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.”

by Chris Stockman

I was sitting in church this past Sunday as we were saying the Lord’s Prayer, and began thinking about forgiveness and God’s relationship to time, as one does. Suddenly a thought popped into my head that I couldn’t shake. This article is the expansion of that thought. I propose the following for your consideration, as I believe that this is a question very much worth thinking about. This is intended to get the average person in the pew thinking. As a layperson myself, I want to see lay people putting some careful thought into what they are saying about God. The concepts talked about here have been at the forefront of theologians’ navel gazing for millennia, but I think I’ve done what I can to bring out the most significant aspects of them and avoid getting too far into the weeds.

I’ve heard someone say that God is timeless many, many times. From the pulpit, in casual conversation as an item that is taken for granted, etc. It’s one of those things that people think is the pious thing to say, and it’s a staple of what’s called classical theism. If you believe in classical theism, you are in good company, since nearly all of the most influential thinkers in the history of Christianity (Augustine, John of Damascus, Anselm, Aquinas, etc.) have been classical theists. But I would bet a lot that nearly all people today who share their beliefs about God and time (let’s call them atemporalists) have no idea what they actually entail. They certainly do not share some of the philosophical assumptions undergirding classical theism.

First let’s define timelessness. This is not as easy as one may think, since atemporalists are not always forthcoming with what they mean by their claims. Dr. R.T. Mullins (of The Reluctant Theologian Podcast fame) is a great one-stop shop for all things time. He defines timelessness as such:

“God is timeless if and only if God necessarily exists without beginning, without end, without succession, without temporal location, and without temporal extension.”^[1]

Every theist believes God has no beginning or end. The point of being “without succession” is what I am most interested in at the moment. In order to get very far beyond this point, we need to know what time is, otherwise to say that God is timeless (or not) isn’t saying anything. This is also very difficult, as, while many philosophers are quick to define their view of the ontology of time (what times are real) and of the flow of time, they have an unfortunate aversion to telling anyone what time actually is. So you believe only the present moment is real; that’s nice, but what is that? St. Augustine famously wrote in Confessions that he knows what time is until someone asks him about it.^[2] Thanks for nothing, Augustine.

Few have a coherent notion of what time is. There are broadly two views: a relational theory in which time exists only if change exists, and an absolute theory in which time is a definite thing that has a particular nature; it exists with or without change. I favor the latter for reasons beyond the scope of this article. Time is, basically, something that makes change possible.^[3] (There is a more full definition, but this will suffice for present purposes.) The doctrine of timelessness then, regardless of absolutism or relationalism, has some rather disturbing implications.

Here’s one: God cannot forgive you.

Now, before you classical theists go running to Thomas Aquinas or John of Damascus to save you, hear me out. (Then you can go running to Thomas Aquinas or John of Damascus.) Think about it. What is forgiveness? Someone wrongs you, and then, assuming they feel remorse (or if they don’t, but for present purposes assume they do), they apologize and ask for your forgiveness. 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. A relationship that was broken or nonexistent is now restored or being built. I do not mean to suggest that this is all forgiveness involves. But I think I am on safe ground in asserting that this is part of the picture.

Now consider what shakes out from rejecting that God is temporal. By the offered definition of time, God is then unable to change. This is the doctrine of immutability, the belief that God cannot undergo any changes. This is frequently misunderstood even by advocates of timelessness, so it is worth stating more emphatically: God is not able to change in any way, no matter what change is being talked about. William Lane Craig writes of immutability: “God cannot change in any respect. He never thinks successive thoughts, He never performs successive actions, He never undergoes even the most trivial alteration…He cannot even change extrinsically by being related to changing things.”^[4] This is a big one, since many classical theists (on the internet, not scholars as far as I am aware) think that their view of God is compatible with a particular type of change. (More on that later.) If one admits change into the life of God, that is introducing time into his life. Mullins again notes that “Any kind of change that a being undergoes will be sufficient for that being to be temporal as it will create a before and after in the life of that being.”^[5]

So can a timeless, changeless God forgive you? Well, forgiveness involves changing your evaluation of another person in response to their apology. Your disposition towards another person is different. There is a difference in the forgiver. There has been a change in their mental state and emotional life. Applied to God, there was a state of affairs in which God had a negative evaluation of you due to your sin against him, and upon forgiving you there is now a state of affairs in which he has a positive evaluation of you (due to being placed in Christ).^[6] If it is metaphysically impossible for God to change, then it is metaphysically impossible for him to change his evaluation of you. Thus, from the perspective of a timeless God, you are unforgivable.

But it gets worse. There is another core claim that classical theists hold dear: impassibility. As with time, saying God is impassible isn’t saying anything unless we know what a passion is. This one is more controversial to define (with some characterizing it as God not experiencing any emotions), but it is held by some to be the claim that God cannot be acted upon and that there cannot be a disturbance in the For-I mean God’s eternal bliss, and that God cannot be affected by any considerations outside of himself. St. John of Damascus (675-749) called a passion “…a sensible activity of the appetitive faculty, depending on the presentation to the mind of something good or bad…But passion considered as a class, that is, passion in general, is defined as a movement in one thing caused by another.”^[7] Elsewhere in his work, Damascene states over and over and over that God is impassible, that deity is passion-less, or some variation of that. Thus for Damascene, the impassible God cannot admit a passion (movement) in his emotional or mental life by something outside of himself. Now, I disagree with Damascene, but he is illustrative of The Tradition™️. So how does this make things worse?

Remember how I said forgiveness involves changing your evaluation of someone in response to their apology? That is impossible per the doctrine of impassibility, as that would mean God has been moved to do something in response to something outside of himself. Your confession and repentance to God quite literally can have no effect. (How prayer in general even works on classical theism is another issue as well.) The idea that God can be moved to do anything is utterly anathema to the classical theist. One of the underlying reasons why this is so is that classical theism fundamentally denies that God even stands in a real relation to the world at all. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was not unclear: “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 (I:13:7) in treating of the divine names.”^[8] This answer was given in response to the objection that if creation is applied to God in the active sense, then he would be temporal. There is much more that could be said on this point, but that is far beyond the present scope.

There is another way in which this somehow gets even worse^[9], but that should suffice for now: the classical God cannot forgive you since he cannot be moved to do so and is unable to change.

So, does the classical theist have a way forward? It turns out, yes, they do. They can keep their classical theism and their belief in God’s forgiveness, as I’m sure Barack Obama said in some possible world. Here are some options (I doubt this is exhaustive but it’s what I can think of):

1. They could deny that forgiveness involves a change in one’s evaluation of another person, or a change in one’s mental life.
2. They could deny that forgiveness needs to be given in response to something external to the agent.
3. They could deny that God’s forgiveness is anything like our forgiveness of each other.
4. They could deny that God had previously had a negative evaluation of us. 
5. They could deny that God currently has a positive evaluation of us.
6. They could affirm that God does forgive you and that any change this involves is a Cambridge change.

Option 1 is unsuccessful since I fail to see how one can be said to have forgiven someone when they have the same evaluation of someone as before the forgiveness. If I still think my brother is a pest that I want nothing to do with after I forgave him for being a pest, I have not really forgiven him.

Option 2 is perhaps more promising, but notice that it no longer would apply to our scenario with God. Scripture is clear that God forgives those who repent. God’s forgiveness is not unconditional. Taking this option would effectively deny salvation through faith.

Option 3 is directly contradicted by the Lord’s Prayer: “and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us”. Paul as well in Ephesians 4:32 writes “ Become kind toward one another, compassionate, forgiving one another, just as also God in Christ has forgiven you. (LEB)” If God’s forgiveness is utterly unlike ours, these statements from Jesus and Paul are unintelligible. I know this will be quite the hot take, but I do not believe Jesus and Paul were unintelligible.

Option 4 is a direct assault on any coherent understanding of sin. If God never assessed us negatively, then talk of salvation is meaningless; we aren’t being saved from anything, since we were never lost and were never at risk of God’s judgment. I don’t expect any classical theist to take this route.

If someone takes Option 5, I don’t know why they would want the Christian life.

Option 6 is interesting. A Cambridge change is one in which there is a change, but only on one end of the relationship. The example is given of being south of Cambridge. You then walk to the north of Cambridge. The change is that you were south of Cambridge and now you are north of it. Cambridge has not changed, you have. So, as defenders of classical theism are renowned for their charitable interactions with their opponents, they will kindly remind you that they are perfectly happy to accept Cambridge changes all day long with God. There is a change in God’s relationship to us, but it’s on our end, not God’s. We repented and asked for forgiveness. The change involved in God’s forgiveness is really a change in us. God is still (to use a temporal idea) in his perfect state of timeless and impassible bliss with his evaluations of all creatures great and small being known by him from eternity in his one, single instant.

While interesting, this is perhaps the most sinister option. We depend for our salvation upon God’s forgiveness. We would not be indwelled by the Holy Spirit without it. The idea that it is strictly a change in me that I am depending on for my salvation is truly terrifying. I still sin (change for the worse) and sometimes I may not look all that different from a nonbeliever; how then can I know that I really am forgiven? This idea would utterly destroy any assurance of salvation. Furthermore, it seems to fly in the face of the many passages that assert our utter dependence on God, even for our next breath (Job 12:10, Psalm 84, Psalm 104:29, Psalm 119:81-82).

Now, this by itself may not be a reason to reject that God’s forgiveness is a Cambridge change; maybe reality is just that dark. But there is another problem with the appeal to a Cambridge change: the relationship. The Cambridge change is only such if I really am in the relations “south of” and “north of” to Cambridge. But recall that a fundamental assumption to classical theism is that God is not really related to the world! The classical theist may try to wiggle out by saying that these Cambridge relations are not real relations. In that case, I don’t think I know what “real” means anymore. I give up. 

In the form of premises, the argument is:

1. If God is timeless, he is not capable of undergoing change in any form.
2. A necessary condition to being forgiven is that the subject initially have a negative evaluation of the object of forgiveness.
3. A necessary condition to being forgiven is that the subject no longer have a negative evaluation of the object of forgiveness.
4. Therefore, if God forgives someone, he goes from having a negative evaluation of them to no longer having a negative evaluation of them.
5. If God goes from having a negative evaluation of them to no longer having a negative evaluation of them, then there has been a change in his mental and emotional life.
6. God is timeless.
7. Therefore, God cannot have a change in his mental and emotional life.
8. Therefore, God cannot go from having a negative evaluation of someone to no longer having a negative evaluation of someone.
9. Therefore, God cannot forgive anyone.

As a bonus, here is the argument from impassibility against forgiveness being because of repentance:

1. If God is impassible, he is not capable of being moved to do an action by anything external to himself.
2. If God forgives someone because they have repented, then he has been moved to act by something outside of himself.
3. God is impassible.
4. Therefore, God cannot be moved to act because of something outside of himself.
5. Therefore, God cannot forgive someone because they have repented.
6. Therefore, repentance is not a condition for God’s forgiveness.

Conclusion

I want to be clear about what exactly I have and have not argued for here. I have not argued that classical theism is false. I believe it is false, but that is not my argument here. My argument is that the doctrines of classical theism logically entail that God cannot forgive you.

This is in contrast to teachings derived from a sound reading of Scripture. Scripture reveals God as being highly interactive. The doctrines of classical theism are directly contradicted on every page of Scripture and would render crucial claims of the Gospel itself literally false. I do not believe that classical theism should be on the table for a Christian to believe. Of course, classical theists can still be Christians, but that is in spite of their model of God, not because of it. Christian, take solace in that God really has forgiven you, that he really does no longer hold your sin against you, that he really has transferred us from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of his Son (Col. 1:13), that you are really no longer under condemnation (Rom. 8:1), and that he really does currently have a positive evaluation of you (Eph. 1:3-14).

I am sure that classical theists will have their rebuttals, and I look forward to seeing what they may be.

---

^[1] Mullins, The Divine Timemaker, in Philosophia Christi Vol. 22, No.2, (2020), 213.

^[2] Yes, I’m aware that he had a little more to say on the subject than this. But that’s not the point.

^[3] Mullins, The End of The Timeless God (2016), 18. See also Mullins’ chapter in Ontology of Divinity (forthcoming), edited by Miroslaw Szatkowski, 99-111.

^[4] Craig, Time and Eternity (2001), 30-31.

^[5] Mullins, The End of The Timeless God (2016), 157.

^[6] After I had written this bit, I came across an article by Mullins in which he actually says as much. “When God forgives a repentant sinner, God changes both intrinsically and extrinsically. God changes extrinsically in that God comes to stand in a new relation to a creature. Namely, being the one to whom a sinner is repenting of her sins. Yet, God also changes intrinsically in that God’s knowledge will perfectly track the changes in reality. God now knows that He is being prayed to, and God now knows that He is forgiving the sinner.” (Mullins, Ryan T. “Open Theism and Perfect Rationality: An Examination of Dean Zimmerman’s views on God, Time, and Creation.” TheoLogica: An International Journal for Philosophy of Religion and Philosophical Theology 8.2 (2024), pg. 2-3)

^[7] Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 2.22

^[8] Summa Theologica 1 q.45 a.3

^[9] I refer here to the doctrine of simplicity, rounding out the quartet of classical distinctives. This one is a bit more complicated to define clearly, and this post is already long enough, so I will save a consideration of it for a part 2.