"Any of You": The Universality of the Atonement in 2 Peter 3:9

In the last few posts, I’ve been going through passage after passage of verses pertaining to what many believe to be the universality (and yet, exclusivity) of the atonement. The atonement has been seen as that which corresponds to the Doctrine of Singular Redemption: this doctrine states that, while the atonement is “sufficient” for every person, the atonement is only “efficient” for those who believe. In other words, while Christ purchased the redemption of every man, only those who believe receive the purchased redemption. Only those who believe are accurately called “the redeemed” (Exodus 15:13).

In this post, I will explore the passage of 2 Peter 3 to see what insight it can provide in regards to the Doctrine of the Atonement (the teaching that Christ died for the sins of the world).

Let’s read the passage together:

“But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:8-9, English Standard Version).

I once saw a video of James White on Youtube where he responded to a sermon by Ergun Caner, delivered at Liberty University, titled “Why I Am Not a Hyper-Calvinist.” Ergun Caner used 2 Peter 3:9 as a prooftext for universal atonement (that Jesus died for every person). James White responded to this prooftext by arguing that the “any” of the verse itself did not refer to any person, but rather, “any of you,” the recipients of Peter’s letter.

This is problematic, however. If Peter is writing to fellow believers, then why would he tell them that the Lord desires “that all should reach repentance”? Haven’t the believers of the letter ALREADY repented?

In 1 Peter 1:1, Peter calls the recipients of his letters “the elect exiles of the dispersion...” This tells us, then, that the Jewish exiles are “elect,” or “saved”. In the same chapter, Peter tells the believers, “he [Christ] has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead...to an inheritance that is...kept in heaven for you” (1 Peter 1:3-4, ESV). The believers are “being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed” (1 Peter 1:5). The recipients are referred to as “obedient children” (v.14) who “call on him as Father” (v.17). These Jews have “purified [their] souls by [their] obedience to the truth” (v.22) and “have been born again...of imperishable seed, through the living and abiding word of God” (v.23). These Jews are “now God’s people” and “have received mercy” (2:10). In 2 Peter, the Jews in question are addressed as “those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:1). They are told to “be all the more diligent to make [their] calling and election sure” (2 Pet. 1:10), which tells us that they are “called” and “elect”. In 2 Peter 3, Peter tells the Jews that “according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth” (3:13) and that they are to “count the patience of our Lord as salvation” (3:15).

All of the above language testifies to the Jews as being believers, Jewish Christians. So if these believers are genuine, which it seems they are (according to Peter), then why are they to “ensure their calling and election” and to “count the Lord’s delay as salvation”? If James White’s assessment of the “any of you” phrase is correct (not willing that any of you should perish, 2 Pet. 3:9), then James White has just betrayed his own Calvinist theology; for, how then, will Calvinists handle this verse? If even the elect have to ensure their election, doesn’t this tell us that there is no eternal security? If Peter must write, “take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and LOSE YOUR OWN STABILITY” (2 Pet. 3:17), doesn’t this imply that, by “losing one’s stability,” one’s standing in Christ is not “eternally guaranteed”?

By trying to fight the Arminian view of the atonement, James White finds himself at a checkmate theologically: he has nowhere to go. If one’s election in Christ has to be “ensured” by the person, then doesn’t this imply that one’s salvation is “eternally” ensured by “eternally” persevering in the faith? Doesn’t this imply that the elect have to continue to “work out [their] soul salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12)?

Despite my disagreements with James White in regards to his Calvinist theology, I agree with James White on one thing: context must first determine the interpretation of a passage...once context has determined the interpretation of a passage, we can then see how that passage fits with other similar passages of Scripture. Because these hermeneutical principles stand firm, I can agree with White and say that the “any” within 2 Peter 3 refers to the Jews of the Diaspersion who have come to faith (Jewish believers); however, when placed within the canon of the entire Bible (and not just 1 Peter and 2 Peter), the “any” of 2 Peter 3:9 refers to the “every creature” of Mark 16:15 that must hear the gospel and believe in order to be saved.

Once again, the doctrine of singular redemption still holds: the Lord desires the salvation of every person (sufficient for all); however, a person who desires to be saved must come by faith, for “without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please Him” (Hebrews 11:6). Faith is the condition for salvation (efficient for all who believe, Romans 1:16).

More on the Doctrine of Singular Redemption is to come. Stay tuned...

Implicit Premise

Dr. Ivan Spencer, my Apologetics professor, lectured on the problem of evil this week. He said that atheists often like to throw in “hidden premises,” implicit premises that can easily confuse a person if he or she fails to see what those implicit premises are. When atheists formulate premises and conclusions to attack theism (and the existence of God), they like to throw in hidden assumptions a lot.
But in the last year, I’ve come to see that Calvinists are guilty of the exact same thing. Revisiting “Debating Calvinism” by James White and Dave Hunt got me to see this once more.

James White writes in his section on “Unconditional Election”:

“Unconditional Election is simply the recognition of the biblical teaching that GOD IS FREE IN THE MATTER OF SALVATION. He chooses to exercise mercy and grace toward undeserving creatures solely on the basis of ‘the good pleasure of His will’ (Ephesians 1:5). THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CREATURE THAT MERITS, EARNS, OR ATTRACTS HIS FAVOR. His election is unconditional in that IT IS BASED SOLELY ON HIS PURPOSE AND HIS PLEASURE AND NOT IN ANYTHING WHATSOEVER IN THE CREATURE. This belief, of course, is most unpopular, since IT LEAVES NO ROOM FOR MAN’S ACCOMPLISHMENTS, WORKS, RITUALS, SACRAMENTS, or (AND THIS IS THE MAIN ISSUE), THE EXERCISE OF HIS ALLEGEDLY AUTONOMOUS WILL” (James White, “Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views.” Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books, 2004, pages 91-92).

We can present James White’s argument in the following syllogism:

1. God is free in the matter of salvation.
2. God chooses to show mercy and grace on “the good pleasure of His will.”
3. The creature cannot merit God’s grace and mercy.
4. God does not show mercy and grace due to man’s “autonomous” will. Therefore, God's "good pleasure" is in opposition to man's will ("autonomous" according to White).

The issue for James White, at least, is free will. A little later in his exposition of Ephesians 1, White writes:

“Why one man and not another? Man’s religions and traditions put the answer to that question firmly in the realm of human choice and accomplishment, but the Bible gives a very different answer. Upon what basis does God choose one and not another? ‘According to the kind intention of His will.’ It is God’s will, God’s purpose, God’s intention that determines the issue...if the crux of the matter lies IN MAN’S SUCCESSFUL ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, OR EVEN IN THE EXERCISE OF ‘FREE WILL’ TO EFFECTUATE GOD’S GRACE, how can the very next phrase speak of the praise of the glory of His grace?” (“Debating Calvinism,” pp. 93-94)

What White doesn’t understand, however, is that his attempts to separate free will from God’s sovereignty do not make his case; rather, it breaks it. Notice that in the syllogism above, White calls the human will “autonomous” and then separates the free will from God’s good pleasure in his quote on Ephesians 1. Why does White do this, when he knows that there is no such thing as an “autonomous” will? The word “autonomous” means to be one’s own law; so an autonomous will is one that answers to no one, where each human is their own God. But is that how God made man? No. Man has a will (which is a part of what it means to be “like” his Creator), but the will itself was created by God. Therefore, man can NEVER have an autonomous will; and for White to contribute the will to man himself robs God of His glory. If God made the will, then He made it originally good (not evil) and deemed it worthy of existence.

Secondly, he states that “the exercise of ‘free will’” is not what makes the grace of God effective. When White says this, though, he pairs up man’s “exercising of free will” with “man’s accomplishments,” etc. In White’s mind (as in the minds of Calvinists), faith is a work. The Scriptures, however, distinguish the two (Romans 4:2-3).

Sadly enough, White’s syllogism above links free will and the human decision. This is an implicit premise, but White finally decides to not hide it anymore:

“Every WORKS-ORIENTED system must deny God His kingship over the creature and must give to man’s abilities and powers beyond his sinful state, so that in the final analysis God’s power can be ‘channeled’ through human structures, whether they be rituals, sacraments, or even the very popular concept of ‘DECISIONALISM,’ THE IDEA THAT MAN, BY HIS AUTONOMOUS WILL, CONTROLS THE VERY WORK OF THE TRIUNE GOD IN SALVATION” (“Debating Calvinism,” page 99).

So now we all know White’s hidden premise: since God does not save on the basis of merit or accomplishment, He CANNOT SAVE ON THE BASIS OF FAITH! But as I said earlier, faith is not a work.

What White doesn’t comprehend about Ephesians 1 (a classic Calvinist passage) is that God saves by “the good pleasure of His will” (Eph. 1:5). But if this is true, then a question must be posed: WHAT seems good to God? What does He will in salvation? In an earlier quote in this post, I quoted James White saying that it is “to the praise of the glory of His grace” that He selects individuals to be saved. However, the key to the passage is “the praise...of His GRACE”! And why is His grace to be praised? Paul answers this question in Romans 4:16ff---

“Therefore it is of faith THAT IT MIGHT BE ACCORDING TO GRACE, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to THOSE WHO ARE OF THE LAW, but also to THOSE WHO ARE OF THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM, who is the father of us all (as it is written, ‘I have made you a father of many nations’)” (Rom. 4:16-17, NKJV).

Why is God’s grace to be praised? Is it because He does whatever He wants? Yes! But what is the “whatever He wants”? Is it unconditional election, where He chooses some to be saved and leaves others in their damnation? NO!! Instead, God is to be praised for His grace because His grace “made room” for Gentiles; for, without it, all the Gentiles would still be in their sins. The fact that God did not just grant salvation to the Jews presents a God who is willing to bestow grace and faith on all of His human creation, not just some of it.

Calvinists will continue to write, produce books, and win many converts. But the Bible presents the truth; and I am convinced that the truth will win out in the end.

Granting Repentance

“Fourth, he [Lloyd-Jones] is concerned that the public invitation implies that sinners have an inherent power to come to Christ, which they do not. He argues against ‘self-conversion,’ noting that those dead in trespasses and sins are unable to respond to the invitation (1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1).

Lloyd-Jones fails to mention that GOD USES THE PREACHED WORD TO ‘GRANT’ REPENTANCE AND FAITH (Acts 5:30-31; 11:18; Rom. 10:17). THAT WHICH IS NORMALLY IMPOSSIBLE BECOMES POSSIBLE THROUGH THE SUPERNATURAL POWER OF GOD. As Leighton Ford reminds us:
‘If anyone feels that he cannot give an invitation for a sinner to come to Christ, because of man’s inability, let him remember that Jesus invited a man whose hand was paralyzed to do what he could not do! “...Stretch out your hand...” Jesus commanded (Matthew 12:13), and the man obeyed the command and did what he would not do! Let him remember also that Jesus told a dead man to do something he could not do---to live! “...Lazarus, come forth,” He commanded (John 11:43), and Lazarus obeyed the voice of Jesus and did what he could not do” (R. Alan Streett, “The Public Invitation and Calvinism,” from “Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism.” Nashville: B&H, 2010, page 248).

In my last post, I attacked James White’s view of total depravity, where he says that God must regenerate a person before he or she professes faith in Christ. To make his case, he quoted John 6:43-44, where Jesus says that no one can come to faith unless the Spirit draws him. White used this to argue regeneration preceding faith; however, I made the case that John 6 argues the need of the Spirit in the process, that the Spirit must initiate the God-human relationship. However, this doesn’t eliminate man’s responsibility to come to Christ (as shown in Acts 7:51).

White’s argument of regeneration preceding faith actually makes God’s sovereignty trump human responsibility...or, something unthinkable is created--- God must change our nature before we can have “responsibility.” If this is the case, though, then why does Genesis show us God punishing humanity because of their unbelief with regard to Noah’s message of a worldwide flood??? White argues that human responsibility only comes through regeneration; but this can’t be true! If White is right, then Cain’s deeds are the result of his depravity...and God had no right to punish him, whatsoever! You cannot take away responsibility before regeneration and then make someone responsible for the deeds they do. If a person cannot come to faith until regeneration, then it’s God’s responsibility for the lost souls in the world. Those who never come to Christ have no responsibility for living their lives in unbelief. And all this craziness is based on the fact that for White, regeneration precedes faith.

Of the passages quoted by R. Alan Streett, I’m only gonna deal with one verse: Acts 11:18---

“When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, ‘Then God has ALSO GRANTED to the Gentiles repentance to life’” (Acts 11:18, NKJV).

In the context of Acts 11, Peter is explaining to the Jews at Jerusalem why he was seen associating with the uncircumcised Gentiles. In verse 17, Peter asks,

“If therefore God GAVE THEM THE SAME GIFT as He gave us WHEN WE BELIEVED ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, who was I that I could withstand God?”

Notice that the gift being spoken of here is the Holy Spirit, mentioned in verses 15 and 16.

So we see that when they believed on the Lord, they then received the Spirit. They did not receive the Spirit BEFORE they believed; NO---they received the Spirit AFTER BELIEVING. The word in the Greek for “when we believed” is “pisteusasin.” The word “pisteusasin” is an aorist verb, and an aorist verb is one that shows past action. So, when a person is granted the Holy Spirit, that person has already believed: repentance and belief PRECEDE regeneration by the Spirit, not FOLLOW it.

And R. Alan Streett was trying to make the same point about Martin Lloyd-Jones in the above quote. Jones believes that man cannot even make one step in professing faith in Christ because he is “dead in trespasses and sins.” The problem with Lloyd-Jones’s analysis is that he forgets some seemingly little words that make all the difference in the world: “in trespasses and sins.” This is the LOCATION of the “deadness”: in our sins! We are dead in sins, but we are not physically dead---and, as a result, there are many things we are capable of doing! Calvinists also commit a serious blunder when they quote Ephesians 1:4---

“just as He chose us IN HIM before the foundation of the world. That we should be holy and without blame before Him in love...” (Eph. 1:4, NKJV)

Calvinists often focus upon the words “He chose us”; but they overlook the words “in Him.” The words “in Him” are extremely important. If they never existed in the verse, then God would just choose those He wanted. And when Calvinists advocate unconditional election, they strip Ephesians 1:4 of its power and rob God’s people of proper understanding of the Scriptures. If God chose believers “in Him,” then that means that Christ is the “realm” or “sphere” in which God chooses people.

Therefore, God chooses BELIEVERS, those who confess and believe on the Lord Jesus (Rom. 10:9; Jn. 3:16). Notice that the “in Him” language used in Ephesians 1:4 is the same language used in John 3:16. Those who believe IN CHRIST are the ones who are given eternal life. And believing in Christ is the condition for eternal life, as John 3:16 demonstrates. So there are conditions to be fulfilled in order for a person to receive eternal life (such exegesis, though, undermines the Calvinist advocacy of “unconditional election”).

God must grant repentance, for without it, man cannot and will not believe. However, the fact that God gives it explains why God can require man to exercise it. God gives repentance, and man exercises his God-given faith by believing on the name of the Lord Jesus. Such is the message of the Scriptures.

False Dichotomy

“A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Cor.2:14).

There is a fundamental incapacity in the natural man. He DOES NOT ACCEPT the things of the Spirit of God (willful rejection), for they are foolishness to him. Why are they foolishness? Because he is not a spiritual man. He CANNOT (not ‘does not’ or ‘normally chooses not to’) understand them. This is another phrase of inability, just as in Romans 8:7. This is not to say that there are not unregenerate, unsaved men who understand the outlines of Christian theology, for example, or the claims of the Christian faith. What it does mean is that there is no unregenerate man who SPIRITUALLY accepts, understands, and knows the things of God. They exist on a level he cannot access, the spiritual level, and he is spiritually dead. But if true saving faith is focused upon the spiritually understood truths of Christ’s perfect and substitutionary sacrifice and His resurrection from the dead, how can the natural man have this kind of faith?” (James White, “Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views.” Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books, 2004, page 69).

Some time ago, I did a series titled “Somewhere In the Middle,” where I show how Classical Arminianism is the “middle ground theology” between Calvinism and Pelagianism. I showed that both Calvinism and Pelagianism go too far: Calvinism throws all sovereignty and responsibility on God, while Pelagianism throws all sovereignty and responsibility upon man. Classical Arminianism, however, is truly the middle ground in that it shows how God, in His sovereignty, must grant man grace and faith to believe (Ephesians 2), since man’s will is so bound and bent to sin and evil. However, the responsibility to believe is not God’s; God is NOT responsible for whether or not a person comes to Himself. God gives the grace and faith needed to believe, and man must exercise the grace and faith bestowed upon himself by God.

And this is the problem with White’s quote above. Notice that he emphasizes that man is totally depraved in his nature. And to that, I agree. However, White fumbles when he discusses man having faith: “But if true saving faith is focused upon the spiritually understood truths of Christ’s perfect and substitutionary sacrifice and His resurrection from the dead, how can the natural man have this kind of faith?”

Is there a way for natural man to have this kind of faith? In his own power, NO!!! For, as White shows in his quote above, as well as Scripture (1 Cor. 2 included), man cannot come to faith on His own.

But this is where Scripture aids us. James White misses the point of Scripture when asking this question, and he makes us think that either man can believe on his own (mentions the word “autonomy”) or that God must regenerate that person before they believe. However, White quotes a verse on the very next page after 1 Corinthians 2 that can aid us in this discussion:

“Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.’ (John 6:43-44)” (White, 70)

The only way a person can come to the Father is if the Spirit initiates the God-man relationship and goes to him or her first. But what does this mean? Does this mean that God “makes” the person come to Himself? Does the Spirit automatically FORCE a person to come to faith in Christ? The answer to that would be a resounding “No!”.

Let’s see Stephen’s words to the Jews in Acts 7:

“You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! YOU ALWAYS RESIST THE HOLY SPIRIT; as your fathers did, so do you” (Acts 7:51, NKJV).

In order for the Holy Spirit to be “resisted,” He had to have been working on the hearts of the Jews to which Stephen preached his sermon. The Jews could not have resisted a Spirit who was not pleading with them, beckoning them, wooing them to Himself.

So when Jesus talks about the Spirit “draws” people, He isn’t saying that the Spirit woos a person and they will ALWAYS accept Him and come to faith. There are those, like the audience to which Peter preached, that will reject the Spirit’s wooing and compelling, and continue to persist in their sin.

So if a person can resist the Spirit’s drawing, then, what about those who come to faith? How do they come to faith, while others persist in their unbelief? it is because they are drawn by the Spirit, and they repent of their sins and believe on His name (exercise the grace and faith God gives). This is why Jesus says,
“IF ANYONE WILLS TO DO HIS WILL, he shall know concerning this doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority” (John 7:17, NKJV).

For those who have a genuine desire to believe in Christ, God grants them knowledge of the truth along with grace and faith so that they can believe in Him.

Paul labels “faith” in Romans 1 as “the obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5, NKJV). Why does he do this? If we take James White’s stance, God must first “make me willing” before I obey. How can obedience be called “obedience” when God is the one who has “forced” me to do it? How can someone obey if I force them to? How can they submit to me if I force them to bow down, to follow my rules? I cannot. And that is the problem with Calvinist theology: God must force us to submit, and then we “willingly” submit. But if this be the case, then why do I need to hear the Gospel? Why is it that “hearing” and “believing” the Gospel are so central to the conversion of the unbeliever (Rom. 10:14-17)? If we listen to James White, we would easily believe that no unbeliever wanted to hear the Gospel...and yet, we find the exact opposite throughout the pages of Scripture itself (Acts 17:32; John 3:4ff).

James White’s attempts to portray Arminianism as Pelagianism shine through here. White puts up a false dichotomy, paints a picture of ONLY two theologies---either that of Calvinism or human autonomy. The problem with this is that he forgets there is a middle ground, which is completely biblical---and that is the belief that the Spirit of grace bestows grace and faith, and man must exercise them in order to be saved. This, my friends, is what we call “Classical Arminianism.”

God's Eternal Decree, Part I: The Complete Freedom of God

“The complete freedom of God, combined with God’s role as the divine King who rules over His creation, provide the irrefutable foundation of God’s sovereign decree” (James White, “God’s Eternal Decree,” from “Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views.” Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books, 2004, page 38).

I read the book “Debating Calvinism” approximately one year ago, and it’s taken me 60-70 books (and some free time) to finally get a chance to start blogging on this book. It was one of the first books I bought on the Calvinism-Arminianism debate (although Dave Hunt, the other co-author of the book, isn’t Arminian). However, it got me to start seeing the problems with Calvinism itself---as well as the dangerous implications of Calvinist theology itself.

I begin blogging on the book with the above quote because I think it is one of the most fundamental issues regarding God that Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike must consider when developing a theology and a philosophy of God. Whether most believers know it or not, they have an underlying philosophy of God that governs their interpretations of Scripture. Jay Wesley Richards writes:

“Such extrapolated interpretations of PP [Principle of Perfection] and SAC [Sovereignty-Aseity Conviction] exercise enough control that theologians, including staunchly biblical ones, sometimes use them, in a sort of hermeneutical feedback loop, to interpret Scripture…we must judge the legitimacy of such use case by case...” (Jay Wesley Richards, “The Untamed God: A Philosophical Exploration of Divine Perfection, Simplicity, and Immutability.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003, page 37).

Richards’ quote shows us that philosophical principles, while good ones, can be used to reinterpret Scripture...instead of Scripture revising philosophical principles. This is why we must be careful in doing sound biblical interpretation, always testing our reading and comprehension by the Word of God. Yes, believers must become “Berean” in their thinking (Acts 17:11).

Now, on to examining White’s quote. Let’s read it again here:

“The complete freedom of God, combined with God’s role as the divine King who rules over His creation, provide the irrefutable foundation of God’s sovereign decree.”

White tells us that we can believe in God’s sovereign decree because first, God has total freedom to do whatever He wants; and second, because He rules over His creation. I would have to say that I think these are two good reasons why we can believe in the sovereign decree of God. However, having said that, I believe that God’s Word tells us what God’s sovereign decree is. We can easily know what God decreed from the beginning of the existence of time because He tells us in His Word.

To match his quote of God as being sovereign, James White immediately, in his section titled “The Counsel of His Will,” goes on to quote Ephesians 1:11---

“We have obtained an inheritance, having been predestinated according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.”

James White comments:

“This [Eph. 1:11] is the positive way of stating what Paul said in Romans 9:11 (‘So that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls’) and 2 Timothy 1:9 (‘He saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity’). God’s purpose, God’s will, is the basis upon which God acts. He works ALL THINGS in accordance with the counsel of His will. MAN’S WILL CANNOT THWART OR DESTROY HIS PURPOSE, and THIS TRUTH IS STATED HERE IN EPHESIANS IN THE CONTEXT OF SALVATION ITSELF” (“God’s Eternal Decree,” from “Debating Calvinism,” page 39).

In the opinion of James White, since “all things” work out “after the counsel of His will,” then everything works out exactly as He wants it to. What does it mean, to say that everything works out like God wants it to? James White states,

“without this truth, one is left with the religions of men: God offers, God tries, but in the final analysis, MEN DISPOSE” (39).

In other words, “without this truth” (that God determines everything to go His way), men frustrate the plan and will of God. Either God determines everything, or man determines everything.

Don’t you think that White sets up two extremes, creates a false dichotomy, when the answer of truth lies “in the middle” between these two extremes? Why must God determine everything OR man determine everything? Why can’t both God and man be determining (or causal) agents in the universe? After all, is everything in life determined? Are there not some things in the universe that are determined, and some that are indeterminate?

Dave Hunt responds:

“Yes, God works ‘all things after the counsel of his own will’ (Eph. 1:11), but White ignores the key word ‘COUNSEL’. Contrary to Calvinism, which makes God its author, the evil and suffering in this world are not God’s will but the result of man’s rebellion: ‘They rebel against me’ (Hosea 7:14). IN THE COUNSEL OF HIS WILL, GOD HAS GIVEN MAN A FREE WILL. That fact provides the only explanation for rampant wickedness (‘Oh, do not this abominable thing that I hate’ [Jeremiah 44:4])” (Dave Hunt response, page 103).

I think the problem with Calvinists is that, when they wanna talk about the God-human relationship, they turn to Ephesians 1...but bypass Genesis 1! Genesis 1 shows us the glory God bestowed on man in the beginning when He gave man dominion over His earthly creation and blessed their rule (Gen. 1:26-28). God gave man free will in the Garden when He allowed Adam to name the animals (Gen. 2:19). God does not determine all the events of life in the Garden; rather, as Terence Fretheim states, God “shares power in relationship.”

Perhaps White’s gross view of God is the direct consequence of his gross view of men: since men are just puppets in the hands of a dictatorial God, then God has no regard for them. This, though, is a direct violation of Scripture (Psalm 8), which tells us that God desired to glorify man (and that man, in turn, would glorify God).
What is “the counsel of His will” of Ephesians 1:11? I’ll get into that in my next post.

"The Fact That Not All Are Saved"

“The God of Scripture is able to save perfectly and completely all He desires to save: the fact that not all are saved leads inexorably to the truth of divine election. Therefore, CBF [“Chosen But Free” by Norman Geisler] denies this divine truth and instead replaces it with the idea of ‘determinately knowing’ already reviewed in chapter two" (James White, “The Potter’s Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and a Rebuttal of Norman Geisler’s ‘Chosen But Free’”. Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2000, pages 99-100).

There are two problems with White’s quote that I desire to tackle. The first involves his quote regarding God: “The God of Scripture is able to save...all He desire to save.” Is God able to save everyone He wants to save? YES. The Bible is unwavering in its view of God as the Almighty Sovereign...

However, the Bible tells us something different about WHO God actually saves (than White and other Calvinists). While God desires ‘all’ (everyone) to be saved, He does not save everyone. Why? According to White, God doesn’t want to save everyone. To the contrary, Scripture has something different to say:

“Therefore, He is also able to save to the uttermost (completely) THOSE WHO COME TO GOD THROUGH HIM, since He always lives to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:25, NKJV).

God will save, but He will save under ONE CONDITION: that we come to God by grace through faith in Christ. This is the way God has, in His Sovereignty, chosen to save some and not others.

In Hebrews 5:9, we are told that those who receive eternal salvation are “all who obey Him.” Obedience is the condition by which some are saved and others are not. In addition, Paul calls faith “the obedience” in Romans 1:5 (NKJV calls it “obedience to the faith”), demonstrating that to obey Christ is to have faith in Him. Jesus’ words in John chapters 3 and 5 testify to belief as the condition for eternal life:

John 3:15---“whoever believes”

John 3:16---“whoever believes”

John 3:18---“he who believes...is not condemned”

John 5:24---“he who hears My word and believes”

John 5:40---“you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life”

Further chapters in John show the same thing:

John 6:29---“this is the work of God, that you BELIEVE in Him whom He sent.”

John 6:40---“everyone who sees the Son and BELIEVES IN HIM...”

John 6:47---“he who BELIEVES in Me”

John the Baptist tells of belief in Christ (3:36), and even John’s prologue talks about those who believe being “as many as received Him...those who believe in His name” (1:12). Last but not least, John challenges his audience in chapter 20:
“But these [things] are written that you may BELIEVE that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that BELIEVING you may have life in His name” (20:31).

I picked John’s Gospel as justification because the Gospel itself tends to be the favorite of Calvinists. And yet, there is so much Scripture pertaining to hearing His Word and believing in Him. I wonder what Calvinists say about these Scriptures? Hmmm...

Next, White claims that, because all do not come to Christ, Christ does not desire everyone to be saved. According to White, general revelation shows us truth about God: that God does not desire the salvation of everyone. However, Scripture also gives us truth about ourselves as human beings (Rom. 1:18-32), and the fact that many do not come to Christ is not because Christ doesn’t want them...but rather, they do not want Christ:

“because, although THEY KNEW GOD, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful...” (Rom. 1:18ff)

The heart of the matter is that, while man knows the truth, he refuses to live according to it. Instead, he “suppresses the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18). He chooses to live his life as though he were ignorant. As a result, God gives him over to his desire---if he wants to live as though he is depraved (1:28) in mind, then so be it; he will act as such.

James White and fellow Calvinists desire to place responsibility on God. But if God truly does desire the gospel to be preached to “every creature” (Mark 16:15), not just a select few, then doesn’t this imply universal opportunity for salvation? Surely it does! And it is this, coupled with the world-wide voice of creation (Rom. 10:17-18, Ps. 19:4) that testifies to a God who calls all people, every person, to Himself---while refusing to make them come...

God's Freedom

“It seems that Dr. Geisler’s position leads inevitably to the latter: that in the final analysis, man is the one that actively, willfully, freely determines what takes place in the human realm. God’s ‘sovereignty,’ if we can use the term, is limited to giving the gift of freedom...God’s “responsibility” is limited to giving men freedom: NOWHERE IN THESE DISCUSSIONS DO WE SEE ANY EMPHASIS AT ALL UPON GOD’S FREEDOM. While it is definitional in Geisler’s view that man be free, it does not seemingly follow that when it comes to actions in time, it is definitional that God be free as well” (James White, “The Potter’s Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and a Rebuttal of Norman Geisler’s ‘Chosen But Free’”. Amityville, NY: Calvary Press Publishing, 2000, pages 60-61).

According to James White, Geisler’s discussion of man and free will does not involve God’s freedom whatsoever. However, how was man given the freedom he has? He was given his freedom from God. And why did God give it? Well, as Calvinists are quick to state, God did it unconditionally---He was not bound to anyone or anything OUTSIDE OF HIMSELF that forced His hand or obligated Him to give man free will. The Lord decided to do this because He wanted to!

I do want to pause here for a moment and say that I think White is right: I think God’s freedom should be discussed. Don’t get me wrong---I’m not siding with White in regards to Calvinist theology; I think that Calvinism deprives man of his God-given dignity and privilege. However, he is right to require theologians to account for God’s freedom in man’s responsibility. If theologians do not start to address this, man’s freedom will begin to look like self-proclaimed autonomy and cultural accommodation!

Although I think James White is right in his point about God’s freedom, I still think his view of man’s responsibility is wrong. There is biblical evidence of God’s freedom in bestowing freedom and responsibility upon man. In Genesis 1:26, God said, “Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; LET THEM HAVE DOMINION...over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth” (Gen. 1:26, NKJV).

In verse 29, God tells the couple (Adam and Eve), “See, I HAVE GIVEN YOU every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; TO YOU IT SHALL BE FOR FOOD” (Gen. 1:29, NKJV). God gave the plants to the animals for food as well---but God first talks to the human couple and mentions what He has done for them. And why did God do it? Because He wanted to. He was not forced to do it.

Here we see a consensus of all three Trinitarian persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in the granting of privileges to God’s human creation. God is not coerced into doing this, hence, God’s freedom is present within the first chapter of Genesis.

In Genesis 1:28, God gives the couple explicit instructions: “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Gen. 1:28, NKJV).

The word here for “subdue” is “katakurieusate.” This Greek word is a compound word consisting of two words, “kata” (over) and “kurieusate” (to be lord, an imperative). Adam and Eve were “lords” over the earth; and what “lord” exists that does not have power? This is why wives are told in Scripture to “submit to your own husbands, AS TO THE LORD” (Eph. 5:22). While husbands are not “God,” they are “lord” of the home (Gen. 3:16, 1 Peter 3:6) and are to be respected as such. Because husbands are “lord” of the home, they have power in the home that the wife or the children do not have.

God’s freedom consists in His decisions to grant His image as well as certain privileges to His human creation. Not only is this the case with responsibility in the Garden, but also our responsibility to repent and believe the gospel (see my work on Romans 9-11).

I agree with White in the sense that more theologians need to discuss God’s freedom. However, I don’t think that God’s freedom NECESSITATES Him choosing some and damning others. While Arminians believe in the freedom of God (both Classical and “Open Theists”), they differ with Calvinists in the nature of God’s freedom; Arminians stress that God’s freedom resulted in Him granting salvation to all who believe, while Calvinists believe that God picks and chooses some for salvation and others for reprobation. Regardless of which side we fall on, we must be willing to assess the beliefs of the other side and match them up with the Scriptures.

The False Gospel

This post starts new work on Calvinism, although the subject matter (Calvinism vs. Arminianism) is still the same. I know it might seem weird to be writing on James White (since it’s something I’ve NEVER done), but there’s always room for something new at CTS.

Last night, I watched James White’s response to Ergun Caner’s sermon, titled “Why I Am Not Predestined to Be A Hyper-Calvinist.” Caner, president of Liberty University, preached this sermon several months ago (at least a year or two), but I just stumbled upon it last night. In any case, I wanted to see what the debate between Caner and White was all about. James White basically went through every little minute statement of Caner’s sermon and attacked what he didn’t like about it or what he thought was ridiculous about the message. Some of his comments, although true, were of the kind that he did not have to spend such large amounts of time on them--- but he did nonetheless. I think in the end, it made it harder for him to spend most of the time on the big issues. It seems that he had too much work carved out for him and not enough time to do it in (as he extended the talk time from 1 hour, 15 minutes to 1 hour, 30 minutes).

I listened to about 90 percent of White’s response and felt as if I had gotten enough of the argument to know James White’s response to Caner’s sermon. One of White’s comments that most fascinated me was when he said that Caner needed to understand that Calvinists have no idea who the elect are. He said, “We don’t know. We haven’t been given that kind of information. And I don’t need to know that information. I just need to preach the gospel so the Lord can bring in the elect to Himself. Since I do not know who the elect are, I preach the gospel.”

However, surrounding White’s discussion of the elect was his view that Jesus did not die for every person. Even when he discussed the issue of babies, he said that “I believe the Lord has freedom to choose which babies are saved and which babies are damned.” He claims that he isn’t saying that babies are damned because they do not “repent and believe the gospel,” while in the same breath saying that he believes the Lord is at liberty to damn those He wants to damn. At the least, he believes that not every baby will be saved! He attacked the view that “every baby is saved until a certain magical number” (referring to the age of accountability) and a host of other things (like altar calls and such) that he didn’t like about normal worship services.

White’s view regarding the elect and Jesus’ dying for some complicates his defense. His entire point throughout most of the Caner critique was that Jesus did not die for every person. But if that is true, then how can Christians preach the gospel to EVERY CREATURE? I mean, when we preach the gospel to every person, we’re telling them that the Lord desires their salvation. But if the Lord doesn’t desire the salvation of every person (and we don’t know who the elect are, as White says), then, AREN’T WE LYING TO EVERY PERSON, or a large number of the world population? What good are we doing telling them that “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son” for them (John 3:16), if Jesus did not die for EVERY SINGLE PERSON? Isn’t our evangelism (in that case) falsifying the gospel and “teasing the reprobate” all in one?

To make matters worse, think about the character and nature of God for a moment. When Jesus was praying the high priestly prayer in John 17, He prayed for the disciples and those who had come to believe that the Father had sent Him:

“I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them by YOUR TRUTH. YOUR WORD IS TRUTH” (John 17:14-17, NKJV).

The Word of God is truth. The Word of God will not lie when it comes to ANY MATTER on which it touches. If this is true, then what do we do with the words of Christ in Mark 16:15 to “preach the gospel to EVERY CREATURE” (NKJV)? Are we just willing to believe that Jesus told the eleven to preach the gospel to everyone “just to draw in the elect”?

If White’s belief is correct, then preaching the gospel to everyone is not significant except for the fact that it draws in the elect. And the gospel is lying to those who do not believe (because their unbelief is a sign of God’s reprobative decree from before the foundation of the world). According to White, God approves of the believers preaching a “deceiving gospel”; and if this is so, then how can God be one who does not lie (Titus 1:2)?

Contra White, I believe that Jesus died for all. And if Jesus died for all, then preaching the gospel is important so that ALL can have the opportunity to be saved. When Judgment Day comes, no heathen will be able to stand and accuse God of an “unfair deal,” because God in His justice has extended mercy to every single person. In the words of the apostle Paul, “Indeed, LET GOD BE TRUE BUT EVERY MAN A LIAR” (Romans 3:4, NKJV)...