The following is a response to a review by Dr. James White of Dr. Tim Stratton’s “omni argument” against irresistible grace. I will quote the premises of Dr. Stratton’s argument, then quote Dr. White’s comments in italics, then present my responses in normal text.
First the Omni Argument from Dr. Stratton in its entirety:[1]
1- If Calvinism is true, whomever God provides “irresistible grace” to will go to heaven and not suffer eternal hell.
2- If God is omnibenevolent, He would not desire to, nor would He, send anyone to suffer eternal hell for choices they were powerless to make without God’s irresistible grace.
3- If God is omnipotent, he could provide irresistible grace to all people.
4- If God is omniscient, he would know how to provide irresistible grace to all people.
5- Some people suffer eternal hell.
6- Therefore, either God is not omnibenevolent, or not omnipotent, or not omniscient (pick at least one), or irresistible grace (and Calvinism) is false.
Dr. White’s initial comments addressing the argument as a whole are as follows:
While this is put into the form of a logical syllogism one can quickly recognize that this is not the case. It assumes a tremendous number [sic] of theological baggage in its premises, argumentation that is inaccurate and misleading. Let’s look at the problems one by one.
It is unclear as to what White is referring when he says “this is not the case.” A straight reading of the above statement seems to indicate that he is denying that Dr. Stratton’s argument actually does take the form (note White’s use of the term) of a logical syllogism. But White does not argue in his article that Stratton’s argument does not take the form of a logical syllogism. Either way, any trained logician will immediately recognize Stratton’s argument as a properly formed logical syllogism. So if White is denying this, he is obviously mistaken. Perhaps White is trying to say Stratton’s argument is not a valid logical syllogism, and used the term form by mistake without realizing it. If that’s the case, my following comments will address that issue.
Dr. White quotes Dr. Stratton’s first premise, and then comments on it:
“If Calvinism is true, whomever God provides ‘irresistible grace’ to will go to heaven and not suffer eternal hell.”
This a very odd way of saying that God elects to give grace and mercy to particular undeserving sinners.
It’s not clear why “this a [sic] very odd way of saying that God elects to give grace…” I’m uncertain as to what it is about Stratton’s premise that makes it “odd.” The only thing I can think of is Stratton’s use of the term “provides.” If you go over the remainder of the premise one word at a time, one fails to find any other terminology that would render the premise “odd.” So if the problematic term is “provides,” we have two options. We can either interpret the term as meaning “applies” IG (irresistible grace) to those he has elected to save. Or we could substitute the word “provides” with “applies” or any other term one may prefer.
Perhaps the reason White considers this odd is that he does consider the word “provides” problematic in the sense that in White’s theology, God does not “provide” grace in the sense that people can choose to accept or reject it. This is, after all, the heart of the matter when it comes to a Calvinist understanding of the doctrines of grace. So probably the best way forward is to acknowledge that IG is not something God “provides,” though the term is not necessarily inaccurate as long as we understand that the grace is irresistible. The point is that people whom God supposedly elects to be saved could not, cannot, would not, and will not push back against God’s active will. From my studies of Calvinism over the years, I believe this is an accurate representation of the term “irresistible.” One simply cannot resist God’s grace, and it will therefore absolutely accomplish the divine agenda for which it is intended.
White continues:
Irresistible grace is simply the recognition that when Jesus said “Lazarus, come forth!” He, as the Son of God incarnate, had the power to cause Lazarus to come forth, and Lazarus did not have the power to cause the Son of God to fail in His work. Hearts of stone cannot resist being removed by the Creator and replaced with hearts of flesh. Spiritually dead men do not have a latch inside their coffin by which they can keep the lid firmly locked in place.
White’s comments here represent one of the core category mistakes in Calvinism: the confusion of God’s grace and God’s power. God’s power is irresistible if and when that power is causal in the direct and active sense. God’s grace is not necessarily irresistible in that way, and nowhere in Scripture does it say it is. The biblical text tells us God will accomplish his purposes and designs for human history. This is true because of his omnipotence, not necessarily because of the effectiveness of his grace in every expression of it. He may choose to accomplish some of his purposes by his power through his grace, but it does not follow from this that none of the expressions of grace coming from God can be rejected by human beings. This is because the supposition that all that God accomplishes by his power is causal in the same way in every case is faulty. God can make grace available to human beings by his power, but this is a relationship where what God is providing is possible by his power, but not necessarily actual by it. If I am a doctor, I can offer a medical treatment to a patient because of my “power” (i.e. knowledge, skills, and abilities) as a doctor. But my patient can reject the treatment because he doesn’t want it for whatever reason. That my patient rejected my offer of treatment does not mean my skills and abilities as a doctor have suddenly decreased or disappeared. It would be absurd to say that I’m no longer a competent doctor and that my skills (powers) are ineffective, and that I’m a miserable failure simply because my patient doesn’t want the medicine I offered.
But if grace is said to be irresistible, then it is causal in the same way God’s power raised Lazarus from the dead. The idea that grace is irresistible is thus defined as an active determining causal agent in the salvation of the potential believer. This is where the category mistake lies. If God’s grace is a matter of active causal determination, the Calvinist who believes this cannot possibly treat grace as an offer of a gift, and he cannot think of justification and regeneration on any other terms than causal determinism. Therefore, there is no choice but to consider salvation the same as resuscitating a dead body, since the body of the dead person cannot offer any resistance, and cannot therefore exercise any volition in the matter.
The Calvinist will object loudly by saying that the unbeliever is “dead” and therefore cannot exercise any volition whatsoever. This is echoed in White’s above statement about “spiritually dead men” who do not have a lock inside their coffin. We are told that “dead men can’t repent (or respond in faith)” and so on. This represents a faulty definition of “death” in their treatment of the biblical text. They insist that salvation looks exactly like the resurrection of Lazarus, where he had no choice in the matter, and couldn’t stop it, because he was dead.
As soon as we contemplate this claim, we are immediately faced with a crippling contradiction. The text tells us we were “dead in [our] transgressions and sins, in which [we] used to live, when [we] followed the ways of this world, and [followed] the ruler of the kingdom of the air.” We also “lived among [the disobedient] at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature, and following its desires and thoughts.” Paul tells us we were spiritually dead, but then turns right around and tells us that we lived, and gratified various cravings, and followed certain desires and thoughts. Which is it? If dead men can’t repent, they can’t “live.” If dead men can’t repent, they can’t “follow” anything either. They can’t “gratify” cravings if they’re dead. Nor can dead men be disobedient, or have thoughts. You can’t have it both ways. If dead men can’t repent, neither can they do all the things the text clearly tells us they do.
This is why I said that Calvinists like Dr. White have a faulty definition of spiritual “death.” This represents another one of the incoherent category mistakes in Calvinism. The analogy of the coffin is logically absurd. If a person is spiritually dead, this stands in contrast to being physically dead. Only physically dead people are in coffins. Spiritually dead people are not in coffins, literally or symbolically: they live according to this and that, and they follow this and that. They gratify their desires and they disobey. Dead people cannot do these things according to Calvinist “theology” itself. This means that spiritual death cannot possibly be equated to physical death, and all the analogies Calvinists draw in the matter are so ridiculously and hopelessly faulty that it’s hard to fathom the depth of this absurdity.
If “death” in the biblical witness has no parallel to physical death, what does it mean? It means separation, rather than expiration. A spirit cannot die. Therefore it’s absurd to draw analogies like a dead body in a coffin. Spiritual death is separation from God as a result of rebellion and sin. (As a matter of symmetry, this means that “life” is not animation but reconciliation.)
Dr. White insists (rightly) that we need to derive as much of our theology from Scripture as we can find in it. That is exactly what we are doing here: Scripture tells us clearly and explicitly that spiritually dead people are not dead in the sense that they have expired the way a physical body does. Therefore, we have no choice but to recognize that the Bible’s definition of death is radically different from that of the Calvinist, and flatly contradicts it.
The understanding that death is not expiration but separation fundamentally changes the landscape when it comes to our understanding of spiritual death. It is being spiritually separated from God while continuing to exist apart from his influence and out of relationship with him. The relationship between God and the human being has been severed “spiritually” but that doesn’t mean the spirit of that human being has expired and is no longer capable of cognitive function. The Calvinist idea of resuscitation is therefore also misguided. Someone may ask, “if the spirit is now cut off from God, how can it continue to exist without him?” The answer is that there is more than one way someone can be separated from someone else. They can be separated in terms of their relationship, but not in terms of the grounds of their existence. God can still uphold the existence of a human spirit which has been cut off from him in a relational sense.
Is there Biblical grounds for this “separation” idea? There is ample support for it. Revelation 21:8 reads, “The cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars – their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” Revelation 20:14 says “the Lake of Fire is the second death.” Revelation 20:10 says that those who are thrown into the Lake of Fire “will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” So there are two central realities we must recognize about death according to the text: 1. it goes on “forever and ever” and 2. it is still called “death.” If death was expiration according to Calvinist ideology, this scriptural reality would be incoherent and false. But the truth is, death is not expiration. The being continues to exist, or else it couldn’t be tormented forever. Death is separation. That’s the only way we can make sense of Revelation 20.
White:
Irresistible grace is not a substance, or a “thing” given to someone: it is simply the recognition that the Holy Spirit is not dependent upon the cooperation of the creature to bring about the miracle of regeneration. So, the statement is an odd way of inaccurately representing the position: God’s elect will go to heaven because the Father gives them to the Son, they infallibly come to the Son as a result of being thusly given, and hence they will not suffer eternal punishment for their sins, since their sins were imputed to Christ, and His righteousness imputed to them. The irresistible grace aspect is simply the acknowledgement that the Spirit is able to apply the work of the Son to the elect at the time and in the manner thusly decreed by the Father.
This is a shining example of the straw man fallacy. (Ironic, since White accuses Stratton of the same.) Nowhere in Dr. Stratton’s argument does it say irresistible grace is a “substance” or a “thing.” Dr. White has fabricated those terms out of thin air and then accuses Stratton of treating irresistible grace on that basis. That Stratton says IG is something that God “provides” does not indicate this either. There are numerous things parents “provide” for their children that are not “substances” or “things.” They can provide emotional nurturing, encouragement, discipline, and a host of others.
We would stand with Dr. White on much of the rest of this section. The Father does give the body of believers to the Son, they will not suffer eternal punishment for their sins, their sins were definitely imputed to Christ and his righteousness to them. We also agree that the Spirit is able to apply the work of the Son to the elect at the time and in the manner thusly decreed by the Father. There is a large body of theological content we share with Dr. White, and we hold him in high esteem and respect for his magnificent ministry. The only point of departure in this section is the idea that grace has to be “irresistible.” We would simply subtract all the language of exhaustive divine determinism (EDD), since it is self-defeating, unwarranted, and unbiblical. This involves a definition of “decreed” that does not lead to determinism as well.
I should point out that the phrase “infallibly come to the Son” is somewhat problematic. I’ve never seen a passage of Scripture that describes the process of believers coming to the son as “infallible.” I’m not even sure what that means. Dr. White is short on definitions as much as he accuses Dr. Stratton of being.
Stratton:
“If God is omnibenevolent, He would not desire to, nor would He, send anyone to suffer eternal hell for choices they were powerless to make without God’s irresistible grace.”
White:
Here we see the synergist’s arguments being smuggled in without provision of biblical basis, etc. This is why logical syllogisms rarely serve to deal rightly with biblical revelation. We are not given any definition of “omnibenevolent.” What does this mean? How can a person who is bound by the Biblical record define such a term. We know Yahweh is loving; we know Yahweh is, in fact, love. But we likewise know Yahweh is just, and thrice holy. We know Yahweh killed all the first born of Egypt, and then drowned Pharaoh’s army in the sea as they pursued His people. We know Yahweh sent plagues amongst the Israelites, and He struck down Aaron’s sons when they profaned His worship. And all of that was after He destroyed almost the entire population of the world in a flood. So “omnibenevolent” does not mean “always acting in a way humans would describe as loving.”
The first point we need to make here is that White’s statement “logical syllogisms rarely serve to deal rightly with biblical revelation” is nothing less than jaw-dropping. We cannot interpret this statement in any other way than to say that revelation and logic don’t mix. Logic either never or rarely serves as a tool for the analysis of the biblical data. This means that whenever the Lord Jesus used logical syllogisms to deal with biblical revelation (i.e. the Old Testament), he should have been sternly scolded for his foolishness. He used logical syllogisms constantly, drawing premises from revelation and applying those syllogisms to arrive at sound conclusions in order to refute his adversaries among the religious leaders of the day. He argued that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that he is the God of the living and not the dead, and therefore proved by a logical syllogism that those patriarchs are still alive, and that the Sadducees were at serious fault for denying the resurrection of the body. This is a spectacular example of using logical syllogisms to deal rightly with biblical revelation.
The argument:
Premise 1: God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Premise 2: God is the God of the living and not the dead.
Conclusion: Therefore Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living and not dead.
What follows from the conclusion further is that the bodily resurrection of the dead does occur since it would be impossible to raise people who have ceased to exist. We could put that in the form of a logical syllogism as well, but you get the point.
There are numerous other examples. Jesus used a logical syllogism when he argued that he has the power and authority to raise people from the dead, and therefore the authority to forgive sins. He relied on the common knowledge of the principle they all knew from biblical revelation that only God can forgive sin.
Premise 1: If Jesus can perform miraculous feats, then His claim to be the Son of God Who can forgive sin is true.
Premise 2: Jesus can perform miraculous feats (He healed the paralytic on this occasion).
Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus is the Son of God Who can forgive sin.
The form of logical syllogism Jesus used is called the modus ponens hypothetical syllogism. If Dr. White had witnessed that event and Jesus articulating that argument, I suppose he would have angrily shrieked at Jesus for doing so, citing his universal principle that logical syllogisms rarely serve to deal rightly with biblical revelation. In this case the revelation was Jesus himself and his ministry, in addition to the OT awareness of exclusive divine forgiveness. All of this was eventually written down in the Gospels and therefore became an example of biblical revelation upon which we can build the same logical syllogism.
The apostle Paul quoted numerous references from Scripture and applied logical syllogisms to those references to draw indisputable conclusions about the data of revelation. How many times does Paul rationally appeal to his readers from Scripture in the book of Romans alone? “For it is written” is his common phrase, accompanied by the application of what is written using a logical syllogism. Every time Paul says “it is written” you can find a logical syllogism immediately preceding or following it that serves to deal rightly with biblical revelation.
In Peter’s sermons in Acts 2 and 3, he cites several passages of the Old Testament. This became a part of the tradition of “many convincing proofs” of the truth of the Gospel. In addition, in Acts 18, we learn that Apollos “vigorously refuted his Jewish opponents in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah.” These took the form of logical syllogisms, and this was the pattern of the preaching of the apostles who constantly reasoned with and persuaded their audience of the truth of their message. That they proved from the Scriptures shows overwhelmingly that the idea that “logical syllogisms rarely serve to deal rightly with biblical revelation” is nonsense on the highest order. Far from this being a rare occurrence, it was routine. We could go on and on for days and even weeks providing examples of what Dr. White mistakenly claims is “rarely” appropriate.[2]
Next White tells us that we are not given any definition of “omnibenevolent.”[3] Are we to seriously believe that this word needs to be defined in the company of those trained in the discipline of theology? White gives us examples of terrible things God inflicted on the Earth and on various people groups. Even a high school student who has read the Bible and has basic skills in literacy can figure out that the fact that God brings calamity and suffering does not impugn his benevolence. Judgment and cruelty are not the same thing. I understood this when I was in grade school. The biblical record tells us that God’s loving-kindness endures forever. If the harsh suffering God occasionally inflicted reduced his loving-kindness to sporadic caprice, it could no longer be said that he is “omni” (meaning always and in all ways) benevolent, and the biblical record is self-contradictory. Furthermore, Dr. Stratton never once said that “omnibenevolent” means “always acting in a way humans would describe as loving.” This is another straw man Dr. White has invented out of thin air and pinned on Dr. Stratton in the hopes that no one will notice. Stratton, in the article White is commenting on, states categorically that God allows us to experience suffering. He would also surely affirm what the Scriptures clearly teach, that God occasionally visits calamity and suffering on the earth and on human beings, and that this does no harm whatsoever to his benevolence. So “omnibenevolent” scarcely needs to be defined, and this is yet another of White’s red herrings.
Dr. White continues:
The worst part is, the common use of the term omnibenevolent assumes the primary object of God’s love is mankind. The reality that God is to be the primary orientation of all love, honor, glory, thanks, dominion, etc., is often ignored, especially by synergists. Notice how Stratton’s words are focused upon man, not upon God, His will, His power, His glory, etc.
The common use of “omnibenevolent” assumes the primary object of God’s love is mankind? Why? How? The use of the term in Dr. Stratton’s argument refers to mankind being the object of God’s omnibenevolence. But nowhere has Stratton stated or assumed that it is the “primary object of God’s love.” Mankind is simply one of the objects of God’s love, and Stratton’s argument never goes beyond this. That Stratton is discussing God’s benevolence in reference to mankind does not mean the “primary orientation of all love, honor…” is being “ignored.” Stratton did not bring up his son in the article, because the article wasn’t about his son. Does this mean Stratton ignores his son? Silliness. This is another straw man coming from Dr. White. That Stratton’s comments are “focused on man, not upon God…” does not mean Stratton never focuses on God or his attributes. They simply aren’t the only subject of the current discourse. Dr. White often focuses on man. It means nothing. If you want to conduct an analysis of God’s relationship to man, the focus will be on both God and man simultaneously. This is exactly what we find in Stratton’s argument. The idea that we must always place our primary focus on God is rather ridiculous. At the end of the day, Stratton’s argument glorifies God, since it exonerates him from the charge of not being benevolent. That’s the whole point of it. How much more focus on God does Dr. White want?
Notice Dr. White’s reference to “synergists.” This term can have a variety of meanings and interpretations. One of them is that man contributes acts of merit to his salvation in conjunction with God’s saving work. On this definition, Dr. Stratton is decidedly not a synergist. He does not hold that man can contribute anything to his salvation. For Dr. White to insinuate that Dr. Stratton is a synergist is disingenuous. He needs to leave the concept of synergism out of the discussion.[4]
White again:
Assumptions are made about what God would “desire” to do without any reference to Scripture, just as omnibenevolence was not defined by Scripture.
Does a treatment of God’s saving grace have to cite Scripture to indicate what God would “desire” to do? All of us are aware that the Scripture explicitly teaches that God “desires that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim. 2:4) If “assumptions are made about what God would desire to do,” they are absolutely valid assumptions, since the text clearly supports them. The criticism that Stratton didn’t quote a passage we are all intimately familiar with doesn’t deserve a millisecond of our time. Nor does the criticism that Stratton supposedly didn’t define omnibenevolence. Whoever takes the time to read the article White is reviewing will not be left with any bewildering confusion on what Stratton means by the term.[5]
White:
But, of course, the second half of the sentence is where the majority of the flawed argument is presented. Assumptions are made regarding why someone is “sent to hell.” The argument says they are thusly sent to hell (rather than “condemned for their sins”) “for choices they were powerless to make without God’s irresistible grace.” This is, of course, a very obvious straw man, and is further reason why I stand by the assertion I made more than six years ago regarding Dr. Stratton’s former standing as an alleged “Calvinist.” While he may have thought he held to the “five points,” those five points are only relevant within the broader category of Reformed theology, and it is very clear, Dr. Stratton has never held the key and defining assertions of Reformed theology.
White’s basis for saying Stratton’s argument is “flawed” is that it contains the phrase “sent to hell.” White considers this a straw man, in that it apparently misrepresents the principles of “reformed theology,” in which God does no such thing, but rather “condemns people for their sin.” This is known as the fallacy of the false dichotomy. It is not a matter of either “condemning people for their sin” or sending people to hell. It is both. God condemns people for their sin, and on that basis, sends them to hell. There is nothing incoherent or contradictory about this. The idea that this is done “for choices they were powerless to make without God’s irresistible grace” is used as further support for White’s accusation of the straw man. But what part of that phrase is inconsistent with “reformed theology?” The five points affirm that no one will repent without God’s irresistible grace. The five points involve the idea that salvation is not a choice people make, and therefore the phrase “choices they were powerless to make” is absolutely accurate. There is no straw man here, except in White’s imagination. Stratton has described the five points to a T.
As for the comments about Stratton’s former standing as an alleged Calvinist, this is another red herring. White’s assertion that the five points are “only relevant within the broader category of reformed theology” is neither here nor there. There is no set of theological principles that authoritatively defines “reformed theology.” “Reformed” theologians differ on a wide range of “relevant” topics, including even the five points. That Stratton may appear at a different point on the spectrum than White has no bearing on whether Stratton can be said to be “reformed.” Given that the five points are often identified as a key subset of reformed theology, though not always, if Stratton hasn’t given credence to them, this is hardly a basis for criticism. I would consider it a compliment. Calvinists like White seem to treat reformed theology as a litmus test for orthodoxy. I can think of few things more appalling than that. At the end of the day, whether White or anyone else can defend their standing as a reformed theologian is irrelevant. Personally, my objective is not to be “reformed,” but to be biblical. And anyone who thinks those terms mean the same thing needs to revise their understanding of the situation.
After the above comments, Dr. White repeats his false assertion that Stratton’s understanding of IG is inaccurate. He also repeats his unsupported claim that Stratton defines IG as some kind of “thing.” As I said, Stratton never uses that term. White then tells us that IG is “the expression of the powerful work of the Spirit in raising the elect to spiritual life, releasing them from their bondage to sin.” How is this the definition of “irresistible” grace? There is no mention of the concept of this work of the Spirit being “irresistible” in that definition. He uses the term “powerful,” but “powerful” and “irresistible” are not the same thing. The issue is what triggers this work of the Spirit, and the Scriptures couldn’t be more clear: the exercise of faith in the Son of God as the propitiation for our sin.
White then gives us a long description of garden-variety Calvinism that we’ve all heard before. It includes ideas like sinners do not turn to Christ because they do not want to. This is true of all believers at some point in their lives. It hardly differentiates believers from non-believers. White tells us they are slaves to sin. Again, true of all people. Not a factor in who is saved and who isn’t. He says people do not have the capacity to free themselves; the Son must free them. On this point we all agree. No one can save himself. Only Christ can do that. So again, White is giving us points that have no bearing on whether IG is true. He tells us they cannot even hear the words of God, because they are not of God. Again, this is of no consequence for the present issue (IG). Jesus said this to the Pharisees, who claimed to know God already and to belong to him. Jesus set them straight on the point that their conformity to the law does not mean they belong to God. To take this and apply it to all people is to do violence to the text. Yet it should be noted that even some of those to whom Jesus was speaking believed in him.
White’s central claim in this paragraph is that the decision to repent and be set free is God’s, not man’s. This is definitely where we part company. If it is God’s decision that some will be saved and others will not, then it follows that it’s God’s will that some people disobey God’s will. White points out that God commands all men everywhere to repent. He says those whom God does not draw do not ever wish to come in the first place. The problem is, neither do the people who eventually repent and believe at some point.
The contradiction that God commands what he decrees will be disobeyed in many cases is lost on Dr. White, and indeed on most Calvinists. If God commands that all men everywhere should repent then it is his will that they all repent. All of them. If this wasn’t true, God would not punish them for their failure to obey the Gospel. But not all of them will repent. Why? Because God has decreed (which in White’s theology means determined by the exercise of his active will for his own good pleasure) that they won’t. So God irresistibly decrees that some people disobey his decree. The only people who obey his decree—his command to repent—are the ones on which he chooses to bestow his irresistible grace. The rest of them have been chosen for destruction. The Calvinist will tell us they wouldn’t have chosen it for themselves anyway. But under White’s (and Calvinism’s) theistic determinism, this is irrelevant. Whether they would have chosen to repent or not doesn’t matter. That God chose to pass them up is the cause of their failure to repent, not their own refusal. God has not chosen this against their will, he has chosen it regardless of their will. The core problem is the contradiction that it’s God’s will that all come to repentance, and it’s also God’s will that not all come to repentance. This could not be more clear from the writings of John Calvin, who is the key inspiration for this fatuity. He clearly stated that God chooses some for salvation and others for damnation. To wit, “All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.”
Calvin saw the unresolvable contradiction in his teachings. This is why he wrote, “No, when we cannot comprehend how God can will that to be done which he forbids us to do, let us call to mind our imbecility.” This applies to all the evil deeds men do, including not repenting and believing the Gospel. On this point I agree with him: anyone who believes that kind of self-contradictory nonsense is definitely trafficking in imbecility.
Calvin established a pattern that has unfortunately become common among Calvinists to redirect criticism over this contradiction to God himself, making him absorb it so that the Calvinist doesn’t have to deal with it. If you can’t address the objection that you’re articulating a glaring contradiction, just chalk it up to God’s impenetrable wisdom that is beyond the reach of human intellect. Calvin and often the Calvinist thus put the critic in the awkward position of foolishly arguing with God himself, therefore guaranteeing overwhelming victory in the debate. You can’t argue with God and win. How convenient. This maneuver is neither honest nor valid. A contradiction is a contradiction, and even God will not violate the rules of inference that are grounded in his divine Logos and that govern the truth values of all of reality. This is, by the way, one of the central components of God’s sovereignty: his all-encompassing rationality that no one can escape. This is surely part of what Jesus meant when he said he is the way, the truth, and the life. Jesus is the Son of God, the incarnation of God, the Divine Logos, and the “firstborn” (ultimate authority) over all creation. So it is God’s explicitly revealed rational mind we are appealing to when we expose the fatal contradiction of Calvinism. Appealing to mysterian ignorance cannot overthrow this hard reality. It is not what we don’t know that presents the problem. It’s what we do know.
White quotes Stratton’s next premise:
“If God is omnipotent, he could provide irresistible grace to all people.”
Then comments:
A canard. Irresistible grace, again, is simply the description of the Spirit’s capacity to accomplish His role in the redemption of the elect. So this argument is saying, “If God has all power, the Spirit could raise all people to spiritual life.” Well, of course. God could do that. But, His Word says He has not chosen to do this, and, instead, He has chosen to demonstrate all of His attributes, including his love and mercy and grace in the salvation of undeserving, rebel sinners, and His justice and power and wrath in the just destruction of other rebel sinners. This is the point of Romans 9. And note once again the representation of “irresistible grace” as a commodity, a thing of some kind.
First White calls this premise “a canard.” Then he restates the premise as: “If God has all power, the Spirit could raise all people to spiritual life.” He is saying in effect that Stratton’s premise and his interpretation of it are basically equivalent. Then he says “of course, God could do that.” In other words, he agrees with the premise that he just got through calling a “canard.” Which is it? Is it a canard or is it a true proposition? If he agrees with it, why does he call it a canard?
Then he tells us the Bible says God has chosen not to do this (to give IG to all people). I would like to know where the Word of God says he has not chosen to give irresistible grace to all people when the text never mentions irresistible grace. At any rate, White tells us that God has chosen instead to demonstrate his love and so on to undeserving sinners, and his justice and power and wrath to other sinners. This is true, but has no bearing on the issue White is trying to address. We all agree that God demonstrates his love and justice. So what? What does that have to do with whether his grace is irresistible?
Whether these things are the point of Romans 9 is partly true, but incomplete. Non-Calvinists do not accept all of Calvinism’s exegesis of Romans 9.
Then White repeats his vacuous assertion that Stratton considers IG some kind of “thing”, or “commodity” in this instance. This is another term Stratton NEVER used or insinuated. So you can add it to the growing list of White’s straw men.
Stratton:
“If God is omniscient, he would know how to provide irresistible grace to all people.”
White:
Or, accurately, this is just a statement that God knows how to save human beings through the work of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit raising them to spiritual life out of spiritual bondage. Hardly a remarkable statement when accurately expressed.
So White agrees with this premise, but then objects that it supposedly isn’t “remarkable.” My initial reaction when I read this was, “excuse me?” What difference does it make if a proposition is “remarkable?” I thought all that mattered is whether it’s true or false. If it’s true, who cares whether someone considers it remarkable or not? This is purely subjective, and not worth saying.
Stratton:
“Some people suffer eternal hell.”
White:
I will pass over for the moment some of the interesting statements Dr. Stratton has made about this topic, as he has clearly been influenced in some fashion by Chris Date, as he has admitted.
Again, what do “interesting statements Dr. Stratton has made about this topic” have to do with anything? How is whether Stratton has been influenced by Chris Date relevant? I guess White decided not to address this premise, or how it fits into Stratton’s argument. Instead White chose to make irrelevant comments that are not even remotely germane to the subject matter.[6]
Stratton:
“Therefore, either God is not omnibenevolent, or not omnipotent, or not omniscient (pick at least one), or irresistible grace (and Calvinism) is false.”
White:
As we have already seen, the argument does not define omnibenevolent, misrepresents irresistible grace, and in this complex and unsubstantiated conclusion, begs the questions inherent in all that came before. This is simply not how serious theological inquiry is done, at least amongst those who believe God has spoken with clarity and sufficiency in the Scriptures.
It is true that a lack of proper definition, misrepresentation, and a “complex” unsubstantiated conclusion that begs the question are obviously not how serious theological inquiry is done. But if every single one of those insinuations is false (and they are), then Dr. Stratton’s approach is exactly how serious theological inquiry is done. We all believe God has spoken with clarity and sufficiency in the Scriptures. That is not the issue. The point is whether the Scriptural data is being treated properly. Dr. White has not shown that this is not the case with Stratton’s argument.
So, this observation of how theological inquiry is done is true as far as it goes. But in the absence of a demonstration that Stratton’s argument contains the defects White claims it does, it’s irrelevant.
Do you see a pattern here? Irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant. So much of what White wrote is irrelevant. If he included only what was relevant, his commentary would be a lot shorter, and we could focus on what’s meaningful, or even remotely so.
And finally:
If one wishes to argue against irresistible grace, then the key texts of Scripture that teach the concept must be addressed directly, contextually, and accurately. And this is not something that a logical syllogism is going to accomplish.
Speaking of begging the question, White’s contention assumes that the texts of Scripture that supposedly teach the concept of irresistible grace actually do. This is assumed but not argued for in White’s comments.
Irresistible grace is an inference (logical syllogism) the Calvinist attempts to draw from Scripture. This is fundamentally different from the implied notion that Scripture teaches it directly and explicitly. It does not. For one thing, the term “irresistible grace” does not appear in Scripture. This puts it in the same category as the Trinity, where the term itself does not show up in the text, and therefore must be correctly inferred from it. White hasn’t shown that IG can be inferred in this manner the way the Trinity is.
All the language about the concept being addressed “directly, contextually, and accurately” is therefore a glaring red herring. It’s meaningless to address a concept in this manner if the Scriptures do not in fact teach it in the first place. And White has given us no reason to think they do. He simply asserts it and expects the reader to accept the assertion for no reasons he has given in his response. For us to accept the validity of the concept, White must show that soteriology matches the exact same pattern of, say, the resurrection of Lazarus. He has not shown this in his article, and the proponents of Calvinism haven’t either. Indeed, Stratton’s Omni Argument shows from premises that draw the definitions of his terms from Scripture that IG is in fact false and therefore unbiblical by default. Any doctrine that is false is automatically unbiblical, since the Bible affirms no false doctrines. Since this is the case, any attempt by any theologian to support the doctrine automatically fails. If a doctrine has been proven to be false, it would be impossible to show from Scripture or otherwise that it is true. That would be a direct logical contradiction, and within the orbit of orthodox biblical Christian theology, there is no such thing.
As for whether a logical syllogism can accomplish the refutation of IG, if its terms are properly defined (which they are, despite the fact that White is unaware of this fact), and the logic of the argument is valid, it can accomplish this objective in spades. Properly defined terms, the truth of the premises, and logical validity are all a logical syllogism needs to accomplish its purpose: to prove the truth of its conclusion, which is exactly what Dr. Stratton’s argument does. So, the claim that “this is not something that a logical syllogism is going to accomplish” is as erroneous as it can possibly be. And don’t forget that irresistible grace is itself the conclusion of a logical syllogism putatively formed around the content of Scripture, the very thing White says can’t accomplish the objective of establishing the truth of a doctrine like irresistible grace. Sauce for the goose.
Closing Thoughts
Irresistible grace is one of the central components in Calvinism’s exhaustive divine determinism. God chooses to save some and to not save others. This choice is allegedly made in eternity past without regard to any decision on man’s part. This flies in the face of Scripture, as in the case of 2 Peter 3:9: “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” If God makes the decision for each individual to repent, there is no reason for his patience. For God to be patient with himself is logically absurd. Therefore, the decision to repent rests with man, and is not causally determined by God. White has said in the past that this verse is written to people who are already believers. Therefore, he reasons, it doesn’t apply to the decision to repent on the part of unbelievers. A moment’s reflection exposes this as erroneous. Why would the author be concerned about the prospect of perishing and coming to repentance for people who have already repented and are not in danger of perishing? The beginning of the letter addresses believers, to be sure. But that doesn’t change the fact that he is absolutely addressing unbelievers in chapter 3. Perhaps the letter is a composite, perhaps not. Whatever the explanation, it cannot be denied that Peter is referring to repentance to salvation so as not to perish. Only unbelievers need be concerned about that issue. Believers don’t.
The decision to repent and believe the Gospel is up to each individual. God in his omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and omniscience provides the means of salvation: the atonement, grace, the preaching of the Gospel, and so on. But man must choose not to reject God’s love and grace for his redemption. God will not make that decision for him. Irresistible grace is a false teaching, and Dr. Stratton has demonstrated this with an argument Dr. White has not even begun to refute.
Notes
[1] Stratton has updated the wording of his argument in a journal article (2018) and offered two different and updated versions in his book, Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism (2020). White is interacting with an older version from a dated blog Stratton wrote in 2015.
[2] Interestingly, White is quick to appeal to logic when it serves his purposes, but is quick to dismiss it when it causes him problems with his own theology. In his book, The Forgotten Trinity, White is right to point out the error of circular reasoning coming from those who oppose the doctrine of the Trinity. But appealing to circular reasoning is one manner of debunking a syllogism to show that it is unsound and that the conclusion is false. Bottom line: White is not consistent.
[3] In Mere Molinism, Stratton defines omninbenevolence as “God is all-loving” (p. 189). On page 201, Stratton writes: “It is utterly absurd to even entertain the notion that a person can really love another person and still not desire the eternal best for that person.”
[4] This is an odd accusation because prior to publishing his article, Dr. White asked Stratton about this subject on Twitter. Stratton was clear that he was a monergist and had written about the topic in a blog article. Moreover, he explained how he is even more convinced of monergism now. Be that as it may, White knowingly misrepresents Stratton as a synergist – a label Stratton rejects.
[5] White has said that he has read Stratton’s book, Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism. If that were true, then White would have seen that Stratton does back this argument up with scripture (p 195-205).
[6] In Mere Molinism, Stratton defends the view of hell as eternal conscious separation from God. While Stratton adamantly rejects universalism, he says the only way one can rationally be a “hopeful universalist” (which we should all at least hope for) is if Molinism is true. Stratton also does not affirm the idea of annihilationism. However, he notes that his colleague at Trinity Theological Seminary, Chris Date (a Calvinist), makes a strong case for it. With that said, it’s vital to note that on Date’s annihilationism view people are still eternally separated from God (they’re just not conscious of their separation because they have ceased to exist).
