Answering Calvinist Proof-texts, Part 2 - Acts 13:48

It is a single word in this verse which is used to support the Calvinist interpretation: "appointed".  It should be noted at the outset, as the early Arminian exegete Adam Clarke points out:

Now, we should be careful to examine what a word means, before we attempt to fix its meaning. Whatever τεταγμενοι may mean, which is the word we translate ordained [or appointed], it is neither προτεταγμενοι nor προορισμενοι which the apostle uses, but simply τεταγμενοι , which includes no idea of pre-ordination or pre-destination of any kind.

Clarke continues (link, bold mine):

And if it even did, it would be rather hazardous to say that all those who believed at this time were such as actually persevered unto the end, and were saved unto eternal life. But, leaving all these precarious matters, what does the word τεταγμενος mean? The verb ταττω or τασσω signifies to place, set, order, appoint, dispose; hence it has been considered here as implying the disposition or readiness of mind of several persons in the congregation, such as the religious proselytes mentioned Acts 13:43, who possessed the reverse of the disposition of those Jews who spake against those things, contradicting and blaspheming, Acts 13:45. Though the word in this place has been variously translated, yet, of all the meanings ever put on it, none agrees worse with its nature and known signification than that which represents it as intending those who were predestinated to eternal life: this is no meaning of the term, and should never be applied to it.

Below I will look at 3 different ways to render the Greek word: "in line for", "disposed", and "appointed".  As you will notice, these are not really exclusive understandings or interpretations, but rather they fit together very nicely, each providing support for the others.

"in line for"

Dr David Gooding, professor emeritus of Old Testament Greek at Queen’s University Belfast, offered an interpretation of this passage in his series, "The Glorious Gospel of the Blessed God". I find his explanation especially helpful because of the way he brings in prevenient grace. (It should be noted that in this sense, the Arminian view is not altogether different from a Calvinist understanding; in both, it is God who takes the initiative. It is different from a Calvinist interpretation, of course, in that it includes no "decree").

Here is what he says (Q&A audio at about 12:30):

Does the term "those that were appointed to eternal life believed" mean that they were thus appointed by God's pre-choice; pre-determination, if you like? The matter will turn on two things:

(1) The context is contrasting the Jews of the Synagogue who, having heard the Gospel, rejected it seriously. And Paul and company shook out the dust of their shoes and said "Seeing you judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, we turn to the gentiles". They were Jews making their own decision; coming to their own judgement, regarding themselves as "unworthy of eternal life" and they wouldn't have it. That was how they judged the situation; they were Jews.  In contrast to that many gentiles believed--not all the gentiles, but those that were.  

(2) And here you, to take it seriously, have to consider the possible translations of that Greek word. That Greek word is, in military context, used in middle unpassive in this kind of sentence: that a detachment of troops form themselves up into, say, battle formation, or line of march.  And so it would be used like that of a squad of troops taking that particular formation.  We could, therefore, rightly take it that those that were "lined up for".  

Lined up how? Well, I myself quite believe that when it comes to the work of salvation, God always takes the initiative. It is not that humans come to God saying, "Please consider saving me", and God replies, "I hadn't thought of doing any such thing but I'll consider your application".  God always takes the initiative.  And what is more, as any practical evangelist will tell you, as they go to this place or that, they will find people that by God's gracious Holy Spirit, have been worked upon, and their conscience has been aroused.  Maybe they haven't gotten to the point of complete illumination but they're stopping to think. And God, in His mercy, brings a preacher to them, and these folks have been prepared. And when they hear the Gospel, they believe. That doesn't mean that nobody else in the town is ever going to get saved. Some are not just ready yet, so to speak.   

I take it that what Paul is saying is that these--"those among the gentiles who were 'in line for'"--they either had lined themselves up for, or God's gracious Spirit, or both, had been working in them. And now when they finally heard the Gospel, they believed.  

Dr Greg Boyd provides a similar explanation, writing:

Luke does not specify when the Gentiles who believed were “destined for eternal life.” Calvinists rightfully point out that the Gentiles’ faith followed their being “destined for eternal life” but mistakenly assume that this “destiny” was decided by God from before creation. The text only requires us to believe that the Spirit of God had been at work preparing the hearts of all who did not resist him to accept the Gospel when they heard it.

God knows our heart before we express it through our words or through our decisions (Ps. 139:2–4). On this basis the Lord could assure Paul before his missionary endeavor at Corinth that “there are many in this city who are my people” (viz. whose hearts have been opened and who will therefore believe your message) (Acts 18:10).

So too, Lydia listened intently to Paul’s Gospel because the Lord had already “opened her heart” (Acts 16:14). Those Gentiles who did not resist the Spirit’s work in their life were “ripe” for the message of Paul and Barnabas. They were already “destined for eternal life” and thus accepted the Good News when it was preached to them.

Others I have found which also note the military understanding include the Benson Commentary:

In the Greek classics, in its passive form, it is generally used of men, who, having been appointed for some military expedition, (and set in their proper offices, as it is rendered, Luke 7:8,) were drawn up in battle array for that purpose. So that it expresses, or refers, at once to the action of their commander, marshalling them, and to their own presenting themselves in their proper places, to be led on to the intended expedition. So Dr. Doddridge, who adds, “This I take to be precisely its sense here, and have therefore chosen the word determined, as having an ambiguity something like that in the original. The meaning of the sacred penman seems to be, that all who were deeply and seriously concerned about their eternal happiness, (whether that concern began now, or were of longer date,) openly embraced the gospel: for surely none could be said to believe who did not make an open profession of Christianity.” In a similar sense, the clause is understood by Dr. Hammond, who renders it, As many as were disposed for eternal life believed: and by Dr. Heylin, whose translation and gloss upon it is, As many as were in a fit disposition for eternal life believed. Dr. Waterland also, and many of the most learned expositors, interpret it in the same manner, namely, as describing those who were, at this time,in a disposition to comply with the terms on which God, by his apostle, now offered them eternal life; that is, to repent, believe, and obey the gospel.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible mentions, "The word τάσσω tassō, properly means 'to place' - that is, to place in a certain rank or order. Its meaning is derived from arranging or disposing a body of soldiers in regular military order." And the Expositor's Greek Testament, says:

Some take the word as if middle, not passive: “as many as had set themselves unto eternal life,” and in support of this Rendall refers to 1 Corinthians 16:15, ἔταξαν ἑαυτοὺς (see also Blass, in loco). The rendering here given by Rendall may be adopted without pressing the military metaphor in the verb, as has sometimes been done[...]

(more from Expositor's below).

"disposed"

Dr Brian Abasciano has written extensively on this interpretation (see the links at the end of this post), so I won't dwell on it too long.

In one of the earlier posts Dr Abasciano wrote on this verse, he notes (link):

And the most authoritative lexicon for New Testament studies (abbreviated BDAG) does not take the verb in question to mean “appoint,” but construes it under the meaning of “to put in place.” It is not surprising, then, that the distinguished biblical scholar Henry Alford argued for the rendering, “as many as were disposed,” in his well respected 4 volume work, The Greek Testament. (John Piper of all people sings Alford’s praises thus: “When I’m stumped with a . . . grammatical or syntactical or logical flow [question] in Paul, I go to Henry Alford. Henry Alford mostly answers-he . . . comes closer more consistently than any other human commentator to asking my kinds of questions.”) Alford’s treatment of Acts 13:48 can be found in this volume available online.

Secondly, I found it interesting that the popular 17th century Calvinist Matthew Henry considers the translation “disposed” in his commentary (underline mine, link):

God gave this grace to believe to all those among them who were ordained to eternal life (for whom he had predestinated, them he also called, Rom. 8:30); or, as many as were disposed to eternal life, as many as had a concern about their eternal state, and aimed to make sure of eternal life, believed in Christ, in whom God hath treasured up that life (1 Jn. 5:11), and who is the only way to it; and it was the grace of God that wrought it in them. Thus all those captives, and those only, took the benefit of Cyrus’s proclamation, whose spirit God had raised up to build the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem, Ezra 1:5. Those will be brought to believe in Christ that by his grace are well disposed to eternal life, and make this their aim.

I'll only add that, often, much is made by Calvinists of the fact that most English translations use the word "appointed". On this, Dr Abasciano has said (link):

It can easily be chalked up to tradition or failure to attend to exegetical details. Translations are not authoritative and translators can rarely exegete the text in detail given the focus of their task. This point [...] is effectively countered by the fact that the most authoritative lexicon for New Testament studies (abbreviated BDAG)* translates the word differently than all those translations.

"Appointed"

Finally, some who hold to an Arminian interpretation still retain the translation as "appointed", but understand it in a corporate, rather than individual, sense.  The Expositor's Greek Testament seems to take this view when it says:

there is no countenance here for the absolutum decretum of the Calvinists, since Acts 13:46 had already shown that the Jews had acted through their own choice. The words are really nothing more than a corollary of St. Paul’s ἀναγκαῖον: the Jews as a nation had been ordained to eternal life—they had rejected this election—but those who believed amongst the Gentiles were equally ordained by God to eternal life, and it was in accordance with His divine appointment that the Apostles had turned to them.

(Expositor's then considers the alternative "middle, not passive" understanding as noted above).

In The New Chosen People, William Klein takes a similar approach (p 109-110):

Without question, the basic sense of tassō is to set or appoint. The passive voice seems to point to God as the agent. However, we question that Luke intends this to point to some pretemporal election of certain ones so that they, and only they, come to believe. This would fit poorly in the context. The Jews' rejection of the Word of God accounted for their failure to gain eternal life. They did not consider themselves worthy of eternal life (v. 46).

What a contrast to the Gentiles who, upon hearing the good news, rejoice, honor the Word, and believe. Surely in this context Luke does not intend to restrict the application of salvation only to those appointed. Rather he shows that salvation's sphere of application must expand from only Jews to believing Gentiles. We believe that [FF] Bruce misread the context. The key issue concerns whether people accept or reject the word of the Lord. Those who reject disqualify themselves from eternal life. On the other side, Luke describes believers as "those who were appointed for eternal life". Neil says of our text:

It is not in any sense narrowly predestinarian, as if some are scheduled for salvation and others for damnation; the Bible constantly stresses the element of free choice: we may accept or reject the Word of God. In this case the Jews of Antioch as a whole rejected the offer of eternal life, while some--but by no means all--of the Gentiles accept it. Those who do accept the Gospel fulfil the purpose of God that all men shall be saved, and by their response they show that they are worthy to be numbered with the saints in heaven.

Thus the Believers are "the appointed ones," a title that has obvious parallels to "the chosen ones" we saw in Mk 13:20, 22, 27, par. As did the people of God in the Old Testament, so Christians also considered themselves "the elect." Perhaps we have here a parallel expression. The "appointed" believed. Luke views those who have been appointed as a corporate group; they, as believers, stand over against those who rejected the message.

Further Reading:

• Brian Abasciano:
• “A Conversation about the Translation of Acts 13:48”;
• “On the Translation of Acts 13:48”;
• “James White’s Faulty Treatment of the Greek and Context of Acts 13:48”; and
• “A Reply to James White Concerning His Faulty Treatment of the Greek and Context of Acts 13:48”.
• Steve Sewell  (The Arminian Files), “The Key to Acts 13:48”;
• Dead Heroes Don’t Save, “Wesley and Watson examine who is Appointed to Eternal Life (Acts 13:48)”;
• SEA:
• "Wesley on Acts 13:48"; and
• "F Leroy Forlines on Acts 13:48".
• Arminian Perspectives, “Acts 13:48: Two Non-Calvinist Views”;
• Evidence Unseen, "(Acts 13:48) Does this passage teach that only some are appointed to eternal life?";
• Arminian Today, “Arminian Honesty About Acts 13:48”;
• Greg Boyd, "How do you respond to Acts 13:48?".

Related posts:

• Answering Calvinist Proof-texts, Part 1 - John 6;

• Answering Calvinist Proof-texts, Part 3 - Questions to ask as you approach Romans 9 (with a little help from recording artist Flame).

Lecture Series: Dr David Gooding, "The Glorious Gospel of the Blessed God"

Dr David Gooding's 5-part series on the Gospel--which includes very strong rebuttal of the Calvinist system--has been made available for free download from Myrtlefield House.  These lectures were originally presented at the 1995 "Rise Up and Build" conference.  The links to each part are below.

Dr Gooding is professor emeritus of Old Testament Greek at Queen’s University Belfast. A number of his books, including some which were co-authored with Dr John Lennox, are available for free online at Key Bible Concepts.

About this series

In the first lecture, Dr Gooding states that the major aim and motivation of this series is:

that we may, as we study that glorious gospel, come into deeper understanding of the character of God: His love and His justice; His goodness as well as His holiness and severity [...] so that in the first instance our hearts may well up, and our spirits likewise, in the more fervent and genuine adoration of the wonder that God is in Himself. And that our worship may be deepened, and with it there shall come that same divine compassion and attitude that God has shown to those that are around and as yet are lost. And we ourselves may be the more motivated to carry the gospel to them.   

Our motivation therefore is that as we ourselves, through the study of God's gospel, come into deeper understanding of His character we shall ourselves be saved from holding any views and preaching any ideas that would derogate from the glory of God and misrepresent His character. That, I know, is a very high aim, and not necessarily easily accomplished.

My prayer is that all of us would approach these lectures, and the Calvinism-Arminian debate in general, with that same motivation.

Dr Gooding also cautions, right at the outset, regarding his own presentation, stating:

I am encouraged by the fact that you are to be allowed questions, because not only will your questions contribute to my deeper understanding of these things and a more balanced view than perhaps I shall myself present, but they will allow me in the course of these seminars, myself to be a trifle more dogmatic at places than perhaps I ought to be, because you will have the opportunity to come back at me and to restrain my wilder enthusiasms, and together we shall work towards a better understanding of the truth.

One aspect I especially appreciate about this series is Dr Goodings emphasis on the Lord Jesus. For instance, in the second lecture, before opening to the gospel of John, he states:

We are to think of Christ as the revealer of God [...] We are to study the wonderful wisdom seen in the way our Lord went about approaching men and women. How and by what methods He sought to fulfil His divine commission, being the Word of God, now incarnate, come to make God known to men.   

As He went about His task, what were His presuppositions about the people that He talked to?  For His presuppositions were God's presuppositions, of course. In this, too, He makes manifest the Father.

One criticism I have is that, for the most part, Dr Gooding does not name the doctrines, theories or theological systems for which he advocates or has criticism. He almost never mentions Calvinism by name, usually only referring to it as "That other theory", or variations of this, and though defending Arminian doctrines like prevenient grace he never uses either label. In fairness, this was by design; he says at the beginning of the Q&A:

I didn’t pretend to offer you, in these seminars, a complete and fully worked out system of theology.  What I was simply doing was to call attention to certain Scriptures that seem to me to have very important bearings of this general topic. And important because they pertain to the honour and character of God. It’s our wisdom therefore that whatever system we may hold is constantly to come back to Holy Scripture as written.  And test--and if need be modify--our system according to Scripture.

And later:

Somebody asked me early on in these seminars why I didn't come out and say that it was Calvinism I didn't agree with. Well, one, because there are many grades of Calvinism, and tons of Christians hold views that are common with Calvinists who wouldn't like to be called "Calvinists" because they don't share everything.  

And some Calvinists think me an Arminian, you know.  And they think by putting a label on me that defines exactly what I believe, when I find the label they put on me doesn't describe me fairly at all. In the end we're better without labels aren't we? We mustn't say "I am of Paul", must you? Or, "I am of Apollos"? And you certainly mustn't say "I am of Calvin" or "I am of Arminius". They're all believers. Christians, we must love each other, mustn't we?  God blessed Whitefield; God blessed Wesley. Mighty men of God, that God used for the conversion of thousands.

These comments notwithstanding, I consider him to be consistent with 4-point Arminianism (like my own view; this is also consistent with those in the SBC who prefer the label "Traditionalist" but are 4-point Arminians in substance). On Calvinism, Dr Gooding has said elsewhere (link, at note 16):

For myself, I would have to confess that the strong Calvinist system of theology seems to me to be shot-through with logical fallacies... As far as I am aware, my own attitude to Calvinist doctrine does not come from any particular source, but is my own personal response: first of all to the study of Scripture, and then to the writings of teachers from both sides of the debate.

Here is the series (external links):

Part 1: The Justice of God’s Judgments: AUDIO or VIDEO;

Part 2: Christ, the Revealer of God, the Light of the World, the Creator of Faith, the Giver of Sight: AUDIO or VIDEO;

Part 3: Vessels of Wrath and Vessels of Mercy: AUDIO or VIDEO;

Part 4: The Father’s Gift to the Son, the Father’s Drawing, the Illumination of the Holy Spirit: AUDIO or VIDEO; and

Part 5. Q & A: AUDIO.

Related Posts:

• Prevenient Grace in the Hebrews Warning Passages and a Link to a Free eBook (excerpts from Dr Gooding’s primer on the book of Hebrews); 
• Dr David Gooding and Dr John Lennox, "God's Program for the Restoration of Creation".

Sermon Series: Todd Petkau, "Does Prayer Still Work?"

I was really encouraged and challenged in my prayer life by a recent sermon series from Riverwood Church.

I had meant to post it earlier, but I didn't find the time; then just this morning, two items came up which each reminded me of this series. First, today's Daily Text from Seedbed highlighted a portion of EM Bounds work, Power Through Prayer; Pastor Todd also highlights EM Bounds throughout the series (see the clip below, for example). Second, I received a notice that The Circle Maker: Praying Circles Around Your Biggest Dreams and Greatest Fears, the book after which the third message is named, is on sale through Kindle today and tomorrow.

Here is a clip describing EM Bounds:

Sermons:

You can watch or listen online here (you'll have to scroll down to October 12, 2015 for the first message in the series), or via iTunes. The links below will download the message from the church website:

1. "Not What We've Made It": download Video, or Audio;
2. "Go for the Gold": download Video, or Audio;
3. "Circle Making": download Video, or Audio;
4. "Symphonic Harmony": download Video, or Audio.

Sermon Series: Dr Brian Abasciano, "Ephesians 1"

Dr Brian Abasciano, author of the three-part study through Romans 9, is preaching through Ephesians chapter one. Here are the links:

1. Ephesians 1:1-3 ("Praise God for Blessing Us with Every Spiritual Blessing in Christ!");
2. Ephesians 1:4-6 ("Praise God for Choosing and Predestining Us in Christ!");
3. Ephesians 1:7-10 ("Praise God for Redemption, Revelation, and Righting All Things in Christ!");
4. Ephesians 1:11-12 ("Praise God Almighty Who Chose Us and Predestined Us in Christ for His Glory!");
5. Ephesians 1:13-14 ("Praise God for Sealing us with the Holy Spirit in Christ!").

A note to regular readers: as I mentioned at the end of my last post, I will likely not be posting regularly for the next few months, and if you comment it may take a few days before I see it or I'm able to respond.

The "not quite forgotten" Jesus: My challenge to Calvinists one year later

In "The Waning Authority of Christ in the Churches", AW Tozer wrote, "The Lordship of Jesus is not quite forgotten among Christians, but it has been relegated to the hymnal where all responsibility toward it may be comfortably discharged in a glow of pleasant religious emotion."

And later:

We evangelicals also know how to avoid the sharp point of obedience by means of fine and intricate explanations. These are tailor-made for the flesh. They excuse disobedience, comfort carnality and make the words of Christ of none effect. And the essence of it all is that Christ simply could not have meant what He said. His teachings are accepted even theoretically only after they have been weakened by interpretation.

While every Christian needs to be cautious of this danger—and Tozer was addressing the evangelical church at large—possibly the worst result that I see in the life of Calvinists is the tendency to pay little attention to our Lord Jesus' words and life, and when we do venture into the Gospel accounts, to refuse to take Him at His word.  

My challenge to you

We will examine what I think are the causes below, but first, here is my challenge: Spend some time in the Gospels, and focus on the Lord Jesus.

Pastor Bruxy Cavey said about his own journey away from Calvinism (MP3 link, at 46:26):

For me, actually just staring into Jesus made the shift; studying his life. I went through a season in my life... I just started reading commentaries; first century background studies; so that I could understand Jesus better. And the more I started to understand Jesus, the more I realized that this system of thinking was not sufficient to help me say, “This is what Jesus was expressing”. Jesus then, I would say, got me to rethink everything.

It has been just over a year now since I left Calvinism, and looking back, I can’t help but believe this was part of my story too.  It was meditating on the Lord Jesus, and His words like:

But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.  For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?  And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?  You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:44-48 ESVUK)

and:

But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.  Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. (Luke 6:35-36 ESVUK)

which the Holy Spirit continually placed on my conscience, that forced me to rethink everything.

I am convinced that focusing on the Lord Jesus is the best response to Calvinism: spend some time—real time—focusing on the Lord Jesus and meditating on His life and words.

Now, what causes Calvinists to treat the Lord’s words this way?

I think one of the causes of this is the Calvinist understanding of Election which places the Lord Jesus at the peripheral, rather than the centre; He is seen as a means to an end rather than the All in All.

Arminius thought, “the Calvinistic idea of election to faith rather than in view of faith or in view of one’s union with Christ [...] involves God settling his elective love on people without regard to Christ’s work or one’s participation in it.” (Pinson on Arminius, link).  In his “Declaration of Sentiments”, Arminius wrote:

This doctrine is highly dishonorable to Jesus Christ our Savior. For,  

1. It entirely excludes him from that decree of Predestination which predestinates the end: and it affirms, that men were predestinated to be saved, before Christ was predestinated to save them; and thus it argues, that he is not the foundation of election. 

2. It denies, that Christ is the meritorious cause, that again obtained for us the salvation which we had lost, by placing him as only a subordinate cause of that salvation which had been already foreordained, and thus only a minister and instrument to apply that salvation unto us. This indeed is in evident congruity with the opinion which states "that God has absolutely willed the salvation of certain men, by the first and supreme decree which he passed, and on which all his other decrees depend and are consequent." If this be true, it was therefore impossible for the salvation of such men to have been lost, and therefore unnecessary for it to be repaired and in some sort regained afresh, and discovered, by the merit of Christ, who was fore-ordained a Savior for them alone.

Contrast this with the Articles of Remonstrance.  As Martin Glynn explained regarding Article I:

Something else that needs to be pointed out here is how Christocentric (Christ centered) this is. God’s purpose in this decree is Jesus and that those who are saved are saved “in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ”. We are saved within the body of Christ, we are saved because Christ loves us and wants us saved, and we are saved only through the power of Christ, not our own. Christ, as opposed to eternal decrees, is the center of salvation–the crux, if you will, upon which salvation rests.

Ephesians 1

Take Ephesians 1, for example.  It seems to me that most Calvinists would be just as happy (or maybe happier?) if the words, “in Him”, “in Christ”, and “through Christ”, were not in the text at all (after all, the Calvinist may reason, these words only confuse Arminians into believing election is Corporate and Christocentric!).  But Paul ties each line to the Lord Jesus, and makes it absolutely clear that we are only blessed (v3&6), only chosen (v4), only predestined and adopted (v 5), only redeemed (v7), only know the mystery of His will (v 8), only obtain an inheritance, and were only sealed with the Holy Spirit (v 13) “in Him”, “in Christ” and “through Christ”.

Pastor Keith Coward, writing about his journey out of Calvinism, said:

I decided to shore up my confidence [in Calvinism] by reading some Reformed writers. But my plan backfired: I began with a small booklet about election; the author opened by stating his case from Eph 1:4 – a verse that I had studied when teaching through Ephesians the previous year. I had been struck by the parallels between Deut 4:37; 7:6-11 and this text: In the former, God says that he chose the Israelites to be his holy people because he loved them for the sake of their fathers; in the latter, Paul says that God chose “us” to be holy in Christ, which may easily mean “for the sake of Christ”. Election was a corporate, vocational, conditional concept for Israel; perhaps it was the same thing for Christians (see 1 Pet 2:9-10). Whatever the case, I knew that there was a lot of room to interpret Eph 1:4 differently than this author did. He was building his case for election on a verse that I knew could not bear that weight, and I began to wonder what would happen to other classic proof texts if examined more carefully, without Calvinistic presuppositions.

The Calvinist understanding of election has God choosing individuals without regard to Christ; the Lord Jesus, in this scheme, is no more than an afterthought.  Is it any wonder, then, that Calvinists so rarely meditate on Jesus and His words?  The Apostle Paul, on the other hand, places Jesus our Saviour at the centre, and Arminius and Arminians follow his lead.

Can this be seen in Calvinist Leaders?  James White, a case study

Admittedly I use James White as the example because he is an easy target; there have been two instances in the last year which have already made their rounds on social media.  Although James White is just one individual, he is a prominent Calvinist, and—especially given that, in the first instance below, he led the crowd to laugh at the words of our Lord—perhaps his, and his audience’s, example of lack of knowledge of Jesus' own words can serve as a picture of New Calvinism generally.

Example 1: the Flowers-White debate.

At one point in the debate between Leighton Flowers and James White, Flowers made the remark that we should humble ourselves like a child (summarizing the Lord Jesus' statement in Matthew 18:4). Not realizing (I assume) that this was the Lord’s own words, James White responded sarcastically, “I think I just heard Professor Flowers say that a child is humble?” leading the audience to laugh, not at Flowers, but at the words of our Lord Jesus!

Again, I don’t believe it was deliberate; I believe James White, like most Calvinists I have known (and was a part of), does not sufficiently study and meditate on the words of the Lord Jesus.  Still, it is surprising that any Christian leader of Dr White’s prominence could hear our Lord Jesus’ own words and mock them, not knowing their true source. (Given this incident, Dr White and his audience might also want to consider the Lord’s words in Mark 8:38/Luke 9:26; if your theology makes you ashamed of the words of our Lord Jesus, to the point that you can unwittingly mock them for not fitting into your theological framework, it is time to rethink your theology!).

See Professor Flowers comments on the debate here.

Example 2: James White responds to a sermon by James McCarthy.

Another example comes from back in January. James McCarthy, author of John Calvin Goes to Berkley, stated in a sermon, “God doesn’t love you strictly because of yourself; He loves you because of His Son. Didn’t the Lord Jesus teach that...what did He say? The Father loves you why? Because you have loved Me.”

On his radio program, James White responded, “I’m trying to figure out where that reference was. The Father has loved you because you have loved Me? …I couldn’t find that one. I would like to know what text is being paraphrased at that point, because that would make the Father’s love of us, dependent upon something we’re doing, and I think something was misstated there. I’m not sure.”

Notice that James White’s own words are nearly a direct quote of the passage he does not think exists!  Jesus said, “In that day you will ask in My name, and I do not say to you that I will request of the Father on your behalf; for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came forth from the Father.” (John 16:26-27 ESVUK).

It is clear that James White is unfamiliar with the words of the Lord Jesus.  Yet our Lord said, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31-32 ESVUK), and:

If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me. (John 14:23-24 ESVUK).

See more on this incident here.

NT Wright, "Look at Jesus":

Dr NT Wright, when asked what he would say to his children on his death bed, offered a similar challenge to the one I have presented above.  Here is his response:

AW Tozer asked once, “Does God get only the tattered bits of your time, yet you say you are a follower of the Lamb? Do not fool yourself.” (The Crucified Life). We could even more seriously ask, “In your life and theology, are the words of the Lamb no more than 'not quite forgotten', yet you say you submit to the Lordship of Jesus? Do not fool yourself!”

*A note to regular readers: I will likely not be posting regularly again for a few months as I have a very heavy semester.  I also apologize if you comment and it takes a few days before it gets through moderation or before I respond.