« Ergun Caner Releases Statement by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Does Southern Cooking Produce the Worst Obesity? by Peter Lumpkins »

2010.03.01

Comments

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

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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:

"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."
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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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 :-)

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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


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

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.

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

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

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,

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

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.

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

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?

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

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

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

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.

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

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,

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

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,

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

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

RazorsKiss

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

RazorsKiss

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

The comments to this entry are closed.