Isn't "Reformed" Baptist Just a Modern Rendition of "Primitive" Baptist? by Peter Lumpkins

Last week, I wrote this statement: 

"Particularly, two influential blogging Calvinists appear to have made it a life-mission to smear Ergun Caner’s life and ministry in the mud-hole of deception:  Tom Ascol,  Southern Baptist pastor and Executive Director of Founders Ministries, and James White, Primitive Baptist preacher and Reformed Baptist apologist from Phoenix, Az." (//link)

In that post, I identified hyper-Calvinist James White* as both a "Primitive Baptist" and a "Reformed Baptist."  Was I being redundant? 

While I've hinted at equating the two theological labels before, Mr. Bob Ross at The Reformed Flyswatter does a much better job than did I.  Observe a quote from his present post:

"I can cite a number of historical examples of this. Even "Reformed Baptist" Samuel Waldron, in his book, Baptist Roots in America, in order to find a historical use of the term "Reformed Baptists" had to cite a Primitive Baptist example."

From my perspective, the continued alliance of Calvinists who serve Southern Baptist congregations with "Primitive" or "Reformed" Baptists like James White cannot be healthy for the Southern Baptist Convention.

READ BOB ROSS' ENTIRE ESSAY HERE

With that, I am...

Peter

*While some strangely accuse me and others with slander when employing this theological label, I shall continue to do so with no personal malice or moral ill-intent toward James White and/or other high, strict Calvinists who deny that God's salvific love extends to all humanity. This, after all, is their theological position.  Dr. David Allen, Dean of Theology, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary has sufficiently demonstrated that the particular Calvinism James White embraces and defends has far too many similarities to historic hyper-Calvinism to ignore.

Comments

[peter]

Not up to small talk, RK. If you cannot see the connection, let's call it quits.

With that, I am...
Peter

[RazorsKiss]

What are you talking about?

[peter]

RazorKiss,

Whatever you desired to address in the last comment, I assure you, it had zero to do with the comment I left for you. LOL

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

All,

Shutting the thread up for the evening. Will open back in the A.M

With that, I am...
Peter

[RazorsKiss]

Umm. I think it's quite obvious that the reason that site exists is due to the massive amount of critics that already exist. From Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Romanists, Unitarians, Atheists, Arminians, or the like - the list could go on for quite some time.

Once again - I wrote the post - I'm aware, I do believe, of the *point* of the post. Since that speaks of the intention of the author, who I am, I'm rather aware of what that is :) The point was to preserve a comment, and to point out the lack of response to the substance contained therein. Which still has yet to be seen :) This doesn't surprise anyone, of course; but it's rather illuminating to note that there is no answer to those points, and that there is likely no answer forthcoming.

Feel free to continue to major in the minors, however. I'm more interested in substance, not the periphery. Which you're making yourself into more and more, the more you spin.

As you seem to be consistently overlooking - the point of the post was not your deleted comment - it was the substance of my comment, and Mohammed's. Your blog's interesting 'features', as well as your own character features are only a peripheral issue, as always.

Bemused at your antics,
~RK

[peter]

Dear RazorKiss,

I'm so sorry I failed to give you context. You need to understand how us poor poor imbeciles think, however. For example, do I take the context before logging on to your site or after I left and you placed a "update."

Note the first point in your "update", RazorKiss:

"I didn’t ‘accuse’ him [Peter] of deleting it. I noted that it *was* deleted. It was, by whatever means..."

However, note the very first interpretative commentary after you posted the "missing" comment in your original post (yep. it's still there). You assert:

"Since it seems that he has, in fact, deleted it – within 45 seconds or so...

Now if you'd care to reconcile those two statements, I'm all ears, RazorKiss. You then come over here suggesting "once again" it's not about you accusing that I deleted your comment when your original post still has "he has, in fact, deleted it"--despite your "update" denying it was me personally to which you referred.

You guys are too, too funny. You really need more interaction from critics. It could save you some needless nose-honking, I'd bet.

With that, I am...
Peter

[RazorsKiss]

Once again, I find it hilarious that you once again imply that the post was about you deleting comments. I only left about 5 different comments in that same thread on my site stating that this was not the point. You'll notice the Lumpkins-esque additional disclaimer on the top of the post as well, I hope. I'm losing faith in your contextual reading skills, man :)

[eric opsahl]

There has been a lot of talk about lies in this thread. How about the scripture below, are these words lies? I'm currently reading this Blog because I'm interested in current discussion as is all other here.
1. From my perspective, I question whether any of the persons involved in this argument do love one another.
2. From my perspective, two brothers can have a "heated" theological discussion without hating one another.
3. From my perspective this has crossed the line, I do not hear a tone of love in the discussion.
Why in the world do you Guy's: White, Limpkin, Byrne not Recognize that the current discussion has a definite UNLOVING tone, get on the phone and work this out as brothers in Christ. Not the doctrinal issues, but the obvious negative unloving tone. Are the verses below a lie?

[eric opsahl]

JONh 13:34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
Joh 13:35 "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."
Joh 15:12 "This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.
Ro 12:10 Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor;
Ga 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
Eph 4:2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing forbearance to one another in love,
1Th 5:13 and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Live in peace with one another.
2Th 1:3 We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brethren, as is only fitting, because your faith is greatly enlarged, and the love of each one of you toward one another grows ever greater;
Heb 10:24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds,
1Pe 1:22 Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart,
1Pe 4:8 Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins.
1Pe 5:14 Greet one another with a kiss of love. Peace be to you all who are in Christ.
1Jo 3:11 For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another;
1Jo 3:23 And this is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us.
1Jo 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
1Jo 4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

[eric opsahl]

There has been a lot of talk about lies in this thread. How about the scripture below, are these words lies? I'm currently reading this Blog because I'm interested in current discussion as is all other here.
1. From my perspective, I question whether any of the persons involved in this argument do love one another.
2. From my perspective, two brothers can have a "heated" theological discussion without hating one another.
3. From my perspective this has crossed the line, I do not hear a tone of love in the discussion.

Why in the world do you Guy's: White, Limpkin, Byrne not Recognize that the current discussion has a definite UNLOVING tone, get on the phone and work this out as brothers in Christ. Not the doctrinal issues, but the obvious negative unloving tone.

Are the verses below a lie?

[peter]

Mark aka Tartanarmy

Sorry, bro. This isn't about "how great Tony is." I'm unsure how you've come to that conclusion from reading this thread.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

All,

James White writes on his latest blog:

"...[I] fired up the MacBook long enough to get my mail. Not only did another loving missive from Peter Lumpkins come through, but I was directed to what can only amount to his published response of my documentation of his false accusations. Personally, I think this speaks volumes about the level of "dialogue" amongst many when it comes to the substance of their argumentation against Reformed theology" (embolden mine)

Interesting to say the least. But also quite embarrassing--at least it should be to White. How? Well, White is correct about one thing and strangely incorrect about another.

While I did send him an email after I read his blog that he "cannot post [here] anymore" as you can see below, I did not direct White to "what can only amount to [my] published response" toward his documentation of alleged false accusations against him (White links my 'Spike & Chester' cartoon indicating I directed him to this satirical funny as my official response LOL).

In fact I did not mention my latest blog ("Spike" satire) at all. Nor did I even mention the subject of the contention (Tony, Reymond, etc.). I only addressed one thing--his failed comment on my site.

Below is the full content of the email:

"So, Mr. White, you could not log on, ah? I have a few word filters. Perhaps that was it. As for any other reason, I have no idea. I most certainly did not do anything whatsoever to prohibit your logging on. But, how strange Calvinists--particularly those sympathetic with your position and are, of course, your 'minions'--are pretty much the only ones who, to my recollection, ever have these type of issues. Strange indeedy... " (ellipses original; i.e. my email ended with the ellipses. I didn't even put my name at the end but left only gmail's canned signature)

Nor did I have a link to "Spike" at the bottom of the email. Why would I? My cartoon stood on its own and had nothing to do with Tony, Reymond, or White's contention of falsehood on my and/or Byrne's behalf. Only in White's mind are the two connected.

Naughty, naughty, Mr. White. You should not tell things that are not true*. Especially after you just finished your long sermon to Tony. After all, you shouldn't be afraid to let your readers know your real reason for checking my site--you have me in your reader! :^)

What a double Georgia-hoot! James White "directs himself" to my site for my "public response" to his "irrefutable" evidence of a "discussion" (i.e. precisely one quick question and one quick answer) only to publicly portray it to his readers as me personally directing him to consider my rebuttal. Yes siree. Mr. White. You got me right where you want me, I'd say.

More seriously, I'm beginning to think knee-jerk, emotive verbal emissions is virtually the entire repertoire in James White/and White's followers' responses to those with whom they contend. An exception to that, is David Hewett who, while posting things here to which I could not agree, nevertheless remained on this site free from the slurs, slams, and sludgy remarks characteristic of AOmin.org.

I challenge any reader who has a mind to, do the google and see. This is standard procedure with his approach. Hence, I now am one of many whom James White slurs if you happen to be on the wrong side of the issue.

And, it is for this reason, absolutely no peace between Calvinists and non-Calvinists can even be considered as long as SBC Calvinists remain supportive of James White and his ilk. I have no intentions whatsoever in stopping the resistance to this type of alliance. Period.

With that, I am...
Peter
*of course, White can claim he did not mention that I directed him to "Spike" but that he simply was directed to the site by another. Ummm...

[Mark Farnon]

Oh dear Tony, when will you move on from all of this? And for the others, if you really think Tony is just so great, drop me a line and I will educate you not only regarding his "one" and "only" mission in life but how he has treated me in the past. Drop me a line.

Mark aka Tartanarmy

[peter]

RazorKiss,

"Mohammed's comment used that word, Peter?" That would be negative. But you know & I know his comment is not at all the issue here, RazorKiss. I plainly stated what I did with his comment. Only I can't tell you again or you'll accuse me of cursing ;^)

"I don't give enough of a rip about your comment section to go track down the people whose comments got pulled" Then may I suggest you not take the time to implicate others with silly games of "deleting" comments, RazorKiss. If you're not going to cook the beans, don't get out the pot.

"As to the "this data cannot be accepted" error, that seems to happen when something trips your filters, for whatever reason. It won't even allow the comment to made." Nope. I think you are wrong. The filters allow the comment to pass through the "CAPTCHA" wall.

In fact, note the comment I left for Carrie above. I wrote, "And, for the record it was not an unusual word--"picxxx". It was not my filter but a default from typepad I suppose (picture being associated with pxxx, I'm thinking).

Note the emboldened words with the "Xs". Guess where I found that comment after I logged it? In the spam bucket. I retrieved it and put the "Xs" in the two words. Then published the comment. Note also that it did not kick out "picture". That's apparently because I deleted it as a filter when it pitched your comment and two of mine in the spam bucket. I just got through deleting three more filters--pictures, pic, and pix. Like I say, I suppose those filters were typepad defaults.

So, no; typepad filters does not produce the '"this data cannot be accepted" error'. I do know what does, however. If you wait too long to post a comment in the open comment box, and try to log the comment, you will get the error you mentioned. I get them alot. Why?

I type slow and my comment is usually breathy, we might say. Hence, I can only suppose again, an internal clock allows only so long to post a comment before one has to refresh the browser. I've lost lots of comments before I learned to copy my comment to my clipboard before I push "preview." As a side note, this error may well explain why White's comment did not log...

Now as for your link, thank you. It's actually a very good link and one which in some small way, at least, verifies others with commenting issues which is not about deleting comments.

With that, I am...
Peter

[RazorsKiss]

Mohammed's comment used that word, Peter? :) I don't give enough of a rip about your comment section to go track down the people whose comments got pulled - I do know that we were keeping track that day, and we counted a dozen that made it on, and "mysteriously disappeared", for whatever reason.

As to the "this data cannot be accepted" error, that seems to happen when something trips your filters, for whatever reason. It won't even allow the comment to made. It's prior to the captcha request, which follows pressing "post" - it won't let you press "post". Why? I don't know. Also, see here - http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/03/typepad-combox-quirk.html

[Tony Byrne]

Peter,

I only just now saw James' most recent post. Yes, he clearly thinks I am lying, and there is zero grace in his most recent post, only more heavy abuse and strong accusations.

Thanks for allowing me to post so extensively here, Peter, even though the topics have been all over the map. It's best for me to be done with this and depart.

God bless,
Tony

[peter]

Carrie,

Interestingly, I only placed the "CAPTCHA" on my site a few months ago. I had several email me asking why their comment did not post. I asked them if they noticed the code to enter. They did not. I'm quite sure many comments are lost there.

At any rate, had White's comment been flagged, it would be in the 'spam bucket'. I checked. The last legitimate comment in there (i.e. not bot spam) is RazorKiss who accused me of deleting his comment and even wrote a full post about it. Before it was through, there were a "good dozen" comments I had allegedly pulled (though he could not tell me who posted them or supply the content).

The fact is, his comment was flagged by a word and pitched in the spam bucket. And, for the record it was not an unusual word--"picxxx". It was not my filter but a default from typepad I suppose (picture being associated with pxxx, I'm thinking).

What I thought hilarious (and still do), I had two--TWO!--comments in the spam bucket as well for using the very same word! Unfortunately, RazorKiss did not think it funny at all. In fact, just as James White routinely does, so did RazorKiss--you, sir, are a liar was the preferred strategy he employed to deal with it.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

RK,

Whatever the reason you had trouble yesterday, I cannot explain. Nor will I attempt. Both you and TurrentinFan have both logged today apparently without difficulty.

White wrote, "When I attempted a brief rejoinder, I found I cannot post there anymore (which is fine with me, I assure you)."

That White's comment did not log I have no explanation. What continues to be troubling to those who've been around awhile is the immediate whining about "can't comment there anymore"--especially from a particular band of bloggers. The implication, of course, is the bloghost cannot answer the intense questioning so he or she conveniently "deletes" the comment.

To the Darwinist, the good Arch-Bishop once said of the "fossil" record--fossils are put here to fool fools. Only the foolish continue to entertain such nonsense from the same group of people as "he banned me from commenting."

With that, I am...
Peter

[Tony Byrne]

James said:

I await both gentlemen's public retraction of their falsehoods.

Peter,

You ask a good question. Is he or is he not accusing one or both of us of lying? He needs to clear that up. Granted, by "falsehood," White could either mean 1) that we [he joins us] spoke inaccurately or 2) that we spoke lies. The word by itself can go either way.

If he expects us [or me] to apologize, then he's accusing us [or me] of something unethical, i.e. at least lying. If he wants us [or me] merely to concede to his chat log record, then that's all I can do. It's beyond my verification, so I'll concede and move on.

With respect to me, I haven't seen him ask me for an apology, only a concession. If he expects you to apologize for something, then he needs to specify and demonstrate where there is a moral lapse. Make sense? I could be missing something, as I did miss the "falsehood" term before you brought it to my attention.

It must be noted, however, that in his recent post he more than suggests that I was behaving deceptively, since I allegedly knew I was "ban evading," whatever that means. How does he know I knew that? He doesn't, but he leaps to that conclusion, thinking the worst of me, I guess. All of this certainly lends weight to the view that he thinks we're lying when he speaks of our "falsehoods." If so, he should clear that up, or demonstrate the basis for the charge of sin for one or both of us.

[Carrie]

I got the "this data can not be accepted" a few times.

I think that is to do with character restrictions in the post Razor.

Also there is a "captcha" one has to enter in prior to the post being accepted.

[Carrie]

Well I hope he does answer it Peter.

It really blows my mind that an elder in a church carries on in such a way.

If we have our leaders acting this way and it being left unaddressed then what are we to do with our fellow congregates who demonstrate less than virtous behavoir?

Remain quiet?

The world is watching us. Christ told us they would and He further went to state, "They will know us by our love for one another".

I see little Christian love in these types of exchanges and it is heart breaking.

I used to frequent Paltalk and engage there in discussion often but as a result of the vicousness of the people there I just had to quit. I would try to say to them what I have said here to White...

"Why are you acting this way and why won't you stop?!"

Only to have scorn heaped upon me for doing so.

I am no martyr by the way. I don't mean to act as if I am. And believe me I have lost my cool on many occassions but if I were to ever consistently demonstrate hateful manner or speech then I would hope a fellow believer would seek to correct me.

So what do we do when those acting like donkeys are out of reach? What are we to do when there is no one to whom they are held accountable?

At the end of the day, I rest in the fact that they are accountable to the Lord. That is difficult for me because I am one that likes to see immediate justice. But that isn't how things always work out in God's timing.

I will simply look to Him and pray that a change of heart will occur with James White and others like him.

Thank you for allowing the extensive dialogue here Peter.

- Carrie

[RazorsKiss]

You only started in 06? You're practically a newbie :)

[RazorsKiss]

Peter: Because he got the same issue I got earlier yesterday - "this data cannot be accepted" when he tried to post a comment.

[peter]

Carrie,

Take a look at my last comment. I assure you, James White is welcome to answer your question here. Incredible.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Tony,

If you've not already, take a look at White's site. I think you're underestimating what he expected of you. But, hey, I'm glad to concede that to you brother.

What I find incredulous is, if I'm not misunderstanding White, he claims he tried to dialog with you here but could not log on:

"When I attempted a brief rejoinder, I found I cannot post there anymore (which is fine with me, I assure you). But since I took the time to write it prior to rushing off to the airport, I wanted to post it somewhere, and this seems to be the best place to do so."

For my part, I have never, ever encountered such whiny drivel coming from a particular band of bloggers since I started blogging in 2006. For whatever reason James White "cannot post [here] anymore" I haven't a clue. His minions claimed I "deleted" a comment last week on the Caner post. And before it was through, the number of missing comments were a "good dozen."

This type of exchange is completely wearing me out, brother.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Carrie]

ok well this is great ... clearing the air over something Tony perhaps forgot.

However where is the retraction (and apology) owed Tony Byrne by James White over his misrepresentation of his view ... the "equal ultimacy" label.

James, you come over to prove "you are the victim" but not to apologize for slanderous statments YOU made about another believer? Can you not see anything wrong with your actions at all?

Can anyone?! Is there anyone willing to call this man out on his behavoir?

Lord help us when we allow our leaders to act in such a way and go unchecked.

- Carrie

[peter]

Tony,

Granted. Thanks. What do you think White means by the below statement?

I await both gentlemen's public retraction of their falsehoods. Thanks!

With that, I am...
Peter

[Tony Byrne]

Hi Peter,

While I understand your point, I am willing to assume that by "conversation," White means the kind of brief exchange that he comments about in the "Demanding Irrationality" video, not extended interaction about the matter. The log records enough to sustain that small part of the video.

But, I just thought of this as well. If his log is correct, then THE WAY he depicts my hyper-Calvinist claim about Reymond is NOT accurate. In the graciously titled "Demanding Irrationality" video, he presents it as if I just flippantly and thoughtlessly say, "Of course. Of course he's hyper!" However, according to the chat log, I do say "of course..." but then I follow it with BOTH a reason for WHY I think that label fits AND I mention a place [Cook's NM radio show] where he could listen to more about my reasons. That's significant because I quote both Iain Murray and Curt Daniel as associating the denial of God's universal saving will with hyper-Calvinism on the radio program. I lean on their scholarship in the area, not some superficial, unstudied, arbitrary, broad-brushing assessment.

So, White is partially correct and partially incorrect in that small video part about the Reymond exchange. He's correct in that 1) we [according to the log] talked about him and that 2) I deemed him hyper, but White is incorrect 3) in portraying my remarks as something flippant, unreasoned and/or cavalier. An impartial observer can see that, and I think that is quite important, since he suggesting that I use the "hyper" label very carelessly/thoughtlessly on a regular basis, in order to say to others that I should not be taken seriously at all.

One last thing, Peter. I do have to acknowledge that I don't see White asking me for an apology, yet. He has asked for a concession about the truth of the matter, but he seems [so far] willing to concede that it's probably a memory lapse on my part, which doesn't necessitate an apology. Asking for concession is not always a request for an apology. That's how I am viewing it. And, if he was, I would see no need for it, as it is not an ethical lapse but a dogmatically stated memory lapse.

[peter]

Tony,

I very much appreciate your interaction here. I also appreciate your humble spirit in granting White the benefit of doubt.

On the other hand Tony, something is really, really telling about what's unfolded here. From my perspective, White's obsession with attempting to show "you, sir, are a liar" spills over the sides on every point.

Your original denial pertained to a "conversation" and/or "discussion" about Robert Reymond. The "conversation" you denied was what I mentioned. White on his blog asserts "I have provided the logs demonstrating the conversation did, in fact, take place..."

Consider, however, the "documentation" White gives that the "conversation" and/or "discussion" in fact took place:

James White: "Do you agree with Allen that Robert Reymond is a hyper Calvinist?

Polhill: "Mr. White, of course I think Reymond is hyper."

Consequently, with glee, Mr. White pronounces, "[Well, there you have it, directly from the logs from November 25, 2008, exactly as I recalled it in the video. Mr. Lumpkin's false accusation is thereby refuted, en toto."

Now, technically, you and White mention Reymond once apiece, tit/tat: "Do you..? Yes." So, shame on you for not recalling that :^) You are right to concede, "Yes. Sorry. Reymond's name was mentioned."

Nonetheless, based upon a single question posed to "Polhill" and "Polhill's" single affirmative answer, is one not only expected to agree a "conservation" and/or "discussion" took place, but also that you personally owe an apology to White for questioning that it did? Not in my life, bro.

From my side of the street, White is clearly stretching the single question into a "conversation" when apparently no "conversation" and/or "discussion" took place. If it did, where is the rest of the "chat log" which, according to White, "demonstrates" it?

With that, I am...
Peter

[Tony Byrne]

I'll post this here as well. On Twitter, James White said:

@_YnottonY Why did you "forget" the #prosapologian conversation of 11/25/08? I have the logs, will be posting. You were "Polhill"

Since I thought that potentially misleading, I clarified on Twitter and said:

@DrOakley1689 I didn't forget that we conversed in your chat channel, nor that I was "Polhill." What I disputed was any talk about Reymond.

Since some people trying to follow the events might think from White's Twitter question that I was 1) denying I was in his chat channel that day or 2) denying that I was using the nickname "Polhill," I want to note that is not correct. What I denied was that we discussed Robert Reymond in his chat channel.

[Tony Byrne]

I might also note for other readers that Red Beetle, as a consistent Clarkian, explicitly denies that God desires the salvation of all men in any sense, as all Clarkians, Hoeksemians and Gillites do.

[Tony Byrne]

Razor,

I wasn't interested in a "quote tossing contest," just an explicit answer to the matter about God's universal saving will. The Clarkian thing was only incidental, and I realize now that I confused you with a guy named "Red Beetle," who is staunchly Clarkian. My mistake.

However, you replied to one part [the minor assumption] of the question but not the other [the major], and then demeaned my motives for asking the question, as if I just want to toss quotes about. That's unnecessary if you don't want to answer the question. Try this next time:

Tony, I've never been Clarkian, and I would rather not discuss my views on that matter with you.

That's sufficient and non-insulting.

Grace to you,
Tony

[RazorsKiss]

Tony,
No, I'm not and have never been a Clarkian. No, I'm not really interested in having a quote tossing contest, either. We've had conversations before, and I'm exceedingly disinterested in another.

[Tony Byrne]

RazorsKiss,

As a Clarkian [assuming you still are one], do you believe that there is a sense in which God desires the salvation of all men, including the reprobate, according to his revealed will?

[Tony Byrne]

James,

3) Now that you have come to this comment area seeking retractions, will you please retract these statements/remarks?

a) "He [Tony] and his folks insist upon the same kind of error that the Arminians make: equal ultimacy. That is, they insist that God's desire for the salvation of those He does not choose to save must be of the same kind as His desire for the salvation for His elect." David Hewitt, in another partisan understatement above, said he thought your statement was "less than accurate." Shouldn't you both acknowledge this is entirely wrong, not merely partially wrong?

b) "They [Tony Byrne & friends] are more intent upon attacking Calvinism than promoting the freedom of God in salvation. They don't mind having their stuff used to promote rank Arminianism as long as they can go after someone who believes in particular redemption."

c) In the video "Demanding Irrationality" [min. 8:52], you say that "This is, what I think, one of Byrne's biggest problems. He just doesn't allow for context for anybody, Robert Reymond, myself, or anybody else for that matter." You also suggest that I think ANY agreement with Gill in ANY area means one is wrong, even suggesting that I think one should not read Gill. You present what I said as if I am suggesting "Robert Reymond believes EVERYTHING John Gill ever wrote," and that having Gill in your library makes you "bad and evil." You even suggest that I think Gill doesn't have anything worthwile to say on anything, and that I don't recognize that many of Gill's own critics had admiration for him [such as Spurgeon]. You present my point as if I am saying that one shouldn't read Gill, like one shouldn't read Presbyterians if you're a Baptist, or vice versa. You say that I am not reading with any level of discernment.

4) Of all the things to take time to blog about, you pick the chat channel/Reymond topic. It's fine to seek to correct the record, so long as it is not accompanied with abuse, but aren't there more important matters here that need clarification? Some of us honestly want to know what it means to believe that God desires the salvation of all men in the revealed will and yet side with the Gill/Hoeksema/Clark/Reymond position on the will of God as over against the John Murray view. Some of us honestly want to know what biblical verses you think teach that God desires the salvation of all men in a Calvinistic sense. We're sincerely wondering how the post-J136C James White can exegetically support belief in God's universal saving will in any sense when the pre-J136C James White has argued against every single passage other Calvinists have used to sustain that belief. Just as we have warrant to wonder about the basis upon which a Roman Catholic can sustain belief in Sola Gratia given the rest of their beliefs, so we wonder about your basis for belief in God's universal saving will given what you said to Jason, and your stated agreement with Reymond/Gill. These are far great issues to interact with in comparison to checking the accuracy of chat channel records, even though, admittedly, the latter is important if one questions your integrity. Still, the former is greater than the latter, and therefore should properly be the focus of our discussion, don't you think?

Grace to you,
Tony

[Tony Byrne]

James,

1) Since I do not have a record of the chat log myself, unfortunately, I have no way to either verify or falsify your record of the exchange. I can see, however, that although your record is incomplete and selective, it does in fact contain remarks that I do recall. All I can do is rely on your copy and concede that I just forgot any exchange we had about Reymond. My memory is certainly not infallible, but it is mostly reliable [as my friends know], and so I confidently said above that it was "totally false" that we discussed him. I didn't accuse you of anything. All I can do is admit a fallible memory and then submit the matter to Lord now, since he knows that, if I was wrong, I honestly forgot that part of our discussion, on the assumption that your record is accurate. Again, since I can neither verify or falsify your record, it is only befitting for a Christian to publicly concede that I honestly forgot the Reymond exchange in chat, rather than suggest without any basis that you, as a Christian and an elder [or that your Christian associates] doctored the chat record. I am content to submit my own conscience to the Lord's judgment in the matter, and not challenge that particular statement in your "Demanding Irrationality" video.

2) However, I will add that it is incorrect to say on your blog that I knew I was "banned" from your chat channel. Your recent blog response is unnecessarily accusatory toward me, and comes across as if you're more concerned about humiliating, bullying and exposing me to public shame than just seeking to understandably correct the record for the sake of your integrity. I didn't deserve that.

If I was banned, I honestly had no knowledge of it, or for what reason, other than we significantly disagree over some theological conclusions regarding Calvinism and what labels correctly apply to certain beliefs. You have deemed it fair to call me a "sub-Calvinist" [under Calvin or less than Calvinistically orthodox] and an "Amyraldian" for some beliefs I have, and I have deemed it appropriate to call someone with your beliefs a "hyper-Calvinist" [over Calvin or beyond Calvinistic orthodoxy]. I can still have civil exchanges with people who call me an Arminian, semi-Arminian, quasi-Amyraldian, or a neo-Amyraldian and thus not ban them from a chat room in which I function as an Admin. For me, calling someone a "hyper-Calvinist" is not the same as saying "You're a foul person!" It's rather an historical discriptor for a position I think is significantly abberant and that should be staunchly exposed and rejected, but it isn't necessarily a position I deem to be heretical [or outside the bounds of essential Christianity] in all its forms. Since this is my mindset when I use certain labels to tag the beliefs of other people, I would prefer to believe that a theologically trained and patient elder wouldn't think a historical label a sufficient cause by itself to "ban" me from a chat room, if that's the reason I was supposedly "banned."

Also, I honestly don't know what it means to be "banned" from your chat room. Places like Paltalk ban your IP from a room so that you cannot re-enter when banned. Also, when and if we "ban" a person in Paltalk, we immediately remove them when their identity is known. Not only was my IP not blocked from your chat room, but you and others conversed and questioned me when I affirmed that I was in fact Tony, aka ynottony. I wasn't acting in some sinister fashion, willfully violating some known ban I was under, as your post suggests. If it is the case that you are unable to block my IP, then you could have asked me not to enter your chat when you initially put me under the alleged "ban." I would honor your request to stay out of your chat when I know that I am not welcome there. There's not even a need to ban my IP. If you don't want me in there and ask me to stay out, I don't want to enter rudely, violate your wishes, like I am breaking in to a room/house where I am not welcome. Moreover, even if I am a theologically deluded person but still a Christian [and even a Calvinist] that needs your continual correction, then why not try to patiently win me and correct me instead, so long as I am willing to interact in a civil way? It seems inappropriate, to say the least, to just ban such a person without a stated or sufficient cause. The very first time I entered your room, long ago, even as a strict high Calvinist of the Nettles variety, I was booted out for no reason. I was left scratching my head. I thought it might have been just teasing by an Admin or something, but I just strange.

One other thing: on your recent blog post, you make it sound as if I have been in your chat channel a lot. If my fallible memory is serving me correctly, I only recall about 4 or 5 times I have been in there, and the first time was probably around 2002 or 2003, I think. I *never* have been any kind of regular in there at all. Feel free to check your chat records on that, and you will see it is true.

[peter]

Dear James,

Yes. I think it does make sense, James. Would you like me to rehearse back to you what I meant?

With that, I am...
Peter

[James White]

Subject: So Now Who is is it Making up Conversations?

Your words, not mine. Words have meanings...at least, outside certain realms of the SBC they do.

Honestly, Peter, does what you just wrote even make sense to you?

james

[peter]

Dear James,

The problem, Mr. White, is, from my reading the engagements you have with others, and now my own words, there's an obvious struggle going on to read words others write with either an eye to understand or (apparently) without slinging your fists as you respond.

Here are the words I wrote here:

"According to Tony's insistence on not conversing with White about Reymond, James White apparently made up the conversation the two had. Unless, of course, Tony is now making this up (or forgotten, etc). So, if White did have the conversation, then he needs to produce the evidence--a DL phone call, a chat room thread, or other will do...Or, better yet, James White could come here and straighten out the confusion.

I carefully qualified my statement with "unless," "if," and "straighten out the confusion."

However, you show up, cock your trusty pistol, and fire "that Peter Lumpkins' accusation against me that I made up the conversation is likewise false," calling for a "public retraction" of "falsehood."

I beg pardon, Mr. White. I have no intention of publicly retracting any statement I carefully qualify. So you can pour that in your cup and sip it.

Also, I am not so sure your evidence is so "irrefutable." Excuse me? "Irrefutable"? I've heard that before...usually from guys who've taken their first philosophy class. I wouldn't be so sure-fire cocky were I you. I've lived just long enough to to know that's a puff of smoke, I'm afraid. Nor has Tony weighed in. Hence to suggest it's "irrefutable" is surely absurd.

Finally, you show up, James, and do precisely as I mentioned in my post concerning Dr. Caner: right off the line, you offer you one, non-negotiable strategy in exchange with those with whom you contend. It's a strategy you employ whether it's a KJO advocate, an Arminian, or a Muslim. In fact, it was the very strategy you wrote me in an email.

And, so what's the James White strategy?

the you-sir-are-a-liar strategy

Sorry, James. Such is just not going to be so effective here. I'm afraid you'll have to try something else.

With that, I am...
Peter

[James White]

I have posted irrefutable evidence that the above comment by Tony Byrne is false, and that Peter Lumpkins' accusation against me that I made up the conversation is likewise false. I await both gentlemen's public retraction of their falsehoods. Thanks!

http://bit.ly/9NQAHF

James White

[RazorsKiss]

Check Dr. White's site :) I tried to post a comment about having the logs myself, but the comment filter wasn't having any.

It's pretty incontrovertible.

[Carrie]

Hi David,

I would love to take it up with him directly but he doesn't allow for open interaction on his blog.

He posts but there is no way to reply to him therefore there is no way for me to alter my approach. But if by "alter" you mean to suggest that I not boldly state the facts then I can not in good conscience do that. Why should he continue to behave as he does and not be held accountable? The only way to address his behavoir is in places such as this because again he doesn't allow for public interaction as his blog.

If you suggest email, I don't think that adequate. In all honesty, if he is going to blog publicly why does he not wish to allow for public scrutiny of his claims or arguments? Why not allow for people to challenge him on his own ground? We certainly do that at our ministry. In fact most Christian blogs I visit (wait a minute, most blogs I visit) have the comments enabled. His doesn't.

Final point ... To restate a comment I made earlier that was not addressed...

James White did not apologize for his misrepresenting Tony Byrne. That can not be stressed enough. It would appear he is content with knowingly mis-representing a fellow believer. That in itself speaks volumes.

Thanks for taking the time to interact David.

- Carrie

[David Hewitt]

Tony and Carrie:

This will be my final post here.

The videos are quite old; back in 2008 I believe. My point is that, in the first two videos, he makes clear that he believes that God desires the salvation of all men with regard to His command to repent and believe. So, that was my point in saying that you had your answer.

Given that these videos are as old as they are, and as meticulous as you are to detail, how did you miss it?

Simple answer: you are human. White certainly is as well, and even in the quote you provided, he used the words "I think."

Your primary concern, the reason you came here to begin with (unless I misunderstand) was to address the issue of hyper-calvinism (HC) and White's denial of God's desire to save all men in any sense. Clearly, Dr. White has repudiated it publicly -- and that some time ago.

Carrie said:
"I thought all believers are to be humble before the Lord and fellow believers, knowing that we have much to learn. White seems that he has it all figured out, and when he is so obviously mistaken, even then he won't admit to it."

Yes, all believers are to be humble before the Lord. White would be the first to admit that he doesn't have all things figured out; he avoids certain subjects all together for that reason.

In any case, if you wish to address issues of personal attack (perceived and/or real) then you'll have to take it up with him directly. If you are content not to because you don't think it will get anywhere then I would recommend you alter your approach.

Farewell.

sdg,
dbh

ps -- I never claimed to be impartial. I do desire to reconcile; everything I have said I believe. Dr. White is my friend of course, so it is hard to be completely impartial. For the record, though, I have addressed issues to him before when I thought he was in error, and after explaining what he meant to me (I had misunderstood at least part of one thing) he then apologized.

[Carrie]

I didn't see an answer in White's "What a Shame" post. It appeared as an opportunity for him to further distort the positions of Dr. Allen and Tony (and other's like him - which would be me and others.)

Also to note, there was no apology whatsoever for White misrepresenting Tony's position; he didn't take back in any form the "equal ultimacy" charge.

But then that is typical of White, isn't it?

He really seems to be the type of person that never admits he was wrong. He seems quite arrogant and unteachable.

I thought all believers are to be humble before the Lord and fellow believers, knowing that we have much to learn. White seems that he has it all figured out, and when he is so obviously mistaken, even then he won't admit to it.

And I am sure he will see this as "an attack" on his character. He will see this as his "opponent" simply insulting him rather than dealing with the issues (ad hom...).

I however see it for what it is.

Calling a spade a spade.

- Carrie

[Tony Byrne]

David,

Despite the fact that White observed in the "Demanding Irrationality" video [min. 8:46] that I italicized "on this point" [i.e. the point of the will of God] in expressing my "amazement" that Reymond sided with Gill, White goes on to suggest that I think ANY agreement with Gill in ANY area means one is wrong, even suggesting that I think one should not read Gill. White presents what I said as if I am suggesting "Robert Reymond believes EVERYTHING John Gill ever wrote," and that having Gill in your library makes you "bad and evil." White suggests that I think Gill doesn't have anything worthwile to say on anything, and that I don't recognize that many of Gill's own critics had admiration for him [such as Spurgeon]. He presents my point as if I am saying that you shouldn't read Gill, like you shouldn't read Presbyterians if you're a Baptist, or vice versa. I am apparently, not reading at all with "some level of discernment."

This is all ridiculous, David, and you should be able to see that. I specifically italized "on this point" on my blog so as to keep any critic from presenting a straw man, and White did nothing but present straw men. Agreeing with Gill's view on God's will is the problem I underlined, but that doesn't mean that I think agreeing with Gill in other matters is necessarily a problem. That's basic logic. White couldn't help but knock over a legion of straw men in responding to my remarks on his video, and yet I am the one "demanding irrationality."

In the video [min. 8:52], White says that "This is, what I think, one of Byrne's biggest problems. He just doesn't allow for context for anybody, Robert Reymond, myself, or anybody else for that matter." Can you, in all honesty, David, glance at my blog, or my comments here, and believe these words from White for a moment? And, if you can recognize that this is obvious slander, will you try, as a impartial "reconciler," to get White to apologize for this nonsense? I won't bother because I know he won't. All I can try to do is get other Christians to see it for what it is, i.e. nonsense.

[Tony Byrne]

David,

It is interesting to hear that White, in the "Demanding Irrationality" video [min. 5:42], claims that he's "read too much Jonathan Edwards" to believe what I believe on the will of God. White is thoroughly mistaken if he thinks his view of God's will is in harmony with his own. Just spend some time reading the material I have posted by Jonathan Edwards to see how different Edwards is from White. Edwards even uses 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9; Matt. 23:37; Ezek 18:23, 32, 33:11, Gen. 6:3 to sustain his view of God's universal saving will. Twice Edwards even speaks of "God begging" sinners to come to him, a concept that White and Phil Johnson both mocked as ridiculous. Edwards even believed in universal redemption. How many times has White scornfully mocked the idea of God "trying" to do something that is inefficacious? Yet observe what Edwards says after describing the anger of God working in the misery of the damned in Miscellany #232:

"And all this will be aggravated by the remembrance, that God once loved us so as to give his Son to bring us to the happiness of his love, and tried all manner of means to persuade us to accept of his favor, which was obstinately refused."

Thomas Watson [a Puritan whom Spurgeon greatly admired], R. M. McCheyne and D. M. Lloyd-Jones are more Calvinists that have spoken that same way. Edwards, when exhorting unbelievers, says that God "does not merely command us to receive him, but he condescends to apply himself to us in a more endearing manner. He entreats and beseeches us in his word and by his messengers." THAT'S AN ACTIVE PRINCIPLE, David. Edwards speaks of God willing, desiring, wishing, seeking, trying, wooing, entreating, beseeching and begging sinners to come to him. Why would James White even "try" to claim that he has the same view of the divine psychology as Edwards when it comes to the will of God? He doesn't and it's obvious to the impartial investigator. Edwards is at least as outspoken as John Murray on God's universal saving will, if not more, and he references many of the same passages to sustain his view.

David, as I said above, if you're going to listen to Reformed Baptist men on God's will, follow the teaching of Erroll Hulse, Walter Chantry, Al Martin, Sam Waldron and Robert Gonzales. I have documented what they have said and they're all in agreement with John Murray and the rest of the Banner of Truth crowd on the well-meant offer, not with James White. Erroll Hulse is strongly against John Gill's errors on that subject, and Al Martin spoke out against the later John Gerstner's siding with the Hoeksemian/Clarkian rejection of the well-meant offer while commended Murray's view. Chantry cites Matt. 23:37 and doesn't fall for the kind of false either/or dilemma that White presents. Chantry says, "Notice that Jesus is speaking to a people who are finally going to perish, and he knows it. That these people are about to be consumed by the wrath of God is the main intent of Christ's statement. He is pronouncing a curse upon them. Yet, in the midst of sentencing them, Jesus expresses his love of them and a desire that they would repent and believe...He assured them that even at that moment he desired them to freely partake of his saving mercy...The Saviour sincerely desired their conversion. He wanted to gather Jerusalem into his saving and protecting grace, but they spurned his sincere invitation and refused to turn." Chantry cites the same passages that Murray does, and even appeals to John Calvin and R. L. Dabney. He joins a crowd of other Calvinists I've documented and speaks of "God begging." These Reformed Baptists are not on the same page as White, David, and you need to know that.

[Tony Byrne]

Peter,

I think my advice to David is deadly:

Step 1: Ask White for specific biblical proof that God desires the eternal salvation of any of the non-elect.

Step 2: Follow Robert Reymond's advice and consult John Gill's explanation of the given passage.

Step 3: Use John Gill's explanation against White's proof-text.

Step 4: Repeat step 1, 2 then 3 ad infinitum :-)

Will David do it? No. He wouldn't last 5 minutes in White's chat channel. Frankly, I don't think he will get past step 1.

[peter]

Tony,

You're welcome. James White gets a free pass in SBC circles mostly I think because people are afraid of him. After all, he is a professional "debater." Precious few want to competitively tango with a professional dancer. I appreciate your diligence. I just sent White an email.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Tony Byrne]

I assure you, Peter, I have not forgotten the chat channel interaction. It was brief, since he and Rich [one of them] quickly and rudely booted me out, without a cause, other than he was upset about the hyperism charge. None of my behavior was abusive or offensive. I recall the conversation and I never discussed Reymond with White in any way, shape, or form. Reymond never came up at all. Period.

p.s. Thanks again for indulging and letting us post and interact here.

[peter]

David,

The little p.s. Tony left on one level is hilarious and another is alarming. James White has ground Ergun Caner's name to dust insisting he made up a debate with a Muslim. According to Tony's insistence on not conversing with White about Reymond, James White apparently made up the conversation the two had. Unless, of course, Tony is now making this up (or forgotten, etc). So, if White did have the conversation, then he needs to produce the evidence--a DL phone call, a chat room thread, or other will do.

If White cannot produce the evidence, could you please explain why he should not release a public statement of repentance for making up exchanges with people he never had? Could you also explain why White should not include his own failures each and every time he names the alleged failures of Ergun Caner?

Or, better yet, James White could come here and straighten out the confusion.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Tony Byrne]

Here's something you can do as an impartial reconciler seeking to test all things, David:

Go in to White's chat channel and ASK HIM FOR BIBLICAL PROOF that God desires the salvation of any of the non-elect. Then, if an astonishing miracle happens and he actually gives you a proof-text before booting you out of his channel, FOLLOW ROBERT REYMOND'S ADVICE and quickly read how John Gill explains it all away. Then, go back and use Gill's explanation AGAINST White and his proof-text. That should be interesting. We would advise you to do this over and over and over again :-)

[Tony Byrne]

David,

Another side issue that is problematic in White's recent post is his claim that our use of the term "hyper-Calvinist" is abusive while at the same time he calls me a "sub-Calvinist." Pot meet kettle.

Also, White frequently claims he doesn't want to discuss history, and who believed what among Calvinists in the past, and yet he claims we're "sub-Calvinists" and "Amyraldians." He doesn't want to discuss historical theology and yet makes these historical claims at the same time.

Still further, he speaks of "sub-Calvinists (mainly Amyraldians)." If we're Amyraldian sub-Calvinists, then who are the non-Amyraldian sub-Calvinists? Is he making up these new categories as he goes along? I don't know any Calvinistic historians who have these categories.

Even more, he slanderously reports that us "sub-Calvinists" are saying that "any high Calvinist is, in fact, a hyper-Calvinist," and thus we are "erasing important historical distinctions," etc. A mere cursory glance at the chart I made for the J316 Conference shows that I am making careful distinctions between High and Hyper-Calvinism, and he has critically read my chart. I am not using the "hyper-Calvinism" label carelessly.

Lastly, it is false to call me a "sub-Calvinist" or an "Amyraldian." Sure, I believe in universal redemption, but so did the many Calvinists I listed in my conference chart. Does he want to say that Ursinus and the other Heidelberg theologians are "sub-Calvinists"? Is he prepared to argue that Richard Muller is wrong about these Heidelberg men? Muller concedes that they were non-Amyraldian universalists on the atonement. Does White want to argue that Heinrich Bullinger and Rudolph Gwalther [Bullinger's sucessor] were "sub-Calvinists"? Is he prepared to say Muller is wrong about Bullinger's universal redemptionism as well? Is he prepared to call Musculus, Zanchi, Ussher [one invited to the Westminster Assembly], Davenant [and other Dort delegates], Preston, Twisse, Calamy, Scudder, Vines, Seamen [and other Westminster Divines] "sub-Calvinists"?

Does he really want to discuss what Calvin himself so obviously believed, i.e. universal redemption? Or will he just use the mantra "Read Helm!," "Read Nicole!," "Read Rainbow!," without actually interacting with primary quotes from Calvin? We contend that White would have to call Calvin himself a "sub-Calvinist" if he is going to call us "sub-Calvinists" for our belief that Christ satisfied for the sins of all men. And, if White wants to say we're engaging in anachronism, is he prepared to say Davenant's historiography is wrong on Calvin? Is he prepared to say that P. L. Rouwendal's article on “Calvin’s Forgotten Classical Position on the Extent of the Atonement: About Sufficiency, Efficiency, and Anachronism,” WTJ 70 (2008) is wrong when it says these debates pre-date Amyraut? Is White prepared to disagree with Joel Beeke's agreement with Rouwendal that these things were debated in Calvin's day? It obviously was, seeing that the Council of Trent even spoke out against the view that Christ died for the elect alone. For goodness sake, it was debated in the days of Augustine, Prosper and later in the days of Gottshalk, so away with the claims of "anachronism." White doesn't know what he is talking about on these matters either.

Is White prepared to call Stephen Charnock a "sub-Calvinist" since he believed in universal redemption, and even appeals to Amyraut on John 1:29? Is White prepared to call the Puritan John Howe the same for also believing in universal redemption? What about Jonathan Edwards? Or the later Andrew Fuller? How about W. G. T. Shedd? Does White really want to debate these historical things at all? Or does he merely want to hiss while saying "sub-Calvinist"? If he doesn't wish to discuss history, then he should cease using these historical descriptors. But, if he is not interested in discussing Calvinistic history, why bother calling himself "Reformed"? If he would bother reading the current literature, he would see that Richard Muller, Robert Godfrey and Carl Trueman are all conceding that there is a non-Amyraldian strain of "hypothetical universalism" that is within the boundaries of Reformed orthodoxy, and it is therefore false to deem this trajectory "sub-Calvinistic."

If you're going to be an impartial judge and reconciler, David, you're going to have to investigate these matters to see if White knows what he is talking about with respect to Calvinistic history. He obviously doesn't, as seen in many parts of his alleged "answer."

[Tony Byrne]

David H.,

Like others, I am wondering what you think White's latest post has "answered." Do you want to impartially interact with the content of that post? Since you believe that White has "answered" something, you must necessarily comprehend what he has said. And, if you have comprehended the coherency of his "answer," can you explain it to us please?

Granted, I heard White saying that he believes that "God desires the salvation of all men," but what does that mean within his system? Please explain that if you understand and/or agree with him [I am, by the way, curious if you agree with his anti-Murray/pro-Reymond position]. More importantly, WHAT IS HIS EXEGETICAL BASIS FOR HIS CLAIM? Do you accept that he believes God desires the salvation of all men when he hasn't given you a shred of biblical support for it?

Think of it this way. Suppose you were conversing with a Roman Catholic who claimed to believe that salvation is by "grace alone," as they do. Would you accept that bare claim without supporting exegesis? No. Would it bother you if they made that claim while many other things they say and believe undermine that very claim? I doubt you would just take their word for it without seeing serious problems with it.

Similarly, what does it mean for White to agree with Robert Reymond [and John Gill by implication] as over against John Murray and yet claim to believe God desires the salvation of all men? Don't you know that Reymond is a obviously a Clarkian on the will of God, and Gordon Clark agreed with Herman Hoeksema on the will of God? Whether he realizes it or not, James White is just echoing many of the later John Gerstner's complaints about Murray's conception of the well-meant offer and God's desire for the salvation of all men in Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism, 2nd edition (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 2000), 142-146. One cannot separate Reymond from Gill just as one cannot separate Reymond from Clark and Hoeksema on the will of God. White has claimed to believe what Reymond believes on the will of God, and yet also claims to believe that God desires the salvation of all men, while boasting of his consistency. What does any of that mean? Doesn't that trouble you at all?

I don't expect you to answer all of these questions. On the contrary, I expect White and his "minions" to run for the tall grass instead. I am just raising these questions so that you can, in the future, ponder why some of us seriously question the coherency of his novel post-J316 Conference claim to believe that God desires the salvation of all men. It's as though none of you are paying attention to what Robert Gonzales said about James White. To discredit us, you have to also discredit his remarks. It's won't go away, and White's supposed "answer" raises questions about the coherency of his claim. White's demanding coherent responses and clarification from Ergun Caner, so why is it a problem if we ask for coherent and clarifying responses from White?

Incidentally, if you check David Allen's footnote about White and hyper-Calvinism, you will see that he just says that "Both of Johnson's quotes (in addition to his reference on the will of God in his Primer on Hyper-Calvinism) would seem to implicate James White as a hyper-Calvinist since White concurs with Reymond's view that God does not desire the salvation of the non-elect in any sense." Allen then goes on, quite correctly, to note how White is "thoroughly out of sync" with Sam Waldron's stated free offer position. If this is false, then it would seem sensible to explain how White can both agree with Gill/Reymond [as he explicitly has] and yet also believe that God desires the salvation of all men. Like I said, there is no third option, and no dodging about in the excluded middle will change that fact.

p.s. With respect to his first video, I have NEVER had a conversation with White about Robert Reymond at all; no, not even in his chat room. His claim that we discussed Reymond in his chat channel is totally false.

[peter]

Dave,

I do not want to pour cold water on your apparently joyous occasion, but White's latest blog "What a shame"--assuming that is "the answer" to which you refer--is hardly an answer to questions Tony has raised here. The text was mostly dogging the J316C & D. Allen--frankly, I'm beginning to question whether White can write one proposition without an implicit insult attached--with a string of videos one is supposed to watch (old videos at that).

For my money, White refuses from others what he routinely offers (at least on this issue)--vagary.

In essence, what White said, therefore, is, "I have nothing new to add to what I've already stated. People who continue to think otherwise are bearing false witness."

With that, I am...
Peter

[David Hewitt]

Tony and Carrie:

Looks like you all have your answer. :) Seems the information has been out there a while, and we all missed it (or forgot it). :)

dave

[David Hewitt]

Well then, there seems to be little point in my continued presence here.

Though intermixed with other comments, observations, quotes, etc. it would seem that all of us have arrived at essentially the same conclusion. We need to have Dr. White say something publicly to clear this up either here or elsewhere.

I seriously doubt that he will come here, as he has already indicated to me a lack of desire to do so. I will ask again, though should a response be forthcoming, I doubt it would be here. He'd probably put it up as a blog post.

As it is more than obvious that Tony and perhaps Carrie as well keep very close watch on what comes out of A&O I am sure I won't have to ask you to watch for it, should something appear. :)

Good night and farewell. Perhaps next time we have an interaction Tony it will be over exegesis and not something such as this. A good exercise.

sdg,
dbh

[Carrie]

Just a few thoughts here as I wish to get back to the very beginning of the dialogue between Tony and David. The "equal ultimacy" thing has been nagging at me and I will address that shortly.

I have been following this blog over the past few days. In fact I have been following this issue with James White for over two years now.

I appreciate the work Tony is doing in logging the broadcasts, blog posts, tweets etc of White. I think he has taken on an important role in the much bigger context of the "Calvinism issue" within the Baptist community. So Tony, as if you don't already know, I appreciate your efforts.

I think what he (and a handful of others) are doing in respects to White is incredibly necessary.

James White has a platform (albeit not as large as most but one of influence nonetheless). This platform serves to educate folks, many of which are Southern Baptists.

I, being a lifelong, dyed in the wool Baptist (southern fried at that) have concern about what I am seeing unfold in the SBC regarding the issue of Calvinism.

One side seems to be pushing an anti-Calvinist agenda and the other side seems to be embracing anything and everything (and anyone and everyone) who claims to be a Calvinist. Neither side is really doing much research as to what Calvinism actually is.

Now that is quite a bold statement, I do realize. But from the many exchanges I have seen here and elsewhere, I think I could make a valid case for making such a statement.

I will however point the finger at those in my camp…

I think a lot of the misconceptions about Calvinism come from those "Calvinistic" "leaders" in the SBC or in Baptist denominations in general, not really understanding fundamentally the very long, very complex history of this theological movement. I say this because as a Calvinist, when I say things such as " I believe that Christ redeemed all mankind in His atoning work on the cross" or “I believe God has a genuine desire for all mankind to repent evangelically and be saved"... 97% of the Calvinists I say it too look at me as if I am insane (as if to say "sane Calvinists don't hold to such doctrines!!"). One-hundred percent of the non-Calvinists look at me with same confused expression.

I do believe as I stated above this comes from these “Calvinistic” leaders lacking a fundamental knowledge of what has been historically understood to be Calvinism (or reformed soteriology.) When they don’t have the knowledge, they pass on their ignorance to those who either follow them or are under them in their churches.

Since we have been discussing James White I think it fair to point out a few mistakes he has made. (Now they have been pointed out I realize, however in the overall context of what I hope to say, it will be necessary to revisit them).

To suggest that someone like Tony Byrne (and those like him which would include myself) hold to the same Arminian error of "equal ultimacy" is absurd. I think Tony has given ample evidence that demonstrates how absurd this truly is.

That James White doesn't understand how or why some Calvinists believe certain things regarding God's desires as they are manifested in His revealed will versus his decreed will, shows that he simply has not done his homework. Period.

If he is giving folks the idea as you have described here:

"White then talks about a partially-salvific will in this context of God's desire in His decree, White means that he (White) doesn't understand how that could be -- some sort of desire God has in his decree to save people he never decreed to save..."

...then he is clearly demonstrating a lack of knowledge of what countless reformed thinkers and theologians have wrote on a very basic (although incredibly complex) view of God's will.

Were the majority of Calvinists in the history of the church have taken great pains to make a distinction within the ONE will of God James is "mixing" both together as if there is no distinction whatsoever!

Not only does he speak about this with the highest level of certitude, he goes further to mock those who actually do know what they are talking about! He mocks because he does not understand. That's right he simply doesn't understand. He admitted it himself (well he was more or less feigning confusion that is) when he said:

"But there are some who would say, "and if you don't add to that that God has a partially salvific desire [laughter in the background]...you can go ahead and differentiate that he has a truly salvific desire for the elect, but you have to have a partially salvific will...I just go, what does that mean?!"

Now what I am hearing from folks who defend White is “well that isn’t what he means”…. Well then I tell you what, why doesn’t he just try to say what he means? Is the mark of a good teacher that of being clear and succinct so those listening grasp what he is saying? With White it seems like a “a fog in the pew is from the fog in the pulpit”.

So again to point the finger as those in my camp, I think these leaders that are so quick to shout “TULIP” from the rooftops need to get on their knees humbly before God and ask for understanding, look to Scripture, look to history, then look in the mirror and see if they are really ready to be representatives of this movement. If more people did that, we would have less loose canons out there misrepresenting doctrines that many of us hold dear and less strife amongst the brethren.

I think that if the issue of Calvinism is to divide, then it should actually be authentic Calvinism that people reject. It should not be this folk Calvinism that I have seen cropping up now for years. It should not be this folk Calvinism that James White and others like him have embraced and continue to perpetuate.

- Carrie

[David Hewitt]

Tony:

Just a couple of things. First, I must have made an error how I communicated my scenario with regard to your sycophant label. I wasn't saying that Doc was offended by it; I really don't know, though I suspect he wasn't, if he is even aware of it. I was creating a hypothetical situation; sorry for the confusion.

You said:
"Shouldn't you *at least* agree that White needs to improve how he is articulating his views, given the confusion?"

Sure. Such is always helpful in any respect. I myself should be more careful, as in this thread, at least once (that item I just mentioned) I've erred in this matter.

Anyway, I know that is short and doesn't deal with a whole lot of what you said. Yet, I will say this:

I hope that Dr. White does indeed read here and comment and clear this up. I think it would benefit the ministry of AOMIN and resolve unnecessary conflict.

sdg,
dave

[Tony Byrne]

David said:

"But you see, perhaps it behooves us to ask -- why would he have said that to begin with? Such a question may well have to be answered by him from you."

Ultimately, David, I cannot read White's motives. What I can say about him is something he has said about others:

"Here's a man commenting and he hasn't even bothered to read what I have written." (minute 34:01-34:03)

This is particularly remarkable since White made this bold claim:

"Folks, I do my homework before I say someone had said something. I invest my time in trying to be accurate to the glory of God." (min. 34:27-34:39)

It's obvious to me and to anyone who briefly reads my blog under the tag "The Will of God" that White has certainly NOT "done his homework" before he made claims about MY beliefs. This is why he and his friends will never give you a single source to back up his erroneous remarks about me. On the contrary, his friends let him get away with it and similar remarks time and time again.

In contrast, look at my "homework." I am supplying you with source after source, so that you can check everything out. He's whispering nonsense about me to you in the private corners of a chat room with zero sources. I think that is disturbing for someone with his wide apologetic platform, public influence and church office. As White demands of others, so I ask of him:

"Will he admit all his exaggerations and tell the truth [about Tony from now on]? I sure hope so. It would be great for all involved."

[Tony Byrne]

David said:

"Some of your own comments in this very meta, for example, could well be taken quite negatively and as slander. Unsure which I may mean?

You said:

"White and the legion of sychophants he surrounds himself with will never give you a source to prove what he says here."

You also said:

"Even his sycophantic surrogate "Turretinfan" should know what we believe, as we have sought to correct his slanderous comments as well on other blogs."

Now. I ask you this: Can you possibly see why, should someone be convinced to read here and participate in this discussion who would be predisposed NOT to do so would, upon reading such statements, say something along the lines of, "There goes Tony again, just like I suspected. Why bother having this discussion at all?"

I could see why some people would think such personal comments are not conducive to welcome or further the discussion, but I don't see why James White would complain. After all, I made my "sychophant" statements on March 3rd at 6:48am, and White made the following remarks the next day [March 4th] about Caner and his defenders:

"He has a legion of abettors, folks who aid him in his exaggerations and falsehoods by simply refusing to exercise a modicum of discernment."

If White can allow himself to say these things when he thinks they are true, then why would he [or you] find fault with what I have said when I think they are true??? Pot meet kettle. Is White hoping for further discussion with Caner by saying such things? What if Caner declinded to interact with him because White used such language? I doubt White would accept that as a legitimate excuse to interact, if Caner declined dialogue for that reason. And, if you're going to be an IMPARTIAL "reconciler," you should ALSO find fault with what White has said *if* you're going to find fault with me using similar remarks. James White also recently said the following on the Dividing Line:

"It's only people who are really stuck on themselves that get easily offended. I'm just not that easily offended." (minute 31:07-31:09)

White seems "easily offended" by the very same kind of language he's willing to use of Caner, so what are we to conclude about him based his above remark?

Just as White has asked about Caner, will White "...claim he is going to just keep on with his "work" and ignore all the questions he has so far refused to answer in a meaningful fashion?" If you or White say "but he has answered Tony's above questions in a meaningful fashion," then please show me by citing any sources, along with exegetical support.

You say:

"Taking it a little farther and further into the matter which began this debacle (White's video about Caner, Tim Roger's post, Peter's followup), try looking at those posts as a close friend of White may do so, who, at the very least believes the truthfulness of what Dr. White was saying? If you cannot see those things, at least the first examples from your own words, then perhaps our discussion should not continue."

I spoke up in this post because the issue of hyper-Calvinism came up, since Peter Lumpkins was echoing David Allen's claim in the matter here and elsewhere. I have not and will not speak up in defense of Ergun Caner. I am not impressed by things he has said and done either. If White, however, is offended by my "sycophant" remarks about him and others, and doesn't wish to converse *for that reason*, then why does he expect his own "legion of abettors" remark about Caner and others to help in his effort to further the discussion with Caner's problem? Again, pot meet kettle. It's clearly a double standard, and neither you [so far as we can see publicly] or White's other friends are holding him publicly accountable on that point. Why, then, should we deem you an impartial judge in these matters when you're publicly calling me out here but publicly silent, so far as we can tell, in the case of White?

Ultimately, my "sycophant" comments that convey my opinion on White's character and reputation are insignificant in comparison to the issue of God's own character and reputation. For that reason, I was honestly surprised that you and White have mainly been concerned about my "sycophant" comments here instead of my comments concerning the way White depicts God's character and reputation.

If someone said that I deny that God desires the salvation of all men and the well-meant offer by implication in addition to saying that I surround myself with sycophants, I would ignore the latter charge and zealously and eagerly seek to correct the former. In other words, my zeal to protect God's sincere desire in the offer of the gospel is far greater than my zeal to protect my own reputation. We would put to White what he recently said to another on Twitter:

"@Locu5tbot Is it possible to have your priorities such that you see past individuals to greater issues? Or has that been lost today?"

The greater issue that exceeds White's reputation is God's vehement earnest desire for the salvation of all men as taught by scripture and by Calvinists throughout the centuries. Why then focus on the former instead of focusing on the latter, given all of the sources and issues I have raised in this comment area?

It's no small thing that Steve Gregg came to this conclusion after he asked White if God in any sense desires the salvation of all men:

"You [White] don't believe that God in any sense wants to save those who are the non-elect, though he does want them to be preached to, apparently, so that they'll receive the greater damnation, as if they needed more."

White didn't do anything during the debate or after the debate to address Gregg's inference from White's statements. Truly alarming! If anyone came to the conclusion that I taught that during or after a debate, I would race [and possibly shout] to correct that blasphemy. This is why Loius Berkhof, a standard Reformed systematician, zealously said:

"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."

This is why Jonathan Edwards, after strongly affirming that "God oftentimes uses many means with wicked men to bring 'em to forsake their sins" and supporting this doctrine by appealing to Ezekiel 18:23 and Ezekiel 33:11, said:

"Surely it would be horrid presumption in us to call this in question, after God has sworn by his life to the truth of it."

Edwards then cites 1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Pet. 3:9 and Genesis 6:3 for support, claiming that God "did not destroy hardhearted Pharaoh, till he had used many means to make him willing to comply with God's commands." Edwards was quite zealous to assure sinners of God's willingness and desire to save them, even providing the necessary scriptural support [something White has yet to do]. For Edwards, it is "horrid presumption" to call this in question. When Steve Gregg asked White about his belief *in this matter*, he was utterly silent during and after the debate, even though he saw and read my analysis of the exchange afterward. There was no zeal or concern to clarify or qualify.

Shouldn't you *at least* agree that White needs to improve how he is articulating his views, given the confusion? If I am confused, then so is Dr. Robert Gonzales. Are you paying attention to Robert Gonzales' words? As I said above, he is a Reformed Baptist stating that White has rejected the well-meant offer, even rebuking him for his caricatures of other Calvinists, like himself, on the subject of the will of God and the nature of the offer. I am not alone in my "confusions," and I hope I am not alone in thinking White's priorities are out of whack if he's focusing on my "sycophant" remarks *instead of* the far greater issue of God's fervent saving desire for all men made in His image.

White neither clarified his views to Steve Gregg [prior to the John 3:16 Conference] nor to Mike Brown [after the J316C], although he was given sufficient opportunity and qualified questions by both that included "any sense." I find that alarming. Meanwhile, his friends are publicly silent, and therefore seemingly unconcerned.

I don't mean to be hitting you so hard, David. It's just that this stuff needs to end, and I think White could easily end it by a clear and public affirmation about God's universal saving desire that is devoid of any attack on other people and their beliefs. He can qualify himself as all Calvinists have done. That's fine. But at least solve this matter by a public biblically-based affirmation.

[Tony Byrne]

David said:

"Tony:
Goodness man, you sure can write a lot. :)"

I am putting together sources so that 1) other objective readers can see WHY some of us have said White has denied that God desires the salvation of all men [and WHY that's deemed hyper-Calvinism by us]; 2) so that others in the SBC, like Peter, can have a list of sources to see WHY David Allen made his claims during the J316 Conference [and defend his claims]; and 3) so that I can have an easy way to put together sources when this discussion continues elsewhere. So, while my posts have been lengthy, they are clarifying and prepatory for future discussion.

For too long people have been letting White get away with changing the basis of Allen's charge, as if he argued that White doesn't believe in evangelism and is hyper on that basis. White is still changing the basis of the charge to this day.

Think of it this way. Suppose you were talking to a modalistic monarchian and you called that person a "heretic" because they deny the Trinity, or distinction of persons in the Godhead. Suppose they replied by saying, "I am not a heretic. I believe Jesus is God." You might say, "you're missing the point. We're not saying you are a 'heretic' because you deny Christ's deity. We are calling you a 'heretic' because you repudiate the Trinitarian distinction of persons in the one Godhead!" If this person continued to answer your charge that he is not a "heretic" because he affirms Jesus is God, you wouldn't let him get away with that red herring. Likewise, White is continually changing the basis of Allen's charge to be about evangelism. The issue is whether or not White has rejected God's universal saving will in the Calvinistic sense, not whether or not he thinks we should all evangelize. I am *not* making the above comparison to say hyperism is necessarily heretical [in the sense of being outside the bounds of essential Christianity]. I am making the comparison to show how one can change the basis of a charge in order to conceal from others where one has a real problem [such as Trinitarianism].

What if we said the Hoeksemians in the Protestant Reformed Church are hyper-Calvinists because they deny the love of God for all men, and they retorted, "We believe in preaching to all men! so we're not hyper-Calvinists!" They would be doing the same thing, i.e. changing the basis of the charge. The issue is their denial of the love of God for all men and whether or not that constitutes hyper-Calvinism, not whether they believe in evangelism.

The issue with White is 1) whether or not he has [past tense] rejected that God desires the salvation of all men, and 2) whether that constitutes a form of hyper-Calvinism. He keeps replying that he believes in evangelism, so anyone calling him a hyper-Calvinist is a "bald-faced liar." That's changing the basis of the charge. All he has to do to clear this matter is clearly and explicitly affirm publicly that he believes that God desires the salvation of all men [in the Calvinistic sense, or in the revealed will] and then supply the necessary scriptural support. That's *very* easy for a Calvinist to do when they actually believe that doctrine. Tom Ascol easily and briefly did it when I put the question to him, but White has never done so, yet. And, although Ascol did not give biblical support at the time, we all know he would appeal to Ezek. 18 & 33, in addition to Matt. 23:37. To what text(s) will White appeal, after he has undermined all of them? Enquiring minds, particularly those in the SBC, want to know, especially when Ascol was willing to align himself with White in a Calvinism debate.

[David Hewitt]

Tony, you said:
"No. That's not what you should say if you're going to be fair, David. What White said was not right AT ALL, in the slightest. He knows it and you knew it.

Before I say more, I had to underline that point."

Perhaps it would be better had you said, "He should know it and you now know it."

I suspected White was in error in his assessment of what you believed, the quote I provided. Given your obvious repudiation of such a belief, then indeed, I should revise my statement to omit the word "partial." :) So I happily rescind my comment before and will simply say, "Given what Tony has clearly indicated, White was wrong in what he said about what Tony believed regarding equal ultimacy."

But you see, perhaps it behooves us to ask -- why would he have said that to begin with? Such a question may well have to be answered by him from you. :) I would encourage you to do it - but I would also encourage you to limit your inquiry to that one issue and after reaching a resolution of some kind on it, give it a few days and politely return with another.

Oh, and btw -- I truly love your creative use of terms -- partisan understatement -- I may use that myself sometime. :)

No secret tho -- I consider Dr. White my friend and his ministry to be superb with regard to interacting with the biblical text and defending the Faith against a multitude of enemies. This is not to say, of course, that he is never in error; such a claim can never be applied to anyone. :)

sdg,
dave

[Tony Byrne]

David,

Don't focus on the "He knows it and you knew it" in what I've said above. Rather, focus on your partisan understatement that White's description of my beliefs were "not quite right," as if there was some part right with it, rather than not right at all. If you're going to be a "reconciler," you're going to have to be objective/fair/impartial. That's my point. The quote you provided was as bad as this obviously slanderous statement by White:

"They [Tony Byrne & friends] are more intent upon attacking Calvinism than promoting the freedom of God in salvation. They don't mind having their stuff used to promote rank Arminianism as long as they can go after someone who believes in particular redemption."

And, before I move on to discuss your interpretation of the White/Jason dialogue, I will address some earlier points above, even your concerns over my "sychophant" remarks.

[Tony Byrne]

Real quickly, I just read David saying this:

"...what Dr. White indicated about Tony's beliefs in that comment wasn't quite right..."

No. That's not what you should say if you're going to be fair, David. What White said was not right AT ALL, in the slightest. He knows it and you knew it.

Before I say more, I had to underline that point.

[David Hewitt]

Tony:

Before you post your collections, I have one request. :) Let's deal with the one source I have brought out before continuing -- it would be extremely helpful, at least to me. ;) That and I cannot guarantee my time or motivation (or ability really; your knowledge of multitudes of sources far exceeds that of my own) to continue indefinitely. :)

sdg,
dbh

[Tony Byrne]

I'll have some comments forthcoming, so I have't "dropped out," yet :-) I'm collecting more sources.

[David Hewitt]

Peter:

Well, I do indeed see part of your point. I could be seen as grandstanding here -- I assure you that was not my intention; my apologies for appearing that way.

With regard to the issue of reconciling -- I am aware not a whole lot has taken place; such I do not think will completely take place until White and Byrne talk about it with each other without writing the other person off. I do hope and pray such a thing can and will happen -- our God is great and can indeed bring it about -- but in the very least, I do believe at least a seed or two has been sown in that direction.

You are correct in saying that I backed off a bit -- the reason has to do with the small quote I did provide from Dr. White. I was pretty confident that what Dr. White indicated about Tony's beliefs in that comment wasn't quite right; part of the reason I posted it was to illustrate what I was going to address. Given the amount of exchange (not to mention raw information available) that has taken place between Dr. White and Tony, there really shouldn't have been any kind of misunderstanding. Yet... it was apparent that, based on that quote from him (that I got from his chat channel and asked if I may post it) he was in error about Tony's belief.

Along the same lines, I do think Tony has reached consistently incorrect conclusions with regard to what Dr. White means about what he has said. Since Tony hasn't come back to request I address a particular item, and since you are asking me to provide some information directly (since this is, after all, your blog) I shall do so. I'll pick one example, and we can address it and cover all bases and then move on to another should you wish. Given, that I have already introduced the conversation with Jason, I shall return to it as my example. I cite Dr. White's same words that Tony used above, emphasizing a few different aspects:

"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?"

"We do not know the identity of the elect...who did not go so far as to say, and what that means is that there is a partially salvific desire on the part of God. That He has a desire, but for some reason (that has never been explained to me) he chooses not to act upon it, and hence causes himself to be eternally unfulfilled. I don't see that in a large number of Calvinistic writers. There is a range of expression on this, but no, I don't think I am in a minority position. Again, if someone wants to explain to me what a partial salvific desire is, and how it is expressed in scripture, then great, I'll be glad to hear it."

"And, I don't know how many times I have to say we don't know who the elect are, and therefore we proclaim the gospel to everybody. But there are some who would say, "and if you don't add to that that God has a partially salvific desire [laughter in the background]...you can go ahead and differentiate that he has a truly salvific desire for the elect, but you have to have a partially salvific will...I just go, what does that mean?!"

I have bolded four different sections above, and shall address them in that order.

First, please note what Dr. White indicates regarding how he denies that God has a "truly salvific desire" for those He never intends to bring to salvation (the non-elect). He makes reference to Psalm 115:3 as part of his explanation. What is Dr. White objecting to? He is objecting to those who would claim that God is desiring to save the non-elect in the same way as the elect. Since God does whatever He pleases, how can this be the case? This is an objection to equal ultimacy which was mentioned before. Combine this please with the remaining points:

Second and Third, Dr. White builds on this point. If God were to desire in this fashion, then He would render Himself eternally unhappy, having desires that He either could not or would not fulfill -- and this would be conflicting with Psalm 115:3. He also indicated he doesn't believe he's in the minority on this matter -- and I would have to agree. Allow me to elaborate.

Contrary to what Tony I think indicated above, Tom Ascol is not in disagreement with White about this. In this blog article, he wrote:

"I am fairly aware of what James White believes. He speaks and writes very clearly. He and I do not significantly disagree on this subject. We might state things a little differently, but we both agree that God's will must be seen in terms of decree and precept and we both agree that God will not be frustrated at the end of history. Dr. Allen simply does not understand James White's views nor, it appears, the theology of hyper-Calvinism."

Please note that Ascol said that he and White agree that God will not be frustrated at the end of history. This is because he and White agree on God's decree -- and God's desires in God's decree (that is, that He didn't determine to make Himself eternally unhappy). So then, with that helpful information, one can perhaps see better what Dr. White was talking about.

Fourth, and last, when White then talks about a partially-salvific will in this context of God's desire in His decree, White means that he (White) doesn't understand how that could be -- some sort of desire God has in his decree to save people he never decreed to save. This of course does not make sense -- but this is the context White was using to talk about God's saving will. This is what White meant by "a truly salvific desire:" truly meaning that God fully intended to bring it about. Such is not the desire of God for the non-elect.

That is White's belief.

That is Tom Ascol's belief.

That is my belief. :)

That belief is not the same as saying, "God has no desire at all of any kind to save the non-elect."

Such a belief is not embraced by White, Ascol, or myself, or really, anyone I know.

I hope that helps clear up at least that one objection. :)

May Jesus guide our thoughts as we proceed.

dbh

[peter]

David,

I appreciate your response but I find it completely disengaged with what has actually taken place here.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it was you, David, who logged on here and insisted specifically what James White "certainly thinks." You further claimed you went into a chat channel and addressed specific issues with him.

Upon being challenged to show your cards, however, you backed up a bit and claimed "reconciler." I admire any who fulfills such a role. However, as Carrie as said, there has been actually little reconciling taking place.

Even so, what is demonstrably obvious in this thread, David, is the continued side-stepping of the posting any real content whatsoever, I'm sorry to say.

Being nice and cordial is a virtue after which all believers must strive. But when, without hesitation, you clearly imply that Bryne misses what White actually believes, nevertheless, upon request to offer any tangible proof of such an assertion, you continue to suggest "I'm a reconciler." For me, the claim can hardly be taken seriously, reconciler or not, if you are not willing to post the tangible proof.

Additionally, you now cite as reason not engage the questions posed to you from Tony at the very beginning this: "The reason I haven't given much comment yet to his [Tony's} understanding of White's statements is really simple: they are not my statements."

Recall once again, David, you first logged on claiming you very well knew what James White "certainly thinks." Now you appear to be claiming you don't want to get "very far into another's matters" because "they are not my statements." As the old cliche goes, either cut bait or fish, brother.

Also, I'm afraid those who do take on the sometimes grievous task of playing the role of 'reconciler' are caught going well beyond what's normally considered the "comfort zone."

I find it interesting, to say the least, that, while you claim the "statements" White is making are not your own, and consequently, you have not given much comment yet to Tony's understanding of White's statements, you nevertheless conclude error in Tony's reading of James White:"At issue here is Tony's disagreement with and/or misunderstanding of what Dr. White has said." Apparently, you know enough about White & Byrne's position to suggest Byrne either misunderstands or disagrees with White or both.

And still, after you solicited whether Tony would like you answer his questions and receiving an affirmative--albeit I answered rather than Tony--you post another content-less comment, David. Were one of a mind to, I suppose one could make a strong case that you, my brother David, are surreptitiously grandstanding on this thread.

Can you or can you not provide answers with content to Tony's concerns? If so, we're all ears. If not, my brother, I have more things to do--as I'm sure others do as well--than to continue logging back and forth when the comments are going nowhere. I do not know this but it surely makes sense to me: perhaps the reason Tony has dropped out of the thread is simply because you will not engage his comments with content of your own.

The way I see it, the only point in your lengthy comments that could be interpreted as addressing Tony's concerns raised here pertains to your listening to the conversation with 'Jason' recorded only in your last log: "I will note, however, that I was listening to the Dividing Line live when that call came in from Jason..."

Granted you addressed a question Tony logged. On the other hand, what did you actually address about DL conversation? Humorously, all you essentially responded with was "I disagree." You wrote: "I came away with different conclusions than those Tony has drawn."

David, how you may think that is a serious, valid response, no one on this thread surely can ascertain.

Once again, I'm sorry to say, you're offering an empty cup to those interested in a genuine response.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Carrie]

Hi David,

Thank you for your reply to me.

There is much I could say about it but will refrain because there is something else I have been wondering about.

I see you are playing the role of reconciler, something that does not happen often enough between parties who disagree in the public forum. I think this is incredibly kind and displays Christian character (again something we don't see as often as we should in areans such as this.)

You have made great strides with Tony hereto help him better understand White's position. You have sought to demonstrate Tony is mistaken regarding his views of White's position. In all truth I have only seen you make the assertion this is the case but have not shown it to be such. But that is neither here nor there because what I want to know is there anywhere to which you can point me, where you have sought to correct James White on Tony's view?

Is there a public forum such as this where you have interacted with White so we can see how he is responding to your reproach? If James doesn't have time to respond here, or simply thinks its a fruitless endeavor, then perhaps you can show where he has taken the time elsewhere to indicate that he is at least demonstrating a clearer understanding of Tony's view?

If it is only in his chat room then that isn't exactly a static page to which people can reference.

I understand that you have a blog? Would it be possible for you to arrange a formal exchange via blog posts between James White and Tony Byrne so they both clear the air between them and ultimately better understand the other's position?

Perhaps neither have the time to do such. If that is the case then possibly James White could send you an email of sorts tht you could post on your blog? Something that shows he now has a better understanding of Tony's position. Something that would clear up this issue of Tony and James "talking past each other". Then perhaps Tony could respond in concert?

I am thinking of this because it has occurred to me that with you acting as a reconciler, it seems as very little reconciliation is being accomplished. With no other point of reference other than your dialogue here it appears you are only trying to defend James White. Unless you have some reference to which you can direct me that shows where you are trying to plead with White as you are pleading with Tony, that is the only conclusion I can come to (and I think anyone who has followed this thread would come to the same conclusion.)

I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

Thank you for your time.

- Carrie

[David Hewitt]

Peter:

Thank you for the question. You said, regarding a place to start:

"Does James White undermine texts traditionally used by Calvinists to defend the well-meant offer of the gospel to all peoples? If not, what texts does White employ to substantiate God's salvific love for all people? Interpret White's conversation with a "Jason" on the DL in such a way that is consistent with what you say White actually believes.

Does White embrace Reymond contra Murray? If not, how does he differ from Reymond?"

I can see how you would be a bit befuddled as to my asking if Tony wanted a response from me, especially as the questions were directed at me; indeed, my comment nearly seems absurd -- but for this:

(my words)"Ultimately, this isn't going to be resolved unless he and Dr. White and come to terms with it without writing each other off. "

The reason I haven't given much comment yet to his understanding of White's statements is really simple: they are not my statements. At issue here is Tony's disagreement with and/or misunderstanding of what Dr. White has said. I am hoping, by my presence here, to find some way for he and Dr. White to communicate on the matter and, at the very least, end the confusion and make any necessary amends. Dr. White thinks my efforts are in vain; I hope he is mistaken.

I will note, however, that I was listening to the Dividing Line live when that call came in from Jason, and that I came away with different conclusions than those Tony has drawn -- as long as one takes into account how White seemed to be using the terms in question. I have read the quotes from Reymond and Murray and Waldron that Tony has provided. I haven't just been brushing over or ignoring what Tony has said -- just making sure I'm not sticking my nose too far into another's matters. :)

SDG,
dave hewitt

[peter]

Luke,

I'm past hope that the worst label flung my way on this and other blogs was my being sycophant. ;^)

David,

While I normally like to keep the thread 'on target' as it were, I've found no reason to 'stop the presses' on this particular exchange. I encourage you to continue at your leisure.

Pertaining to your particular exchange with Tony, allow me, if I may, to note Carrie's and now Luke's gentle nudge to volley the ball back to Tony.

I say this especially in light of your last remark to Luke and then Tony:

"My aim here is not so much to interact with his argumentation (though I could do so) but to get to the heart of the matter....Again, I can discuss the issues if he would like. tony: just let me know sir which you'd like me to address first, should that be your wish"

I do not know Tony's mind about this but I can surmise that, for him, the heart of the matter *is* the argumentation, the evidence and implications of the evidence Tony offers.

As both Carrie and Luke have made clear, David: Tony gives an exceptional amount of data and has asked for a response. Interestingly, after Tony has made it clear he'd like a response, you nonetheless write, "I can discuss the issues if he would like. tony: just let me...should that be your wish"

I must say, David, I haven't the least idea you gathered anywhere from Tony's logs here the notion that Tony did not wish you to respond to his reasoned contributions, his evidence. I think Tony will find that a surprise as well.

Where do you begin? Why not at the opening comment Tony logged? Does James White undermine texts traditionally used by Calvinists to defend the well-meant offer of the gospel to all peoples? If not, what texts does White employ to substantiate God's salvific love for all people? Interpret White's conversation with a "Jason" on the DL in such a way that is consistent with what you say White actually believes.

Does White embrace Reymond contra Murray? If not, how does he differ from Reymond?

Those are just some of the question I pulled from memory in scanning Tony's comments.

With that, I am...
Peter

[David Hewitt]

Luke:

rise above it, sure. That wasn't my point; the issue wasn't about me. In fact, I'm not really the one with whom he "has the beef" which is part of the reason I responded the way I did.

My aim here is not so much to interact with his argumentation (though I could do so) but to get to the heart of the matter. Ultimately, this isn't going to be resolved unless he and Dr. White and come to terms with it without writing each other off. Perhaps I am idealistic; I hope not too much so.

Again, I can discuss the issues if he would like.

tony: just let me know sir which you'd like me to address first, should that be your wish.

sdg,
dave

[Luke]

"I have read through what Tony has said, and I could address most of what he mentioned I think."

Since Peter has not complained about what is taking place in regards to content or length of posts, I for one would like to see your rebuttal to Tony. If it is simply a matter of you not feeling well, I am quite sure this blog isn't going anywhere over the next couple of days. But Tony has given an intelligent, well reasoned and documented argument and a refusal to answer Tony because of his use of the word, sycophant is something you should be able to rise above.

[David Hewitt]

Carrie:
I think that is a fair question. Part of it, I suspect is that the content is, as you have said, "overwhelming." I have read through what Tony has said, and I could address most of what he mentioned I think. Yet, such would take a large amount of time, and were I to start with one subject I likely wouldn't get it addressed in a sufficient manner (that is, by my standards, not his) before interaction would begin with it and the rest would be neglected, however unintentionally. Perhaps it is a personal limitation of my own.

I will interact with Tony on these matters is he would like, though I would request one line item at a time that he himself would prefer we address until it is done. I hadn't said this before, and I am not criticizing him for having many questions and points of concern of course; like I said, this is likely my own personal limitation.

Regardless, my point for posting what I did was not to address his points...pardon the repetitive use of terms.

The point was to make him step back and think about what he was saying and how he was saying it. Though, as I said, I could address what he discussed, the best person to do so would be Dr. White. I doubt very much that he (that is, Dr. White) is willing to do so, not because of a lack of love for the truth on his or Tony's part, but rather, I think, because Doc doesn't think his time would be well invested here addressing Tony. The reason for that is Doc doesn't believe that the conversation will get anywhere, no matter what he says, and such thinking I believe is reinforced by words like "sycophant."

So, though I've taken a long time to say it (I've been rightly accused of being long-winded at times), the reason I didn't address the issues in that last comment is that I wasn't intending to, but rather to address a continuation of an earlier point I made -- that of being a reconciler. The reason is, among other things, I'm not really the opponent, as I hope I have helped make clear.

Thank you for your comment, Carrie.

SDG,
dbh

[Carrie]

David why did you take the time to correct Tony on his blog etiquette but yet not take the time to address the overwhelming amount of content he provided for you?

I appreciate the kind manner in which you do your business ...however it doesn't take away from the fact that you simply aren't addressing the issues.

Perhaps when engaging an opponent you should address the content of their argument in place of giving them advice on how to engage an opponent?

[David Hewitt]

Tony:

Goodness man, you sure can write a lot. :)

There is much I suppose I could say, but I'm not sure I'm up to it, at least not right now.

I will comment thusly with regard to your statement about my being irenic:

I am thankful for that, David. I respect you and the manner in which you conduct theological conversation. Your irenicism is apparent, at least to me. However, I have to say that these are rare qualities for one regularly associating with White. I say that after years of engagement with those in his circle of friends, and after some interaction with White himself. I find them frequently to be abusive, condescending and dismissive. I honestly don't know how others are not seeing it, except that they are justifying their acts and attitudes in their own minds, since they believe so strongly in White's cause, ministry and beliefs.

First, thank you for your kind words. I praise and thank our gracious God and Savior, Jesus Christ, for granting humility and conviction to speak in such a way.

I read and interact with the people in Doc's chatroom now regularly, and have done so consistently in past years. I've watched his videos, read his posts, read blogs and comments by others (such as TurretinFan, RazorsKiss, johnMark, Shamgar, etc), and I generally don't see what you do, though I am not foolhardy enough to think that they (or anyone for that matter) is immune to being too harsh or making mistakes, even sinful ones, in one's writing.

Perhaps this would be the best way to think about it. When reading your opponents (in whatever sense), in fact, before you do, insist to yourself that you will read their comments in the best possible light. That is, taking what they say in the best possible way it can be taken (which sometimes is probably sarcasm and satire, but stay with me). Further, before you publish something of your own, or if you are wondering how your opponents may interpret something, read it in the worst possible light. Such may well help elucidate much of the recent conversation on this blog and others. Some of your own comments in this very meta, for example, could well be taken quite negatively and as slander. Unsure which I may mean?

You said:
"White and the legion of sychophants he surrounds himself with will never give you a source to prove what he says here."

You also said:
" Even his sycophantic surrogate "Turretinfan" should know what we believe, as we have sought to correct his slanderous comments as well on other blogs."

Now. I ask you this: Can you possibly see why, should someone be convinced to read here and participate in this discussion who would be predisposed NOT to do so would, upon reading such statements, say something along the lines of, "There goes Tony again, just like I suspected. Why bother having this discussion at all?"

Taking it a little farther and further into the matter which began this debacle (White's video about Caner, Tim Roger's post, Peter's followup), try looking at those posts as a close friend of White may do so, who, at the very least believes the truthfulness of what Dr. White was saying?

If you cannot see those things, at least the first examples from your own words, then perhaps our discussion should not continue. That... and I think such a comment is all I can think through right now anyway, as I'm not feeling all that great. :)

SDG,
dave

[Tony Byrne]

Slight correction. One sentence above should have been stated this way:

Would it be fair to say that you agree with John Murray's position on God's universal saving will, although not necessarily with every instance of his interpretations on various biblical passages?

[Tony Byrne]

Part 3

David said:

"I consider myself a reconciler. I do not like it when brothers are at odds with each other in general, but really do not like it when the issue is one of misunderstanding, which I truly believe this is."

Me now:

I am thankful for that, David. I respect you and the manner in which you conduct theological conversation. Your irenicism is apparent, at least to me. However, I have to say that these are rare qualities for one regularly associating with White. I say that after years of engagement with those in his circle of friends, and after some interaction with White himself. I find them frequently to be abusive, condescending and dismissive. I honestly don't know how others are not seeing it, except that they are justifying their acts and attitudes in their own minds, since they believe so strongly in White's cause, ministry and beliefs.

The last time I saw one of your comments in the blogosphere, you were trying to engage Tom Ascol on his interpretation of Matt. 23:37, as he was using it to argue for a general desire on God's part for the salvation of all men. I was left with the impression that you agree with White's Gillite take on that passage. This prompts me to ask you if you believe that God desires the salvation of all men by will revealed? And, if you do, as I suspect, then to what biblical passages would you appeal to sustain your case? A brief answer is fine. I am just wondering about your general viewpoint. Would it be fair to say that you agree with John Murray's position in theory, although not necessarily with every instance of his biblical take on various passages?

I'll conclude by saying this: What ultimately matters here is that White affirms God's universal saving will, for his own well-being and for the well-being of those Christians following his ministry/teaching. It matters not if he ever says "Tony was right," or "David Allen was right." If he continues to maintain, as I think he has [past tense] maintained, that God *only* desires the salvation of the elect, then he will not only continue to distort God's holy word, but he will damage the lives of other Christians, and not portray Christ's teachings accurately to those non-Christians he is debating. All men have good news in Christ Jesus, or a gospel, at least in the sense that God is, through the gospel offer, sincerely pleading with men to believe, repent and to be saved [2 Cor. 5:20]. In fact, the only reason why we as Christians desire for all our gospel hearers to believe and be saved is because the Holy Spirit is working in and through us to express these holy desires. For these reasons and more, Jonathan Edwards said:

"There is all in God that is good, and perfect, and excellent in our desires and wishes for the conversion and salvation of wicked men... There is all in God that belongs to our desire of the holiness and happiness of unconverted men and reprobates, excepting what implies imperfection."

We do not have more of a desire than God for the conversion and salvation of those that hear our gospel pleadings. We only have such desires because they are God-given, and thus expressive of a holy love for our neighbors. Perishing and despairing sinners need to sense that and believe that in everything we say and do. If James White images God this way in terms of his beliefs and apologetics ministry, then this is all I wish and desire. That will bring glory to Christ and honor His word.

Grace to you,
Tony

[Tony Byrne]

Part 2

David said:

"I've heard from you both and it is evident (at least to me) that you are talking past each other."

Me response:

If you are able, then source what you have heard. I have given you multiple sources to sustain my case, and I think I am quite reasonable in believing that White, at least in the past, has denied God's universal saving desire. While you have acknowledged, unlike White, that his representation of my position is false, I have yet to be shown by any sources whatsoever that my representation of his position is false, at least with respect to his past beliefs. Either what I have sourced above is compatible with his alleged current affirmation of God's universal saving desire or it is not. If what you are reporting is in fact true, then do you think it is compatible or incompatible with what I have clearly sourced above? If compatible, explain how, or ask White to explain how. He shouldn't ridicule Dr. Allen and myself for thinking that, at least with respect to the past, he has rejected God's uinversal saving will. We have very reasonable grounds for thinking as we do, and I have given sufficient sources to sustain my case. If I were merely relying on hearsay testimony, you wouldn't think my case was credible. I haven't done that. I've given you documentable evidence that has yet to be negated.

David said:

"You both claim to understand the other's position, and both claim that the other's position (the one understood) is wrong."

Me response:

I should hope that he now sees that his representation of my position was false. I also think it was slanderous, but I will expect no apology from him. He doesn't issue apologies to me. Believe me. I've tried to get one for past slanders as well, and his response was to dismissively say in essence: "get a life!" via email. No apology. No retraction. No contrition. No accountability by his friends and associates, yet he is busy complaining about Ergun Caner's failures in this area. Physician heal thyself!

He has yet to show how my representation of his past views on the will of God are wrong, or how his current views are compatible with what I have sourced above.

David said:

"The thing is, having read you here (and elsewhere) and having interacted directly with Dr. White in asking him to clarify, the positions you two are ascribing to each other are, in fact, not the positions you hold."

Me response:

I should note again, here, that there are only two possibilities: 1) Either White's position on the universal saving will of God has remained the same or 2) White's position on the universal saving will of God has changed.

In your above comment you speak of positions we "hold" [present tense]. Frankly, I don't know what White believes NOW, this very day. All I am claiming to know is that with respect to the RECENT PAST, in which he has clearly denied that God desires the salvation of all men. It may be that he's affirming God's universal saving desire to you in the quiet corner of his chat room, but has he said anything about whether or not his position has changed? If not, then explain how his current affirmations are compatible with what he said to White.

He should also explain how he supports his current alleged affirmation biblically. Or is it something that is merely theoretical and abstract, built on nothing more than the notion that God's evangelical command presupposes desire for compliance? In other words, does he have exegetical support for his alleged belief now that God desires *the salvation* of any non-elect individual? He can't stop short and say that God merely desires men to repent and believe but does not also desire them to *be saved*. That position would be as absurd as saying that a virtuous doctor wants sick people to extend their hands to take medicine from him, but he doesn't want them to drink it and be healed thereby [see the comment from John Frame that I quoted above]. White, if he's going to clarify, must address the issue of God's desiring the "salvation" of those who perish. Is that something he affirms or denies, and has it always been something he either affirms or denies? Or has he changed his position?

To be continued...

[Tony]

Hi David,

You asked me:

"Will you allow the possibility that you have been mistaken about White and possibly Reymond as well? I have not read Gill on the subject, so I cannot comment on him. Here is the thing: If you are unwilling to allow for that, then there isn't even any point in bringing any of this to Dr. White's attention."

Of course it is possible, but possibility does not equal plausibility. Just because it is possible that I have misunderstood him, that doesn't make it likely. As you may recall, White himself has distinguished between possibility and plausibility in his debates and interactions with Bart Ehrman and others on textual matters. If you are merely asking me if it is "possible" that I have been mistaken, then my answer is "yes." But if you're asking me if it is plausible or likely that I have been mistaken, then my answer is "no, I don't think so." Why?

I have given you a list of facts and links to investigate this matter in order to sustain my case. So far you only have only given hearsay testimony [that contradicts the other hearsay testimony I supplied to you above] of something that was said to you in a chat room. You don't have any links at all to his blog or quotes from his books to even begin to discredit my case. I know you said you were sick [and I hope you're feeling better] so you may not have had time to listen to the clear phone call White had with Jason. Even Jason, one persuaded of Calvinism by White, came away from the call knowing what James believed, and thus asked him if he thought his view was a minority view within the Reformed tradition. White explicitly said the following in the phone call with Jason:

"...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."

Notice what he is explicitly repudiating here, i.e. the view that God has "some kind of an attitude or desire" that is "not really the same desire as he chooses to fulfill with other people [the elect]." He thinks it entails not only a "two-wills conundrum," but a "multiple desires conundrum."

"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?"

"We do not know the identity of the elect...who did not go so far as to say, and what that means is that there is a partially salvific desire on the part of God. That He has a desire, but for some reason (that has never been explained to me) he chooses not to act upon it, and hence causes himself to be eternally unfulfilled. I don't see that in a large number of Calvinistic writers. There is a range of expression on this, but no, I don't think I am in a minority position. Again, if someone wants to explain to me what a partial salvific desire is, and how it is expressed in scripture, then great, I'll be glad to hear it."

"And, I don't know how many times I have to say we don't know who the elect are, and therefore we proclaim the gospel to everybody. But there are some who would say, "and if you don't add to that that God has a partially salvific desire [laughter in the background]...you can go ahead and differentiate that he has a truly salvific desire for the elect, but you have to have a partially salvific will...I just go, what does that mean?!"

If there's any credibility to what you are saying with respect to White's past position, David, please explain what the above quotes mean on the supposition that White does believe God desires the salvation of all men. Remember, Jason's a Calvinist in the Murray position, i.e. one who believes that God desires the salvation of all men in the revealed will. If White "desires" to change his position now and thus repudiate these past remarks, that's good. However, it would be a stretch to try to argue that he was not denying the universal aspect to God's saving will above.

As you recall, I have demonstrated beyond doubt that White has linked himself with Reymond's position. First of all, Reymond repudiates John Murray's position, and there is no tertium quid between the two. Secondly, Reymond cites Gill's The Cause of God and Truth as a source for a proper understanding of various passages dealing with God's will on this subject, saying "...and the passages upon which Murray relies for his conclusions can all be legitimately interpreted in such a way that the Christian is not forced to impute such irrationality to God. For these other interpretations I would refer the reader to John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Sovereign Grace, 1971), 4-6, 22-26, 28, 62." You can't separate Reymond's view from Gill, and no one since the days of Gill has tried to argue that he believed God desires the eternal salvation of all men. White, in siding with Reymond, is also by necessity siding with Gill's view. Moreover, no one has attempted to argue that Reymond believes that God desires the salvation of all men, knowing that Reymond is Clarkian [after Gordon Clark] on that subject. If you're going to attempt to argue that Reymond actually believes that God does desire the salvation of all men, I know some Clarkians [like Sean Gerety] who would be very interested in seeing you pull that rabbit out of the Reymond's hat.

Also, notice Reymond's logic here:

"If one followed this trajectory of [Murray's] reasoning to its logical end, one might also conclude that perhaps Christ, though he knew the futility of his endeavor, did after all die savingly for those whom his Father and he had decreed not to save."

Likewise, White argues:

"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? What does that mean? And no one's ever been able to tell me."

There is no "means" of salvation in the death of Christ for the non-elect on White and Reymond's view. Why isn't there? Because God doesn't desire their salvation. Both Reymond and White view this as consistent, contra John Murray's "irrationality." If it is true that White affirms that God desires the salvation of all men, we would now ask him, "what does it mean to say that God desires to do something he then does not provide the means to do?"

If you're going to try to argue that Reymond believes that God desires the salvation of all men, then you're all alone in that, so far, David. So far as I know, no one has attempted to say that about Reymond. And, with respect to White, everyone else on the Internet so far has virtually said, "So what if White denies God's universal saving will?! That doesn't make him a hyper-Calvinist!" No one has yet tried your strategy of trying to say that White actually believes God desires the salvation of all men. We want sources from anyone who thinks otherwise.

Again, if White believes, at least now, that God does in fact desire the salvation of all men by will revealed, then great. Have him write that down and clearly express it, providing "exegesis" to sustain his case. Such a thing would be remarkable, given that White has already undermined every known proof-text Calvinists have used [excepting John 5:34] to maintain God's universal saving desire.

To be continued...

[David Hewitt]

Tony:
Will you allow the possibility that you have been mistaken about White and possibly Reymond as well? I have not read Gill on the subject, so I cannot comment on him.

Here is the thing: If you are unwilling to allow for that, then there isn't even any point in bringing any of this to Dr. White's attention. I've heard from you both and it is evident (at least to me) that you are talking past each other. You both claim to understand the other's position, and both claim that the other's position (the one understood) is wrong. The thing is, having read you here (and elsewhere) and having interacted directly with Dr. White in asking him to clarify, the positions you two are ascribing to each other are, in fact, not the positions you hold.

I consider myself a reconciler. I do not like it when brothers are at odds with each other in general, but really do not like it when the issue is one of misunderstanding, which I truly believe this is.

I shall mention this to Dr. White, and I may have further comments. I'll take it by Peter's lack of objection, that he doesn't mind us continuing here. :)

SDG,
dave hewitt

[Tony]

David said:

"BTW -- I suspected that Dr. White's comment that I quoted was less than accurate -- but I do not think for a moment that he was intending to slander you."

Me now:
Well, he did in fact slander me. As you report, he wasn't merely wondering about what I believe, as if he was confused. He didn't say "Tony might not allow such distinctions," but rather "Tony will not allow such distinctions." He flat out said "Tony and his folks insist upon the same kind of error that the Arminians make..." Since White prides himself in reading what people have to say before he opposes them, he clearly has not done that in my case. This exchange is nothing new. He has seen my careful qualifications on Phil Johnson's blog in the comment section and elsewhere, even on Tom Ascol's blog. He knows that I am a Calvinist.

David said:

"He really believed what he was saying."

Me now:
I don't believe that. The evidence and background of our discussions [which you are not aware of] is far too overwhelming. Even his sycophantic surrogate "Turretinfan" should know what we believe, as we have sought to correct his slanderous comments as well on other blogs. They all know what we Calvinists believe on the will of God. They just don't want to admit that we are right, so they feign confusion.

David said:

"How" you might ask -- given the documentation, the interaction, etc?

Well, I might suggest the same way that so many have continued to fail to give him the benefit of the doubt when discussing God's desire and will."

Me now:
"Benefit of the doubt"? What's to doubt about Robert Reymond and John Gill's position, with which White explicitly said he agreed with, as over against John Murray's position? There is no doubt. What's to doubt about what he very clearly and explicitly said to Jason from the UK? There is no doubt about what he said. What's to doubt about his scornful depiction of "Squeamish Calvinists" who make God decree His own eternal disappointment, etc.? There is no doubt. Dr. Gonzales could see it, hence his rebuke of White's "caricatures." What's to doubt about his continual rejection of every passage Calvinists use to sustain God's universal saving will? There is absolutely no doubt about that fact. What you call "benefit of the doubt" sounds like naïveté to me. One would have to fly in the face of the overwhelming contrary evidence and be suffering from blind sycophantic loyalty in order to give White the "benefit of the doubt" on this subject.

I meant to also add above that Mike Brown asked White the same question as Steve Gregg, Jason and others have asked him; namely if there is any sense at all in his view that God desires the salvation of all men. He dodged the question, again, as usual. Someone in the John Murray, Robert Gonzales and Tom Ascol position could easily say "yes" in a qualified way to the question, affirming that with respect to the revealed will, there is a sense in which God does desire all men to keep his commandments to repent and believe ***and thus to be saved.*** Just because Mike Brown is asking the question from the standpoint of an "equal ultimacy" paradigm doesn't mean we have to evade answering that there is an aspect of God's will wherein he desires all men, including the reprobate, to be saved through obedience to the gospel. It's as easy as saying in a qualified way that there is a sense in which God loves all mankind, albeit *not equally*. In his interaction with Brown, White failed to give an answer and/or an explicit affirmation that he believes what you say he believes. This is nothing new.

If you wish to invite White's attention to these comments, then here are some questions you can ask him:

1) Do you retract your statement that you agree with Robert Reymond's rejection of God's universal saving will?

2) If you are "more on the side of Reymond" than John Murray, then what aspect of Murray's position on the will of God do you think is true?

3) Do you retract what you said in your phone call with Jason?

4) Do you believe that God in fact desires the salvation of all men according to the revealed will?

5) If this is something you do in fact believe, then why not say so in a qualified way in your debates? Why not take the opportunity to say so in writing?

6) If you do in fact believe that God desires the salvation of all men, then where is your biblical support for this? What biblical passages teach that God in fact desires the salvation of any reprobate individual? If you want to be known as an "exegeeter," then support this claim exegetically, especially since you have undermined *every passage* that Calvinists have used historically to sustain this belief.

*7) If it is true that God desires all men to repent and believe as you said to Mike Brown, is this an unfulfilled desire in the case of the non-elect?

8) Do you retract that statement that Tony "will not allow" for careful distinctions and retract the statement that "he and his folks insist upon the same kind of error that the Arminians make: equal ultimacy"? Do you now see this as false? Will you apologize for making these erroneous claims about Tony to David Hewitt and others?

David,

I know that you are now a Reformed Baptist. I would encourage you to learn about Calvinism and associate with Robert Gonzales and Sam Waldron, not James White. White is significantly confused and he does not represent mainstream historic Calvinism. Gonzales and Waldron are like Murray and the Banner of Truth crowd. Associate with them instead, theologically and otherwise.

Grace to you,
Tony

[David Hewitt]

Tony:
There were reasons I posted what I did; be not dismayed and shocked. :) However, I can't take the time to make comments much at the moment; I will point Dr. White over here, and might make another comment myself - that is, if Peter is agreeable to us continuing to take over his comments section.

BTW -- I suspected that Dr. White's comment that I quoted was less than accurate -- but I do not think for a moment that he was intending to slander you. He really believed what he was saying. "How" you might ask -- given the documentation, the interaction, etc?

Well, I might suggest the same way that so many have continued to fail to give him the benefit of the doubt when discussing God's desire and will. But, well, such won't be resolved in my few words at the moment. I need to get some rest; off work due to being sick today, and anything more I might say may well border on the incoherent.

That and Peter hasn't told me to continue. :)

Dave

[peter]

J.D.

I understand. Then, I'm content to leave it as is. Have a great day.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Jeremiah Davies]

Peter,
Honestly, it isn't about pleasing me. I do not claim to be Calvinist but understand the points. I am simply curious as to where you stand.

"Nor does the biblical record need the 16-17th century scholastic template imposed upon it to reveal precisely how one is saved and ultimately delivered." Agreed (don't tell anyone).

J.D.

[peter]

Jeremiah

It's unlikely you'd be pleased by my answer. Hence, allow me to simply state, pertaining to my own understanding of biblical redemption, I do not need the five points of Calvinism as a reference point by which to speak of salvation from sin. Nor does the biblical record need the 16-17th century scholastic template imposed upon it to reveal precisely how one is saved and ultimately delivered.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Tony]

Part 3 [The Last Part]

You said:

"His concern though in your (and others) bringing this up is this:

James White said,

"Tony will not allow such distinctions. He and his folks insist upon the same kind of error that the Arminians make: equal ultimacy. That is, they insist that God's desire for the salvation of those He does not choose to save must be of the same kind as His desire for the salvation for His elect."

Is this the case with you sir? White certainly thinks so."

Me now:
Frankly, I am surprised that you are even asking me this, David, since you have interacted with me several times on my own blog. In fact, my blog has such a mountain range of quotes by Calvinists on the subject of God's will, with all the careful qualifications, that some have commented and called it the single best Calvinistic resource on the web for the well-meant offer. Of course it is NOT the case, and White KNOWS it.

1) First of all, where is White's proof that "Tony will not allow such distinctions"? Where is a single bit of proof that "Tony and his folks insist upon the same kind of error that the Arminians make: equal ultimacy"? Ask him for sources. Don't just accept this slander as true because he says it. White and the legion of sychophants he surrounds himself with will never give you a source to prove what he says here.

2) Secondly, I have claimed to be a Calvinist, not an Arminian. There is no such thing in church history as a self-described Calvinist who maintains that God EQUALLY desires the salvation of all men. It's a non-entity. That animal doesn't even exist, so White's claim should have even stunned you. Many of my staunchest opponents, especially those of the Protestant Reformed Church variety, are busy labeling me as an "Amyraldian," a "neo-Amyraldian," and a "quasi-Amyraldian." One knuckle-dragging buffoon on the Internet even called me a "pseudo-Amyraldian." Not even God knows what that means! LOL Anyway, even Amyraut's own opponents in his day did not claim that he believed God EQUALLY desires the salvation of all men, elect and non-elect alike, with "equal ultimacy," etc. So, if I am an "Amyraldian," as is so frequently and falsely reported by some of White's self-described "minions," then White's claim would still not be sensible.

3) White has read [and blogged about] my conference chart that was distributed to over 800 people at the John 3:16 Conference, and then to many more over the Internet because of "live bloggers." This chart, which can be obtained here [click], very clearly distinguishes between the Arminian belief that God EQUALLY wills the salvation of everyone as over against moderate/classical and High Calvinism. The latter positions maintain that God wills the salvation of all men but especially the elect. We [me and my fellow Calvinists] have always been in full agreement with Zacharias Ursinus, who said that "God does indeed will that all should be saved, and that, both on account of the desire which he has for the salvation of all, and also because he invites all to seek salvation. “But the election hath obtained it, (this salvation) and the rest were blinded.” (Rom. 11:7.) Z. Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 21, Q 54, S 6, p., 292. Nota Bene: At every point, we're specifying God's "revealed will," so as to distinguish that from God's "decretal will" as Calvinistically understood. These careful qualifications are in every one of our discussions with other Calvinists.

4) Check my blog and the Calvin and Calvinism blog. Not only will you not find what White says, but you will find the greatest and most exhaustive sources on the will of God from a Calvinistic perspective in the blogosphere. Our sources are now encyclopedic, and they are still coming. I have hundreds of posts on the will of God alone, from the earliest Reformed theologians to the most recent. White is obviously attempting to discredit me with this slanderous accusation, and you're asking it as if there might be some element of truth to it, rather than saying, "That really isn't the case with you, Tony, is it?" I find White's accusation outrageous and ignorant, to say the least.

5) Lastly, recall again what I said above. Dr. Robert Gonzales, dean at Reformed Baptist Seminary, links to my blog in his post as a credible place to read about the will of God and the well-meant offer from a Calvinistic perspective, but White would have you think that I am virtually an Arminian on the subject. Not only does he say that I "do not allow" for careful Calvinistic distinctions, but that I "insist upon the same kind of error that the Arminians make." If that describes me, David, then Dr. Gonzales must seriously lack discernment for linking to such a theological buffoon as I am.

Think about it, David. This is a clear case of slander and a clear attempt to discredit me without any evidence on White's part, and in spite of overwhelming contrary evidence at that. That's all. If you believe what White is saying, then you would have to think I am "eloquently" ignorant, contrary to the obvious facts that you can see in the blogosphere, i.e. that I am quite fluent and knowledgeable in Calvinistic primary sources.

Grace to you,
Tony

[Tony]

Part 2

You said:

"You mentioned that in the radio debate he had with Michael Brown that White indicated that he believed that God wanted everyone to come to repentance. I assure you, this is nothing new. More than two years ago, I think in relation to something I read that you wrote (forgive me; I cannot remember exactly what is was; far too much time has passed), I addressed the issue with him. He readily affirmed that yes, he believed that God desired all men to be saved with regard to the fact that God commands faith and repentance indiscriminately."

Me now:
Here's the problem. You don't have any source for this. Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient here, since White is on record on his blog siding with Robert Reymond [and John Gill] as over against John Murray, etc. He is also clearly on record with his phone call with Jason, wherein he explicitly denied that God desires the salvation of all men. So, while you can "assure us" of what he believes out of your private conversations in a chat room, we need actual evidence and sources, especially since he has been publicly busy undermining every single scriptural basis that Calvinists have historically used to maintain God's universal saving will.

You said:

"He believed that such a statement wouldn't be enough for many of his critics, but did indeed affirm it, saying also, "That would be like saying that God wants all drunks to stop being drunks," which he of course also affirmed. Such is just the reality of God's moral will/will of command, which all Reformed will readily affirm."

Me now:
He has had every opportunity to clarify his beliefs, long before the John 3:16 Conference. If it is true that White believes that God desires compliance to his commandments, and thus it can be said that God desires for all men to repent, believe *and to be saved*, then that is very easy to affirm publicly. Tom Ascol had no problem at all answering the question when it was put to him by me. He simply said that God desires all men to be saved according to the revealed will, but has only purposed to save the elect according to the decretal will. That's standard Calvinism, but White has not said that anywhere publicly, even when given every opportunity. On the contrary, he has heaped scorn that position as incoherent. Listen to the phone call with Jason, again, if necessary. He and Rich even laugh at the idea at the end of the call.

You said:

"In fact, as I was writing this, I entered Dr. White's chat channel and addressed this with him again. While he did mention that He didn't believe that God would decree His eternal unhappiness with regard to a kind of saving desire for the non-elect (which I would also affirm), he did affirm everything that I've said in here."

Me now:

If you have White on record affirming that God desires the salvation of all men [including the reprobate that hear the gospel] according to the revealed will as orthodox Calvinists have historically maintained, then document it, or ask him to document it, which he could easily do. There's no need to go in with caricutures, as if anyone believes that God has decreed His own eternal unhappiness. This is the sort of caricuture that Dr. Robert Gonzales, dean at Reformed Baptist Seminary, is complaining about when he criticized White's post on "Of Squeamish Calvinists and Hyper-Arminians", etc. [click] Observe what Dr. Gonzales says about White in footnote #8:

"Most Calvinists who affirm the “free” and “well-meant” offer of the gospel do so because of their allegiance to Scripture and not from a cowardly desire to please men. For this reason, I was disappointed to read James White’s caricature of such Calvinists like myself (and those referenced above) in a post entitled “Of Squeamish Calvinists and Hyper-Arminians” (March 18, 2009); accessed May 30, 2009 at http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3197; Internet. Ironically, White is reacting to Calvinists who view his rejection of God’s well-meant offer of the gospel as “hyper-Calvinist,” which he views as a kind of ad hominen [sic] argument. But exchanging ad hominen [sic] for ad hominen [sic] is not normally Dr. White’s debate methodology."

***Notice that Gonzales links to my blog [i.e. Theological Meditations] and to my friend David Ponter's Calvin and Calvinism blog in the same footnote in order to point people to a sound, orthodox understanding of what past Calvinists have said about God's universal saving will. This will be important later on.***

There are several things to note in what Gonzales says above: 1) He knows that "most Calvinists" have affirmed the well-meant offer. 2) He says that White caricatures Calvinists [like himself] on the subject. 3) He infers that White rejects the well-meant offer of the gospel. 4) He says that White is committing ad hominems in response to what White considers to be ad hominems. The third point is the most crucial. Dr. Gonzales knows that rejecting God's universal saving desire and rejecting the well-meant offer are one and the same thing, since a well-meant offer necessarily presupposes a desire on the part of the offerer to give what is offered. Otherwise the offer is not sincere or well-meant. Consequently, he draws the necessary inference that White rejects the well-meant offer, and I would add: like Robert Reymond obviously does.

Nota Bene: If I am misunderstanding White's position, then so is Dr. Robert Gonzales. Will you or will you not pay attention to this very significant fact???

You said:

"So, while he does make a distinction between the kind of desire in God, He does affirm that as a result of the desire for men to be obedient to repent, there is the same kind of desire for the salvation of the non elect."

Me now:
Have him affirm that publicly [in writing], instead of quietly in his chat channel. In fact, he could easily come here on this blog or another blog and affirm the fact that God desires the salvation of all men, even of the non-elect, according to the revealed will. He has never done that in writing anywhere, but has in fact denied it in his phone call with Jason, in addition to constantly undermining its biblical basis. If he does believe what you're reporting, then is it something merely theoretical? What passages teach that God desires the salvation of all men, in his view? It can't be Ezekiel 18 or 33. He's undermined what Calvinists have said about those passages as a basis for God's universal saving will. It can't be 1 Tim. 2:4. He's undermined what Calvinists have said about that passage as a basis for God's universal saving will. It can't be 2 Pet. 3:9. He's undermined what Calvinists have said about that passage as a basis for God's universal saving will. It can't be Matt. 23:37. He's undermined what Calvinists have said about that passage as a basis for God's universal saving will. It can't be John 5:34 [which Sam Waldron grants]. Everywhere one turns biblically, White has undermined what Calvinists have said about any passage as a basis for God's universal saving will. That's a fact, and you don't seem alarmed by that in the least. I am.

To be continued...

[Tony]

Part 1

Hi David,
It's good to see you again as well, and thanks for the compliments. If you've been away from the blogosphere then there may be several significant exchanges that you have missed, thus limiting your perception of the facts.

You said:

"I've listened to many a Dividing Line from Dr. White in addition to reading nearly every blog article he's put out in the last year or so. I have heard him "scornfully deny" the idea that God cannot differentiate in His love, which would make God less able than people to do so. White has further argued against the idea that God is actively working to save even the non-elect, and that God's plans are getting frustrated by them."

Me now:
Given that you've been away "for far too long," perhaps you missed the Dividing Line broadcast where he explicitly and scornfully denied that there is any sense in which God desires the salvation of all men. He hasn't merely rejected Arminian notions of God's love and Arminian notions of God's will, but he has even denied the orthodox Calvinistic position as articulated by John Murray and others, preferring rather to side with John Gill and Robert Reymond. His phone call with Jason from the UK can be heard and read here:

http://theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/2008/04/james-whites-denial-of-gods-universal.html

It is essential that you listen to that phone call, as I will not cite the contents of it here.
You may also want to read my analysis of his exchange with Steve Gregg here, since he dodged the specific question put to him:

http://theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/2008/04/my-analysis-of-greggwhite-exchange-on.html

After White eventually discovered Robert Reymond's position as cited on my blog [click], he came out in agreement with Reymond, hoping he could shelter himself from the charge of hyperism and give his view credibility that way. White said on his own blog [click] that he was "thankful Phil can put up with my [White's] slightly "stiffer" form of Calvinism. I would be more on the Reymond side than the Murray side, for example, and I am for a pretty obvious reason, I hope."

Well, either one is or one is not on the side of Reymond, who clearly rejects John Murray's [and the early John Gerstner's] view of God desiring the salvation of all men. Saying one is "more on the Reymond side" is like one pregnant woman telling a non-pregnant woman that she is "more pregnant" than the other. There is obviously no middle ground. If one sides with Reymond, they are siding with his explicit rejection of the concept that God desires the salvation of any of the reprobate. Period.

One of White's avid listeners has understood White's position quite clearly when he wrote:

"The idea that God desires, wills the salvation of everyone makes God Schizophrenic, and I have said this many times. This is the reason Dr White responds as he does, about God having these unfulfilled desires and disappointments etc. Dr White is spot on, and just because Byrne and others wish to embrace irrationality, does not change the argument at all. Call it paradox if you wish and celebrate that kind of thinking, but I do not wish to go down that slippery slope, and for good reasons."

You're asking us, David, to trust your hearsay testimony about what White believes without giving any single source, but here is another quote from a guy who is at least listening to White as much as you are, yet his hearsay testimony differs significantly from yours. Since I am not inclined to rely on hearsay testimony alone in these matters, I want to see documentable sources. If White believes what you say he believes and is not ashamed to admit it, he can say so publicly, in writing, on a blog or elsewhere. Until then, I will rely on what he explicitly said to Jason by phone and his own claim that he sides with Reymond.

[David Hewitt]

Tony:
What kind of quotes are you talking about? If they are from other theologians, I'm not sure how that will further the conversation. If they are from Dr. White, perhaps an explanation can be obtained (read: if I don't know, I'll try to ask him and if he chooses to address it, I'll come back with an answer).

Peter:
My apologies for not addressing you in my previous comments. This is, as you have rightly noted, your house, and how rude for someone such as myself to waltz in without greeting you (at at the very least, could be taken that way).

So, in that spirit, hello sir. :)

david hewitt

[Tony]

Hi David H.,

Just to let you know, I have seen and read your post. I will try to respond asap, but I have to put together some links and source information for the response. Stay tuned :-)

[Jeremiah Davies]

Could I pose a question as to what points of 'Calvinism' you disagree with Peter?

JD

[Bob L. Ross]

To Jonathan from Bob Ross:

You need not expect a Ross-White debate. See this link:

http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2008/05/avoid-man-james-exhorts.html

I have had several public debates, primarily with the "Campbellites" (Church of Christ) on issues between Baptists and the Church of Christ on which I have been challenged to debate. (i)I have NEVER engaged in a debate in which I was the "challenger" or "instigator," as I do not seek debates. You can get videos of other debates by contacting my good friend, Larry Wessels, at this email:
lawessels@sbcglobal.net

Larry Wessels has charge of all of my debate videos. He has many other videos in which I participated on both Google video and Yahoo video. Enter "Larry Wessels" in the search box for references to these videos.

[peter]

Eric,

I appreciate your attempt to engage in a positive manner. Thank you. I do fail to see precisely how bossmanham's small contribution--specifically his note about google--can be interpreted as a 'hateful way.' For me, while his words may constitute unnecessary information, surely only open bleeding sores could interpret such as 'hateful' information or brought up in a 'hateful' way.

Now, as for your question about the 'Reformed' being hated so much, you write:

"why you and others seem to have such a vial offense to reformed teaching. After all, We reformed folks are in the Body of Christ, it’s not as if we are a wolf in sheep’s clothing looking to devour the flock."

First, most of us hold no "vial offense to reformed teaching" overall. While some fundamental ideas of 'reformed' perhaps reach the offensive (e.g. reprobation)--at least to me, I have never suggested all 'reformed' ideas are offensive.

Interestingly, if you read Mr. Ross and/or got to know him, you'd be surprised how 'reformed' (better word is Calvinistic) he is. The same goes for Tony Byrne who commented above. He wears the "Calvinist" brand gladly. Of course, both men are 'marked' by Founders. Why? Well, they happen not to be the right kind of Calvinist.

Again, this rigid, non-negotiable Calvinism spurns those who proudly wear their theological brand. Apparently, it's a 'copycat' label, however. Sorta like 'copycat' colognes one will find which are supposed to "smell like" the original designer scent but are surely not the original scent.

Second, my site has, for four years, attempted to be an internet voice for non-Calvinists in the SBC. As I've often noted, in 2006, Baptist blogging was dominated by rigid, aggressive Calvinists. Hardly any voice--at least in the well known blogging community--attempted to offer a non-Calvinist perspective. Hence, this site represents, in some small way, that voice.

Third, since 1982, Founders Ministries has envisioned a reformation within the SBC--a church by church reformation--brought about by promoting the 5 points of Calvinism (DoG) which is the 'lost gospel' they have for years lamented as absent in the SBC. Untold churches--good churches--in Georgia alone have been pillaged by their 'quiet' reformation.

In that light, Eric, to suggest, as do you, that it is somehow the non-Calvinist who is bent on ridding the Body of Christ of 'heresy' is completely topsy turvey. Non-Calvinists neither started this feud nor do they want this feud--at least in my case.

However, as long as Founders continues to envision a Southern Baptist Convention as 'recovering the lost gospel'--code for recovering the five points of Calvinism as the official doctrinal position--there will be no peace. At least a few of us are unwilling walk away and allow rigid, aggressive 5 point Calvinism to swallow up the SBC.

I hope this assists in understanding why some of us will not--indeed cannot--remain silent.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Dan]

Q: 'Isn't "Reformed" Baptist Just a Modern Rendition of "Primitive" Baptist?'

A: No. Show me one Reformed person in the SBC who teaches that we should not do evangelism and missions.

[David Hewitt]

Eric:
The spirit of your comments is appreciated, at least by me, and I suspect by most here too (at least I hope so). I have made comments to the effect of what you have said here in my most recent blog article (which I think can be reached by clicking the link associated with my name in this comment).

Tony:
It is good to see you again, my brother. For far too long I have been out of the blogosphere, mostly due to my wasting of time in unproductive things. I thank God that He has delivered me from them. Though I do not always agree with you, Tony, your posts and comments have always had an eloquence about them that many things said in the internet seem to lack.

Alas, I must say, the reason for my comment is that I do not agree with your assessment of something you said. I shall quote it here:

Tony said:
"The fundamental point is the free and well-meant offer of the gospel. White has scornfully denied the very basis for a well-meant offer, namely that God desires the salvation of all men, including the non-elect, in the revealed will. Recently, in White's exchange with Mike Brown, he said that God desires all men to repent, which is some degree of progress for White. But, as John Frame has said, "If God desires people to repent of sin, then certainly he desires them to be saved, for salvation is the fruit of such repentance." White has yet to see that necessary connection. "

I've listened to many a Dividing Line from Dr. White in addition to reading nearly every blog article he's put out in the last year or so. I have heard him "scornfully deny" the idea that God cannot differentiate in His love, which would make God less able than people to do so. White has further argued against the idea that God is actively working to save even the non-elect, and that God's plans are getting frustrated by them.

You mentioned that in the radio debate he had with Michael Brown that White indicated that he believed that God wanted everyone to come to repentance. I assure you, this is nothing new. More than two years ago, I think in relation to something I read that you wrote (forgive me; I cannot remember exactly what is was; far too much time has passed), I addressed the issue with him. He readily affirmed that yes, he believed that God desired all men to be saved with regard to the fact that God commands faith and repentance indiscriminately. He believed that such a statement wouldn't be enough for many of his critics, but did indeed affirm it, saying also, "That would be like saying that God wants all drunks to stop being drunks," which he of course also affirmed. Such is just the reality of God's moral will/will of command, which all Reformed will readily affirm.

In fact, as I was writing this, I entered Dr. White's chat channel and addressed this with him again. While he did mention that He didn't believe that God would decree His eternal unhappiness with regard to a kind of saving desire for the non-elect (which I would also affirm), he did affirm everything that I've said in here. So, while he does make a distinction between the kind of desire in God, He does affirm that as a result of the desire for men to be obedient to repent, there is the same kind of desire for the salvation of the non elect.

His concern though in your (and others) bringing this up is this:

James White said,
"Tony will not allow such distinctions. He and his folks insist upon the same kind of error that the Arminians make: equal ultimacy. That is, they insist that God's desire for the salvation of those He does not choose to save must be of the same kind as His desire for the salvation for His elect."

Is this the case with you sir? White certainly thinks so.

In Christ,
David B. Hewitt

[eric opsahl]

Bossmanham,
Regarding your latest post. With respect, I’d ask you why you seem to hate White so much. Please don’t get defensive with my question (I know the question could tend to back you against the wall). The reason I’m responding and reading this post is my interest in understanding why you and others seem to have such a vial offense to reformed teaching. After all, We reformed folks are in the Body of Christ, it’s not as if we are a wolf in sheep’s clothing looking to devour the flock. Or would you say that I’m a heretic for being Reformed? Why bring up the fact (seemingly in a hateful way) that some friends of White are interested in what’s said on blogs? When the Caner/White debate was going on, I goggled the net to find out what was being said. I can understand why some of Mr. Lumpkin’s friends would be interested in knowing what’s being said about him on the Net. Perhaps I’m missing the point you were trying to make.
Eric

and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds,

with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing forbearance to one another in love,

[bossmanham]

Peter,

I was informed by a White-ite (as I am now going to call them) that there are several of them who "have google alerts set for certain tagwords" to monitor the talk about Mr. White on the internet, just so you know. I'm sure you already figured that, but it amused me a little.

Anyway, I enjoy your blog and thanks for your comment on my blog.

[Jonathan Dupree]

With the name of God, Peace be unto you.

Something I find amazing and sad at the same time is someone like Bob Ross whom writes a post with 5 very excellent points and no one wishes to interact with them. No one from the White camp atleast.

This is a blog post, and Peter is the moderator. He allows us to interact with one another. Peter's task when making a blog post is to get feed back, respond appropriately, and to allow the bloggers to interact with each other in the comments section. Of course until he ends comments, or intervenes where necessary.

So the people who assail Peter and ask what do you mean he (James White) is a hyper calvinist? These people should take a good look at that man called Bob Ross who is over there standing on a mountain waving his hand saying, "Me, me me" waiting for someone to interact with his comments.

I also find it very inconsistent for a person to call themselves reformed and to follow Calvin in everything oh "except paedobaptism". I wonder on what consistent basis does someone accept some of his doctrine and reject others? Because the Holy Spirit guides into 'all truth'. What would Calvin think about the salvation of a person who denied that?

I think these issues are serious, and I think it would be healthy for a Ross White debate to take place. I think it would be healthy for the SBC for it to happen. I think it would help to keep people grounded.

I am wondering if Peter is willing to put a petition for a Ross White debate on his blog some time in the future.

[Darby Livingston]

Tony,

Thanks for the in depth explanation. All clear now.

Peter,

If Tony's analysis is the same as yours, I understand your point.