By Jordan Ferrier

A layperson’s response to Chris Stockman’s assertion that the God of Classical Theism cannot forgive sinners because forgiveness requires an immutable, atemporal, God to change.

Classical Theism (CT) is a vast topic. In 2023, Fuqua and Koons released a book, Classical Theism: New Essays on the Metaphysics of God. Taking a look at the table of contents, the individual essays have many types of Classical Theists: there are chapters that reflect a wide variety of faith backgrounds; Jewish, Islamic, Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox. 

 CT spans a great deal of time, from Parmenides, who lived about 500 years before Christ, to John Duns Scotus (at least), who lived 1200 years after Christ’s triumph over Satan.

In Deuteronomy 6:4, Moses told Israel that God had told him to tell them, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”

If you believe that God is one, you are some sort of Classical Theist; however, for over a millennia, Christian theologians have been asking, “God is one what?” and different Classical Theists have answered that question in different ways, which leads to quite a bit of confusion.

To try and clear up this confusion, I will try and present two very different views of God that were held by two of the theologians that Stockman referred to in his article, Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 A.D.), and Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274 A.D.)

Augustine was born in 354 in North Africa. His mother was a Christian, and his father was a pagan. While he received a Christian education, when he was 18, Augustine moved to Carthage and fully indulged in its pagan culture and had a son out of wedlock at the age of 19. While he was 19, Augustine read Cicero and declared that while rhetoric was his profession; his heart was in philosophy. Augustine became a Manichaean and struggled with the Epicurean problem of evil. After teaching rhetoric at Carthage, Augustine moved to Italy at the age of 29 and opened a school of rhetoric. After a few years, Augustine moved to Milan, read the works of Plato and Plotinus, and fully embraced Christianity at the age of 33. Augustine worked to fuse Platonic philosophy with Christian dogmas, and continued to struggle to resolve the problem of evil. Augustine returned to North Africa at the age of 34, where he served many years in the church at Hippo as a Priest and eventually as Bishop. (A much fuller account of the life of Augustine may be found at newadvent.org, St. Augustine of Hippo).

After converting to Christianity, Augustine had to reconcile how evil came into the world with his belief in the God of the Bible. We need to think through how Augustine thought of God, and how Augustine rationalized an answer to the problem of evil, which allowed him to believe that God existed, was Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent.

The problem of evil has 3 basic components:

An Omnipotent God could stop evil from coming into the world.

An Omnibenevolent God would want to stop evil from coming into the world.

We could easily blame a previous evil for a current evil, but the problem of evil asks how evil came into the world. To answer, “How did evil come into the world”, we need to restrict the discussion to how the first evil came into the world, rather than how evil keeps coming into the world today.

Augustine believed that Adam committed the first sin (Romans 5:12), that God, by his Omnipotent power could have stopped Adam from sinning, thus, it must be good that there is evil in the world.

Augustine wrote, “Nor can we doubt that God does well even in the permission of what is evil. For He permits it only in the justice of His judgment. And surely all that is just is good. Although, therefore, evil, in so far as it is evil, is not a good; yet the fact that evil as well as good exist, is a good. For if it were not a good that evil should exist, its existence would not be permitted by the Omnipotent Good” (Enchiridion, C. 96).

Augustine used what I call an “Omni-benevolence category theodicy”.  This category of theodicy tries to explain why it was good for God to ordain, permit, or otherwise allow evil to come into the world, because God, being Omnipotent, could have stopped evil from coming into the world.

How God can will evil to happen, and it is good that evil happens, was a conundrum Augustine solved by stating, “Accordingly, in the case of these contraries which we call good and evil, the rule of the logicians, that two contraries cannot be predicated at the same time of the same thing, does not hold” (Enchiridion, C. 14). 

God can will evil, and it is good that God wills evil, because the rules of logic do not apply to God’s Omni-benevolence. 

Augustine also believed that everything happens as God wills, “Nothing, therefore, happens but by the will of the Omnipotent, He either permitting it to be done, or Himself doing it” (Enchiridion, C. 95).

In Parmenides, Plato writes, “Must it not be of a single something, which the thought recognizes as attaching to all, being a single form or nature.”

For Augustine, God was one essence, and the essence of God is a will. God is to be conceived of as one will, and the forms of God’s will would be a perfect will, an ordaining will, a will of permission, etc. 

For Augustine, some of the attributes of God are incomprehensible. For example, why did God love one twin and hate the other? Because, “The love, therefore, wherewith God loves, is incomprehensible and immutable” (Tractate 110).  

God, prior to creation, willed everything that would take place, and knew everything that would take place.  After creation, God either did everything himself, or permitted the creatures he created to do what he willed prior to creation of the universe. 

Augustine also spent a great deal of time on Romans 9 and how the election of Jacob and Esau, before they were born, fit into the will of God. Prior to any person being created, God willed the eternal destination of each person. God being in the Heavens, and doing as He pleases, means that God could permit Adam to sin and bring evil into the world, and God could choose to save some from eternal destruction, and pass over others and permit them to spend eternity in hell.

Augustine wrote, “The condemnation of those whom in His justice He has predestined to punishment, and to the salvation of those whom in His mercy He has predestined to grace” (Enchiridion, Ch. 100).

Any parent will tell you that it is difficult to think of one of your children suffering eternal conscious torment in the fires of hell. Augustine had to reconcile a God who is love, whose will is always done, who could give the gift of faith to every person which would guarantee their salvation, with people going to hell. 

Augustine wrote, “Accordingly, when we hear and read in Scripture that He ‘will have all men to be saved,’ although we know well that all men are not saved, we are not on that account to restrict the Omnipotence of God, but are rather to understand the Scripture, ‘Who will have all men to be saved,’ as meaning that no man is saved unless God wills his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will, but that no man is saved apart from His will; and that, therefore, we should pray Him to will our salvation, because if He will it, it must necessarily be accomplished” (Enchiridion, Ch. 103).

Again, Augustine is convinced that an Omnipotent God could save all, so God must have willed many not to be saved. How could a good and just God, will most people to spend eternity in hell, when God could save every single one?

Augustine answers this question in On The Trinity, Book 5, Chapter 1, by positing that God is without passion. If God suffered when a person made in His image went to hell, then God would want to save everyone:

The “creator though He lack nothing, ruling but from no position, sustaining all things without having them, in His wholeness, yet without place, eternal without time, making things that are changeable, without change of Himself, and without passion”.

If God could be made to suffer passion by the creatures He made, God would not send anyone to hell. For Augustine, God being impassible means that God dispassionately predestined most people to hell when he created the world.  God wills all people to sin, and God wills to forgive some people. This is all done prior to creation, according to the will of God, which makes the will of God immutable. God is able to forgive the sins of the elect because God willed to forgive the sins of elect prior to God creating the world, which means God can forgive without His will changing. 

The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century was a revival of Augustinian theology. Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk.  John Calvin stated that he agreed with Augustine. 

John Calvin wrote, “In a word, Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so, with all fullness and satisfaction to myself, out of his writings” (EPG, p. 20).

Calvin, “It would be utterly absurd to hold, that anything could be done contrary to the will of God . . . Whereas, Augustine proves, by this very argument, that everything that is done on Earth, is effectually ruled, and overruled, by this secret providence of God. Nor does he hesitate to conclude, that everything that is done, is done by the will of God” (EPG, p. 190).

Calvin, “But it could not be otherwise. Adam could not but fall; according to the foreknowledge and will of God” (EPG, p. 76).

Calvin, “The eternal predestination of God, by which He decreed, before the fall of Adam, what should take place, in the whole human race, and in every individual thereof, was unalterably fixed and determined” (EPG, p. 108).

Calvin, “Augustine then adds this short sentence; ‘These are the mighty works of the Lord! Shining with perfection in every instance of His will . . . (God) accomplished what He willed, righteously, and with the height of all wisdom: overruling the evils done, to the damnation of those whom He had justly predestinated to punishment, and to the salvation of those whom He had mercifully predestined to grace” (EPG, p. 26).

Calvin, “Augustine testifies, that men are not chosen because they believe; but, on the contrary, are chosen that they might believe”, “Again, in another place, he says, ‘Who created the reprobate but God? And why? Because He willed it? – Who art thou, O man, that repliest against God?’” (EPG, p. 23).

Hopefully you can see from those quotes that Calvin is saying the same thing about Augustine’s version of Divine Simplicity as what I have been describing. This version of Divine Simplicity means that everything takes place necessarily, as God willed it from eternity past, and God is immutable (steadfast) so what he decreed and ordained to happen from eternity past will not change: Calvin, “All we say is that God is in charge of the world which He established and not only holds in his power the events of the natural world, but also governs the hearts of men, bends their wills this way and that in accordance with His choice, and is the director of their actions, so that they in the end do nothing which He has not decreed, whatever they may try to do. Accordingly we say that those things which appear to be in the greatest degree due to chance happen of necessity – not by their own innate properties but because the purpose of God, which is eternal and steadfast, is sovereign in governing them” (BLW, p. 38). Calvin continues, “Accordingly everything that happens, happens of necessity, as He has ordained” (BLW, p. 39).

Martin Luther, a monk in an Augustinian order of the Roman Catholic Church, said much the same thing, “You openly declare that the immutable will of God is to be known, but you forbid the knowledge of His immutable prescience. Do you believe that He foreknows against His will, or that He wills in ignorance? If then, He foreknows, willing, His will is eternal and immovable, because His nature is so: and, if He wills, foreknowing, His knowledge is eternal and immovable, because His nature is so. From which it follows unalterably, that all things which we do, although they may appear to us to be done mutably and contingently, and even may be done contingently by us, are yet, in reality, done necessarily and immutably, with respect to the will of God. For the will of God is effective and cannot be hindered; because the very power of God is natural to Him, and his wisdom is such that He cannot be deceived. And as His will cannot be hindered, the work itself cannot be hindered from being done in the place, at the time, in the measure, and by whom He forsees and wills” (BW, Sect. 9). 

Luther is rejecting simple foreknowledge, that God knows what will take place in the future: Luther is saying that God wills what will take place in the future, so God knows what will take place in the future.

Luther goes on to clarify what he meant by things “even may be done contingently by us, are yet, in reality, done necessarily”.  While God is a necessary being, we are contingent beings, thus, when Luther says something is done contingently, he means that it is done by a contingent creature, not that the choice was contingent upon the creature’s decision, “But, (that we may not be deceived in terms) being done by contingency, does not, in the Latin language, signify that the work itself which done is contingent, but that it is done according to a contingent and mutable will – such a will as is not to be found in God!  Moreover, a work cannot be called contingent, unless it be done by us unawares, by contingency, and, as it were, by chance; that is, by our will or hand catching at it, as presented by chance, we thinking nothing of it, nor willing anything about it before” (BW, Sect. 9).

Thomas Aquinas lived in the 13th century, about 900 years after Augustine. The Roman Catholic Church was completely Augustinian by this time. Augustine was a “Doctor of the Church”, and to go against Augustine would be to go against the teaching Magisterium, which would be tantamount to saying that the Roman Catholic Church was not the Church Jesus founded on Peter, the rock. 

In his book on Thomas Aquinas, G.K. Chesterton remarks, “St. Thomas, for all his love of Greek philosophy, saved us from being Platonists” (Ox, p. 12).  Chesterton continues, “So the Thomist was free to be an Aristotelian instead of being bound to be an Augustinian” (Ox, p. 18).

Chesterton was simply pointing out the historical fact that Luther, Calvin, etc., were Augustinian Platonists, while people like himself (and C. S. Lewis) were Thomistic Aristotelians. Aquinas would recycle the same words Augustine used, while giving them very different meanings, which means we need to pay careful attention to the details to grasp the differences between the two.

For Aquinas, God is one essence, and is to be conceived of as His attributes. 

Rather than the essence of God being a will, Aquinas taught that God’s essence is His existence.

Aquinas gave an example similar to this:

A Pterodactyl has essence and used to have existence.

An Ostrich has essence and has existence.

A Pegasus has essence but has never had existence.

Pterodactyls had existence, but no longer do.

An Ostrich currently has both essence and existence.

The Pegasus is a mythological creature that has an essence, but has never had existence.

Essence and existence are separable in created beings. 

God, having Aseity, was not created, thus, essence and existence are not separable in God, God’s essence is His existence.

Aquinas, “God is the same as His essence or nature” (Prima Pars, Q3, A3).

“Therefore, it is impossible that in God His existence should differ from His essence” (Prima Pars, Q3, A4).

Aquinas agreed with Augustine that “God is truly and absolutely simple” (Prima Pars, Q3, A7).

However, Aquinas disagreed with Augustine that everything happens as God wills it: “The foregoing is to set aside the error of certain persons who said that all things proceed from God according to His simple will, which means that we are not to give an explanation of anything except that God wills it” (SCG, 1.87.5).

We need to return to the problem of evil.

Aquinas wrote, “Whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of Divine Omnipotence” (Prima Pars, Q25, A3).

Aquinas used what I call an “Omnipotence category theodicy”. This type of theodicy shows that it is logically impossible for God to stop evil from coming into the world after God creates creatures with real freedom.

For example, when God created Adam:

Adam was created in the image of God

Adam was created with rectitude of nature

Adam was adorned with the light of reason

Adam’s will was ordered to the good.

Benevolence is “to will the good of another”, and God, being Omni-benevolent, willed the good of Adam.

God did not both will the good of Adam and for evil to befall Adam. That would be logically contradictory.

God gave Adam real freedom. This good gift was given through the freedom to eat from every tree, with a prohibition of eating from one tree. Even Omnipotence could not give freedom and withhold it at the same time, thus, contrary to Augustine, God could not stop Adam from eating from the prohibited tree after Genesis 2:17.

God did not want Adam to do the opposite of what God commanded Adam to do.

God did not give Adam permission to sin.

God did not allow Adam to sin; to allow something implies the power to stop it from taking place.

God did not will Adam to sin. If God willed Adam to sin, then it is a sin to do the will of God.

Aquinas rejected the Nominalism of Augustine (that two contraries can be predicated of God’s goodness at the same time, thus the rules of logic do not apply to God), and taught that God cannot do what is logically contradictory: give real freedom to Adam and withhold it at the same time, or, lie to Adam and remain the Truth, because a being that is both the truth and a liar is logically contradictory and nonsense.

Ed Feser, in his “Beginners Guides to Aquinas” states, “Aristotle and Aquinas would also be baffled by the modern tendency to think of causation as essentially a relation between temporally ordered events” (p. 20). Feser continues, “For Aristotle and Aquinas, it is things that are causes, not events; and the immediate efficient cause of an effect is simultaneous with it, not temporally prior to it” (p. 21).

Now, if that paragraph does not make much sense to you, perhaps you can concede that the task of explaining Thomistic Divine Simplicity is a bit tricky.

A comparison between the “Kalam cosmological argument” vs Aquinas “argument from motion for the existence of God” may bring some clarity.

The Kalam states that everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist; Therefore, the universe has a cause. God did not begin to exist, God has always existed; Therefore, God is the cause and creator of the Universe.

The Kalam invites the reader to think back in time to the beginning of the universe. It is an argument that uses temporally ordered events. While I am not opposed to the Kalam as an argument for the existence of God, there are a few things to consider:

Could it be argued that God wound up the world and walked away?

Could it be argued that the prior event caused the current event, which stretches back to the creation of the world, which implies that everything was determined by how God created the world? After all, Atheists (like Sam Harris) concede that temporally ordered events means that everything is determined by the universe, and humans do not have free-will.

Can it be proven scientifically or philosophically that the world began to exist?  Aquinas didn’t think so, instead, he thought that the fact that the Universe began to exist could only be known by Divine revelation.

To explain how Aquinas explained causation, I need to define and explain several terms:

Power is “potent”, as in, God is Omni-potent; thus, God is all powerful.

A potential is “potency”.  A dog has the potential to wake up and run across the room.

While the dog is asleep, it is both potent (having the power to run), and potency (having the potential to run).

Act is “actuality”. The dog in the act of running has actualized the power to run and “moved” from the potency of running to the act of running.

In agreement with Aristotle, Aquinas stated, “potency does not raise itself to act; it must be raised to act by something that is in act” (SCG, 1.16.3).

Aquinas, “God is eternal: Everything that begins to be or ceases to be does so through motion or change. Since, however, we have shown that God is absolutely immutable, He is eternal, lacking all beginning or end (SCG, 1.15.2).

Aquinas is saying that God is immutable because God does not move from potency to act, because anything raised from potency to act must be raised by another that is in act; thus, “There is no passive potency in God” (Aquinas, SCG, 1.16).

Next we need to discuss the four causes: efficient, material, formal, and final cause.

Several years ago, I wanted to get a dog for my kids to enjoy.  Before we bought the dog, I wanted to have a fenced in backyard, so I could let the dog out the back door in our suburb and not have to worry about it.

My work, every evening and weekend for months on end was the efficient cause of the fence.

The type of fence I built, made of wood, plastic, and metal, was the material cause.

The fact that it was a fence was the formal cause. You may be imagining a chain link fence, a wood picket fence, a fence made of vinyl panels, etc.; However, when you are driving through a suburb and see a fence, you know it is a fence, because it takes the form of a fence.

The final cause of the fence is fencing. The fence keeps the dog in and the neighbors out. 

In summary:

Efficient cause: person

Material cause: wood, etc.

Formal cause: fence.

Final cause: the good of fencing.

Now, it probably is not too difficult for you to think of examples in your own life where you are the efficient cause, there is a material cause, where you form the material to effect a final cause.

The same four causes also apply to God.

God is the efficient cause of the Universe.

Matter is the material cause of the Universe.

Planets, people, animals, etc. are the formal cause.

The final cause is that what God created He ordered to the good (i.e., Adam and Eve).

After power, potency, act, and the four causes, I need to explain what is necessary and what is an accident.

Think of a loaf of bread that just came out of the oven.

What is necessary for the substance you just took out of the oven to be called a loaf of bread?

Does it have to be moist? No, you could have baked it until it was dry.

Does it have to be dry? No, it could be moist.

It is not necessary for dryness or moistness to be present for the substance to be a loaf of bread, so things that are not necessary are called “accidents”.

God is a necessary being, so there are no accidents in God.

The creatures that God creates are not necessary beings, so we are contingent.

God being necessary is a different “order” than contingent beings.

When God is the efficient cause of all things, God is the – first order efficient cause – of all things.

God, by the fact that he is upholding the Universe at this very moment, is the first order efficient cause of the entire Universe, and the fact that God is upholding the Universe is what makes it possible for a second order (contingent) person to be the efficient cause of building a fence.

The Thomist asks, “What attributes must God necessarily have prior to God creating anything?”

This is done by a process of remotion, where we remove what God is not, to know what God is (See SCG, 1.14).

God is not nonexistent, God is existence, which is the attribute of Aseity.

God is not finite, God is infinite.

God is not unjust, God is justice.

God is not willing the evil of another, God must be Omni-benevolent.

R.C. Sproul explains the Augustinian perspective of everything happens as God wills: 

When evil comes into the world by God’s sovereign will, it is good that evil occurs (NC, 2007).

Vs.

Aquinas, “God cannot will evil” (SCG, 1.95).

God is not impotent, God must be Omnipotent.

God is not composed of potency and act, God must be pure actuality.

God is not composed, God must be simple (not divisible).

God is not changing (moving from potency to act), God must be immutable (always in actuality).

God is not created or His creation, God must be transcendent to His creation.

God does not fail to uphold the Universe, God is immanent to His creation.

God is not a liar, God is truth.

God is not unreliable, God is faithful.

God is not hate, God is love.

Etc.

Necessary attributes are pure actuality, they do not move from potency to act. 

For example:

God is love.

Love is the essence, being, and substance of God.

Because God is love, God is jealous for those he loves.

Jealousy is not a necessary attribute, rather, it is the attribute of love in action.

Aquinas states, “An accident depends on a substance” (SCG, 1.23.7)

Jealousy is an accident, dependent upon the substance of love.

While God is jealous, and jealousy is an accident, jealousy is not a necessary attribute, or part of the essence, being, or substance of God.

God is just.

Because God is just, God hates evil.

While God hates evil, evil is an accident, evil is not a necessary attribute, or part of the essence, being, or substance of God.

When Thomists say that there are no accidents in God, that does not mean that the accidents of jealousy, grace, mercy, wrath, sovereignty, etc. are not attributed to God: those things are characteristics of God, that are attributed to God, that flow from the essence of God, and God is simultaneously all of His necessary attributes, but God is not simultaneously all of His characteristics.

As creatures, we are composed of both potency and act.

A tree has the potential to be cut down and made into a table.

The table has the potential to be cut up and used as firewood.

We all know a person who squandered their potential.

In Deuteronomy 30, God tells Israel through Moses, “I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction” (v. 15). Moses then explains that the choice is theirs to make. God has given contingent creatures the real freedom to choose to obey or disobey, and the choice is contingent on their decision.

The people Moses was speaking to had a will, an intellect, and a conscience.  Paul explains “their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them” (Rom 2:15). 

Choice is a function of the intellect, which is informed by the conscience.  

People make choices, and then they either have the will to carry out that choice or not.  

God cannot be good and withhold the grace people need to be able to choose him.

God cannot force people to freely choose him.

God has told us, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

When God gives the freedom of choice to people, like when God gave Adam and Eve the freedom to choose, and God gave Israel the freedom to choose, God still knows what will be chosen.

As Calvin explains, foreknowledge is not the cause of things (Institutes, 3.23.6).

Aquinas, “The Divine will does not remove contingency from things, nor does it impose absolute necessity on them” (SCG, 1.85).

God knew that the people of Keilah will hand David over to Saul (1 Samuel 23).

God knowing that the people of Keilah will hand David over to Saul did not cause it to happen.

God knowing that the people of Keilah will hand David over to Saul did not make it necessary that it happen.

God knew what will happen if David stayed in Keilah. God knew what will happen when he told David that the citizens of Keilah will hand David over to Saul if David chose to stay in Keilah.

God knew what will happen in both possible contingent futures.

When a choice is made by a contingent creature, and it is contingent upon their choice, people are able to do otherwise than what God wills. People are able to do otherwise than what God predestined. When God gives the freedom to choose to people, like he did to all the people of Israel, God cannot make every person choose life and prosperity.  Foreknowledge does not cause an event to happen, and foreknowledge does not make an event necessary; God can intervene, like He did with David, and David made a different choice with his intellect, with the additional information God gave him.

For God to know how to correctly advise David, and for God to know how best to intervene, God needs to know all possible contingent futures. This is why in Thomistic Classical Theism, God is said to exist in eternity, outside of created time, because God is transcendent over His creation, and God simultaneously knows all possible contingent futures, which means that God knows how best to interact with each and every one of us.

The death of the timeless God has only taken place in the small minds of the philosophically inept.

This explanation started out by stating it would be: A layperson’s response to Chris Stockman’s assertion that the God of Classical Theism cannot forgive sinners because forgiveness requires an immutable, atemporal, God to change.  Stockman also pointed out that for God to forgive, God would have to suffer passion and be “moved to do something in response to something outside of Himself”.

Aquinas, and Scripture, both say that “God is love”. For Aquinas, God is love in pure actuality. Each of God’s attributes extends to every other attribute, and God’s attributes are all co-extensive simultaneously. 

God’s love is just.

God has the wisdom to love justly.

God has the power to wisely love justly.

The attributes of God that are necessary are all simultaneously one, because God doesn’t stop being just when he loves, and God doesn’t cease to be love when he dispenses justice.

God being impassible means that a contingent creature cannot swap places with God (a necessary being), and become the first order causation that moves God from the potency to love to the act of loving. 

This would be like a stream rising higher than its source. 

God is love, and God is already, and always, in the act of loving his creation. God is immutable because God does not change from potency to act. God can forgive sinners because sinners do not have to be the cause of moving God from the potential to love them to the act of loving them.

Stockman also wrote, “Classical Theism fundamentally denies that God even stands in a real relation to the world at all”, then quotes Aquinas, “But in God relation to the creature is not a real relation, but only a relation of reason; whereas the relation of the creature to God is a real relation, as was said above in treating of the divine names”. 

The Question Stockman quotes from is Prima Pars, Q28, “Whether there are real relations in God?”

Aquinas answers, “Therefore as the Divine procession are in the identity of the same nature, as above explained, these relations, according to the Divine processions, are necessarily real relations” (Prima Pars, Q28). The relations Aquinas is considering are the concepts of paternity and filiation in God. As is stated in Q28, “The Father is denominated only from paternity; and the Son only from filiation. Therefore, if no real paternity or filiation existed in God, it would follow that God is not really Father or Son, but only in our manner of understanding; and this is the Sabellian heresy”.

For Aquinas, God is one nature and His creation is of a different nature. 

If Stockman wants us to be in real relation to God, in the way Aquinas is discussing, then we need to be in very nature God. 

If each of us is in very nature God, then God is a Quadrinity (or Trillioninity), rather than a Trinity.

For Aquinas, the creature is separate from God, and God is transcendent above His creation. 

Stockman has simply misunderstood the definition of relation, and has stated something about Aquinas that is incorrect. If you have read this far, you can probably grasp how easy it is to misunderstand meanings when reading either Augustine or Aquinas. 

By Will Hess

Recent events have sparked between us, The Church Split, and the renowned Dr. James White. This article you are reading is a more honest, straightforward, and detailed sequel to White’s libelous blog post about myself (here). Originally I was going to ignore it and laugh it off. However, after giving it some thought I believe it would be prudent to have the exchange documented properly as to not be misconstrued. Whether I want it to be relevant or not, many more people will see Dr. White’s thoughts prior to our own. This can lead to many poor understandings of the events and processes that took place. Thus, I thought I should at least publish the entire exchange, with my own explanations, as White already posted his thoughts and only included a portion of the conversation on Twitter.  So let’s recap some recent events that will become relevant as we go. 

For those in the theological community, many people will be aware of the controversy between David Pallmann (my personal friend) and Dr. James White. Even though White denies this, he recently attacked Pallmann and implied that no one should take Pallmann seriously due to his age and his place of employment (Dillard’s). This caused a storm of outrage by various people groups and some of the best memes I’ve seen in ages. However, White stated on a recent Dividing Line that Pallmann was a liar for these charges. Now, the esteemed Dr. James White has stated I (Will Hess) do not understand basic grammar laws or the meaning of words. So let’s have his words speak for himself. (I have highlighted the relevant information)

“So I was finishing up my 21st conference at Covenant of Grace Church in St. Charles when I heard people talking about “the coming storm.” So I started looking at the weather and my travel plans. Let’s just say I am thankful that I invested an extra four hours of travel today and have managed to get myself out of at least the direct path of this winter storm, and guaranteed my being in Conway on time to begin teaching my first class as a full professor at GBTS (Apologetics) starting this Thursday. I am from Phoenix, and while I have already seen snow on this trip, they are now talking about more than six inches in areas I had planned on being over the next few days. No thank you!  My detour should also make it possible to do a DL Tuesday and Wednesday as well.

So last evening I was trying to catch up after the conference with what has been going on when I see a discussion in passing about Greg Bahnsen. I see someone named David Pallmann giving a “hot take” on Bahnsen, and some discussion taking place. So I go, “Did I miss something? Who is David Pallmann, and why are Reformed folks responding to his ‘hot take’?” So I clicked on it and found the “hot take.”

Hot Take: Greg Bahnsen wasn’t a particularly brilliant or original thinker. Most of his ideas predate him and have been developed far more rigorously by other thinkers. I would go as far as to submit to you that Bahnsen’s popularity has nothing to do with his rigor and everything to do with his rhetorical capabilities. I believe that his fans generally mistake his strong and confident words for sound argumentation. While we’re on the topic, I don’t think that Bahnsen is an isolated case. The Calvinist community in general is easily seduced by strong rhetoric which tells them what they want to hear. Think of James White, Scott Oliphint, Paul Washer, Jeff Durbin, Sye Ten Bruggencate, etc. All of these gentlemen are, in my opinion, very shallow thinkers and yet they are lauded by the Calvinist community. I don’t say this to be demeaning towards these individuals or to Calvinists. I would simply urge those who listen to these individuals to be careful that they are not mistaking rhetoric for rigor.

So, I track this gentleman down on Facebook and look at his information. He looks like maybe 25 years old, maximum. And he self-describes as:

Evidentialist
Radical Internalist
Christian Rationalist
Classical Arminian
Classical Foundationalist

I am not even sure what he means by some of that, but any young man who puts all of that on his FB bio is hardly going to be in a position to provide much of a meaningful insight into the work of Greg Bahnsen.  In fact, you would expect an “evidentialist” and a “classical Arminian” to not find a lot of helpful material in Bahnsen, or in any of the others listed (including myself).

So I did not say much about the topic other than to screenshot his own description, and I purposefully included his own provided employment: sales associate at Dillard’s. It’s relevant.

I saw nothing in his “hot take” that demonstrated the slightest meaningful knowledge of Bahnsen’s work. His words sounded like a kid dissing a new band for not playing music in the exact way he wants it played. There was no substance. And when you then looked at his age, his self-description, and his standing and work, you found absolutely nothing that would explain why anyone, and I mean anyone, would care in the least about this “hot take.” A twenty-something Arminian kid thinks Greg Bahnsen was not a deep thinker and is only popular for his rhetorical skills. Forgive me for not thinking he has read Bahnsen’s work on Van Til, or, if he did, that he understood it.

But here is what has me just a bit hot under the collar this evening. I dropped the screen shot not for this young man, for I doubted he would even see it. I put it there for my fellow Reformed folks. Its purpose should have been obvious.  Why on God’s green earth are we even talking about a single paragraph that simply has no standing? It has no substance, its author has yet to produce anything that would give him standing to make such sweeping conclusions no matter how much time he may have to read between customers at Dillard’s. So why are we wasting our time? I see stuff like this every day. I just scroll on by, or, if it is particularly egregious, mute, or maybe block, just to save myself aggravation in the future. But my whole intention was to say, in passing, to my own tribe, “Uh, really, guys? You are surprised this young fellow broad-brushes Bahnsen when this is how he describes himself? Don’t we have more important things to be doing?” The whole thing might have taken five minutes, probably less, last evening, and I sure did not give it a second thought afterward.

Until this morning, that is, when I find I have been messaged by Chris Date, rebuking me for posting the graphic, and saying it was “beneath me” to include his own information concerning what he does. I did not have time this morning for any of this silliness, to be honest, as I had to get out of the way of an oncoming winter storm, and I had no desires to be pulling my 5th wheel in bad weather, especially snow or ice. But the thought crossed my mind, “I wonder if that young fellow is one of Chris Date’s students at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary?” Upon getting set up at my new location, and hearing from another person about the topic, I checked and, yup, lo and behold, there is the connection. If you are not aware, that particular school is home to such folks as Johnathan Pritchett, Braxton Hunter, Leighton Flowers, and Tim Stratton. To say that presuppositionalism would be an unpopular view there would be to engage in massive understatement.

So I am sorry people missed the point of my tiny little graphical comment. I asked, “Who is David Pallmann?” and then provided his own self-provided information, all of which was directly to the point: he is clearly committed to a denial of Bahnsen’s foundational premises, and, he is in no position to provide a “hot take” that is anything other than “hot air”. He has not, as yet, produced the work, teaching, writing, or studying, to give him a basis for making broad, sweeping statements dismissing the depth of work (and the broad expanse of work) that Greg did in an even tragically shortened life.

I will close with this. The Internet encourages youthful arrogance and foolishness. When I read great men of the past, I see Calvin producing the first edition of the _Institutes_, and Owen writing _The Death of Death in the Death of Christ_, both at very young ages. And yet both works breathe maturity. Cyber activity does not seem to produce the same kind of maturity that hard work did in the past. I do not know Mr. Pallmann, but I would very strongly suggest he take the time to track down (it is available on line) Bahnsen’s final sermon. I knew Greg, not well, but well enough to know that he had diabetes, and was facing yet another open heart surgery in late 1995.  He knew the chances were not good he would survive, and so he preached the last Sunday before his surgery. In essence, he got to preach his own funeral service. For years I had a cassette tape copy of that sermon (I am sure I still do, in a box somewhere). I listened to it again just recently. I would like to think that if Mr. Pallmann would listen to that sermon, he might hesitate, next time, before giving a “hot take” on a departed servant of the Lord who did so much in such a brief time given to him.”

Facebook:
James R. White
1/31/2022
8:47PM

Remember, White called David a liar for saying that White attacked him for his age and place of employment and in this very post by White – he admits to doing so deliberately. I knew White had a particular reputation amongst the theological community for such behavior, but it was definitely surreal witnessing these events take place. Especially since I had always respected White, even though I personally disagreed with him on a lot of topics and haven’t always appreciated his tone or representations. Regardless, I have always been appreciative of White as he was instrumental in my studies on textual issues (being raised KJV-Only), has done great work in defending the Trinity, and we even had him on our program. Needless to say, I have never hated White, but I have found some of his behavior troubling over the years at those whom he disagrees with. After these events with Pallmann, my skepticism became more concrete. 

It is also worth noting I take no issue in White attacking  Pallmann’s beliefs. In the theological world it is usually wise to separate beliefs from people and to readily attack belief systems while attempting to keep people’s dignity intact. Rarely does anyone do this perfectly, but it should be a modest goal. Thus, to attack someone’s employment, youth, or character based on a difference of belief system is usually considered poor taste. Regardless, White is clearly unfamiliar with Pallmann’s work as Pallmann published a lengthy in depth analysis of Presuppositional Apologetics quoting people like Van Til and Bahnsen. 

Additionally, a few months ago David and I chose to begin a review of Dr. White’s book “The Potter’s Freedom” soon after the first of the year. We both had read the book as it is praised by Calvinists everywhere as one of the best books on Calvinism. However, after reading the book David and I both found it wanting. In which case, we decided we would broadcast a series going through varying excerpts of the book while discussing its issues. We thought this would be a fun and interesting experience as David and I both agree and disagree on a number of theological issues, but we both agree that Calvinism is wrong. This would allow us to present our own respective views in the discussion. Finally, we scheduled this series around the time that White disparaged Pallmann for his age and employment.

Then on February 11th, Dr. White debated Dr. Stratton on the topic of Molinism. Since then White has made many comments about Dr. Stratton and even implied that it wasn’t a real debate (because he evidently found Stratton inept). Recently Molinism has been on White’s radar and he has made many sweeping statements regarding Molinists, Molinism, and Dr. Stratton. Some of which are gross misrepresentations – which is exactly what caused our twitter exchange where White only published select responses. Nor did he post his own tweets – only my own. 

Before going through the exchange, let it be noted that I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I have no issue with people correcting me and I really have no issue with admitting when I am wrong – much to the contrary to what White has maligned. My theology now compared to what it used to be is vastly different and this happened by avid study and receiving correction from many people. I also take no issue with people giving the logical conclusion of an argument, as long as the conclusion actually follows and is not a strawman representation. With that said, I would like to finally address the exchange.

James White to Will Hess

“@thechurchsplit  Hey Will: off the top of your head, without googling, which came first in Luthers (sic) development: the material principle or the formal principle of the Reformation?” 

James White (Feb. 14, 2022 at 12:42pm)

This tweet came out of seemingly nowhere that day so I chose to ignore it as I knew he was attempting to rope me into an exchange. The question was entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand in the episode with Pallmann and myself. Later on in his program, White stated that he was asking if we knew the difference between the formal principle (scripture alone) and material principle (salvation by grace alone through faith alone) of the Reformation. He was referencing a moment in our livestream where we briefly discussed the Reformation due to comments in his book. His book claims, “The issue of God’s absolute freedom and man’s absolute dependence is, in fact, the very central issue of the entire Reformation” (Pg. 34). David and I both disagreed with White’s claim for varying reasons. Pallmann stated he believed it was primarily the role of Scripture that was the defining issue. Myself, I believe history is far more complex to say that there is one singular issue that caused the entire Reformation. Either way, Luther’s principles and Luther’s beliefs are not the sole authority of the Reformation. Luther is but one man in a large historical event – he does not get to define the entire period of history. In reality, White pressing for Luther’s definitions is moot unless the opposition accepts Luther’s definitions as the standard. Personally, I find most of Luther’s teachings problematic and some of them even detestable.

Later on White did a livestream where he admits he saw that Pallmann and I had done a book review, only watched the first 20 minutes (which was admittedly mostly banter), and stated that it was filled with too many errors to take seriously, and took the time to “debunk” jokes, cursory statements on the Reformation, or mispronunciations. We found this to be hilarious as it just came off as petty as opposed to substantive (after all, even White can’t pronounce Thanos correctly in his debate with Stratton). Brian Bode, co-host of The Church Split, posted a clip on Twitter of White admitting he had not watched the entire episode. It should be noted Brian only chose to do this because at this point White called Pallmann a liar and myself a heretic on various episodes. 

“@HwsEleutheroi @thechurchsplit
I have a lot of respect for Dr. White and I find the banter between Will/David and him funny, but you have to admit, if you are going to characterize something, its (sic) best to watch the whole thing first before making 3 separate response videos to it..”

Brian Bode (02/15/2022 at 8:03pm)

James White to Brian Bode:

“Could you explain why I would have to listen to all of it to correct the errors that are present from the start? Do you really think they went back and fixed their whoppers later on?”

James White

Brian Bode to James White:

“Yes because if Will did a book review of the Potter’s Freedom and read only chapter 1 you would have made the same comment.  In your debates you tell people they can’t use an argument one way to prove their point and then the opposite way to prove their next point.”

Brian Bode

*White never responds*

Will Hess to Brian Bode:

“I mean this is the person who tweeted today that Molinists deny the triune God and that we never demonstrated any misrepresentations – although we did.
Ex: Molinists are not trying to rob God of any freedom. Not a single one would claim that’s the reason for their belief.”

Will Hess

I was referencing a Tweet from earlier where White, once again, attacked Molinists through misrepresentation and practically called them heretics who deny the Triune God of Christianity. In the following discourse you will see that he denies such a claim, but again, words have meaning and you can’t have your cake and eat it too. White also claimed that Pallmann and myself never demonstrated a single moment where White misrepresented another view. This however is not only false, but becomes obvious when one reads the Tweet I was referencing regarding the Triune God. Here is the aforementioned tweet.

“It is seriously sad that someone who claims to be a Reformed theologian could parallel God’s freely ordaining “whatsoever comes to pass” with Hydra controlling Bucky’s mind. This is why Molinism creates the myth of MK: they do not believe the Triune God, who split the sea, …raised the dead, multiplied the fishes and loaves, holds the billions of galaxies in His hand yet froze time in place to prove His faithfulness (Joshua 10:13), could create the realm of time in which to display His glory, reveal His attributes, all with exact precision, …so that His perfect will is accomplished by means of the real, meaningful, culpable actions of creatures made in His image.”

James White (02/13/2022 at 9:56pm)

(I will address this tweet later on, but for now I will just use it to provide context.)

James White to Will Hess:

“Will, your reading comprehension is so skewed by your bias it is shocking.
No semi-unbiased person could misread what I wrote as badly as you did.
Take a deep breath, put your detestation of Calvinism aside, and try reading what I wrote one more time.  I’ll wait.”

James White

Notice the tone that White automatically takes by attacking character and intelligence, rather than addressing the topic at hand. You see, I wasn’t aware of this tweet until a Facebook group I am a member of posted it, and everyone was trying to figure out if White truly meant that Molinists deny the Triune God, His deeds, or His attributes. I was not alone in reading it this way (even in the thread this conversation is taking place in). It’s a sort of “hot take” on Molinism by the very person who maligned Pallmann for his own “hot take”. The difference is, Pallmann admitted his was a hot take, but White does not. This is because White’s post wasn’t intended to be a hot take, but a statement he believed to be logically coherent and fundamentally sound. It’s not…

Will Hess to James White:

“Condescension won’t get you far with me. These are your words. You said Molinists don’t believe in the Triune God, who accomplishes all these non-controversial things. 
It’s not my detestation of Calvinism here that’s the issue – it’s your misrepresentation of Molinists.” *posts screenshot of aforementioned tweet*

Will Hess

James White to Will Hess:

“So, I point out that in English, the direct object of the denial is “could create the realm of time,” NOT “the Trinity,” and despite this obvious, inarguable reality, you refuse to accept the correction?”
This is amazing evidence of a serious imbalance, Will.”

James White

Will Hess to James White:

“Again, condescension doesn’t work. But it was a run on sentence. (sic) One that myself and others couldn’t even decifer. (sic)  (typo: decipher. White was quick to point this out on his blog.) 

Regardless, molinists (sic) affirm God is outside of time and created it. So to say Molinists “deny the triune God…could create the realm of time” – is blatantly untrue.

So you have a misrepresentation – again. Just another demonstration of it. 

Also, it was admittedly sloppily worded, but according to your own standard, If someone sloppily misspeaks – they aren’t to be taken seriously at all. 

Is it true for me but not for thee?”

Will Hess

The point here is obvious for anyone reading with a shred of honesty. He states that we never demonstrated how we misrepresented him, while saying Molinists deny the very thing they ardently affirm. Not just something they affirm, but something that is intrinsic to their doctrine. Namely, that God is outside of time, and created the realm of time. My other points regarding “if someone sloppily misspeaks” was in reference to his show where because I misspoke on a small statement – he states I shouldn’t be taken seriously. My point here was to show that in his efforts to come off superior, he is only coming off petty and pedantic. At this point a simple apology for the misrepresentation would suffice or a clarification statement on what was truly meant definitionally. Instead, White doubles down and chooses to condescend further.

James White to Will Hess:

“Will, my original thread was clear. I have “admitted” nothing about it being “sloppily worded.” Could you demonstrate where it was, grammatically?

The fact is, you misread it, then doubled down on the misreading, and now are saying it was “sloppily worded.”  …

The problem here, Will, is that you are ostensibly “reviewing” a book that is many thousands of times longer than my tweet. If you failed so badly with 115 words (I counted), doesn’t this explain the face-plantingly bad content we have reviewed thus far?”

James White

Take note of the side step here, that he is not dealing with the accusation of misrepresentation, but instead is trying to speak adjacent to the topic at hand. I want to discuss the actual meaning of his words, and he is attempting to argue for grammatical structure. (Hilariously, my sister actually parsed the sentence out and we will likely feature it on a future program where she shows the misplaced comma that causes the confusion).

Will Hess to James White (at 3:20pm):

“You can’t help but be pedantic can you? Again, condescension doesn’t work on me nor does it make me feel any less, it just shows a woeful argumentation flaw here. 

It wasn’t clear. I am not the only one who noticed such. However, let’s say for the sake of argument it was. Even if it was clear. Each and every one of those attributes the majority of Christians agree with. Molinists even affirm that God created time, they definitely affirm that God split the Red Sea -so you’ve essentially stated that Molinists deny the acts of God in scripture. Which is the same thing in essence. You can spin this however you want, but your statement is a misrepresentation of Molinists. I don’t know a single Molinist that denies any of those attributes. So yea, it was sloppy. So according to your own answer, anyone who misspeaks shouldn’t be taken seriously…they shouldn’t be taken seriously and it was even “embarrassing”. (referencing his own words toward me on his program)

No matter which way you spin this – it flies in the face of your own statements. That’s the reality.

So I’m not doubling down, I’m merely saying that no matter which way you spin it – you stated that Molinists deny the very God of Scripture they affirm. When (sic) (typo: whether)  you mean His tri-unity or His attributes and actions.” 

Will Hess

*White never responds*

This tweet was never published by Dr. White and I believe it is obvious as to why. Molinists affirm that God, “could create the realm of time in which to display His glory, reveal His attributes, all with exact precision, …so that His perfect will is accomplished by means of the real, meaningful, culpable actions of creatures made in His image.” By claiming that Molinists deny such, he is saying that they deny the very attributes of the Triune God that Christians affirm. For him to claim that he never said they denied the Triune God is to be obtuse. Let me give an example. If I said that I love my wife, but I can’t stand that she’s 4’ 10”, Korean, introverted, quiet, selfless, sweet, and meek – one would rightfully point out, “Will, you said you love her, but it sounds like you hate everything about her.” Such an objection would be appropriate. Likewise, to say that Molinists don’t believe the Triune God could create the realm of time to display His glory, reveal His attributes, accomplish His will all with perfect precision, is to say that Molinists don’t affirm the Triune God at all. To deny His attributes while affirming who He is would be nonsensical. This is the primary reason why myself and others objected to his statement. Regardless, this point was lost on White and he chose to ignore it. Hours later he published an article containing only a few of my tweets while removing all of his own in favor of a narration. 

“I have compiled an article documenting @thechurchsplit ‘s errors and falsehoods concerning the thread from 2/13. I hope he will retract his false statements.” Link

James White Tweets at 6:29pm

Will Hess to James White:

“Ah, so we don’t respond anymore – we just write articles. Got it 👍

So to be clear – Molinists don’t believe the Triune God split the Red Sea? Asking because a lowly podcaster doesn’t understand sentences.”

Will Hess

Due to White’s tendency to ignore actual points against his statements, refuse to interact with actual objections, and only to gaslight and shift – I began to treat his statements the same way I would treat most any other twitter troll – with a sharp sense of sarcasm. Whether one agrees with this approach or not is irrelevant at this point. I have a general rule, people who refuse to engage you meaningfully, understand your position, speak with clarity, or act overly dismissive to your points – don’t really need to be taken seriously. White had only served to remind me of many of the most staunch IFB pastors or progressive Christians I had interacted with on the dumpster fire that is Twitter. By sidestepping, ignoring, condescending, and gasligthing, I knew not to take anything else he had to say with any amount of seriousness. 

James White to Will Hess: 

“I will add this to the end, if you wish, as final documentation that you refuse all correction, and intend to stick to your straw man misreading of the original statement.  Give me a few moments.”  

James White

(I was pleased to see that this did indeed make it into his post) 

Once again, instead of engaging meaningfully, he just threatens to publish one last tweet as if I were a misbehaving child. The irony here is not lost on me though. For I had explained multiple times that White had misrepresented Molinists and his statements were not accurate. Instead of at least admitting how the misunderstanding could have taken place, he doubled down. He refused all correction. The very thing he was accusing me of. This is why rather than gaslighting and condescending, a meaningful explanatory conversation is likely more beneficial. Which is why I took the time to explain the issues and even gave room for the possibility of misunderstanding by granting a few of his points. However, White would not return the favor. Thus, I chose to remain cheeky while giving him one last time to give me a straight answer.

Will Hess to James White:

“You seem awfully upset for me just doing what I was decreed to do…

To be clear then, Molinists do not believe that God created time? Split the Red Sea? I mean…I’d hate to come off like I “refuse correction” but at this point it seems we are being a bit obtuse.”

Will Hess

*White Never Responds*

Others pointed out to White that his statement was unclear, and that others read it as offensively as I did. Rather than taking a moment to see why this could be, White chooses to double down and condescend to those who were objecting. One such example is: 

James White to Someone Else:

“Wait…more people actually can twist my sentence into an assertion Molinists deny the Trinity?  How? Please explain this process to me, since you have called me a liar now.”

James White

White’s followers were saying I and others have “8th grade reading levels” amongst a cacophony of other bloviating responses. Regardless of their statements, either White is saying that Molinists deny the Triune God, the actions that God has done, or the attributes that make Him uniquely God. All of which is a lie against Molinist positions and is blatantly untrue. If he wants to discuss how exactly those things are defined, that would seem a much more honest approach. Unfortunately, oftentimes in our effort to be grandiose in our speech – it can lead to imprecision. Normally, I would overlook such an error, but White has recently shown that he is unable to do so, and it is my goal to simply expose that he cannot live up to his own standards that he lambasts others for. 

THREAD WITH BRIAN

White:

“Could you explain why I would have to listen to all of it to correct the errors that are present from the start? Do you really think they went back and fixed their whoppers later on?”

James White

Brian:

“Dr. White – to be fair to you I bought your book today.

One thing I found ironic was on page 22 when you say Geisler made no “attempt… to address the actual argument and the reasoning set forth”. 

So you do agree with addressing the best arguments and not say the 1st 20 min.”

Brian Bode

White:

“I believe I asked you before: are you seriously objecting to responding to clear and obvious errors presented in the first few minutes of a lengthy video if I do not listen to the rest of it? Could you explain why I should wait to correct errors? Goodness, these guys say … there will be four or five of these videos. Using your reasoning, I should sit silently until they post the last one, right?

I took the time to show Dr. Geisler tremendous respect by carefully examining his writings on this topic, buying out-of-print copies of his works, 

and following his arguments up to the present work. I had even written to him in the process of writing my own work, asking him to explain certain aspects of his position.

There is no parallel to a supposed “review” done by two wildly unbalanced and biased critics.”

James White

I wanted to point out something that I think is important. White claims that Pallmann and myself are not balanced and that we are biased. The Church Split regularly admits that we have a bias – because everyone does. The idea of perfect objectivity is generally a myth. We all have preconceived notions and lean toward our bias. This is why we continually push that we need to escape our own echo chambers to help challenge our own biases. White is ardently Reformed – does that make him wildly unbalanced or unbiased? According to his own standard, yes. Honestly, I would just argue that he has a bias and we have a bias. Thus, we should challenge our biases and merely recognize them.

Brian:

“So far you have responded to their jokes, a couple comments about your book as a whole, and even responded to a comment of a viewer Will read. 

So yes I think the prudent thing would be to take the 2 hours to listen to something in its entirety before characterizing its whole.”

Brian Bode

White:

“I’m sorry, but what you are talking about, Brian?

I have responded, rather fully, on issues related to the Reformation, which they said I was utterly ignorant of. I demonstrated the opposite.  What are you referring to?”

James White

Brian:

“Right, that’s kinda my point, you have responded in great detail to a few jokes and initial characterizations. I have your book in hand as we speak, imagine if I gave a 30 min response to ch 1 noting that you barely mention geisler, not having read ch 2 yet where you clearly do.”

Brian Bode

*White Never Responds*

What Brian is pointing out is entirely true. On White’s program he debunked and attacked a few jokes cracked by myself (as if the joke itself was meant to be an argument) and then responded fully on Luther’s views of the Reformation – which neither Pallmann nor myself even touched on. The topic of the series is White’s book, not a play by play of the Reformation. This seems to have been lost on White as he continually side steps the points being made and continues to speak about the Reformation as if that is the focus of mine and Pallmann’s discussion. It’s not. 

Brian also points out that one should essentially “do their research” before painting with a broad brush. This is something Brian and I are passionate about because before we do any one of our rebuttal videos – we listen to the episode at least three times. We make notes and discuss what we think they mean by their statements. We attempt to do substantive responses devoid of ad hominem or other character attacks. This is why Brian had not joined us in our review – he hadn’t read the book and thought it would be dishonest. Granted, now he has read the book and will be joining us in the future. 

What is the moral of all this? That White would make a great journalist on CNN with his obvious slanted blog post? Perhaps. Maybe it’s that I should be more careful on exactly how I speak (or type) lest someone becomes pedantic? Possibly. However, I would posit that the greatest lesson in all of this is that Twitter is a toxic wasteland of absurdity where only those who are truly masochists spend their time. 

In all seriousness, it is not my goal to continually stir up trouble. I have no issue with people responding to my beliefs, framing them in a way that is consistent with their own beliefs, or even rebutting my thoughts. I do however take issue with lies and half truths while claiming to be dignified in the entire exchange. I am far from perfect, and I am happy to admit fault when I am at fault. I will not however remain silent when someone chooses to slander in such a dishonest way, calls someone who holds to orthodoxy a heretic, and calls another person a liar as he references your own public statements. If we want unity in the body of Christ – we will need to be a bit more honest than that. 

Now, I am far too busy to continually edit this post with any sort of update, and since I want this to be a living breathing document – enjoy the following feed.

Tweets by HwsEleutheroi

Lately our current culture has been weighing deeply on my mind. I’ve thought on it, prayed about it, and tried to speak to it. However, the division that is occurring is mind numbing and I really haven’t seen anything like it. I am partially angry, partially sad, and even partially amused.

The writing was on the wall for decades that this was the direction we’ve been heading, as many people simply shouted at each other across party lines rather than taking sustainable action which would create viable results. Instead, we manufactured band-aids and pandering ideals.  We so desperately need to remember whom we are to serve: God and each other.  After all, we are created in the image of God and yet so many of us want to try to fix this world by attacking the symptoms rather than the cause: sin.

However, what I have found increasingly disturbing is how Christians have become conformed to this world.  They think, speak, and advocate just as the world does. I’ve seen Christians excusing miserable behavior in the name of faux justice by saying that rioting, vandalism of property, and silencing swaths of people because what they say makes us uncomfortable is justified due to (real or imagined) systemic racism. It’s so much easier to slap a label on them and walk away, but in reality, this only serves to bring further havoc to our social environment.  So, let’s talk about this.  Let’s talk about what’s happening.

Racism. The new unpardonable sin. Not only is it unpardonable, but it has also become the new Salem Witch Trials: Suspect someone of racism? They’re guilty and cannot be proven innocent.  We throw these “witches” into the metaphorical water and watch until they float and reveal their racism, or they drown under all the character attacks of accused racism. Either way, it’s a lose-lose. The angry mob says that certain behaviors or ideas are sure signs of the evil that is hidden deep down, so they set up a rigged trial and be sure that nothing is left in its wake.  It’s almost become a new cult or religion where a singular view is considered doctrine, and all opposers are damnable heretics.  Worse yet, Christians are being sucked into this worldly view alongside the world.  Instead of being resistant and “testing all things,” (1 Thess. 5:21) we buy whatever popular narrative is trending at the time.  We don’t just bite it- we swallow it- hook, line, and sinker.

I’m amazed at my own personal treatment, not including everyone else’s, during these times. In the last two weeks, I’ve been called a ‘supremacist’ and ‘racist’ by many.  Someone even said “Will has bought into white supremacist Christianity.”  So of course, I looked at my Korean wife and we both laughed. However, part of me was also angry and disturbed that this rhetoric has become the norm and is used so flippantly.  I can’t help but think, how have we gotten to the point where we can’t even speak to one another for a moment without such labels being so irresponsibly thrown around?

As I reflect, I can’t help but find irony in how history always repeats itself and responds in pendulum swings. Years ago, blacks were considered property, dogs, less than human who didn’t deserve any real opinion or view, and now the new race that’s popular to hate is white people. By telling whites to apologize for their privilege, or at least admit they have it is how we’re expected to help heal the world.  Should that fail to effect the desired change, the next best step is to beat your neighbor with a crowbar and burn down a local mom and pop shop.  How someone uttering such words or the ensuing actions helps the world, I’ll never understand, but nevertheless this is what is being demanded.

Even stranger is how white people are told, “You can’t understand your privilege because your privilege blinds you.” So, I can’t see or understand something that I can’t see or understand?  So, I’m just supposed to blindly accept that white privilege is a concept based upon some person, white or black, telling me it is one? In fact, many of those telling me such things are white college age adults, who are almost ashamed of their own pigmentation – which is equally puzzling. While many of my black friends are saying that they don’t see this either. Which begs the question: whose commands am I to blindly follow? What it really comes down to is whether someone feels you have committed such a crime, regardless whether or not you have, especially if they are a person of color.

Voddie Baucham calls this “ethnic gnosticism,” which is “the phenomenon of people believing that somehow because of one’s ethnicity that one is able to know when something or someone is racist.” This happens all the time.  It’s a form of identity politics.  “You can’t speak on ___ because you’re a _____”  Telling people that they have authority over a topic because they happen to fall under some sort of skin deep adjective is absurd.  It’s another form of racism/sexism: treating someone differently and silencing them based on their immutable characteristics. In fact, if you have to keep bringing up someone’s race to delegitimize their position – they’re not the racist. If you have to keep referencing someone’s immutable characteristics so that way you don’t have to listen to them? They are not the one committing the sin.

Furthermore, demanding that one people group repent of their ancestors’ sins, apologize, and bow down to a different group is equally immoral and condescending. Let me be clear: to apologize for something you never did is immoral; to blame people who have never committed such atrocities or crimes is evil. In addition, demanding such an apology doesn’t generate a sincere apology- it’s pandering, which is an insult to both parties.  This isn’t to downplay the sins of the past.  However, empty words and hollow talk fix nothing, and pandering sentiments merely fall upon on self-gratified ears.

On top of that we had people, not so long ago, advocate for a de-segregated society. We had heroes like Rosa Parks take a stand and say, “I’m human too, and my rights are the same as everyone else’s.”  She didn’t need the front of the bus.  She merely knew that it was her human right to be treated as an equal.  So many rightfully fought for a de-segregated society. Now, we have places like Williams College that are offering “affinity housing,” which is a nice way to say “segregated dorms.” We have now come almost full circle where those fighting for equality are advocating for segregation.  Instead of progress, we have discovered regression.  This is the natural consequence of intersectionality.  This is the natural outflow when all you see is someone’s skin color, gender, sexuality, etc.

If you buy into this philosophy of intersectionality, where different groups have different levels of oppression, then you have been deceived by an idolatry of ideology; one that promises equality but delivers inequality.  Let me explain: intersectionality says that at the top of the social ladder are straight white males and depending upon race, sex, gender, sexuality, etc., you are on different tiers.  In believing this, you are buying into a dangerous philosophy that in the end will not create equality, but rather segregation, because in an effort to make everyone equal, you’ve only succeeded in dividing people further.  Additionally, if you advocate for special treatment or recognition because of the color of your skin, your gender, or your sexuality, then you’re not advocating for equality.  Instead, you’re supporting superiority.  It becomes increasingly immoral when people want (and are given) constant special treatment for their immutable characteristics.

Don’t believe me?  Think of all the posts, shows, and blogs talking about white people.  There’s literally a show on Netflix called “Dear White People…”  Now, with all those things in mind, insert any other ethnicity in there and the world would’ve lost its mind.  Why?  Because according to intersectionality, we white people are free game since we at the ‘top’ of this invisible social ladder.  This is one of the many reasons I wholeheartedly reject this twenty-first century doctrine. It only serves to create further inequality.

This isn’t to say we should live in a “color blind” world either.  That world is extremely boring and un-colorful.  It’s great to recognize our God given differences.  It creates appreciation for different cultures and people groups.  My wife is beautifully Korean and I am pasty white.  To acknowledge this isn’t immoral.  We shouldn’t strive to silence black, Latino, island, Indian, Asian, white, etc.  Instead, appreciate them.  I don’t wish to be color blind, I strive to love the colorful.  To respect that with one another we create God’s world.  Instead of judging someone’s experience, understanding, or morals based on their skin color, I wish we could have a world that truly judged one another on our actions, our morals, and our values.  I often say that “the issue isn’t race, it’s culture and values.”  We need to return to where these values come from: God.

See, only with God can we truly claim racism is immoral.  Think about it, if we are just evolved monkeys, the result of a cosmic accident, useless accidental pieces of meat orbiting around a ball of gas, to live and die with no meaning – then what’s wrong with racism?  Wouldn’t this be our Darwinian instincts to be tribal and care for our “own kind?”  Who’s to tell the baboon that his prejudice against the chimpanzee is wrong?  This is just nature taking its course.  The fittest fighting for the top of their respective ladders.  Only if we accept that God created us in His own image, that God has a moral law, and to despise another person is to despise a fellow image of God can we find true unity, because only in Him is our true identity.

Furthermore, we have people defending and even advocating for the destruction of property which has resulted in dozens of innocent deaths.  Some killed in riots, another killed by being crushed under a statue, others losing their livelihoods – who committed no crimes.  This shows that when we handle issues wrongfully, it only causes more death and more pain.  If you advocate for such things – you too are part of the problem.  As a civilized society, we must remain civilized.  Let’s talk, have discussions, share ideas, and give solutions to these problems.  Violence, destruction, and death is an option that will not get us anywhere.  Destruction only begets destruction.

Then there are those who keep shouting bumper stickers, “BLACK LIVES MATTER!” or “ALL LIVES MATTER!”  Yes, yes, yes.  We know.  We agree.  Black lives are part of all and all are part of black lives.  They are part of each other so no reason to shout them.  Now you may ask, “Do you agree with the BLM movement?” My answer is simple: I disagree institutionally but agree morally.  The institution stands for things that I am directly opposed to (abortion, intersectionality, neo-marxist theory, etc.) but the moral that black lives matter?  Absolutely they do.

This isn’t to say racism doesn’t exist.  It most certainly does.  But when we start labeling everything we don’t like as “racist,” then we actually hurt the cause against real racism.  It merely becomes a buzzword that leads to The Boy Who Cried Wolf.  We are so quick to hand this out like candy on Halloween that its very impact has lost its savor.

On top of all this, we infer motive all the time.  For people who say “judge not,” we sure like to judge someone’s motive.  If someone advocates against violence in the black community they’re labeled as a “stupid SJW commie libtard” and if you speak on deeper issues like the fatherless rates in the black community, drug use, violent crime or any other thing you’re an “unforgivable KKK white supremacist racist hack.”  In reality, we’re all advocating and speaking to issues that exist and want to speak to these issues.  Instead of speaking, we label and attack, leaving the issues unaddressed and making the trench that divides even deeper.

So instead of dealing with the cultural issues that have a deep impact on minority groups, we spit in each other’s faces so we can feel a little bit more virtuous.  When we should be talking about how to keep drugs out of the inner cities, how to encourage two parent households, how to prevent the disproportionate black abortions, how to get men to step up as men, have properly trained people in the police force, and proper accountability measures set for such situations – instead we just scream insults at each other or vandalize a city square.  This not only leaves crucial issues unaddressed, but hurts the masses.

People speak of having compassion and empathy, yet don’t even have enough empathy to listen to differing perspectives.  What really happens is that we have empathy for that which we care about and hatred toward anyone else’s view that varies from our own.  In the end, we have selfish bias masquerading as compassion. People love their labels because it saves them from addressing complex topics and helps them feel self-righteous. Unfortunately, it actually does nothing for those in actual pain right now. Recently, I was even called a white supremacist racist for merely disagreeing with vandalism. Of course, I pointed out the obvious refutation to this: my wife is literally Korean.

Then the laughably pathetic thing happened.  I was told she was my token card to deny racism, and that secretly she was terrified to tell me that I was a miserable racist for fear of me domineering over her with my whiteness.  I was angry for a moment, because this was not just disrespectful to me, but to my loving wife.  So, I merely pointed out the obvious: “So because we disagree on this point, you accuse me of being a racist, I show you very obvious evidence that I’m not a racist, and now you twist even that to say I’m racist?  Yet, if I agreed with you on this issue, you’d say that my interracial marriage was brave and beautiful and against the social constructs.  So in the end, I am whatever you choose to perceive me to be no matter what the facts are to the matter.” This is the nature of the conversation nowadays.  We want to label and twist whatever people say to shut them down.  Intellectual honesty, decency, and respect be damned – we have a narrative we demand be followed.  It’s either you agree with the status quo of our perceived beliefs, or you’re a leftist shill or a racist (depending who you’re talking to.)  You’re either for us, or you’re against us.

People, ideas have consequences, and what you’re seeing happen right before your eyes is when bad ideas are allowed to blossom and set their roots.  Consequences happen.  The lack of morals on a number of various fronts has caused unspeakable pain and evils in this world.  It’s time we wake up and see things as they ought to be.  It’s time we recognize one another as humans.  Brothers and sisters.  Children of God.  Image bearers of the Creator.  It’s time we laid down pitchforks and torches.  It’s time to stop following mobs and the next big thing.  The world is manipulating us to keep us divided.  Black lives most certainly matter, powers need to be kept in check, but the answer isn’t attacking and hating one another.  This only creates more disdain in our world.

I greatly disagree with many people.  I’m a pastor after all – we don’t do what we do to win popularity contests.  However, I will always do my best to respect and love one another, because behind every sentence spoken is another person whom God shaped in the womb.  People whom He loved and put in the world.  In the end, if you want real change, you must see things through a framework that isn’t about race/gender/sexuality, but rather right versus wrong.  Moral vs immoral.  Righteousness vs. unrighteousness.  Godly vs. ungodly.  The only way you can find a clear picture of this is through surrendering to the creator of the universe: God.

Let me encourage you to stop insulting and attacking one another, and instead speak to one another.  Listen, love, and even correct one another if needed.  The philosophies today are washing away the masses and only leave destruction in their wake.  Choose a better way.  A higher way.  A transcendent way.  Put your faith in Jesus Christ, approach things as He did.  With grace and truth.

Galatians 3:28

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”