« New Contextualized Missional Method: Holy Ghost Hokie Pokie by Peter Lumpkins | Main | James White, Southern Baptists, and the Fine Art of Rabble-rousing by Peter Lumpkins »

Apr 07, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451a37369e20133ec8695f5970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference James White on Dr. Jerry Vines by Peter Lumpkins:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

volfan007

Unbelievable. This is the kind of extreme, strange views and beliefs that caused me to start blogging years ago.

David

TurretinFan

James White isn't a hyper-Calvinist and James White didn't say that God's love is a dangerous subject upon which to preach. He said that it was dangerous for him (Dr. White) to make the distinctions that must be made with respect to the subject of God's love, because (as he begins to say where you cut him off) Reformed believers get accused of all sorts of things on this topic by folks who are burdened by emotionalism and human tradition. You've actually unwittingly helped to demonstrate the very danger of which he was speaking.

peter

TF,

I am not going to rehash the same arguments to you and your buds about White's hyper-Calvinism. You've logged it enough here and elsewhere for us to know your disagreement. Enough said.

Now I'll allow others to judge whether or not I put words in White's mouth.

With that, I am...
Peter

cyndi grace

Peter, thank you for this. (You might recognize my last name from another blogger of the past.) It is this extremism which we must be very careful of. I find it interesting that after the John had his revelation vision, the thing he knew he had to preach to the church in Ephesus was love! It is an emotion but one that is within each of us. To ignore this is to deny who we are as humans.

Curt Treece

You in fact DID put words in his mouth. Here they are:

"preaching on 'The Love of God' is...a dangerous subject to preach". Now, he did not actually say that, did he? And it is clear that he did not even mean that.

Here is what White actually said without your mischaracterization:

"...I would like to take issue with and hopefully expand upon some of the key issues that separate reformed believers and their understanding of the love of God and the presentation that Dr. Vines made.

This is a dangerous subject to address, only in the sense that there is a tremendous amount of emotion involved, and, if we say it properly, a lot of tradition involved with traditional understandings of the love of God. Very frequently reformed believers are accused of being unloving and unkind and in some way denying the true love of God."


He's not talking about the love of God being dangerous to preach. He's not even talking about preaching. Listen to what the man said. The subject is him pointing out "some of the key issues that separate reformed believers and their understanding of the love of God" and contrasting those views with what Dr. Vines said. The "danger" he is referring to is the danger in addressing the differences, not a danger in preaching the love of God.

-Curt

Tim Rogers

Brother Peter,

The most common response you will get with this video will be that Dr.[sic] James White was not saying what you have accused him of saying. He certainly seems clear that he believes it is dangerous to preach on the Love of God because of the emotionalism and traditionalism tied to loving God.

Whether he meant it was dangerous for him to address the subject in disagreement with Dr. Vines or Dr. Vines was entering a dangerous area in preaching on the love of God is not relevant. He clearly states he is entering an area of disagreement with Dr. Vines concerning God's love and thus Dr. Vines' subject matter makes all of this dangerous because of emotionalism or traditionalism.

Blessings,
Tim

Steven Speagle

I don't want to put words in Dr. White's mouth, but God's love can be difficult topic to speak about with non-Christians. As Dr. Don Carson has put it, God's love is the only thing that non-Christians know of God; and that does not typically come from a biblical understanding.

For instance, God's love does not overwhelm his holiness. God's love for all people does not go so far as to ignore their sin. Furthermore, the bible often speaks of God's love in much the same ways that we do. Sometimes Jesus speaks of God's love as conditioned on our obedience (John 15:10). This is not saying a works-righteousness, but merely speaking as we do; as conditioned in some respects upon proper behavior.

Thus, when evangelizing the lost, we do have to be careful to state the nature of God's love. We cannot say to someone who is lost in their sin, that God loves them and then go on our way. To do so may lead them to believe that they are fine as they are and have God's approval. We have to be careful to explain that God does love sinners, but that his ultimate expression of love was the forgivness that can only come through faith in Christ.

Just the musings of a poor layman.

Steven

TurretinFan

Mr. Lumpkins:

No need to rehash any arguments. Could you provide a link to where you actually made an argument to establish the idea that my friend, Dr. White, is a hyper-Calvinist?

-TurretinFan

Milihamah

I think you mislead a lot of people as to what Hyper Calvinist means for your overriding goal to "stick" something to Dr.White. I would suggest that if you want to present something as a serious argument let it stand on its own without your imprecise labels that give away from the start your deep prejudices.

Shannon Primeaux

As Curt Treece so correctly pointed out, Bro. White did not say that it was dangerous to preach about the love of God (despite your need to put those words on the screen). He was referring to the subject of addressing the differences between Reformed & non-Reformed believers about this topic. He in fact said: "This is a dangerous subject to address" not "this is a dangerous subject to preach."

theultrarev

HA! Hysterical. Good post Peter.

Jacob

"the most basic, fundamental attribute of our Lord—His love"
Isn't God's most basic and fundamental attribute His holiness? After all, the angels in Isaiah 6 don't cry, "Loving, loving, loving" but "Holy, Holy, Holy."
It is a modern misconception of God that His fundamental attribute is love. God is love, but He is more importantly Holy.

peter

Oh my. How wonderfully entertaining! While one makes the profound distinction between "addressing" and "preaching" another questions whether God is fundamentally loving. Sweet....

As for links to White's Hyper-Calvinism, I gave those two weeks or so ago, TF. Last word on that.

With that, I am...
Peter

TurretinFan

I didn't really think a link would be forthcoming. We both know why. Why don't you come out and admit it?

peter

Matt

I don't give a Georgia squat what James White writes or says about me. But do NOT log on here again with words about Dr. Malcolm Yarnell, or links to pieces White does slamming Yarnell who has nothing whatsoever to do with this post.

Thanks.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

TF,

One thing is for sure. You don't run things here. Go back to your blog where you can run things. Write all you wish about what you wish.

Now for the last time, nothing else about the links you can't locate. Tain't my problem...

With that, I am...
Peter

SpurgeonFan

I sure wish you would a least become more educated about Calvinism. I am so tired of people spouting off other peoples misconceptions. Can you tell me what church was in power before John Hus? You need to read some history and more than likely even some Calvin.
What do you know about the Council of Dort (like it occurred after Calvin's death)? I'm saying this in as nice a way as I can. I won't argue with you about Calvinism at all. Just please, please read for yourself.

Brad

The OBVIOUS meaning about what is 'dangerous' in addressing this topic is so clear in the broader context of the 20 minute video White provides that to assert what Mr. Lumpkins has said of White is so ludicrous that it can only be meant to appeal to the most loyal of anti-Calvinist followers who refuse to look into the issues for themselves. The Irony here is that in this misguided video posted by Mr.Lumpkins he has unwittingly demonstrated the REAL meaning White had in mind when referring to what is 'dangerous' about addressing this topic.

Milihamah

Mr.Lumpkins,

I am sure that you know very well that Mr.White was speaking about himself when he said: "it is a dangerous subject to address" @ 1:05 Mr.White refers this to himself @ 1:23 and continues to explain that to 1:32.

Your edited version of Mr.White's video starts to fade out the audio at exactly 1:23 when he starts referring previous statement to Reformed Believers (and through that to himself)and is cut short at 1:25.
I find this highly manipulative and very crude even if it suppose to be Machiavellian. Sir, you have some serious soul searching to do before the Lord...

TurretinFan

Mr. Lumpkins,

Maybe you misunderstood me. My point is simply that while you've repeatedly, falsely accused my friend Dr. White of being a hyper-calvinist, you've never presented an actual argument in support of that accusation.

Of course, I leave open the possibility that you have somewhere done so, and I'm just unaware of it.

All your posts on Dr. White can be found here:

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/james-white/

But none of them include any actual arguments in support of the label.

- TurretinFan

Shannon Primeaux

Peter, I mention the distinction between "address" and "preach" because in the context of Bro. White's argument ... they are referring to two different things. Why do you ignore context? That isn't right. Perhaps you need to re-watch the entire video.

Let's get real here.

Barry D. Bishop

Steven said:
"God's love does not overwhelm his holiness"

But isn't the opposite the point of Jn 3:16? If "God's love does not overwhelm his holiness" then Jesus would have never come. God could have been holy for all eternity and not sent a redeemer to us sinners. All mankind would have been rightly damned.

His holiness is not done away with by Jn 3:16 because v. 36 says, "the wrath of God remains on him," who does not obey [and believe] Jesus.

Les Puryear

Brother Peter,

You sure know how to get a discussion started. :)

Les

Eduardo

If anyone wants to know just what Dr. White realy said you can read this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N09kv--Oxr0

Let the truth be seen and heard!

RazorsKiss

Nice edit job on that video. Reminds me of CNN's religion reporting.

The Seeking Disciple

Wow Peter, if people treat you this bad as believers, how do they treat unbelievers? Oh yes, they kill them (see Michael Servetus).

peter

All,

White, of course, wasted no time in denying he said any such thing as I said he said--i.e., I'm lying about it.

Yet he seems to misquote himself.

He wrote on his present blog of this post:

"What I said was that discussing the love of God is a dangerous topic for me to address due to the traditions people have about the subject."

Well, my dear Mr. White, that may have been what you intended to mean but that is not what you actually said.

Here are the words White said:

"I would like to take issue with and hopefully expand upon some of the key issues that separate reformed believers and their understanding of the love of God and the presentation that Dr. Vines made. This is a dangerous subject to address, only in the sense that there is a tremendous amount of emotion involved, and, if we say it properly, a lot of tradition involved with traditional understandings of the love of God. Very frequently reformed believers are accused of being unloving and unkind and in some way denying the true love of God..."

Now, I concede my words were not precisely his words. Granted. What I said White said was only what I thought (and still do) to fairly approximate his meaning.

On the other hand, what White said he said was not what he said either! In fact, what he said his words were, was not precisely his words but only what he thought to fairly approximate his meaning.

Again, I'd be delighted to concede to White what he said he intended to mean, even if it was not what he actually said. On the other hand. White has already pronounced me a liar even though I but recorded what I still believe to fairly approximate his words.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

All,

Some have implied since there is no link to the original video, I therefore must be attempting to keep the public from viewing it. That would be a negative. All one has to do is type "Jerry Vines" in youtube and the video will be in the first harvest. Please.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

Eduardo

I substituted a link for the one you gave. James White sends me plenty of traffic. But I have no interest in sending him any ;^)

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

Shannon,

I am trying to be real, I assure. Would I take pleasure in posting something for which I know I will be dubbed a liar? White's already done that, as well as baited me in an email so he can what, post it on the internet? This is the kind of sub-Christian loony tunes one has to endure to even mention J. White in a post. White's even blasting Malcolm Yarnell, for crying out loud.

Note my comment above to White's claim. It may be helpful.

Thanks.

With that, I am...
Peter

volfan007

The way White's buddies swarm a blog that mentions White is enough to make me sit back and say...Whoa, Nellie. Something's wrong with this picture. But then, the way they come in attacking takes it all to a whole nother realm.

Spurgeonfan, maybe you dont know Peter's past. He used to be a five point Calvinist. I'd dare say that he's probably read more reformed books and such than you ever thought of. Wow.

David

TurretinFan

"Would I take pleasure in posting something for which I know I will be dubbed a liar?"

So are you a sadist or just clueless?

-TurretinFan

Milhamah

"White has already pronounced me a liar even though I but recorded what I still believe to fairly approximate his words."

Mr.Lumpkins,

Could you be honest and accurate please? You have not recorded anything. You only edited previously recorded video... That is a major difference.

This editing was not fair by any stretch of the word or imagination as you started audio fade out were the important context was given only to cut the video 2 seconds later as I explained here before. What you have fade out and cut short was the context that explains that Mr.White's remark was addressed to Reformed Believers i.e. himself.

That is a crude manipulation. Not even deserving to be described as smart or Machiavellian as you probably imagined it to be but only as raw and mechanical.

Tsquared

"you, sir are a liar!"

Robert

I think what saddens me the most is the venom in the way brothers are talking to one another. Peter, whatever venom you perceive coming from Dr. White does not call upon you to be hateful and spiteful back. People on this site saying "HA!" and being humorous about such an important topic. Are any of you claiming that Dr. White is not a believer? If he is a believer, you should not talk to him in such unChristlike ways. If he is not then you should correct him gently hoping he will come to repentance.

I, personally, am tired of the viciousness of the way we attack brothers in Christ. I did not find Dr. White's post calling anyone a liar. But he did claim he was misrepresented and I believe that even though you disagreement with him on the issue of the love of God may be valid, you did misrepresent his argument. If you could not understand it, as you now say, then you should have written him to clarify or left it alone. This is truly sad.

David B. Hewitt

Mr. Lumpkins, or better said, Dr. Lumpkins, I must say... I still fail to understand your motivation for your comments against Dr. White, as do I fail to understand why you continue to use the term "hyper-Calvinist" to describe him, as you did in this post:

"Reformed apologist and hyper-Calvinist James White critiqued Dr. Vines’ sermon on God’s inexhaustible love."

Are you defining the term in ways other than its historical meaning? The only way I can conceive of your comment being accurate in any way is that you are somehow using a different definition, one that is (whether intentionally or not) misleading to many who would read it. The term "hyper-Calvinist" is a pejorative of course, and rightly so.

sdg,
dbh

peter

David,

With all due respect, you know darn good and well precisely why I use the term "hyper-Calvinist" since you carried on an extended exchange with Tony Byrne on this site, not to mention the lengthy exchanges I've had concerning David Allen's essay. If you cannot or will not agree with the term "hyper-Calvinist", I give you my utmost permission to disagree. But to play the fiddle called "I just don't understand" is plainly absurd.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

Robert,

You write, "I did not find Dr. White's post calling anyone a liar."

So, my Robert, what does the following assertion mean to you?

"Now, notice how Mr. Lumpkins, without editing the audio, has lied about what I said."

Write James White? And have my email plastered on the internet? Nope...

Milhamah,

You assert: "You have not recorded anything. You only edited previously recorded video... That is a major difference."

I think you need to re-read what I meant when I used "recorded."

With that, I am...
Peter

Chris Roberts

Ahh but Peter, if you are wrong then either you do not understand something or you are blindly ignoring the truth.

As far as the video you've posted goes, I'm amazed anyone could watch it and reach your conclusion. There is either a significant misunderstanding taking place on your end, or some very deliberate blindness. Wondering which it is.

Jeff Krause

So then Dr. Peter, please explain to all of us what a hyper-calvinist is next to say, a simple calvinist. That would clear the air a great deal.

Tim Rogers

Brother Peter,

What is truly amazing is the way Dr. Caner and Dr. Yarnell have been castigated by Dr.[sic]White.

Blessings,
Tim

David B. Hewitt

Dr. Lumpkins, hello again sir. You said:

"With all due respect, you know darn good and well precisely why I use the term "hyper-Calvinist" since you carried on an extended exchange with Tony Byrne on this site, not to mention the lengthy exchanges I've had concerning David Allen's essay. If you cannot or will not agree with the term "hyper-Calvinist", I give you my utmost permission to disagree. But to play the fiddle called "I just don't understand" is plainly absurd."

I of course do not agree with the term or your using it; I appreciate the permission to do so. ;)

At the same time, please forgive my ignorance, but I was serious in what I said. I truly do not understand your continued use of the term. There are two reasons for this:

First, I believe (yes, I really believe), given White's videos, and now the latest debate (the second audio I mean) he had with Dr. Brown, that White has made it very clear that God desires the salvation of all men in His revealed will. Since that was part and parcel of Tony's objection -- that he didn't think Dr. White affirmed this -- I figured the matter was settled.

Second, though I saw at one point you said you distinguished between "hyper-calvinists" and "Hyper-Calvinists" I didn't see where you made the distinction in definition. I haven't spent a lot of time looking around your site, so even if you put the definitions of this distinction out in the open, I missed it. Would you be willing to provide a link to it in this thread? I would greatly appreciate it.

Many thanks for your time.

sdg,
dbh

peter

Chris,

I did not say I was wrong. I only said it's entirely possible I incorrectly interpreted White's intended meaning.My concession states: "Frankly, it's possible I misunderstood what he intended to mean in his wording." Do you think I should have stated it impossible for me to incorrectly interpret White's video?

Of course, in White's moral world, it's impossible to be mistaken; rather one is an intentional liar, which, of course, is what I am accused by Sir White.

Jeff,

Please read the thread before you comment again.
Thanks.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

David,

The distinction I made between 'Hyper-Calvinism' (capital H) and 'hyper-Calvinism' (small h) has but little to do with anything I've posted here. White's position is summed up well by Tony Byrne. Even more, David Allen's essay in Whosoever Will nails the coffin shut, it seems to me, for legitimately assuming White's theological hyperism. You can start there. Hence, you need no links.

All,

So sorry to shut the thread down for the evening. I am unwilling to leave the thread unattended. If you have further questions, check back tomorrow, perhaps evening. I'll put it back on line as soon as I can. I have special reasons for doing so, I assure.

With that, I am...
Peter

David B. Hewitt

Dr. Lumpkins:

Many thanks again for the reply. However, I am afraid it isn't helping me a whole lot -- so you are saying that the distinction you made has nothing (or almost nothing) to do with your comments? Very well, then I am left even more confused, partly due to the fact that you mentioned Tony Byrne again, especially when I thought his complaint had been answered....

Also, I do not have the book you mentioned; from what I have heard, it is hard to get at the moment, and is on back order, so I couldn't get it if I wanted to.

How would you recommend I get access to the information you mentioned? I am still hopeful for a link of some kind of course. :)

sdg,
dbh

peter

David,

Thanks. First, if you are confused, David, it is self-induced confusion for I wrote nothing here which should require any explanation on the "H" vs. "h" which you brought up, not I.

Second, "answered" according to whom?

Third, I suggest you trek over to google books and pull up the volume which has some hefty quotations, some of which are directly related to my assertions concerning Allen's research. My point, obviously enough, is, I am not arbitrarily tagging someone (i.e. JW) as holding to theological hyper-Calvinism. Instead there are sober reasons based on scholarly research which suggests White falls into that category.

Now, if that is not sufficient, I'm afraid you must remain in your thirsty situation--at least for now...

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

Jason D.

you can listen to his preaching and hear that he does in fact talk about the love of God, I've even heard it in his Sunday school messages, debates, and on his radio show.

How can one say they are accurately representing White when you can clearly see in the video clip that what is written that James White says is different than what he actually says.

Heath Lloyd

Peter:

Do you ever get tired of always typing

"with that, I am . . . Peter"?

David B. Hewitt

Dr. Lumpkins,

With regard to the main issue that (I thought) had been addressed, here is my reason. Tony said this:

"The reason why James White is being labeled a "hyper-Calvinist" is because he denies that God desires the salvation of all men in the revealed will, which is the same as denying the well-meant offer of the gospel"

Given the information that White has mentioned since, that particular charge by Tony has been answered. This is why I thought the matter closed.

You said:
"Thanks. First, if you are confused, David, it is self-induced confusion for I wrote nothing here which should require any explanation on the "H" vs. "h" which you brought up, not I."

The reason I mentioned it had nothing to do with this particular post, but rather with some comments you made in a previous post, or at least that I thought you had made in a previous post. I went back searching through the comment threads of the posts you had made recently that I have participated in, and didn't find the distinction I thought I had seen. For that, I apologize and stand corrected. At the same time, it makes the fact that you still consider Dr. White to be a hyper-calvinist even more alarming, imho.

Oh well.

Thank you again sir for your time.

sdg,
dbh

D.J. Williams

Peter,

I've been reading your blog since our alcohol discussion several weeks ago. Though I don't agree with you much of the time, I've enjoyed the discussion and reading outside of my normal theological camp. However, in this instance, I believe you've overstepped the line by blatantly misrepresenting White. These actions call to mind the warnings about a divisive man in Titus. By misrepresenting White's clear meaning (reducing a 20 minute discussion to a 90 second soundbite), you're doing nothing but riling up unneccesary division against him. Please look very carefully at yourself in this matter.

Darby Livingston

Terretin Fan,

While I unashamedly hold to the doctrines of grace and disagree with Peter on most of his points concerning James White, Peter has given his reasons for calling White hyper-Calvinist. One might not agree with Peter's conclusion, but he did give his reasons. They may not be in the original posts, but he responded directly to me in the comment stream of one of the posts as to his reasoning. I just wanted to clear that up because, though I disagree with Peter concerning the doctrines of grace, I don't think he's trying to be deceitful.

Robert

Peter,

You are correct in pointing that out. I apologize for having clearly missed that assertion. But my problem remains with how people are speaking to and about one another. First, you seem to answer my reply rather sarcastically and don't address the heart of what I was writing about, namely how we talk to and about one another as Christians. Even in your reply to me it comes across as sarcastic "So, my Robert..." Perhaps I am misreading that, but I think that is one of the problems with emails and posts because we cannot hear the heart or tone of the person.

Second, if you say you don't want your email plastered on the internet. But you don't seem to be a person who cares about your comments and thoughts being "out there." You have all your thoughts plastered on the internet anyway. And James White's potential response does not negate you from your biblical responsibility in how you handle a brother. Unless, you don't consider him to be a brother or are merely treating him as a false teacher. Are you declaring him to be a heretical false teacher? If not, then why do you not first address these things privately?

Robert

Ron Phillips, Sr.

Peter,

The longer video gives me the same impression that you got: White believes that the love of God is a dangerous subject to address (and he proceeds to explain why it is a dangerous subject). That may not be what he intended to say and thus you are quite correct to give him the benefit of the doubt as to what he intended. However, his calling you a liar is inappropriate and wrong since he said what he said.

Regarding White being a hyper-Calvinist. As you noted, some of White's followers in this post's comments participated in the discussion in another post here with Tony Byrne. You have clearly cited source material to back up the hyper-Calvinist label. Darby Livingston in a few posts above this one acknowledges your reasons, even though he does not concur.

For those unaware, you have made legitimate use of scholarly sources to advance the assessment that White is a hyper-Calvinist. It is these sources who have reasoned, based upon sound theological research, that one would conclude that White is indeed a hyper-Calvinist.

The problem is not with you stating White is a hyper-Calvinist. This is a attempt to divert discussion from the issue by engaging in Ad hominem attacks on you. Rather than employing this cheap debate tactic, I would suggest that they need to address the theological and scholarly research that has implicated him as such.

Blessings,

Ron P.

Tony Byrne

David Hewitt,

You never dealt with my questions earlier on Peter's blog. You claim to understand White's position on God's revealed will, but you have never told us 1) what it means to agree with Robert Reymond and John Gill as White does [as over against John Murray on the free offer] and yet also to affirm that God desires the salvation of all men. Moreover, 2) what does it mean for White to supposedly affirm that God desires the salvation of all men and yet to explain away every single text that Calvinists themselves use to affirm it? 3) What does it mean to believe that God desires the salvation of any of the non-elect and yet not offer any text in support of that notion?

As I said to you before, White's supposed affirmation of God's universal saving will is about as coherent as a Trent-affirming Roman Catholic claiming to believe that salvation is by grace alone. Actually, it is less coherent. Why? At least the Roman Catholics attempt to supply their critics with biblical passages for their claim to believe in Sola Gratia. White has yet to give any biblical support for what you claim he believes on the will of God. Despite these facts, you're quite content with White incoherently saying the words "God desires the salvation of all men" without any necessary scriptural support whatsoever, yet you would never give that same leniency to a Roman Catholic. Are we to believe that you are actually an objective/impartial investigator in this matter?

The latest hacking by White on a biblical text occured in his recent debate with Mike Brown. Mike Brown asked:

"So when he [Jesus] says "I say these things to you that you may be saved" in the 5th chapter [John 5:34], does he mean that or not?"

James White responded (See minute 29:48-30:04):

"He means that to those that the Spirit is going to draw to Him. Preaching is always used as the means by which the elect people are brought in to relationship with Jesus Christ."
In complete contrast, look at what Samuel Waldron [a Reformed Baptist] says about John 5:34 in his exposition on the free offer and the 1689 LBC:
"The pronoun 'you' clarifies those who are the objects of Jesus' saving intention. This pronoun in this context plainly refers to the 'Jews' (cf. John 5:18-19, 33 with 1:19-24). Throughout this Gospel this designation refers to the Jewish leaders (5:10, 15, 16, 18, 33; 1:19-24; 9:22). The character of these 'Jews' is abundantly clear. They were those who, though blessed with great light (5:35), had ultimately rejected that light (5:38-47). These men were no ordinary sinners, but murderers who would bring about Jesus' death (5:16, 18; 18:12, 14, 31, 36, 38; 19:7, 12, 38; 20:19). The destiny of many of them, at least, was to die under the wrath of God (John 8:21, 24; Matt. 12:24, 31; 24:15-28; Luke 21:20-24; 1 Thess. 2:14-16)." Samuel E. Waldron, Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (Evangelical Press, 1989), 121-122.

White has argued against *every* single biblical passage that orthodox Calvinists have used to substantiate God’s universal saving will, even Ezek. 18:31-32, 33:11 and Matt. 23:37. His dismissal of John 5:34 is just the latest. Why are you, David Hewitt, not showing even the slightest sign of being disturbed by any of this at all?

As for "Turretinfan," he doesn't even grant that John Gill, Herman Hoeksema and Gordon Clark are hyper-Calvinists on the free offer. Gill explicitly denies free offers and that God desires the eternal salvation of all men; Hoeksema rejects God's universal love, common grace and well-meant offers [or God's desire for the eternal salvation of all men]; and Clark is Hoeksemian on the will of God and therefore rejects well-meant offers as well. Mr. Hewitt seems to disagree with Turretinfan, such that he grants the a denial of God's universal saving will or the well-meant offer constitutes a form of hyper-Calvinism. Am I correct David? Do you differ with T-fan's assessment of what constitutes hyperism?

Tony Byrne

Here's another point, David Hewitt. 4) What does it mean to affirm the free offer of the gospel and yet not believe that God is actively seeking the salvation of all men? If God is in fact giving free and well-meant offers to all men when they hear the gospel call, then that is an active principle in the revealed will, yet you reported that White denies that active principle in God in the case of the non-elect. That also is incoherent, it seems to me. Please explain, since you are apparently knowledgeable of what White believes in this area. If you are not knowledgeable of what he believes on this, then stop defending him as if you do and go ask him. I am not allowed to ask him, as White apparently thinks I am unable to see outside of my "Amyraldian strictures," saying:

Tony, I have no interest in theological dialogue with you. You've proven yourself incapable of "hearing" anything outside your Amyraldian strictures. It doesn't matter what I say, you have it all figured out.

Apparently I am worse than Dave Hunt, Ergun Caner, JW's, Mormons, Roman Catholics and even the Muslims since White carries on extensive interaction with them but doesn't want to interact with me theologically. White doesn't think these aforementioned groups and people can see outside of their theological strictures, and yet he goes on for years interacting with them, so I can only conclude that I am worse in my blindness and stubbornness. So maybe you, Mr. Hewitt, can go ask White these questions for me if you don't yet know the answers?

TurretinFan

Tony:

You have not, in my opinion, accurately represented my position in your comments above. Possibly you've attempted to extract my position from various comments I've made in scattered areas over the years.

I've discussed what definitionally constitutes hyper-Calvinism on my blog here: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2009/09/defining-hyper-calvinism.html

I encourage you to read that before you again try to represent my views to others.

- TurretinFan

Tony Byrne

Proposition: Turretinfan does not believe that John Gill, Herman Hoeksema and Gordon Clark qualify as hyper-Calvinists.

Is that proposition true or false? I have said it is true.

Katherine

What strikes me about this entire debate, is the attack-dog method we find ourselves engaged in. Peter... When you take 20 minutes of a video that explains, in great detail what White meant, and then even attempt to "approximate his words" by a 92 second video to show him a liar... well, that's really pathetic. Why do this? How has God been glorified in this exchange? How are we glorifying God by demonizing John Piper (other Calvinists) over an invitation to speak at his conference? How are we glorifying God by embellishing our resume (Caner) to sell books or seek to be more than we actually are. There is much going on here not just among people who are not Calvinsit, but by those who are.

We are bought at a huge price by our loving Redeemer, yet we can't seem to be honest with ourselves and... we don't seem to care about how our Redeemer views our motivations when we do this. We are going to completely obscure the Gospel message by this constant assault on each other. Do we not have enough to worry about with the real heretics?

If you disagree with White, then disagree. But do it in honesty. I've come to view anyone who attempts to take the words of another out of context, and then publish that for the entire world to see as a serious threat to our very foundations.

"He that troubles his own house, will inherit the wind, and the fool shall be a servant to the wise of heart." Proverbs 11:29

Please sir...

TurretinFan

Tony,

Had you only said that, it might be less misleading. You wrote: "As for "Turretinfan," he doesn't even grant that John Gill, Herman Hoeksema and Gordon Clark are hyper-Calvinists on the free offer."

Whereas, as people recognize, Gill did not like to refer to the gospel as an "offer" and Hoeksema absolutely refused to use that term (if I recall correctly). I don't particularly know or care about Gordon Clark, having not seen anything strongly indicating one preference or another in his writings (but I wasn't really looking for that when I read his works). I wouldn't be the least surprised if Gordon Clark were influenced by Hoeksema.

My post linked above explains that I don't think scruples over words ought to be the basis of our definition of folks as "hyper-Calvinists." Instead, the label should reflect substance, and I've outlined the three points of substance.

No one (to my knowledge) has argued that any of the men you've identified would qualify as hyper-Calvinists under the definition I favor.

If we call Gill and Hoeksema "hyper-Calvinist" because they refuse to pronounce the gospel call a "free offer," and use that as our shibboleth, then Dr. White who pronounces the gospel call a "free offer," is not a hyper-Calvinist - since he lacks their particular scruple in that regard.

-TurretinFan

peter

Katherine,

I advise you yo take a step back and re-read my criticism of White. You assert I attempted to '"approximate his words" by a 92 second video to show him a liar'. Nowhere have I remotely implied White is a liar. How on earth do you deduce such vacuous assertions?

On the other hand, someone here questioned whether White explicitly charged anyone with lying. Well, yes, he did--me. Read the question to "Robert" I left above.

How Topsy-turvy these word games are becoming.

With that, I am...
Peter

Steve Celich

Peter,
I have to disagree with you that White said that the love of God is dangerous to preach on. White, speaking of how "he" was going to comment on Vine's speach said that, in dealing with the subject of God's love (in his post)it is a subject that is "dangerous..to address". Why? Because of emotionalism. You owe White an apology.
Steve C.

peter

Robert,

Yes I agree sometimes words do not reveal the specific emotional tones in the writer's mind. Communication is after all the proverbial 2-way avenue. Friendly exchange most of the time can clear up the deficiencies, however. Unless, of course, the exchange is somehow sabotaged by either or both parties via previous baggage.

Interestingly, your example of my alleged "sarcasm" appears the perfect example of focusing not only on an insignificant phrase--"my Robert'--but also making the insignificant phrase into something "sarcastic." There was a time in another literary era when coupling the possessive "my" or "our" with "Bob" was considered the height of healthy etiquette. Now it's "sarcastic" to employ such a usage? I'd like to see the etymological transformation for such!

So, in short, Robert, nope. What I did was not sarcastic from my end at all.

Now, I do use sarcasm, I concede (mostly irony mistakenly taken as sarcasm). But overwhelmingly I employ sarcasm to those who log on here and immediately lob flame rounds--"liar" "hypocrite" "ungodly" "sinner" etc etc. Check the record yourself.

Finally, if you do not appreciate the distinction between documents assumed to be private made public and documents designed for public consumption, I cannot assist you. For me, there exists a prima facie distinction which prohibits conflating the two. Nor have I the time or energy to argue such a distinction with you, Robert. Like I say, it's prima facie. It would be like trying to argue the sky is blue to one who insisted it was yellow.

Hope this helps.

With that, I am...
Peter

Tony Byrne

There wasn't anything "misleading" about my words. I stated that you do not believe those three men qualify as hyper-Calvinists [which you have now affirmed to be true]. In addition to that proposition I added my interpretation of the facts that they all deny the free/well-meant offer of the gospel, along with the fact that Hoeksema denies the universal love of God and common grace.

Also, your representation of the matter as if it is merely quibbling about words, such as calling the gospel an "offer," is actualy what is misleading. The reason why these men reject that term is because of the underlying conceptual ideas undergirding it. As De Jong notes,

"Hoeksema has always maintained that there are four indispensable elements which constitute the idea of offer. First of all, the term contains the idea of an honest and sincere desire on the part of the offerer to give something. Without such an earnest will and desire on the part of him who makes the offer, the offer would not be honest or upright. Second, there is included in the idea of offer the fact that the offerer possesses that which he extends to some person(s). In the event of acceptation the offerer must be in a position to impart that which is offered. Third, the offerer reveals by his offer the desire that it be accepted... Fourth, the one who offers something does so either unconditionally, or upon the condition that he is aware that the recipients of the offer are able to fulfill the condition. This would imply that God knows that all men are able to accept the offer of grace. If any of these elements is eliminated from the concept, the idea of offer is no longer retained." Alexander C. De Jong, The Well-Meant Gospel Offer: The Views of H. Hoeksema and K. Schilder (Franeker: T. Weaver, 1954), 43.

Since an "offer" given by God presupposes at least a sincere desire on God's part to give what is offered, that He has something to offer to all, and that those offered have some sense of ability, these men [Gill and Hoeksema] reject that the gospel is an indescriminate offer by God given to all men. Erroll Hulse notes some of these components as well, saying:

"The etymology–the facts relating to the formation and history of the use of a word or words–of the term "offer" takes us back to 1548. At that time a proposal of marriage was regarded as an offer. The word means a proposal to give or do something, to tender for acceptance or refusal. To carry this forward, we could say that an offer means that someone is proposing or expressing willingness to do something conditional upon the assent of the person addressed." Erroll Hulse, The Free Offer of the Gospel: An Exposition of Common Grace and the Free Invitation of the Gospel (Worthington and Haywards Heath, Sussex,. UK: Carey Publications, 1973), 13.

The issue of the will of God and the offer prompted Iain Murray to say these words to David Engelsma, a Hoeksemian in the PRC:

"The critical issure here, of course, is not the mere use of the term 'offer', but whether the offer of the gospel is an expression of God's desire that it should be received by sinners." See Banner of Truth 307 (December, 1995), 24-25.

As these Reformed sources show, the issue isn't merely a quibbling about the "offer" term, but the significant theological conceptual categories underneath it.

You say:

"No one (to my knowledge) has argued that any of the men you've identified would qualify as hyper-Calvinists under the definition I favor."

Under your definition, who does qualify as a hyper-Calvinist? Someone on your blog asked you to name some names and you didn't do so. It's as though no one qualifies as hyper unless they believe that Elvis still exists as a re-incarnated alien (<>..<>) who is riding around on a unicorn while wearing blue suade shoes. Moreoever, I don't recall you citing scholars who have studied hyper-Calvinism who concur with your definition.

You say:

"If we call Gill and Hoeksema "hyper-Calvinist" because they refuse to pronounce the gospel call a "free offer," and use that as our shibboleth, then Dr. White who pronounces the gospel call a "free offer," is not a hyper-Calvinist - since he lacks their particular scruple in that regard."

We're not saying Gill and Hoeksema are hyper-Calvinists because they refuse to label the gospel a "free offer." It is their rejection of the concept of an offer that is the issue [particularly concerning the universal saving will of God], not a quibbling over mere english terminology.

Tony Byrne

Turretinfan,

The fact of the matter remains: You do not think that Gill, Hoeksema and Clark qualify as hyper-Calvinists because you don't think a rejection of God's universal saving will is a sufficient criteria. David Hewitt seems to grant that it is a sufficient criteria, but only that White does not reject God's universal saving will. Either you and Hewitt [as followers of White] are or are not on the same page as to what sufficient qualifies as hyper-Calvinism. My point above was that you are not both on the same page. If David Hewitt thinks otherwise, then let him speak up.

Also, since David Hewitt has the courage to use his real name in exchanges, I am interested in a dialogue with him.

"We need to make sure that our blogs are accountable to the Christian church... Someone ought to be able to call us on this... Our fellow Christians in the local church need to be reading our blogs and holding us personally accountable... Credibility must be personal... There should be no anonymity... Anonymous blogs are a scandal." Al Mohler on the Ethics of Christian Communication

Even one in White's own "camp," Steve Camp, said to my friend Steve:

"Full disclosure on your part as to your identity is essential to bring any kind of credibility to your views. If a man won't reveal who he really is then how can one trust what he has to say?"
peter

Steve,

I fully respect your disagreement with my interpretation of White's words. And, may I say you logged your criticism well, unlike many others who rode through Dodge fanning their six shooter, "liar, liar, pants on fire!"

The problem I have is, your interpretation of White is hardly identical to what White himself has said. You wrote, "White...said that, in dealing with the subject of God's love (in his post)it is a subject that is "dangerous..to address". Why? Because of emotionalism."

My question is, how is the subject of God's love dangerous to address but not also dangerous to preach? Would not the same "emotionalism" and/or "traditionalism" be a hindrance? If not, why would it be different?

Had White been as clear in his video as he was on his blog, there would be no post here. But he was not. And, he definitively did not state, as he asserts on his blog, that God's love is "dangerous for me to address." He said nothing--jack squat--about himself in his words.

Now, like I granted earlier, if White insists that's what he intended to mean I haven't the slightest reservation in accepting that. Who am I to say what he intended to communicate? But to project his meaning clearer now, clearing up any ambiguity, and then calling the critic of his ambiguous words a dishonest liar hardly remains a moral example to follow.

It is for that reason, I do not agree I owe White anything from my perspective. I've given him the benefit of doubt he intended a meaning his literal words do not exactly bear.

Unfortunately, White failed to offer me the same gesture. Rather I am, according to him, a liar and a deceiver. I am not surprised. White routinely labels those who diagree with him as dishonest and deceptive.

With that, I am...
Peter

TurretinFan

"There wasn't anything "misleading" about my words. "

I felt there was. That's why I wanted clarification.

You wrote: "We're not saying Gill and Hoeksema are hyper-Calvinists because they refuse to label the gospel a 'free offer.'"

I have no idea what "we" you are referring to. I've seen people do that before. If you're not one of those people, that's fine by me.

You wrote: "It is their rejection of the concept of an offer that is the issue ... "

On this point, I'm sure you know that there is far less of a consensus than you would like. That is to say, the definition of what constitutes the "free offer" is not something upon which people (even those who use the term) are universally agreed. This is actually one of the points where 5-point Calvinists and Amyraldians can begin to part ways.

You wrote: " ... [particularly concerning the universal saving will of God], not a quibbling over mere [English] terminology."

It's usually not helpful to define an unclear term by a less clear term. If you can, please explain the relation of the "universal saving will of God" to the revealed and decretive wills of God, according to your understanding of the terms.

- TurretinFan

TurretinFan

Tony:

I just noticed that you posted a further comment: "The fact of the matter remains: You do not think that Gill, Hoeksema and Clark qualify as hyper-Calvinists because you don't think a rejection of God's universal saving will is a sufficient criteria."

As I noted above, I'd love to see you try to provide a clear explanation of what "universal saving will" is supposed to mean in relation to God's revealed and decretive wills. There may be some sense in which it would be a helpful criterion, but there are doubtless senses in which it is not.

"David Hewitt seems to grant that it is a sufficient criteria, but only that White does not reject God's universal saving will. Either you and Hewitt [as followers of White] are or are not on the same page as to what sufficient qualifies as hyper-Calvinism. My point above was that you are not both on the same page."

You shouldn't assume that because we like Dr. White, we're his followers. I view Dr. White as my friend and a godly and erudite scholar. There's no requirement that everyone who likes Dr. White agrees on every point. I haven't seen Dave define what constitutes hyper-Calvinism, so I have no idea if he prefers my definitions or has some other definition he prefers. I suspect Dave was simply arguing from the standards that your side of English channel had proposed.

- TurretinFan

Katherine

TurretinFan,

Excellent point about what can be accurately surmised by anyone who supports Dr. White. I have enormous respect for him. I've learned more from him in 6 months than I have learned in all my 45 years as a Christian. I purposely put the debate out of my mind because I simply couldn't come up with a satisfactory answer that put my soul at ease. I'm still not sure he is right about everything. But, whether or not I always agree, I see him as completely honest and never seeking to mangle a one-line sentence in ways it was never meant to be understood, simply for the sake of doing so.

I'm still working at the reformed ideas of the 5 points of Calvinism. I appreciate people who have a fuller understandingt of it and who present those ideas cogently and without any attempt to manipulate.

I am very uncomfortable whenever I see one person use a single sentence against someone else. IF we did that with scripture, then we'd never have a good understanding of it. It took me many years to understand that scripture had to be understood in light of other scripture and not just cherry-picking whatever I thought applied to my circumstances.

Your clarity here is refreshing and I appeciate it very much.

Katherine

TurretinFan

Thanks, Katherine!

Katherine

Peter,

I come late to the whole idea that Calvinism just might be more accurate than I ever understood. As I told Turretfan, I'm still not convinced of all 5 points. No matter what conclusion I come to (and I may never be completely satisfied) I want it to be the result of complete candidness among the two sides.

I watched the entire 20 minutes of Dr. White's video. In no place did I ever get the impression that he thought that simply talking about God's love was dangerous. The video is now in the public domain and anyone who can access it through YouTube can see it. I cannot understand why you felt it necessary to take a short part of it and try to hold it up to public ridicule. If you simply just disagree, than certainly, as a learned man, you might have elaborated... as he did.

I don't know you, but to be completely forthright... your comments came off as a cheap shot. Maybe an actual discussion between the two of you might have sufficed to clear up any misunderstanding. I have no doubt that he would have been happy to state his beliefs to you as you would have been with him.

I really believe that God wants us to settle our differences, as much as possible, in a way that is completely transparent. In fact, we are repeatedly told to avoid divisiveness where possible. That applies to us ALL. If you wanted to be critical of Dr. White, then I'm sure you could have done so in a way that completely expressed your sentiments without resorting to invective. But no, you compounded the situation by insinuating that he isn't fit to speak in a Seminary because he has, in your very own words a "loose screw". The unbeliever who hasn't a clue about the doctrinal divide here, would surely conclude that even when Christians disagree, they do it with unkind words, insinuations and rancor.

My objection is not that you and Dr. White disagree, it's the WAY in which it is done. I'm not without many sins myself. But I must tell you, that I hold people such as yourself and Dr. White in very high regard, and yes, to a high standard. I look to Christian leadership often, and of late, I'm very disappointed in what I see. If I have completely missed the mark here, would be please explain to me why you did this at all? I'm quite willing to apologize for any remarks that I made that are in error. None of my comments are meant to be hurtful. I've just grown weary of watching believers exchanging divergent ideas without any care for the feelings of others.

Katherine

peter

Daniel,

Your two comments represent nicely the very reason I closed the comment down for the evening yesterday. I could not comfortably leave the thread unattended. Hence, I will now, shut the thread down once again until tomorrow.

And know this Daniel: do not log back on this site and dub as liars those who fairly employ scholarly resources to call theological positions the way they see them. Period.

Frankly I'm fed up to my neck with this grossly sub-Christian attitude and action. No one will ever have a comment to remain public on this site again who insists on charging those who pursue genuine theological reflection as liars.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

All,

The thread is down for the rest of the night. I'll open it up again tomorrow.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

Katherine,

Thanks. I had a reply. I decided instead to make it a full post. Your concerns are good ones.

Marc Yoder

Peter,

I must confess that this is my first exposure to you or your blog. I have no "dog in the hunt" so to speak, but two things concern me in this issue:

1. The tone of the discourse.

2. The fact that you have obviously misrepresented what Mr. White was stating. Whether this was intentional or not, I do not know, though it does seem odd that the video was cut precisely where the clarification and context was being given.

All issues after this (who/what is a hyper-calvinist, whether or not you "lied", who was being mean to whom, etc.) are secondary.

The fact is, you misrepresented (intentionally or not) the view of Mr. White, and at the very least owe it to him to pull your (edited) video and post his actual comments. I think it would speak well to both your sincerity and to both your academic integrity and character to apologize.

Whether it was intentional or not, and whether his reaction was appropriate or not, the fact remains; you grossly misrepresented both what he was saying, and his position as a whole. As an outsider looking in, this is painfully obvious.

In context, to make it as plain as possible, his response appears to me to be the same I would make if asked the question "Do you support everyone having healthcare?" I would have to begin by stating that I have to be careful in how I respond, as my position could be represented as me not caring about people, or being greedy.. and then go on to clarify my position. This is clearly the case in Mr. White's video.

Again, I don't know the background of how this video was edited, or by whom, and maybe you don't want to throw someone else under the bus, but common sense and decency (and intellectual honesty) would dictate that a retraction is necessary. An apology would just be a classy touch.

Thank you for your ministry. May God richly bless you and keep you.

Marc

Tony Byrne

Above I said that "Turretinfan" doesn't think Gill, Hoeksema and Clark are hyper-Calvinists. With reference to Clark's alleged hyperism, T-fan said,

"I don't particularly know or care about Gordon Clark, having not seen anything strongly indicating one preference or another in his writings (but I wasn't really looking for that when I read his works)."

Actually, he does "care" and has stated his opinion as if he "knows." T-fan chides David Ponter on his blog for "Misidentifying Gordon Clark and Hoeksema as hyper-calvinists."

Just as I said, T-fan doesn't think Clark and Hoeksema are hyper-Calvinists and yet they both staunchly rejected the well-meant gospel offer, especially since that doctrine suggests that God lovingly desires the eternal salvation of all men in the revealed will.

This is important because White both 1) claims to believe in God's desire [in some sort of inactive sense] for the salvation of all men and yet says that 2) he agrees with Robert Reymond [one who agrees with Gordon Clark and Herman Hoeksema] on the will of God and with his rejection of the Murray/Stonehouse position. As I stated to David Hewitt before, there is no tertium quid or middle ground between a rejection of God's universal saving will and Murray's affirmation of it. For these reasons and more, White's position is incoherent, and Hewitt seems fine with that, even when White is busying hacking away at every biblical passage that Calvinists themselves have used to argue that God is seeking the salvation of all men, even the non-elect.

Incidentally, there isn't anything novel or unusual about the expression "God's universal saving will" when used by a Calvinist. Dr. Curt Daniel, John Piper [3 times in "Are There Two Wills in God?," in Still Sovereign, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner & Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker, 2000), 107, 108 and 122.] and Bruce Ware all use that expression without reservation. Ware even says:

"On the question of the will of God regarding salvation, the Bible represents God's saving will in two ways, not one. Yes, Arminians are correct to point to passages teaching the will of God that all be saved. And many Calvinists, including myself, will grant that these texts teach the universal saving will of God, much as I also am fully convinced that the Bible teaches the universal love of God for all people. But the Bible's teaching does not stop here. Rather, Scripture teaches also the specific and inviolable will of God that some surely and certainly be saved along with its teaching that God wills the salvation of all. The particular will of God surely and certainly to save some (i.e. the elect), stands alongside the universal saving will of God that all be saved." "Divine Election to Salvation: Unconditional, Individual, and Infralapsarian," in Perspectives on Election: Five Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, Tenn.: B & H, 2006), 32-33.
peter

All,

I cannot keep up with two posts' comments. Hence, since I have a follow up to this one, the thread is now shut down. I won't allow it to remain unmonitored.

With that, I am...
Peter

The comments to this entry are closed.