Well, on Tuesday, Dr. White addressed me and some of the people i know on his Dividing Line program. Once again, he did so dismissively and derisively. Apparently, from what he said on his show, he has lots of people whom he loves and gets along with, in spite of the fact that he doesn’t see eye-to-eye with them—but i and my friends who do emphasize a more balanced Calvinism than the Owenists are not among them. From what Dr. White said, the qualification for such respect is to be on the inside of his loop over at AOmin and directly supporting what he does in whatever fashion. That’s fine.

One thing he did do was derisively to refer to me (the one whose blog he quoted last week), and others who agree with me in a general way on some particular issues, as being “Amyraldians.” He also says that we have a “hobby horse” that we ride. Now, some of you might not understand all that, but one reason is that David (“Flynn” on many mail and chat groups) has made it an emphasis of his to bring to the attention of the Reformed world that the idea of what constitutes true and proper Calvinism is itself imbalanced in lots of ways, judging from the writings of the early Reformers and other Reformed writers down through the years. Many of us, who agree with David in this respect, also emphasize the issue from time to time (some of us more than others). But the truth is, and I hope David won’t take this the wrong way, but David is a nobody. In fact, he’s more of a nobody than i am—and i’m a nobody. As the Reformed world goes, i am an ordained Minister of Word and Sacrament (ordained in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and serving in the Presbyterian Church in America, with my membership being in Westminster Presbytery), but David is just a fellow with access to lots of original source documents to look stuff up. On his blog, David does, however, quote lots and lots and lots of folks, Calvin in particular, about lots of issues: God’s love, God’s will, God’s goodness, God’s grace, God’s hatred, Christ’s atoning work (and various passages of Scripture that are controversial on this front), the well-meant offer, the efficacy of the sacraments, &c.; so to be fair, David has lots of things he emphasizes, not just one. However, David does have one particular thing he quotes lots of is about the nature of Christ’s atonement and how it relates to all men.

Now, i know that it is not popular to focus on this issue, and most Calvinists are perfectly content to answer the question “For whom did Christ die?” in a very direct way: “The elect alone”—and never want to qualify that at all, because, in their minds, it’s as simple as that. For a time, i actually held that point of view, myself—in fact, the article that convinced me of this initially was James White’s “Was Anyone Saved at the Cross?” However, when i began to read the Reformers beyond the scholastic Puritans (White made the Puritan John Owen’s famous “Trilemma” the centerpiece of his article), and when i saw that they answered this question differently than i clearly did, i wanted to know why they gave much more qualified answers than we often hear on the floor of our presbytery meetings to ordinands and candidates for licensure. Come to find out, the Reformed world is bigger than Reformed Baptists on one side and Reformed Presbyterians on the other, with the only thing separating them being the nature and purpose of the sacraments. No, there is a great breadth in the way many Reformers answer lots of questions about lots of things, from the nature of the Covenants, the nature of the sacraments, the nature of the Church, the nature of epistemology, and yes, even the nature of Christ’s atonement—those for whom it was made, different senses in its being offered, different purposes it serves for different people, and all kinds of other issues—and beyond.

So, here’s the rub: when we start talking about the way Christ’s atoning work relates not just to the elect, as those whom God intends to save, but also to the non-elect, whom he does not intend to save, does that then make us Amyraldians? Well, that seems to be James White’s answer (though, he himself admitted in the article i mentioned above that he once considered himself a “four-point” Calvinist), and he paints the so-called “Ponterites” (in which he includes me) as being Amyraldians, or four-point Calvinists. A couple of things i will say in this regard.

First, i do not use the five points of TULIP to describe my Reformed views. I used to, but you will never find me referring to it in any way, either in sermons, teaching, or conversations, unless i am directly asked, and even when i explain them generally, i demur from being a person who holds them hard and fast as a standard for anything. I believe the TULIP is unhelpful, unweildy, imbalanced, and overly simplistic—and while simplistic is just what many people want today, i’m not one of them.

Second, even if a person rejects the idea of particular atonement altogether and has a full-blown general atonement (Note: i do not hold to general atonement in any sense) along with some view of unconditional election, that doesn’t necessarily make a person an Amyraldian. Amyraldianism or Amyraldism (here again, people have tried to over-simplify it, but such an attempt is improper) is a system of theology otherwise known as “Post-Redemptionism,” because in their scheme, God’s election of some to be saved didn’t take place before all other decrees (like Supralapsarianism), nor after the decrees to create and to allow the fall (like Infralapsarianism), but after the decree to send Christ to redeem the sinful world (again, “Post-Redemptionism”), and only because God saw that sinful men wouldn’t, of themselves, choose to come to Christ as the redeemer. Yes, this is the discussion of Supralapsiarianism, Infralapsarianism, and related issues (on a completely unrelated topic, my first successful googlewhack was “Infralapsarian handbell,” [no quotes]; i don’t think it’s still one, but it was my first successful try). Amyraldism, though, fits into this discussion, even though most Reformed scholars (at least more recent ones) don’t include it there. Now, the point is that there is a logic to the order of decrees, and we want to see what Scripture implies systematically spelled out in these orderings of God’s decrees. (For a basic primer on the issue, see Phillip Johnson’s “Notes on Supralapsarianism & Infralapsarianism”.)

So, if we’re to be accurate in using these terms, true Amyraldism isn’t only about whether Christ died for all (i.e., just bare “four-point Calvinism”); it is about the whole theological framework that makes that true. Amyraldism is a school of theology holding one particular position among all the various other positions on ordered decretalism. Ordered decretalism is that discussion everyone acts like is so useless, but their answers to it determine lots of things they presuppose without ever knowing it. I am decidedly Infralapsarian in my views, but Amyraldism has its own distinct ordering of decrees that makes the equal applicability of Christ’s atonement logical in their schema (i.e., hypothetical universalism). As an Infralapsarian, i don’t hold to that view, as i don’t hold that Christ’s atonement is *EQUALLY* applicable to all men (i.e., it is more applicable to the elect as those to whom God intended to apply it savingly, but it is also applicable, but not in the same way, to the non-elect, as those to whom God offers salvation in Christ, gives all good things in life, gives the common operations of the Spirit, &c.). I understand the logic behind Amyraldism, just as i understand the logic behind Supralapsarianism, but i reject both for the point in between. So, yes, i am going to see things differently than Supralapsarians, who by and large see that Christ’s atonement has only to do with the elect and none others (i.e., the strict particularism, affirming that Christ died for no one but the elect in any sense at all, tends to go along with Supralapsarianism, not categorically, but as a general rule), and that’s because i affirm that Christ’s atonement does have something to do with the non-elect. But my affirmation of that doesn’t make me an Amyraldian; it just makes me a consistent Infralapsarian.

So we have three views within the broader Reformed world with regard to ordered decretalism: Supralapsarians, Infralapsarians, and Amyraldians. These various views generally have three different ways of understanding how the atoning work of Christ relates to the world of lost sinners. Supralapsarians generally say it only applies to the elect in any sense, Amyraldians generally say that it applies to all men equally, and Infralapsarians say generally that it applies to all men, but especially and most directly to the elect (i.e., not equally to all men).

There are lots of folks who don’t want to come down on the matter one way or another. R. L. Dabney was one of those. David Ponter is also one. But like Dabney, while not taking a side on the issue, i see Ponter’s views as aligning most closely with Infralapsarianism, not with Amyraldism.

So, i hope that Dr. White and his friends (one whom he mentioned being “TurretinFan”) would recognize these distinctions in theological views and attempt to be more accurate in their references in the future. And since TurretinFan has such a penchant for the Larger Catechism, i’m sure he won’t mind living up to the duties required in and staying away from the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment as explicated in the WLC:

Question 145: What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own, especially in public judicature; giving false evidence, suborning false witnesses, wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth; passing unjust sentence, calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked; forgery, concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calls for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others; speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice; speaking untruth, lying, slandering, backbiting, detracting, tale bearing, whispering, scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and partial censuring; misconstructing intentions, words, and actions; flattering, vainglorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others; denying the gifts and graces of God; aggravating smaller faults; hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession; unnecessary discovering of infirmities; raising false rumors, receiving and countenancing evil reports, and stopping our ears against just defense; evil suspicion; envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any, endeavoring or desiring to impair it, rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy; scornful contempt, fond admiration; breach of lawful promises; neglecting such things as are of good report, and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering: What we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.

While i would love to be one of the people Dr. White respects and regards with fondness as he does some others, i doubt i ever will be. That’s fine. I certainly won’t lose any sleep over it. I will say for the record, though, that, in spite of his misrepresentation and derision of me, in spite of his seeming inability or unwillingness to qualify an answer about God’s desire to save all men (which question in the debate with Mr. Gregg i had nothing to do with asking, nor did any person whom i know, to my knowledge), and in spite of his favoring of people who also relish the opportunity to run me and those with whom i agree down, i still respect Dr. White as a gifted leader in Christ’s Church, as an able defender of the faith, and most of all, as a brother in Christ whom i love dearly and want to see succeed in all that he does for the Kingdom.

Fourth, i have been accused of violating the requirements of Matthew 18 if indeed i desired to critique my brother. Peter Pike (though he has retracted his claim, somewhat) said that Paul went to Peter personally as he indicated in Galatians. A couple of things should be said here. Firstly, i am critiquing a public figure for public action. That in and of itself shows that i am not required to go privately (which seemed to be the implication of the word “personally” that Pike used) to a person in order to critique him. Secondly, as i read Paul’s account in Galatians of his confrontation of Peter, it doesn’t seem to me that he took Peter off to the side and whispered his concern in his ear. The general tenor of what Paul said seems to have been that when Paul saw Peter acting in a way that undermined the Gospel (Note: i don’t believe that White is acting in a way that undermines the Gospel, necessarily), he opposed him “to his face,” going so far as to say (Gal. 2:14, ESV), “But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?’” It seems that Paul made a point of making his rebuke public, precisely because the actions of such a prominent man in Christ’s Church were leading good men astray (Note: i do believe that White’s actions are leading good men astray). So, such a criticism of me, i believe, is unfounded. But even if that were required, the same thing was accomplished anyway, since Dr. White was the first to read and respond to my post.

What seems inconsistent to me, though, is that the claim still stood even while Dr. White railed against me on his internet radio program. So, somehow, i was wrong to criticize his own actions in public (which, i don’t think i was), but he was right to deride me and hold me out to scorn (something i never did on my short post last week). That just doesn’t compute. Anyone who thinks that is perfectly consistent shows that he simply is given to agreement with a person because of predisposition, and not because he’s an objective judge of facts.

Third, i have been criticized for failing to understand the nature of a debate and this debate in particular. That’s just ridiculous. As i mentioned before, my post wasn’t directly addressing the debate, even though that’s what got me thinking about other things i have read and heard by White; i was critiquing White in a general manner about the way he speaks and argues. Furthermore, I know just a little about what a debate is about, how they are conducted, and the proper rules of debate. I was in debate in Middle and High School. My problem is not having people you oppose for the sake of a debate; my problem is with James White’s tendency (and apparently, judging from the firestorm of blogs and comments, those who follow his general theological school have a similar tendency) to fail to recognize that there is a difference between an enemy and a debate opponent. Debate opponents can be (and in White’s case especially, often are) brothers in Christ as fellow professing believers, and they should be treated as such, even in the midst of disagreement or debate. (Many a session meeting would be prevented from going off track if all elders in Christ’s Church would learn that little lesson!)

I don’t expect a theological debate to be a “kumbaya” session. (I don’t really even know where that kind of accusation comes from.) However, i do expect that Christians who engage in debate don’t set the standards for conduct that our Lord gives to us on a shelf somewhere until they’re finished, because explicitly or implicitly, they treat the debate as an excuse to act in a less than Christian manner toward one’s opponents. That *IS* one thing i learnt in formal debate classes: don’t let it get personal. (One exercise we used to prevent this from happening was to switch sides in a debate and argue your opponent’s position! Try that sometime, Dr. White!)

You can disagree with a person’s views and still respect him as an individual—and as Christians, who are called to love even our enemies, certainly we should show that modicum of love toward those with whom we disagree, not being hateful, arrogant, and condescending. But of course, with James White, his condescension isn’t limited to debates; he regularly engages in worse rhetoric on his radio program railing against other *CHRISTIANS* (yes, with different views, but still his brothers in Christ) and putting them down as not believing the Bible or not taking this or that doctrine seriously. He did this very thing to me, even though he admitted he did not even know me, based solely upon my criticism of him in my one blog post—and he didn’t even make an attempt to give me the opportunity to call in and respond to his derision over the phone!

But, as Gene Bridges pointed out, the debate was about God’s sovereignty, and hence, White’s solely focusing on that subject was appropriate, or so he claims. I’m not saying White shouldn’t focus on God’s sovereignty; my criticism, and it extends beyond this debate to most of White’s work, is that there is more to believing, discussing, and debating Calvinism than affirming God’s sovereignty or thinking only in terms of God’s sovereignty. In other words, arguing against a person who so emphasizes man’s action and responsibility should involve at least some addressing and concession of the reality of man’s action and responsibility, especially when that question is brought to bear. We shouldn’t focus exclusively on the responsibility side, like the Arminians do, and we shouldn’t focus exclusively on the sovereignty side, like many Calvinists want to do. The way forward is to keep both in proper balance the way that they are in God’s Word. So, if someone asks about God’s desire toward the non-elect (who have heard the Gospel of not), we should recognize that they are speaking of God’s preceptive will, which is God’s desire for us to fulfill our duty. Hence, we can and should affirm that God desires the salvation of all the non-elect, insofar as he has commanded them to repent and believe and be saved, and insofar as he has told us plainly that it is his desire to see all men to be saved. God desires his commandments to be kept: That’s the heart of the assumption behind the preceptive will of God, and so we can rightly say that, anything God commands he desires to take place.

Again, though, it is more than simply the fact that “we don’t know who the elect are” (again, the thinking always centered in the decree rather than what is revealed), and more importantly than that, it is we who are the primary persons offering Christ in the Gospel; God is. That’s why it’s not enough to speak of the “free offer,” which gives some unscrupulous Calvinists the wiggle room to act as though *WE* are freely offering salvation, but that doesn’t change the fact that *GOD* only really offers salvation to, or even wants at all, the elect to be saved. But that’s not what Scripture teaches. Scripture teaches that God is merciful toward all and desires all men to repent and come to a knowledge of Christ. So, there really is something to this thing about only thinking in terms of God’s sovereignty on every issue. That’s important (i wouldn’t be a Calvinists if i didn’t think so), but it’s not all there is.

Second, i was criticized for failing to criticize anyone other than Dr. White. I, apparently, haven’t “lifted a finger on [my] blog” (so says Gene Bridges) to help the High Calvinists in their railing against other Christians and their various non-Reformed views or against non-Christians on their non-Christian views. Well, i’m very sorry, but i didn’t get the memo about the compulsary use of my blog for so-called “internet apologetics.” In fact, having taken part in several forums devoted to internet apologetics, i have been increasingly convinced that it is a useless exercise that simply balkanizes positions rather than leading to understanding and mutual love. Now, i’m not saying that anyone who feels called to do it shouldn’t do it—your conscience is your own and, so long as you don’t overtly sin, you are free to do whatever you desire—I’m just saying that i don’t care for it, and i don’t feel compelled to engage in it.

My calling is to minister to God’s people in the Church. That’s what i was ordained in Christ’s Church, by a presbytery of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, in order to do. I obviously don’t use the internet for what some people do. My use of it primarily is for helping to learn and grow in my understanding of the faith and to help edify and encourage other Christians. My ministry takes place where i live and work (a challenging ministry it is, too, since practically everyone in the town in which i live is a Free Will Baptist, Old Regular Baptist, Pentecostal, or Primitive Baptist, or some other kind of Arminian or Hyper-Calvinist, baptistic Christians), not on some interenet forum, my blog, or anywhere else of the like. So, for your information, though i haven’t put it on display for my peers to fawn over (which, i’m beginning to think is the only reason some people have blogs), i put my faith and my theological emphases into practice all the time–yet for some reason, it’s being questioned, because i haven’t devoted my blog to the use which others have chosen for their own. Here again is that same attitude: if you don’t do it like i do, you’re wrong.

Yet, none of this changes the fact that my criticism of some Reformed theologians (in this case, James White) is warranted. I am reminded of what happened to me when i got in trouble as a child. I would always protest that my sister was just as guilty, either for doing some other thing or for doing the same thing. But as my father always pointed out, regardless of what my sister did, it didn’t change what i did. So, yes, i could criticize Mr. Gregg for his views and behavior in the debate i was referring to, but i chose not to. That’s my prerogative.

The reason i chose not to is because i believe we need to get our own Reformed House in order. We can’t ignore all the clutter and problems that characterize the Reformed faith as it stands today and simply point the finger at someone else. That’s been one tactic used by many Calvinists over the years, and we see where it has gotten us: just more in-fighting over lots of issues and no resolution of any of them. And, for that matter, the reason i have taken note of this thing that happened between White and Gregg (what Peter Pike made note of in his comment on my original post) is not because i want to inject myself into something that isn’t my business (as if a public debate can be classified a private matter between two people, to begin with), but because the way people act who are the spokespeople for a certain point of view has a bearing on how people perceive all of the people who are part of that larger group. In other words, James White’s actions in a debate on Calvinism give an impression to those listening from the other point of view that has an affect on how they relate to every other Calvinist they will ever come into contact with.

So, yes, it *IS* my business, and the business of every other Calvinist, how James White acts and how he displays a less than charitable attitude or a theological eccintricity that he presents as *THE* Reformed view, because, for good or for bad, many people will see that, recognize it as someone negative, as i do, and judge all Calvinists on that basis. And, too, since this was a public debate and not a private offense, it is the proper province of all who heard it to comment on. Also important to note is that my post isn’t directly responding to anything in particular about the debate between White and Gregg; that’s what got me thinking about it, but i am not referencing the particulars of that debate. All i’m doing in this regard is noting a critique of my brother and allowing other people to help me refine my point of view.

First, i have been criticized for claiming that James White’s view is not “the Reformed view.” My dear brother, TurretinFan (whoever he is), made that the heart of his critique of me. At least Peter Pike, who commented on TurretinFan’s post and on my own, actually read what i wrote with something like an intention to understand what i was actually saying, and so he saw that my point was not that my own view is only Reformed view and Jame’s White’s isn’t. That’s precisely what i was objecting to!

When White debates election, Calvinism, or any related topics, he speaks of the Reformed view or the Reformed perspective as if there is only one! That’s just the point: there isn’t only one, on practically every issue within the Reformed world. As i point out in my post that TurretinFan linked, there is more than one way to flesh out what “limited atonement” actually is (contrary to the claims of the High Calvinists), but the same is true of those who have a different view of the free offer, the covenants, baptism, God’s love for all men, God’s will, etc, etc., etc. My problem is with those who speak that way is that they have taken one strain of Reformed thought (almost to a man, scholastic Puritanism) and hold it out as if it’s the only view that qualifies as “Reformed.”

Well, not everyone who is a Calvinist thinks Ames’s or Owen’s views are helpful, either in fleshing out the doctrine of the atonement or in how to respond to Arminians, nor does everyone who is a Calvinist believe that the only thing we can call “the will of God” or that is “his desire” is that which comes to pass. But those disagreements don’t make us not Reformed–and it certainly doesn’t make us Amyraldian. There is great breadth and variety within the Reformed world, not one view on practically any subject that can qualify as *THE* Reformed view (please note the italics of the word “the” in the title of my original post, which TurretinFan apparently didn’t).

It is important to distinguish between what is Reformed and what is right. There are views that are wrong that are within the pale of Reformed thought, but their being within the braoder Reformed camp doesn’t make them right, especially since not all views which fit within it, especially ones that contradict one another, can be right at the same time. So, understand, i’m arguing not that White’s view is not Reformed, nor am i arguing that it’s biblically wrong (though, i think it is), i am arguing that it’s only one among many Reformed views on the issue of God’s will concerning the salvation of the non-elect.

Well, it’s been some kind of firestorm since i posted my post. Bloggers have responded; James White himself has sarcastically and condescendingly derided me on his internet radio show (Note to Dr. White: when responding to a critique from a brother, it’s a good idea not to engage in the very thing that is being critiqued!); i have received the most comments i have ever received for a single post. Now, i don’t know what happened at Dr. White’s behest—though, his internet broadcast certainly was nothing more than an invitation to his sycophants to flood the blogosphere with responses. It is always a priviledge to be referred to as “Sir” from James White. If you don’t know, that’s his way of maintaining a modicum of respectability and courteousness toward the person to whom he is speaking while treating him like you treat your tennis shoes when you’re trying to get the dog crap you just stepped in out of the grooves. Notice that Dr. White never refers to any other Christian with whom he has major disagrement as “brother.” That says a good bit in itself, and it goes to what i was saying in my original post.

So, in the spirit of defending myself (and i hope to do so without being rude or invective about it), i am writing another post, dealing this time with some of the comments Dr. White made on my blog and the comments others have made on their blogs or in the last post here. So you know, i don’t know why i haven’t received any ping-backs for them, but there were two blogs (that i know about) which directly linked to my blog and responded to what i said. You can find those here (Triablogue) and here (TurretinFan) and here (Tartanarmy).

What will follow is a series of posts that respond to various accusations and claims made against me. I decided to split them up instead of making on massive post, which was getting far too unweildy to post on a blog.