I said:

“we can and should affirm that God desires the salvation of all the non-elect”

And in response to that, an anonymous blogger (there are too many of those, if you ask me) said:

Most Calvinist Churches cease to be Calvinist through the normal erosion of time (and theology).

If Calvinists allowed and encouraged this kind of talk, it would accelerate that process.

Very nice. The highest and greatest concern for this person is staying Calvinistic—who cares if what we say is actually biblical, so long as we’re still good Calvinists! Oh, how very, very sad that is.

Let’s completely ignore the circumstances through which Calvinistic thought and practice took a nose-dive.

Let’s ignore the fact that the natural progression in almost every case where Churches (e.g., Congregationalists in New England and the PCUSA in the lat 19th century) and individual congregations have left Calvinistic thought and practice is because they first began to develop their “Calvinistic” thinking in such a “High Calvinism” that they either became Hyper or flirted with it, and then many people began to see how very extreme that kind of thinking is and reacted in the other direction of dropping it altogether.

Let’s ignore the fact that the view of conversionism brought about by the revivalism that men like Gilbert and William Tennet and Jonathan Edwards gave rise to a “personal experience” mentality and a gradual progression in the view of how God relates to sinners.

Let’s ignore the fact that a disregard for what Scripture actually says and a development of systematic and logical models in its place slowly displaced what Scripture actually says about the sovereignty of God together with man’s responsibility (this is true of both the New Divinity of New England and the Liberalism of the PCUSA).

So, you tel me who is more likely to leave the Reformed Faith: the one who is tenacious to keep it balanced and stayed upon the Word of God;or the one who, at all costs, must keep the tradition and wants to take “Calvinism” to whatever “logical ends” that seem right and able to keep it “consistent” enough to stay in place?

No, seriously, this is a *REAL* news story.

So, here are the questions that TurretinFan asked, along with my answers to them. I think they are pretty clear as to what my views are, and i believe that i am simply following in the line of the best and broadest vein of Reformed thought—and it is far from what anyone might term “Amyraldism.”

Try to explain in what sense you think it is appropriate to say that Christ died “for” each and every person.

- Do you mean that Christ’s death had an intrinsic worth that was sufficient (if it were to be applied) for the atonement of the elect and reprobate together? If so, you’ll find us in agreement.

Yes, i do mean that. However, even this is a point that needs to be explained. It’s one thing to say, with Owen, that there *WOULD* be a sufficiency *IF* God had chosen to elect more people, but it’s quite another to say (not so precisely, but still very clearly), with Spurgeon, God save your elect and elect some more! Of course, we know that the number of the elect does not change; that, of course, wasn’t Spurgeon’s point. One of the points, though, of what he said was that Christ’s death was really and actually sufficient here and now not only for the elect but also for many more and anyone else. This can’t be true if, as some people explain, God put on the crucified Christ the particular sins of particular people and no others. This is what has been come to be known by many Calvinists as “limited atonement,” but here again, reading older theologians will show us that that kind of limited imputation (Note: you can hold to limited atonement without holding to limited imputation; and that’s the heart of this debate) not only is not warranted from Scripture, it destroys any kind of view of real sufficiency in the here-and-now—for, how could Christ’s work be really and truly sufficient for any person who is not elect, if their sins were never “paid for” in any sense, even provisionally? There couldn’t be. So, at least part of this debate is one in which we can establish the logical ground for saying that we hold to a real sufficiency in Christ’s atoning work for all men.

Now, someone might object, “But we don’t know who the elect are, so we certainly can make an offer of Christ to someone who may turn out not to be elect, and we can just know that it would be sufficient if he were elect.” But this doesn’t help the situation. In fact, it is a dodge, because the whole issue of the free and well-meant offer of the Gospel is not that *WE* are well-meaning in the offer of Christ that we present to sinners; the point is, as the title of Dr. Dabney’s essay so cogently demonstrates, God’s indescriminate Proposals of Mercy: As Relating to His Power, Wisdom, and Sincerity. In other words, when we speak of the well-meant offer, we are speaking of it being well-meant on *GOD’S* part, not ours. Take Jonah, for instance. I don’t get the impression that our racist father in Israel was well-meaning in his preaching and offer of mercy to the Ninevites, do you? But that didn’t change the fact that *GOD* was well-meaning—and even the Ninevites could tell the difference, since they repented in sackcloth and ashes and sought the face of Jehovah.

The point is that God is the one ultimately who offers anything through the preaching of the Word. That is one of the great affirmations that the Reformed writers and theologians of the past emphasized, namely that when God’s men preach the Word, they are receiving not some word of man, but the very words of God through the agency of a man. This is key to understanding the nature of the offer that is made, that it is not man who is making an offer (though that may or may not be true; Jonah was different in this respect than, say, Whitfield or Wesley were), but rather it is God himself. And thus, as the one who is offering Christ sincerely, he must have a real substance by which to say, “If you come, you will be saved.” If there were nothing in Christ for the non-elect, nothing of his work applicable to them, then when God offers salvation to the non-elect through his ministers, he would be lying. Perish the thought.

- Do you mean that Christ’s death was to no eternal benefit to the reprobate, but only (from an eternal standpoint) increased their guilt by making them in essence doubly guilty. If so, you’ll find us in agreement.

Yes, i would say this is true as well (though i might word it a bit differently). But here again, there is a logical implication to saying that that sinners are doubly guilty for rejecting Christ: had there been nothing in Christ or what he did for them or that was applicable to them, then they rejected nothing. I think we both agree that God has decreed to apply Christ’s redemptive work to the elect alone and to no others; that is not in disbute at all. The question is whether, in any way, Christ’s work is “for” even those whom God has chosen not to save by applying Christ’s work through faith. You see, in order to be truly guilty of rejecting Christ, there must be something that is rejected in some manner, something he could have had (even just logically), had he not rejected.

Take dogs, for instance. Dogs aren’t answerable for failing to come to Christ, and they accrue no guilt for rejecting him. That’s ridiculous example, you might say. I know; it is—not only because dogs aren’t rational beings, but also becasue they’re not willful sinners. But the point still remains that Christ died in *NO* sense for dogs. The question is whether non-elect men have as much access to Christ’s redemptive work as dogs do. If the strict particularists are correct (i.e., like those whom Dabney opposed, who said that, had God elected more, Christ would have had to suffer more for those in particular; their scheme being a “so much for so many” kind of commercialism), they are in no different relation to Christ than dogs are, since Christ did absolutely nothing “for” them in any sense, and so his work has not relation or applicability to them. And if that’s true, then they would be no more guilty than dogs of trampling under foot the blood of Christ, because it never had anything to do with them any more than it did dogs. INow, they certainly are more guilty than dogs, simply because of the guilt of Adam, which dogs don’t share in—but the non-elect would be no more guilty, let alone “doubly guilty,” for rejecting Christ if Christ intended nothing for them in any sense to begin with.

- Do you mean that Christ’s death had some temporal, incidental benefit to the reprobate, as the benefits of Christ’s death for the elect’s sake overflow to the rest of mankind? If so, you’ll find us in agreement.

Yes, i’ll go there with you, as well. But i do not find this to be, as some might want to make it, the primary way in which Christ is “savior of all men,” namely, that he preserves their temporal lives. Clearly Paul makes a distinction between Christ being savior of all men and being savior for all who believe, but even while he makes that distinction, there is obviously some overlap in the core of his meaning, which is to say that it is a difference in degree of salvation (i.e., available as savior as opposed to being an effectual savior), not a difference in kind of salvation (i.e., temporal “salvation” vs. eternal salvation). In other words, Paul says in 1 Timothy 4:10, “[Christ] is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe”; he does not say, “Christ is the Savior of all people, but he is the Savior of those who believe in a completely different way.” In fact, many of the earlier Reformers do not take the typically Puritan stance that “Savior” in this regard simply means “temporal preserver of natural life,” or even that “all men” or “all people” really means (if we read between the lines) “some of all types” (which itself would destroy the whole point of the hierarchical distinction between being a savior of all, but especially those who believe); but they in fact favor of interpreting it as an affirmation that Christ is the only Savior available to men through whom they might be saved (i.e., akin to the affirmation in Acts 4:12; he is the Savior of all people precisely in the sense that “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” So if someone is to be saved, it will only be through Christ, or else no one else, and he will remain lost, which is a point i’m sure we agree upon).

So, that’s the end of that. On to more important things.

First, he mentions the fact that Phillip Johnson, in the article on ordered decretalism i linked to in my last post, lists Anglican Puritan Richard Baxter as an Amyraldian and says that he considered himself to be in agreement with Amyraut. This is a question of historical theology, and in many ways, people differ in how they read some folks and their theology in their place in history. From what i have read in Baxter (exerpts of Catholic Theology), it seems to me his purpose was to find the common ground among all Christians based on the fact that we all share a single faith and that all of our theological eccentricities in our various “camps” are simply (over-?)emphases of particular aspects of Christian truth. Further, though he explicitly said that he shared many views with Amyraut, i don’t think that Baxter saw this the way we do looking back: as a distinct school of Christian thought, separate from being (in Phillip Johnson’s terminology) “thoroughgoing Calvinis[m].” I am convinced that Baxter saw himself as a Calvinist who happened to agree with Moise Amyraut on many points. I don’t see that Baxter held to a distinctively Amyraldian ordered decretalism (for that matter, there is a question of whether Amyraut himself held to it, but that’s a different discussion, and the theological terminology comes to us as it does).

Now, don’t get me wrong, there are lots of things on which i don’t agree with Baxter. While i respect his attempt to synthesize Christian doctrine in such a way as to be as inclusive as possible (would that more Reformed men would try to be so charitable and scrupulous about the fact that Christ’s Church is larger than any particular branch of it so as to try and make that a visible reality through their life and ministry the way Baxter did), the way he fleshed it out was, i believe, flawed, and it led to many of the problems that we see in the English and Scots Churches with Neo-nomianism. Here again, even disagreeing with some particulars of their theology, i am strongly in favor of the stance of the Marrowmen who so heavily influenced the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, which is still so dear to me.

So, i regard Richard Baxter as a bright light among Protestant scholastic theology, primarily for his methodology, not the particular content of what he believed and taught. Too many people dismiss everything he wrote (except for the The Reformed Pastor, which Banner of Truth still publishes and sells to the great enthusiasm of many Reformed Pastors everywhere, including myself) for the sake of disagreement with various points of theology, but i believe that attitude is uncharitable and really does throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Second, even though i don’t agree with Baxter’s views on everything (including the way he fleshes out the redemptive work of Christ) his standing for the worth of Christ’s sacrifice and its applicability to all men is a place we stand together (even if i nuance it by saying that it isn’t equally applicable to all men the way Baxter held). So, quoting Baxter is not, in that sense, an endorsement of all the details of his arguments, but rather a use of thoughtful and cogent arguments in the direction of the universal aspect of the redemptive work of Christ (note i said “aspect” to delineate the fact that the universal part is not all there is to Christ’s work, as the Arminians hold, since i hold that there is a particularistic intention actually to atone the elect and not the non-elect) because they have merit and are equally as applicable as arguments for my view as they were for Baxter’s view, precisely because Baxter, who read theology under John Owen for some months in his younger years, was arguing against the same strictly particularistic view that i am arguing against. The only difference, in that respect, is that my view is a more moderated version of what he advocated, being the middle point between equal applicability to all under the Amyraldian view (or something like it) and the other extreme of the strict particularist view of many High Calvinists, that Christ’s work has only applicability to the elect in any sense at all.

So, i believe it is a mistake to read into the use of such arguments an agreement with Baxter of his view en toto. That would be sloppy scholarship, similar to the PRCers who read into Murray and Stonehouse’s essay on the free offer an agreement with Arminians, because they make use of some arguments that sound like points Arminianism make in terms of divine grace shown toward all men and the place of man’s own will and choice in coming to Christ (or failing to do so). It is clear that these men were not Arminians, because their view of the human will and God’s grace toward all men was and is vastly different than the Arminian scheme involving prevenient grace or natural grace. However, their arguments are similar at points to arguments made by Arminians against certain forms of Calvinism that downplay and de-emphesize (or outright deny) God’s grace toward all men alike (i.e., common grace) and man’s will and choice in all aspects of his life, but particularly in his coming (or failing to come) to Christ.

Third, i am very uncomfortable with the Shibboleth kind of attitude being displayed in this case. I have noted this before, but there are lots of folks in the Reformed world who present the attitude that if a person does not cross his Ts and dot his Is in just the way i think he should, they note him as departing from the Reformed Faith and dismiss anything that he has to say. This is similar to the way they treat men of the past who held and wrote views that were not exactly mainstream Reformed (like Baxter or Grotius or Cameron), but it is applied to people in the current theological milieu of the Church in such a way as to cut off debate. It is really a sophisticated version of the “poisoning the well” fallacy or the “appeal to ridicule” fallacy. For instance, if someone of a strict particularist persuasion (i.e., someone who holds that Christ died for the elect only in *ANY* sense whatsoever) were to ask me “Did Christ die for all men?”, i would be duty-bound to answer that simple question with a “Yes,” but then to qualify it. However, any such qualification would be meaningless to the person, because their Shibboleth is “Christ died only for the elect,” and anyone who does not flesh that out just the way they do is held out to ridicule for his view or is pigeonholed as being Amyraldian or Arminian. (Incidentally, this is precisely what i warned Mark, AKA “Tartanarmy” for doing on the Unchained Radio message boards, and he was banned more than once for his refusal to understand how to engage in respectful debate and discussion without resorting to name-calling.)

Now, i understand that i have opened myself up to the same accusation from the other side. Tony and i have, of late, strongly castigated Dr. White for failing to express God’s desire to save all men, and that may appear to some as holding out a Shibboleth for him and condemning him when he fails to do it just like we expect or would ourselves. I grant the similarity, but i believe what makes this different is what has been the mainstream of Calvinistic thought down through the centuries, and even before the Reformation in the history of the Medieval and Patristic Church. It is out of accord with all of these major movements in the history of Christ’s Church not to admit any kind of desire in God or Christ to see all men be saved, so this is a proper place to hold up that standard (and, TurretinFan’s Romanist commenter proves this fact with his very cogent and compelling answer; for the record, i agree with him). It is not, however, out of accord (far from it, and much to the contrary, as a matter of fact) to claim that Christ died in a very real sense for the non-elect, even if not with the full intention to save them eternally.

Of course, these issues go inherently together, along with the free offer of the Gospel, but my point here is that we need to have a more wholistic and (dare i say) “catholic” understanding of theology that actually takes seriously one of the core tenets of Confessional Calvinism, namely man’s depravity and inherent sinfulness, even after his regeneration. If all men are sinful, then that sinfulness will lead, many times, to misunderstanding, or at least to a failure to fully understand all aspects to an issue, which in turn leads to our need to learn and grow in our faith. Setting up artificial standards for what is acceptable and what is not in such an overtly sectarian way is completely out of place in a civil and rational discussion among men who are called by Christ to “love one another” as he loved us, and called to encourage each other’s growth in grace, not be an impediment to it.

In the next post, i will endeavor to answer, in the best way i know how, the questions TurretinFan posed in his post linked above.

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.

Yes, i called James White condescending, hateful, and uncharitable (Note: i am from South Carolina, and i fear that my use of the word “hateful” in a manner i am used to doing may be misleading to some; understand, i am not saying that James White actually hates anyone, and i can’t, since i can’t know his heart. What i am saying is what i have always understood the word “hateful” to mean, that James White is being just plain mean). But those weren’t attacks to prove that James White’s arguments about something are wrong (that’s what an ad hominem actually is); they were actual criticisms of his actions that displayed those tendencies. If criticizing and rebuking an action that someone engages in is an ad hominem, then every rebuke that i give as a pastor is an ad hominem attack. But that can’t be, and no reasonable person would see that as such.

The problem really is that James White is unwilling or unable to hear anyone who criticizes his actions or attitude. I have seen several people attempt to do it over the years—emails made public, posts on the AOmin forum, or even calls into the internet show—, and yet in every case, White brushes the comment asside dismissively. He is either unwilling or unable to hear criticism from others about his public actions. Now, on the one hand, i understand that he is a public figure, and if he took every one seriously, what he does would never get done; he could probably make a full-time job of answering critiques. But i’m not talking about crazy accusations that he is denying the Gospel, denying free will, or anything like it; i’m talking about hearing accusations from fellow Reformed believers that would help him better do what he does to God’s glory and to the help and edification of sinners and believers of all walks of life.

So, i don’t believe i’ve engaged in ad hominem attacks of James White. I believe all i have done is criticize him and his actions. I would like someone to show me how that fits into the definition of ad hominem without making any and every attempt to correct or rebuke someone an ad hominem.

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.

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.

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.

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.