James White on Romans 9



I recently listened to James White's explanation of Romans 9. I was surprised by his technique. He did very little explaining of the scripture, or showing the connection between the text and Calvinism. Rather, he went verse-by-verse attacking non-Calvinist interpretations of the passage. White made very few positive assertions about what the text means; and none of them supported Calvinism. It was as if he assumed the passage teaches Calvinism and made no efforts to justify that claim. That's not exegesis and in debate it's a shift of the burden of proof.

So my biggest problem is with what he didn't do - justify Calvinism based on the text. However, I also had a problem with what he did do - attack the non-Calvinist position. Sometimes White confused with non-Calvinist interpretations of the passage and non-Calvinists reconciliation of the interpretation of the passage with the rest of their theology. He asks why the reconciliation isn't in the text itself, then charges his opponents with eisegesis. Also, I personally couldn't identify with his attacks of non-Calvinist explanations of the text. Sometimes made comments about the non-Calvinist position that I could agree with, but he always applied them in ways I wouldn't such that his presentation of the non-Calvinist position was unrecognizable to me. In short, I didn't find this explanation all that helpful.

Comments

A.M. Mallett said…
James White's forte is not exegesis but oral rhetoric.. That might win him friends and admirers among his own like-minded souls but does nothing to further his arguments.
May 28, 2009 at 11:13 PM
Odeliya said…
That is right, A.M.

Dan, in his usual admirably gentle manner, is very kind to White in his post, White surely doesnt deserve it. I dont even take White seriously, his manner is too arrogant and prideful. And I never even heard/read him on Calvinist subjects, I am talking about Apologetics and his discussions with atheists , topics I do agree with him on :)

He is unbearable even in those debates.
May 29, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Godismyjudge said…
Good point Trav. I suppose his focus on appologetics accounts for the lack of exegesis.

I used to play soccer in school. I was on the defense and we had a joke. How do defenders go down the field with the ball? We kick it to our opponents down the field and then run after them and take it from them.

Maybe White has the same approach. But I was looking for someone to explain the connection between Romans 9 and Calvinism - and I looked in the wrong place.

God be with you,
Dan
May 29, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Hi Odeliya,

Some folks teach, others rant. White has made an art form of doing both at the same time.

God be with you,
Dan
May 29, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Marvin Merriweather said…
James White should be applauded for knowing that Jesus Christ was a Calvinist.
November 9, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more