Tom Ascol recently replied to Dr. Allen on his blog, and partially touched on the issue of hyper-Calvinism. Ascol claims to have agreement with White because both of them distinguish between God's decree and precept. He doesn't address the point of God wanting men to comply with his precepts so as to be saved. He makes no mention of God's desire for the salvation of all people (as in his own quote that Allen used). Even Gill acknowledged the difference between decree and precept. So does the Protestant Reformed Church. So what? The mere distinction between decree and precept is not the issue. Rather, the point involves God's desire that all men actually comply with what He has commanded them to do in the Gospel call. To be very specific, does God desire the salvation of any of those who will finally perish, i.e. the reprobates? This is "the crux" of the dispute on the free offer. John Murray (and those who really agree with him) do not hesitate to clearly and explicitly affirm that He does, according to the scriptures. They never thought that such an affirmation makes God "schizophrenic," or "purposing His own eternal unhappiness," or any such nonsense. That's an obvious straw man fallacy.
Questions for Ascol and White:
1) If Ascol and White actually agree, then does Ascol disagree with John Murray on the point? White apparently does, and thus sides with Reymond. He wrote:
I am thankful Phil can put up with my slightly "stiffer" form of Calvinism. I would be more on the Reymond side than the Murray side, for example, and I am for a pretty obvious reason, I hope.
2) If Ascol really agrees with White, then does Ascol somewhat disagree with Phil Johnson, to the point of having a "stiffer" form of Calvinism than Phil Johnson does? Phil seems to see something in White that is different from his own view of God's revealed will. What is it? It's not merely something semantic. Phil also distinguishes between decree and precept, so it can't be that.
*3) If White really agrees with Ascol, then what text of Scripture would White use to say that God desires the salvation of all people in his revealed will? There is no record of White ever using even a single passage to affirm the concept. On the contrary, he fights against the idea in all of his "exegesis." It doesn't matter if you bring up Ezek. 18 & 33. It doesn't matter if you bring up 1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Pet. 3:9, John 5:34, Matt. 23:37, or any other text used by Murray in his treatment of the Free Offer. White doesn't think a single one of them teaches that God desires to save any of the reprobates. One of White's avid (and bizarre) listeners understands his position quite clearly when he writes:
The idea that God desires, wills the salvation of everyone makes God Schizophrenic, and I have said this many times.
This is the reason Dr White responds as he does, about God having these unfulfilled desires and disappointments etc.
Dr White is spot on, and just because Byrne and others wish to embrace irrationality, does not change the argument at all. Call it paradox if you wish and celebrate that kind of thinking, but I do not wish to go down that slippery slope, and for good reasons.
5 comments:
Tony,
I have been following the brouhaha which has developed over the J316C conference, and eventually visited your site by way of link this morning. I have appreciated your contributions on other blogs, and your post here brings to mind some questions of my own regarding God's desire and the free offer.
Could there be some confusion (willful or otherwise) that exists over the nature and expression of God's love, on the one hand, and God's desire as expressed both in His mercy and His wrath, on the other hand?
It is a truism that God loves sinners and that God loves the world, no controversy. But is it a truism that God desires - or freely offers - for all to be saved? Does He not also desire to show His wrath, and wouldn't that desire at least in part account for the logistical reality that countless men never have had, nor will have, the privilege to hear the gospel?
Aren't there clear instances in the Bible of God with holding the necessary knowledge for salvation, as in the instance of His destruction of the Egyptian firstborn, while He reveals specific knowledge to the Hebrews which secures their own salvation? Was there any free offer to the Egyptians? God could have delivered the same instructions to them via Moses as He did to the Hebrews, but He willfully with held it. Did He love the Egyptians as He loved the Hebrews? Did He desire to save the Egyptians, but leave the decision to them?
Again, I'm wondering if there is not some confusion (and not a little antipathy) which fuels this whole unfortunate debacle. As difficult and distasteful to us mere mortals as it may seem, is not God's desire to show wrath just as operable, and just as righteous, as His desire to save? In the way that God's will unfolds in time, isn't this all James White, and to some degree, Tom Ascol, are asserting?
Grace,
Timotheos
Timotheos asked:
"Could there be some confusion (willful or otherwise) that exists over the nature and expression of God's love, on the one hand, and God's desire as expressed both in His mercy and His wrath, on the other hand?"
If there is some confusion, it is apparently in James White. His responses to the issue of God's universal saving desire have been incoherent and evasive, hence the specific questions above.
Timotheos said:
"It is a truism that God loves sinners and that God loves the world, no controversy."
Steve Camp denies that God loves all mankind, so apparently there is a "controversy." Perhaps we've misunderstood Phil's Primer on that point as well? Does it entail that Steve Camp is an historic hyper-Calvinist? We think so. Why isn't Ascol warning anyone about this specific problem, or Camp's denial of God's universal saving desire?
Timotheos asked:
"But is it a truism that God desires - or freely offers - for all to be saved?"
Yes, according to orthodox Calvinism. But, whether or not it is a "truism" for James White is another question, hence my specific questions for Ascol and White above.
Timotheos asked:
"Does He not also desire to show His wrath, and wouldn't that desire at least in part account for the logistical reality that countless men never have had, nor will have, the privilege to hear the gospel?"
Of course God also desires to show wrath upon those who suppress the truth, whether we're talking about any light in their own consciences, or light given through the gospel offer. This is beside the point of the discussion. What needs to be discussed is the understanding of the free or well-meant gospel offer in Calvinistic history, hence my specific questions for Ascol and White above.
As for your questions about God, the offer and the Egyptians, we have no record of the gospel being offered to them. Nevertheless, God sincerely commanded him to let his people go. In expressing that command, he expressed an earnest desire for him to do so. Furthermore, he expressed an earnest desire that Pharoah not harm himself or his nation. He was kind, merciful AND LOVING toward Pharoah and the Egyptians, even if his love was not equal with that love shown to the Hebrews. We're not asking Ascol, White or Phil if God equally loves all mankind, or equally desires to save all mankind. We're specifically asking James White if God desires the salvation of any of those who finally perish. It's only the hyper-Calvinists historically who have denied that, hence the specific questions for Ascol and White above.
Timotheos said:
"Again, I'm wondering if there is not some confusion (and not a little antipathy) which fuels this whole unfortunate debacle."
I think that's perceptive, Timotheos. I do think there is a great deal of confusion and antipathy in this area, hence White's confusion responses that involve gross mischaracterizations of the historic Calvinistic position, as if God purposes his own eternal unhappiness, etc. Also, there is antipathy because some do not think the doctrine of the well-meant gospel offer is a serious matter, apparently. You cannot have a well-meant offer by God to sinners if He does not desire the salvation of all men in his revealed will. Phil Johnson knows that, and he's expressed it a number of times.
Timotheos asked:
"As difficult and distasteful to us mere mortals as it may seem, is not God's desire to show wrath just as operable, and just as righteous, as His desire to save? In the way that God's will unfolds in time, isn't this all James White, and to some degree, Tom Ascol, are asserting?"
Again, the issue doesn't involve God's desire to show wrath on disobedient sinners. Calvinists acknowledge that God desires this as well, with respect to sinners suppressing the truth, etc. The problem is that James White is systematically denying that God desires the salvation of any of those who finally perish, because he apparently thinks this involves God "decreeing his own eternal misery," and other misrepresentations. I believe that Ascol actually agrees with Phil Johnson, and that both of them agree with Charles Hodge and John Murray. However, I do not believe that James White agrees with either of these men when it comes to God desiring the salvation of the reprobate, hence my specific questions for them above.
Timotheos,
You've asked very good questions and you've brought up valid concerns. I respect that and you. I do, however, want to make sure that this comment section sticks to the content of the main post above, so that the conversation does not get derailed. Red herrings have abounded on Phil's blog and elsewhere in response to these issues. I deleted the anonymous comment before yours because it distracted from the focus of the main post. We can discuss how it is coherent for God to desire the salvation of all men and yet purpose to leave some in their sins at another time. At this point we need to see if White actually believes the first premise, i.e. that God desires the salvation of any of those who finally perish. We need to find out what he believes about God's well-meaning desire for the salvation of all people, even the reprobate, since Waldron and Murray think the doctrine is the crux of the free offer.
Thanks,
Tony
I've been tracking all of this, trying to follow the back-and-forth of views and definitions and terminology, but finally I just want to put myself up to the test.
I believe that God has a "desire" to see all men saved, that none should perish, in the sense that God does not have any pleasure in the death of the wicked but "desires" that they should turn from their evil ways (Ezekiel 18.23). To be otherwise, which means that it makes God happier to punish the wicked than to glorify them, would, to speak looser than I usually like, make God a sadist. I think this is made clearer by observing in Lamentations 3.33 that it says God "does not willingly [i.e. from the heart] afflict or grieve the children of men." Thus, this is the sense in which he desires all men saved, in that his first inclination is to glorify not to punish.
That said, I do believe that if any man shall perish, it is solely because God willed it to happen, but this, not in the sense of 'caused' but in the sense of it being "according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will" (Ephesians 1.11). And since it be, that God's purpose may not be thwarted (Job 42.2) and that God "made everything for its purpose" (Proverbs 16.4), then it must be that God did not "desire" that person to be saved, else they would have been.
Why do I say "not in the sense of 'caused' but in the sense of [Ephesians 1.11]"? Because it was not God that 'caused' man to sin and be in the state where he is deserving of punishment. That is where I think the proper divide is.
Would this make me a hyper-Calvinist according to the definition being used?
Todd,
No. You're response is within the boundaries of historic and orthodox Calvinism. You are affirming God's universal saving desire with biblical support. If White actually agrees with you, then what scriptural support does he have? He's already reasoned all of it away. You're appeal to Ezekiel won't persuade him. There's no record of any other text persuading him of the idea, hence my questions for Ascol and White above.
donsands said the following on Ascol's blog:
"I asked Dr. James White why Jesus would weep over Jerusalem, and he stated that Jesus wasn't weeping for all the Jews, but just His children.
I have to disagree here.
How do you see this?
I don't believe Dr. White is hyper, but he certainly has a more hard stance, don't you think?"
Ascol responded:
"Though James and I have not discussed this issue at length, I am convinced that we are in basic agreement, based on what he has written. We would probably say some things differently. Phil Johnson calls him somewhat "stiffer" in his views than some."
Ascol seems to think that the difference between himself and White is merely semantic, or just "saying some things differently," even though he hasn't discussed the issue with White "at length." One wonders if they have discussed it at all, or if he's paying attention to White systematic denial that the bible teaches that God desires the salvation of any of those who finally perish. Consider these two propositions:
1) God desires the salvation of those who finally perish.
2) God does not desire the salvation of those who finally perish.
The difference between those two propositions is NOT merely "saying things differently."
What's driving James White to respond to donsands the way he did? Isn't it the fundamental presupposition that he cannot desire anything that does not come to pass, i.e. the salvation of any of the reprobates? It is.
Post a Comment