Calvinist, James White regarding the defection of Ronnie Rogers from Calvinism: “I’m sorry but Pastor Rogers was not a Calvinist. He may have called himself a Calvinist, and that’s fine. You can call yourself whatever you want. … He admits to having been a 4-Pointer, and now embraces a Molinistic perspective on things. … But to say that this was a disenchanted Calvinist…he was not a Calvinist to begin with.” [1:12-1:56]
Can we apply this same measure to Calvinists, who similarly claim to have been “Arminian” before their conversion to Calvinism, or does this only flow one way?
In other words, if a particular Christian was completely uninformed of Calvinism, and then was bamboozled by an aggressive Calvinist, and then became a Calvinist through them, shouldn’t we then be allowed to use the same standards shown in James White’s comments, and subsequently challenge their allegations to have been a “former Arminian”? In fact, does James White claim to have been a former Arminian before his conversion to Calvinism? James White has opened the door for Arminians to similarly question, not only Calvinists, but also himself. I wonder if he realizes that.
Calvinist, James White: “Why would God engage in these activities with someone that by His ‘Middle Knowledge’ that He knows will never be saved? … Does the Father send the Spirit to convict the hearts of men, that by His Middle Knowledge, He knows will never be saved, and cannot be saved, and if so, why?” [2:02-2:36]
Notice the Circular Logic. The question assumes two key principles of Calvinism. When James White states “cannot be saved,” he is echoing Total Inability. So why should Arminians accept the premise of the question? Just because some will never be saved, doesn’t mean that they couldn’t have been saved. The second layer of Circular Logic in James White’s question is the fact that he is also assuming a Calvinist’s (“knows it because He decreed it”) version of omniscience, while yet posing a question to Arminians who reject the presumption. So this was a loaded question. Arminians believe that under the engagement of the Holy Spirit, people could be saved, and a person’s ultimate choice to die in a state of rebellion is what God’s knowledge is also of. Consider a couple of examples. Jesus made a public invitation to the rich younger ruler, and yet he, not God, had refused. (Calvinism would ultimately require that God had secretly refused the rich young ruler, by refusing to regenerate him.) Moreover, there were times when people had rejected the testimony of the disciples, and Jesus instructed them to wipe the dust off of their feet, as a testimony, presumably not because they had no choice, but because they did indeed have a choice, for which, their dust-testimony will later be cited at Judgment to convict them. (Luke 9:5) So to summarize, God engages in evangelical activities with the lost, not because they can’t be saved or couldn’t be saved, but because they very well could have been saved, and God’s knowledge of their eventuality is of what they self-determined. So one of the things that you have to look for, when fielding questions from Calvinists, is to make sure that the questions aren’t pre-loaded with Calvinist assumptions, because Calvinists will engage in Circular Logic and not even realize it.
James White also complains against Rogers’ endorsement of “grace enablement” and then challenges where this is found in Scripture? So is White then suggesting that the only type of grace is efficacious, as in Irresistible Grace? Ironically, in White’s complaint of Rogers’ use of “grace enablement,” here is what White elsewhere had to say:
James White: “Why should we give thanks to God upon hearing of the faith of fellow believers, if in fact having faith in Christ is something that every person is capable of having without any gracious enablement by God?” (Debating Calvinism, p.20, emphasis mine)
If White wants to know where in Scripture “grace enablement” is found, then why is he using the same term? Basically, he complains when he perceives that Dave Hunt rejects it (erroneously), and then also complains when Ronnie Rogers advocates it. So with James White, he will complain either way.