men be saved?

White's problem

White believes that if we attribute to God a desire to save the reprobate, then we have introduced a "conundrum," resulting in God having unfulfilled desires:

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.

~From a transcript from Contend Earnestly, a more complete version of which can be found at Theological Meditations. At this second link, you can listen to the original audio from which the transcript was made.

Is there a reason for attributing beneficent motives to God in the proclamation of the gospel to those who will never believe? And furthermore, what does it mean that God desires the salvation of the reprobate, if such were the case? Here's White again:

But, I have a problem then saying in my proclamation of the gospel to others means that I then have to affirm some kind of a partially salvific desire...cause it can only be partially salvific. If it's truly a salvific desire, and it's truly a desire of God, does he not do whatever he pleases in the heavens and the earth?"

* * *

If you could tell me what it means, you know...is that common grace? Does that mean that God is kind to the non-elect? Ok. I've said that a million times. But that's not what I'm hearing. You know. 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?

~From the transcript at Theological Meditations.

In sum, White can't affirm that God desires the salvation of all men, sees no reason to do so, and wouldn't know what it meant if one affirmed it.

I propose to tackle the question regarding the reason for attributing beneficent motives to God in this post, and the question about what "beneficent motives" means in a second post, to follow shortly.

What About the Bible?

Is there a reason to hold that God desires the salvation of all men? Well, the obvious reason is the scripture presents God in just such a way. I presume my readers know the obvious passages. But, just to be safe, here are a few of the Biblical reasons for believing that God desires the salvation of all men.

God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked

The obvious passages here are Ezekiel 18:23-32 and 33:11, and 2 Peter 3:9. There are some others, not so obvious: Ezekiel 3:18 (where God condemns the failure to warn the wicked man: "his blood will I require at thine hand"); Luke 19:41-44 (where Christ weeps over Jerusalem); Romans 9:1-4 (Paul - presumably reflecting God's heart - mourns over the unbelief of his "kinsmen according to the flesh").

God loves all men

The obvious passages here are John 3:16, Matthew 5:44-48. But again, this principle can be found in other passages throughout the scripture. For example, Acts 3:26 ("Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities"); Acts 14:16-17 (Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways.  Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.)

God intends for all men to repent and believe the gospel

We could put John 3:16 in this category, but there are lots of other verses for this. John 1:7 ("that all men through him might believe"); John 5:34 (see Waldron below); John 6:32-33 (there, Jesus speaks to some who would not believe [vs. 66] and says, "my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven"); John 17:21 ("that the world may believe that thou hast sent me"), Acts 17:30 ("commandeth all men every where to repent"); Romans 2:4 (the goodness of God "leadeth thee to repentance"); 2 Corinthians 5:20 ("be ye reconciled to God"); 2 Peter 3:9; Revelation 22:17 ("the Spirit and the bride say, Come"); and I could probably multiply this list.

God expresses intense emotion

In the Ezekiel passages, for example, God shows himself as distressed over the death of the wicked and pleads with Israel ("turn ye, turn ye, for why would ye die?"). In Romans 9, Paul says that he could wish himself accursed from Christ that Israel might be saved. In 2 Corinthians 5:20, Paul expressly says that God beseeches or pleads through the gospel, "be ye reconciled to God." Most Christians see (some Calvinists to the contrary notwithstanding) this strong emotion expressed in John 3:16. John Calvin, for example:

The word only-begotten is emphatic, (ἐμφατικὸν) to magnify the fervor of the love of God towards us. For as men are not easily convinced that God loves them, in order to remove all doubt, he has expressly stated that we are so very dear to God that, on our account, he did not even spare his only-begotten Son. Since, therefore, God has most abundantly testified his love towards us, whoever is not satisfied with this testimony, and still remains in doubt, offers a high insult to Christ, as if he had been an ordinary man given up at random to death. But we ought rather to consider that, in proportion to the estimation in which God holds his only-begotten Son, so much the more precious did our salvation appear to him, for the ransom of which he chose that his only-begotten Son should die.

 

~Calvin, Comm. John 3:16

If I can sum up this argument, the reasons for believing that God truly desires the salvation of even the reprobate is this: God loves all men, he deplores the death of the wicked, he would have all men to believe the truth and be saved, and he expresses that intention in the strongest possible language. This is so clearly the teaching of the Bible on the love of God, that to deny it, or to doubt it, is an appalling error. Whether it be hyper-Calvinism or no, it is an error worthy of the most opprobrious label; for it strikes at the heart of God and his revelation of himself to sinful men.

Historical reasons

I'll give two examples: Calvin and a modern Baptist writer. Calvin, of course, believed that God was favorably disposed toward all men and would have them to be saved:

faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish.

* * *

And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

~Calvin, Comm. John 3:16

Some people will accuse me of "taking the quote out of context" by omitting the predestinarian statements that Calvin makes in the John 3:16 commentary. But we all know -- you and I, dear reader -- that Calvin strongly held to election and predestination. On the other hand, he did not allow his strong belief in God's sovereign decree to blind him to the truth of the scripture. Thus, though he taught that God loved the world and invites all men without exception to faith, he also included the awareness that "the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith." idem. Calvin did not seek to reconcile these truths, but simply believed them as they are taught in the scriptures. The problem comes when we seek to deny one truth for the sake of the other. Both Arminians and hyper-Calvinists make the same error, on the opposite side of the issue.

Reformed theologians throughout the intervening centuries have held both to the sovereignty of God in election and to the love of God for all men expressed in the preaching of the gospel. Some of my friends have made reference to Sam Waldron's commentary on the London Baptist Confession as an example of this. Writing of John 5:34 Here's a relevant paragraph:

"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.

~Waldron, Exposition of the 1689 Confession, p. 122. Quoted at Theological Meditations. (Thanks to Flynn for finding this passage in Waldron.)

There are many more Biblical passages and a host of Calvinistic theologians on this question ... all of the tenor given above. In fact, Dr. White's "conundrum" is entirely uncontroversial in Calvinistic circles. This has been explained time and time again throughout the history of reformed theology. That Dr. White has a problem with it ought to reflect a certain deviation on his part from standard Calvinistic doctrine as well as from the plain teaching of the Bible.

More next time on this in Is James White a Hyper-Calvinist? Part 2.