Main Menu

Calvinism

After a two year delay, James White has replied to our last rebuttal in a submission to his blog dated, 7/06/2006.

Who is Really Being Subjective?

White writes;

“We are not suggesting that the things taught by Jesus to unbelieving Israel are necessarily true only in that historical context, or more precisely, are necessarily untrue outside of that historical context. Certainly, some things can be applied more broadly. Our point is that Jesus' actual teaching in this instance did not extend beyond the nation of Israel during Jesus' public ministry. Therefore, using these verses to prove alleged universal truths goes beyond what Jesus actually taught in that passage. This is the difference between "interpretation" and "application." "Interpretation" is rightly understanding what Jesus actually meant when He spoke to that particular audience. Right "application" is determining what things can be learned from that particular interaction, and correctly applying the principles to our own situation. The former demands "understanding" (epignosis).  The latter demands wisdom (sophia).

On the other hand, the things Jesus taught to His disciples specifically have a broader application. We know this because all during Jesus' ministry He was training His disciples to take His message to the nations. When giving them the Great Commission, Jesus commanded them to teach the new Gentile coverts to "observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:20). We have Jesus' direct application of all His private teaching to His disciples being extended to all nations until the "end of the age." This command excludes the things the disciples overheard Jesus teaching to the Jewish crowds or religious leaders. Surely, there are some truths contained in Jesus' other discourses that discerning Christians can apply to ourselves. But this requires first having a thorough handle on what God was doing with the Jewish nation at the time. The problem with the Calvinist approach to John 6 is that they do not discern this distinction, nor take it into account in their application of Jesus' words.”

White then attempts to build a case for his “universal truth” angle on this passage.

Mr. White has simply restated his original claim. But, he has done absolutely nothing to support it from the text in question or any other text. To White, Jesus was merely addressing the concept of “unbelief” in general. There is no historical context to consider, and no special audience to consider. He might as well have spoken these words at the end of a sermon in a Baptist church! Mr. White seems to have little regard for the “grammatical historical” approach to hermeneutics, at least with regard to the “historical” aspect. Yet, he followed the above comments with this remarkable statement: “Given his over-riding external paradigm, Warner then reads into texts meanings they simply would not have borne in their original contexts.”

We stated at the outset that Mr. White seems to have a concept of Scripture as a theological textbook, rather than a record of God’s progressive dealings with mankind. That thinking is amply illustrated here.

Notice that White’s argument here is not a grammatical one. What he is actually doing is downplaying the importance of the grammar to exegesis, in particular the present tense participle. Not only does Mr. White want you to ignore the historical context. But now he wants you to ignore the significance of the grammar! He wants you instead to trust the "Christian exegetes down through the centuries." In other words, trust the Reformed commentators from the last five centuries who also ride roughshod over the grammar. And once again White’s M.O. is the same, using the “slippery slope” argument. Yet, White's warning once again misrepresents our approach. Let's look at the passages he cites.

It is not clear whether John 3:16 and 3:36 were spoken by Jesus (3:16) and John the Baptist (3:36), or whether they were commentary supplied by the Apostle John. If it is the latter, as many commentators seem to think, then there is no further need for our comment, because the words originated after the Gospel went to the Gentiles, and were written to them (therefore applicable to them). If it is the former, the intended audience must be taken into consideration, as our previously stated rule indicates. In both John 3:16 & 36, (assuming they are not the Apostle John’s words), the audiences were believers (or potential believers). The former, Nicodemus, believed (Jn.19:39). The latter, John’s disciples, also believed.

Finally, “all those glorious promises of chapters 10 and 14” should be handled in the same way as we handle all of Jesus' teaching. In the case of John 14, Jesus was speaking to His disciples, so the application is to all believers until the end of the age (as per Matt. 28:19-20). The statements in John 10 are “glorious promises” to Mr. White because he likes to use them to support his Calvinism. But, true to our rule, we must ask, "to whom was Jesus speaking?" For John 10 (the Good Shepherd discourse), the answer is provided in the context. “Jesus said to them, ‘If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, 'We see.' Therefore your sin remains. Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber’.” (John 9:41-10:1)

Here, the context indicates Jesus was speaking to a hostile Jewish crowd. We would take His words here in the same way we would take His words in John six, where the crowd was similarly a hostile unbelieving Jewish crowd. Jesus was not speaking to “believers” or potential believers here. Granted, He spoke ABOUT His “sheep.” But once again, the grammar refers exclusively to the then present situation which Jesus sought to contrast to his hostile audience. “My sheep hear my voice…” (as opposed to you who are not my sheep, vss. 25-26) The present tense indicates the situation at the time. Literally, “My sheep are hearing My voice, and I know them, and they are following me, And I am giving them eternal life, and they shall not perish, neither shall anyone pluck them out of My hand.” (vss. 27-28).

“Ironically, Warner accuses me of the very thing he is doing when he writes, "There is no reason to believe that the original audience Jesus spoke to would draw White's conclusion. White's insistence on it demonstrates that he is thinking in a theological "rut" ingrained into his Reformed tradition." Yet just the opposite is true: the idea that the original audience would be thinking in a paradigm created by late 20th century American theology is the obvious mistake. The idea that Jesus' original audience, let alone John as he recorded these things, would think Jesus was saying, "All that the Father gives me--right now, at this very point in time, only amongst Jews in this particular audience, but never anywhere else or in any other situation--will come to Me, but this is relevant only until the cross, even though it will only be recorded decades thereafter, at which time it will only be of historical interest, but no longer relevant dispensationally" is clearly without merit. Obviously, even as John wrote these words, he did not in any way limit his words to the time period of the Lord Jesus' pre-cross ministry, but instead clearly made the application to Jews and Gentiles of his own day, calling them to faith.”

All White can do is appeal to what is “obvious” and “clear” to Him, rather than give some solid reasons from the context, historical setting, or grammar to support his position. Such terms as “obviously” and “clearly” are subjective, and are largely dependent on one’s presuppositions. Our charge all along is that White’s interpretation in particular, and Calvinism in general, absolutely demands that one approach the text with these kinds of presuppositions. You simply cannot get what White claims OUT of the text unless you make the assumptions he does, ignoring both the historical setting and the grammar. He has proven nothing except that his interpretation is extremely subjective.

The Evangelical Nature of John's Gospel

Next, White appeals to the evangelical nature of John’s Gospel as support for his claim about Jesus' teaching.

Yes, it is true that by the end of John’s Gospel the appeal is clearly to all the world. But, to insert that idea into Jesus’ words to unbelieving Israel prior to the cross is unwarranted. At the conclusion to the Good Shepherd discourse, John informed his readers that Jesus’ audience did not accept His teaching. “Therefore there was a division again among the Jews because of these sayings. And many of them said, "He has a demon and is mad. Why do you listen to Him?" (vss. 19-20).

Whose View is More Recent?

Lastly, White again attempts to portray our position as something new and novel, and therefore not “Apostolic.” He writes;

"Warner attempts to hide his eisegetical insertion of his progressive dispensational hermeneutic by ignoring that his views are the "new kid on the block" and saying, "Mr. White prefers a generic approach to Scripture. He wants to view the Bible as merely a collection of universal truths." Of course, this is completely untrue, and it is an amazing thing to hide the wholesale import of progressive dispensationalism into the ancient text under the guise of accurately contextualizing that text. Yes, we need to start with the ancient text in its own context, but progressive dispensationalism in this form does just the opposite, as it starts with conclusions about what the text could not possibly mean.”

What Mr. White fails to consider is that NONE of the early Fathers prior to Augustine were Calvinists, or viewed these passages as White does. They universally taught that everyone has a free will, that Christ died for all, that God’s grace was “resistible,” and that is the reason so many are not saved. None of them taught “eternal security,” “once saved always saved,” or “perseverance of the saints,” prior to Augustine (nor any of the other four points of Calvinism). For that matter, even Augustine did not teach that all “saved” people will persevere to the end! The “P” in “TULIP” was not taught in Christianity before the Reformation! Yet, Mr. White now wants to charge us with teaching something new and novel! The fact is, Mr. White is not following the theology of Jesus, the eleven Apostles, or Paul. He is an apologist for St. Augustine. If Mr. White wants to challenge this claim, we would be happy to provide quotes from the early Church to support it, and challenge him to show his Calvinism from any of the early Fathers prior to Augustine. May we refer the reader to our article on this topic, The Early Church.