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

Opinion Piece

First, let me introduce myself. I am a missionary to a Restricted Access Nation in Asia. I spent three years living in this foreign nation before returning home to seek more training. I am currently (2022) finishing up the last few meetings left before I am finished raising the support I need to return to this Restricted Access Nation as a church-planting missionary. However, as a missionary, I have experienced missions both from the perspective of an Independent Fundamental Baptist and as a Non-denominational missionary. One of my supporters, Will Hess from The Church Split, reached out and asked me to share my thoughts on missions from my perspective. I will not attempt to criticize or evaluate denominational missions due to my inexperience in that field. However, I will attempt to explain my experiences in the IFB and eventually as a non-denominational missionary. I will explain my philosophies as a missionary, which I believe to be Biblical. I will explain the problems that I see with missions in our modern environment. Finally, I will explain my burden for missions, and I will attempt to persuade you of the importance of missions. However, before I begin that series, let me explain how I entered the field of missions.

My Introduction to Missions

Despite that wonderful buildup, I didn’t want to be a missionary when I first expressed interest in vocational ministry. I didn’t want to be a missionary at all. I expressly told the Lord, “God, I will serve in any way that you want, except missions.” As a child in an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church, we had missionaries at our church every year. We were constantly exposed to missionaries. However, as an un-churched kid who grew up in a non-Christian home, I thought that missionaries and their children were strange. It seemed that missions seemed to beckon to the weirdest, most peculiar group of people that I had ever met. This was not necessarily due to their decision to serve as missionaries, but since all the families that I seemed to meet were people that I wouldn’t be caught dead with in real life. Since I wasn’t weird, I ascertained that God must have called me to either a pastoral or an evangelistic role of service. Furthermore, I didn’t like the idea of serving the Lord in a foreign field or having to travel for years to raise financial support, only to have to travel to the United States to beg for more money every 4 years. Since I didn’t have the personality of what I deemed to be proper for an evangelist (more on that in future posts), I decided that I would be a pastor. I am certainly glad that God changed my mind.

While I attended an IFB seminary in Southern California, I initially believed that God was calling me to missions. I had been attending multiple missionary prayer groups, in which we prayed for different missionaries around the world. I am not sure at the time if I was caught in an emotional moment, but I realize now that it is increasingly difficult to listen to stories of people who uprooted their entire life for the cause of Christ and stay content to be a pastor. When the missions conference rolled around, I decided that I was bound to be a missionary. However, I specifically told the Lord, “God, I will serve the Lord wherever you want, but I don’t want to go to this Restricted Access Nation.” During this mission conference, I met multiple missionaries in this specific field, and I felt that God was burdening me with unreached people groups. Thankfully, a wise roommate told me that this specific nation had over a billion people and would be filled with unreached people. I relented and committed to praying to determine if this was God’s will for my life.

Let’s pause for a moment and comment on the idea of “God’s will.” Often this phrase is misused and incredibly misunderstood. Somehow, people believe that God always promised to give people a very specific and very literal calling for their exact life purpose, often during their teenage or pre-teen years. This is usually prompted by some sort of emotional appeal during an altar call of a revival service. Oddly enough, I have only heard this phrase for those going into vocational ministry in this context. Otherwise, God’s will is a vague phrase used to determine your spouse, your house, your car, or explain away anything that doesn’t make sense. Instead, I believe that the following rubric can help determine God’s will for your life:

1. Is there a desire (1 Timothy 3:1; Proverbs 18:1; Psalms 37:4)?
2. Have you prayed about it?
3. Have you sought godly counsel (Proverbs 12:15. 11:14, 15:22)?
4. What does the Bible say? (i.e., is there anything in the Bible that forbids this decision or your qualification?)

Moving on. A year later, God opened the door for my wife and me to serve in this Restricted Access Nation. We served in an Underground church under a veteran missionary, teaching English and working with the youth group. After our first year, the veteran missionary was kicked out of the country, and my wife and I remained for two more years, serving in that underground church under a national pastor. It was during these three years that God began to make it clear that this is where our calling was, and we came back to the United States, where we served in our former sending church for two years before we began deputation (the process of raising financial support). Although I could speak for hours concerning the call to missions, I will openly admit that this looks different for everyone. Everyone who is a missionary was called differently, at a different stage, and to a different place. There is no right way to do this part, but there may be more beneficial ways of clarifying God’s call. For further clarification, this entire process occurred during our years in the Independent Fundamental Baptist movement, and our experiences are drawn from this crowd. I appreciated this entire process, and as I look back, I can see that God was doing amazing things.

Our World Is Blown Apart

As I mentioned, it was during this deputation process that our world began to change. In the last 2.5 years, we have traveled to hundreds of churches and seen so many things. We have been to churches that were different shades of IFB than what I grew up in. We have encountered beliefs that are different than ours. We have even visited churches outside of our denominational affiliation, including Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, etc. Throughout these experiences, we have learned a lot. We have hurt a lot. We have grown a lot. We made new friends, and we lost old friends. We experienced some of the best moments and some of the hardest moments of our lives. We lost half of our support overnight, and we lost our sending church. Our friends rejected us, and our supporters left us. Even after that, we experienced the same issues outside of the IFB as everyone was constantly fighting with everyone, and our support and family were the collateral. We have also grown spiritually and doctrinally, and God has reshaped some of our views on missions. It is through some of these experiences that I want to take a few blog posts and explain what I have learned. I may not change the way that the world sees missions, but hopefully, I can encourage a church or a missionary to challenge the way that they think. If we can fix the problems of missions from this side of the field, we might further enhance our ability to reach the world.

Over the next few posts, I intend to cover the following topics:

• Deputation (troubles and philosophies)
• Unity behind the Gospel
• Theology and the missionary
• Missionary Autonomy
• Furlough and support troubles
• Apathy and missions

After these brief posts, I hope that you will have at least a better appreciation of the experiences that missionaries go through to reach foreign nations with the Gospel. Until next

By Chris Stockman

Prior to declaring war on some other apologists of my generation, I contended that one consequence of God being timeless is that he cannot forgive anyone. That is, if one affirms classical theism (divine timelessness, immutability, and impassibility) then they ought to also believe that God cannot forgive them.^[1] These, however, are only three of the classical distinctives. The fourth plank of classical theism, which is often taken to be the foundational doctrine to the whole system, is the doctrine of divine simplicity.

One may wonder why I have separated simplicity from the other classical doctrines in these articles. First and foremost, was length considerations. The previous article was long enough even without looking at simplicity. But, second, is the intended audience. I was not writing that article for the trained philosopher or theologian, but rather the average churchgoer who has heard certain claims about God casually thrown out from the pulpit and has uncritically accepted them. The average person has heard God is timeless and unchanging very often. By contrast, I would wager that 90% or more of Christians have not even heard of simplicity, much less know what it actually is. This is interesting, since certain advocates of simplicity treat it as a test of orthodoxy.^[2] I find this use of simplicity puzzling, since I cannot think of a single other doctrine that is as abstract and far removed from being relevant to the Christian life. Thus, I was initially going to leave simplicity out of the discussion entirely. But, as the first article was coming together, I realized a well-rounded discussion should include it. 

So what is divine simplicity (DS hereafter)? As with the other classical doctrines, this is not always easy to nail down. Not every classical theist is forthcoming with a succinct definition of their claims, and I do not think that every thinker throughout church history that has claimed belief in DS has believed the same thing.^[3] Some use simplicity to say merely that God does not have physical parts. Others, however, make the more controversial claim that God does not have metaphysical parts.^[4] And just about everything passes for a metaphysical part in the classical schema. 

DS is well construed as a set of claims:

• “The doctrine of divine simplicity teaches that (1) God is identical with his existence and his essence and (2) that each of his attributes is ontologically identical in him with every other one of his attributes.”^[5]
• There are no distinct realities in God.^[6]
• God has no attributes.^[7] (So, are all of God’s attributes identical with each other, and so he has one attribute, or does he have no attributes?)
• God has no potential at all, but is purely actual.^[8]

A decent summary is: God has no attributes, is his own existence, and cannot possibly be other than he is, since rejecting any of these would require that he have metaphysical parts, which would just be the worst.^[9]

If you are sitting there wondering what the heck any of that is supposed to mean, you are in good company. I cannot make heads or tails of the idea that God is existence, and I suspect that is precisely the point. Those who are committed to saying that God has no attributes, is passion-less, is time-less, etc. are avoiding making any positive claims about God, saying instead only what he is not. The affirmation of DS is therefore a mainstay in the apophatic tradition.^[10] If apophatic theology is the only appropriate theology, then, as CS Lewis said “we worship we know not what.” Classical theists apply this to the nth-degree. There are advocates of this view that have stated to me “God does not exist”, in the interest of upholding the idea that God is existence. Now, if your view of God forces you to say that he does not exist, I take that as a good sign that you are deeply confused about God. I do not know why so many Christians find it desirable to give worship and entrust their lives to someone that they do not actually know a thing about. In Acts 17, Paul aimed to make known the previously unknown God. He noticed the altar in Athens to an “unknown god” and saw his opportunity to proclaim the Most High. He did not keep God shrouded in unapproachable mystery as the DS advocate forces themselves to. By the apophaticist’s metric, the Apostle Paul was a horrible theologian.

Anyway, as with timelessness, this doctrine has some unfortunate implications. One of them is what’s called “modal collapse”;^[11] basically, DS makes this world necessary. There is no other way things could have been. Abuse victims had to suffer their abuse. Your family member had to die without receiving Christ. Another implication could be that God is a property.^[12] As I’ll argue here, another implication is that God cannot forgive you.

A quick note: perhaps this is not your father’s divine simplicity. If this is not a DS you recognize, then I submit that it may not be simplicity that you believe,^[13] because all of these claims above are express statements by classical theists, old and new. These are exactly the things that they say. If the shoe doesn’t fit, find a new shoe. It is also possible that there are some intramural disagreements between DS supporters; perhaps not everyone agrees with Anselm, for example. If you reject a particular tenet of what I take to be DS, then fair enough.

Another quick note: perhaps you don’t want to read this whole article. You may just be wondering if you should affirm simplicity or deny it. You should reject DS if:

1. You think it is incoherent.
2. You think its implications are false.
3. You think Scripture teaches against it.
4. You have any intelligence at all.

Ok, maybe the last reason is wide of the mark. Classical theists are often sharp thinkers that, I believe, are just misled by some counterintuitive metaphysics. It’s not an intelligence question as some may cast it, but rather a question of whether or not one finds attractive the prior commitments that the classical tradition requires. For my part, I find them wildly implausible.

The Problems of Forgiveness

“But God is truly called in manifold ways, great, good, wise, blessed, true, and whatsoever other thing seems to be said of Him not unworthily: but His greatness is the same as His wisdom; for He is not great by bulk, but by power; and His goodness is the same as His wisdom and greatness, and His truth the same as all those things; and in Him it is not one thing to be blessed, and another to be great, or wise, or true, or good, or in a word to be Himself.”~Augustine^[14]

“You are happy, indeed you are by nature happiness, because you are in possession of yourself.”~John Duns Scotus^[15]

Keep these in mind; they’ll help us later.

So, I contended previously that a timeless God cannot forgive because he cannot change. One rejoinder could be that the classical theist could just say that God’s one act of being includes his act of wrath on sinners and his act of forgiveness to anyone who turns from their sin. After all, since they affirm that everything in God is God, they would just say his wrath is identical to his forgiveness which is identical to his existence. Therefore, since he is simple, the classical God can forgive you. Problem solved, right?

Not so fast. Actually, things just got worse. Much worse.

Problem #1: No real relations.

Normally, when discussing the doctrine of no real relations, one would quote from Thomas Aquinas, perhaps Summa Contra Gentiles II.11-13 or Summa Theologiae 1 q.45 a.3. You know, where he explicitly states that God isn’t really related to the world? Sadly though, I have been informed that I don’t understand him. So I’ll settle for Peter Lombard (1100-1160) saying basically the same thing. Maybe I understand him?

“From these comments, it is plainly shown that some things are said of God in time relative to creatures, without change of the deity but not without change of the creature; and so the accident is in the creature, not in the Creator. And the name by which the creature is called relative to the Creator is relative, and it denotes the relation which is in the creature itself; the name by which the Creator is called relative to the creature is also relative, but it denotes no relation which is in the Creator.”^[16] (Sentences I Dist. XXX.1)

Let’s apply Pete’s logic to God’s forgiveness.

I say that X is in a forgiving relationship with Y if and only if the propositions “X is the forgiver of Y” (or vice versa) and “Y is forgiven by X” (or vice versa) are both true. In my previous article I laid out at least a partial definition of forgiveness, but here that definition doesn’t actually matter. Christians affirm that God is our forgiver; our faith is false without it. But the proposition “God is the forgiver of a repentant sinner” has just been, by implication, literally denied by the classical theist. The relationship (forgiving a sinner) does not really have a referent on God’s end. Lombard says the accident, or property, (being forgiven in our case) is in us. But then he says that “the name by which the Creator is called relative to the creature…denotes no relation which is in the Creator”. Forgiver is not actually referring to anything in God. Then what does “God is the forgiver of a repentant sinner” refer to?

Aquinas comes to the rescue! Maybe I understand him if I’m using him to bail out the classical theist? Is that how this works? Aquinas wasn’t silly; he knew there had to be some way we can be related to God. So he called such relations to God “relations of reason”.^[17] These relations exist solely in our understanding. Creator, Redeemer, Lord, Savior, Sustainer…it’s all in your head. Whether or not this answer is compatible with Christianity is left as an exercise to the reader.

Problem #2: No real distinctions.

Remember Augustine and Scotus above; where God is happiness itself, and there is nothing distinct in God, that everything said of God is really the same thing? This backfires on the classical theist, as it happens. Recall the (working) definition of forgiveness from the prior article:

“You are feeling indignation or at least have some negative evaluation of the other person. But in response to someone asking for your forgiveness, or due to some consideration of what the ethical thing to do is, you forgive them. Your forgiveness involves you changing your evaluation of the person, and you no longer hold their offensive action towards you against them.”

We wrong someone, and so they feel indignation towards us. Then we apologize, or make reparations, and then they relinquish their indignation towards us. Their pre-forgiveness state is qualitatively different from their post-forgiveness state. They felt wrath and now are at peace with us; regardless of what one thinks about time and befores/afters,^[18] they are distinct states to be in. Can God do this?

            I do not see how, on DS. Since all that we say is in God, say, wrath, would be identical to everything else we say is in God, say, grace or happiness, there is no such thing as distinct states for God to be in. Not even conceptually! There is only God as happiness itself. There can only be God’s happy, graceful, loving, wrath (which is God himself, in case you forgot). Thus, there will be no difference between a simple God’s state “prior” to his forgiveness of me and his state “when” he has forgiven me, even using temporal notions non-literally. And thus, the defender of DS seems forced to reject at least one of the following claims, which I will call the Five Ways (Out):

1. God is wrathful towards unrepentant sinners.
2. God is not wrathful towards repentant sinners.
3. God is not at peace with unrepentant sinners.
4. God is at peace with repentant sinners.
5. We can say that God forgives repentant sinners.

Claims 1-4 would be the move by someone who thinks one need not have any negative evaluation of someone at any point in the forgiving process, or else that one may still feel negatively towards someone after forgiving them (discounting human deficiencies; this is God we’re talking about). Rejecting (1) is unlikely to be a popular move, as it is the express statement of a prophet of the Lord (John 3:36). Rejecting (2), and so affirming that God is wrathful towards repentant sinners, may sit well with the Calvinist but not with normal Christians, as we are not under God’s condemnation (John 3:18). Rejecting (3) is unwise as well, since it is by faith that we gain peace with God (Romans 5:1). If I had peace with God before I repented, then I lose my grasp on just what repentance is supposed to do. Rejecting (4), by my lights, provides strong motivation to stay in my sin, or otherwise to not want the “peace” that 2 John 3 says will be with us from God.

            That leaves (5) as the only way out. The classical theist can say that God does something,^[19] but whatever it is, it cannot include forgiveness. I will leave it to the classical theist to make the case that we still have a gospel if we cannot say that God forgives repentant sinners.

            Ok, there is, technically, a sixth Way. In theory, the classical theist could just say that forgiveness need not involve distinct states for the forgiver to be in, and thus they would reject how I define forgiveness. This will come at a cost, though, namely the cost of intuition. I find it a highly non-intuitive account of forgiveness that says that I can be forgiven by a God who feels the exact same way about me having forgiven me as he does without having forgiven me.

The End of The Matter

            I think I have shown that all four distinctives of classical theism run directly counter to the crucial claim of Christianity that God forgives sinners. Thus, I can only call divine simplicity an “own goal” in theology, just like timelessness. The view is difficult, if not impossible, to even be made coherent. By my lights, the classical distinctives make gibberish out of Christian theology and are among the biggest mistakes in all of church history.

So, why in the world would any person hold on to their divine simplicity? I think Dr. William Hasker expressed my thoughts well when he wrote:

“Many of us, I believe, encountered our first philosophically serious theism in the writings of eternalist theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas–not to mention C.S. Lewis! As a result, the eternalist conception of God became incorporated into our thinking and belief at a rather deep level.

            But many of us have also found our philosophical home in the analytical tradition. And it is simply a fact that the habits of thought engendered by that tradition are not particularly congenial to the theory of divine timelessness.”^[20]

            The sentiment holds, I think, for classical theism in general. And I don’t mean to say that tradition is THE reason why anyone holds to it; classical theists do have their arguments. But there is something comfortable about tradition, to be sure. It is a nice feeling to know that one has centuries of great theologians agreeing with them. I certainly don’t want to give anyone the impression that I have no respect for the classical tradition and just want to be “freed” from its “shackles” like an angsty new atheist. Far from it; I respect the tradition enough to study it and take it seriously. I love tradition, and I greatly enjoy reading such luminaries as Athanasius the Great, Boethius, and John of Damascus, despite their mistakes. I smile at the thought of meeting them in the Resurrection (and winning arguments with them). But, I cannot shake the hold that the “analytical tradition” has on me.

            Regardless of your tradition, pursue truth.^[21]

---

^[1] This is not a response to Jordan Ferrier’s article.

^[2] Some make claims like that simplicity is the only way in which one can be a monotheist, or the only way that one can say that God is necessary. Such claims I consider to be not worth taking seriously.

^[3]William Hasker, in Jeffrey Jordan (ed.), Philosophy of Religion: The Key Thinkers, 14: “About simplicity I have little to say, since those who defend the doctrine can’t seem to agree on exactly what it means. To be sure, God is not assembled out of parts; that much is agreed upon by all. The doctrine of divine simplicity, however, is supposed to mean a great deal more than this, but what that ‘more’ is remains in contention, so it is best to refrain from criticizing until there is a clear target for the criticism.”

^[4] Fleshing out the difference here is beyond the scope of this article. In short, simplicity trades on a view of metaphysics in which a thing’s parts include the properties or attributes it possesses. The properties are a proper part of the actual object. For example, the property of redness is a part of a red ball on this view.

^[5] Dolezal, James E. God without parts: Simplicity and the metaphysics of divine absoluteness. Westminster Theological Seminary, 2011, 2.

^[6] John Duns Scotus, A Treatise on God as First Principle 4.84. How this is compatible with the Trinity is not clear.

^[7] Anselm, On the Incarnation of The Word, VII. Anselm rejects even conceptual distinctions applied to God. Thus, one cannot conceive of God plus an attribute; there is only the divine substance. “Therefore, the being of God and the being of his power are the same.”

^[8] Edward Feser, Five Proofs of the Existence of God, 30-31 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2017). (And many other places.) Potentiality/actuality is merely the difference between the way the thing is and could otherwise be. For example, I am not a father, but I have the potential to be a father.

^[9] This is where a key assumption comes into play. Many ancient thinkers held that something that has parts has been assembled out of those parts; that is, that the thing would then depend on the parts for its existence. The extent to which you think this assumption is plausible is the extent to which you will feel the force of some arguments for simplicity.

^[10] Apophaticism, or via negativa (way of negation) is the belief that we can only speak of what God is not, rather than what he is. This is a very mystical tradition that prides itself on not actually knowing anything about God himself.

^[11] https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/other-videos/the-modal-collapse-objection-to-divine-simplicity

^[12] Alvin Plantinga, Does God Have a Nature? (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1980). At least, if one accepts simplicity as Dolezal defines it.

^[13] For example, Richard Swinburne, in The Christian God (1994) 160-163, wants to endorse DS. However, I have a difficult time calling his view DS, as he rejects how medieval thinkers expounded it, believes that God is temporal, and is an open theist. Not very classical of him.

^[14] Augustine, De Trinitate VI.8

^[15] John Duns Scotus, A Treatise on God as First Principle 4.84

^[16] Lombard, Sentences I Dist. XXX.1, as in Mullins, The End of The Timeless God, 118-119.

^[17] An illustration: I am currently thinking about Will and Brian. Thus, I am really related to them by the relation “thinking about”. But (so the thinking goes) Will and Brian are not really related to me, not even by the relation “being thought about”. Their relation to me is thus a relation of reason; it is only in my apprehension of them.

^[18] Here I have in mind the concept of a logical moment in contrast to a temporal moment.

^[19] But since God has only one act which is identical to himself, which is unknowable to us, this means that we can’t know what it is.

^[20] William Hasker, God, Time, and Knowledge, 180-181.

^[21] Thanks to Travis Pelletier, Mariah Woolley, and Dr. RT Mullins for looking over prior editions of this and for the helpful feedback.