Regarding youth ministry, I was a youth minister for four years prior to going to seminary. I have seen the good and the bad. For the most part, I think Voddie is right, but I would not go as far as he does in the integration model. Minor issue, but I thought I’d chime in on that.

Regarding James White, you are exactly right. I am not a White apologist, but the dude is living out John 3:16 while his critics are holding a conference about it and call him names. Pick your fruit.

The role of evangelism and missional living in sanctification is indeed significant, more than I think most people realize. One of the reasons I love sharing the gospel with others is because I love hearing it myself. The joy we have in Jesus is not fulfilled, as Piper explains it, until that joy is extended into the lives of others through the fulfillment of the mission of making Christ known. May God grant that the satisfaction we have in him make us discontent with our failure until others are satisfied in Him as well.

What I don’t understand is the objections to Dr. Baucham’s issues with Youth Ministry. I think it should be a welcome notion that Christian parents, fathers especially, should be the spiritual leaders in the home and the primary point of discipleship for their children. We encourage this in my church although we have a good youth program. We are also building discipleship in the church where adults who have been discipled by other adults are taking older youth one-on-one to disciple them to reinforce parental discipleship and help bolster them for the ideological challenges they will face after high school. This goes beyond mere churchy programming to building a way of being a faithful church in today’s world.

As for James White, I was in London a few months ago doing a similar ministry on the street. Many of us over there were 5-pointers. Several were not. We ENJOYED theological debates among ourselves during down time, and when we went to the street we were unified in message and purpose. I can’t see being put out over Calvinism, or anti-Calvinism for that matter, if you’re spending good time in the trenches.

Can God bring His own to Himself without using His flawed people? Sure. But I wonder if one reason He sends us out is because the practice of fulfilling the Great Commission plays a significant role in our sanctification. I know He teaches me new things about Him, and breaks me ever further with every evangelistic contact I make. I can’t get enough of Him and watching Him work in the lives of people who don’t even know Him yet. What a joy to see them come to life in Him. I also can’t get enough of what He does in me.

Instead of picking James White apart, why don’t they join or compliment his efforts?

Thanks for the clarification. That helps.

Tony,

You are welcome to respond to the questions and comments presented here. However, I am going to tighten the discussion in the future and moderate the direction of the meta to open it up for more people.

Tony

1. For someone who supposedly helped prepare Allen’s message without even doing this basic fact-checking, you’re doing a really good job of being lazy here. You should have done this without needing to be prompted. I’m not gonna do your work for you. None of us should have to do Allen’s homework for him. If you persist in being ignorant on this, I’m content to let you remain so.

2. White definitely affirms that “God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” But in your narrow interpretation of this verse, and your ignorance of White’s (and others’) theology surrounding this verse, I have a sneaking suspicion you would find a way to twist this affirmation to anti-Calvinistic ends.

3. No, I haven’t listened to it. I’m deaf. BTW, I’m not “familiar” with his website for this reason. Much of it is un-captioned video, and therefore inaccessible to me. I’d love to see the transcript Keith above has. Yet much of what is accessible, including his commentary on many of the videos, directly contradict your (and Allen’s) assertion of hyper-Calvinism. If you’d bothered to do the legwork on White you’d know this without having to be told. Then we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a Calvinist, either. However, I do know, have read, and have interacted with many Calvinists, as well as spent two years intensely studying Calvinism. I think it is not a stretch for me to say that your arguments, Allen’s, the entire John 3:16 panel, and the majority (if not all) of anti-Calvinists are nothing less than theological bull. The problem is that most of these anti-Calvinists have stopped up their noses and can’t smell their stench.

It is my firm conviction, developed over the last three years, that the worst thing to happen to non-Calvinists like me are anti-Calvinists.

I really don’t want to clog up Timmy’s comment thread with this, but I have a problem with your approach on this issue with James White.

first, you should know that I am not a five point calvinist (yet). I have real difficulty accepting Limited atonement and Irresistible grace. I have listened to the Calvinist arguments for these positions and I am leaning towards accepting them. However, I would very much like to read or hear a reasoned scriptural defense for the Unlimited atonement and Resistible grace positions before going all the way in.

Instead, I hear that David Allen says that a move toward 5 point Calvinism is a move away from the Gospel. And then I hear him engage in name calling by calling James White a hypercalvinist. And then I read your stuff defending Allen and perpetuating semantic arguments about whether or not James White is Hyper Calvinist or not.

I am left to conclude that there must not be a reasoned scriptural defense of unlimited atonement.

If you have a problem with what James said in that phone call, then take it up with James. Arguing with other people about what some third party meant or didn’t mean is non productive.

I read the transcript and I listened to the call. I think you are taking a few words out of context and blowing them out of proportion to have a cause celebre. The fact is that James is demonstrably not a hyper calvinist by his actions. He is out there on the front lines for the Gospel. He is actively calling all men everywhere to repentance. The hyper calvinists didn’t do such things. End of discussion.

Now, if Jesus’ substitutionary death on the cross was efficacious to save all men everywhere then why aren’t all men saved? If God truly wills that all men know Him then why aren’t all men saved? Does God perhaps have a more intense desire that glory be brought to His name?

Do you trust God to make those decisions? Why or why not? How does the Arminian position not devolve into open theism and/or a version of pelagianism? Do you believe that God has a perfect will as well as a permissive will? if so, do you have a scriptural basis for such a belief? What is it?

Keith

Sorry I’m so long in replying. I was out of town all day yesterday and away from my computer.

What I mean to say by stating “so much for building bridges” is that the anti-Calvinist establishment of the SBC will be quick to break any ties with Baucham now that he has admitted to his theological beliefs. It should convict us on this side of the issue to not be so quick to wash our hands of someone who may not agree with us. I know many Arminians who are more biblical in their application, love, and humility than most Calvinists. Does that mean that the doctrines of grace are wrong? Of course not! As iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another (Prov. 27:17).

However, much could be learned by those who will no longer associate with Baucham from Baucham if they would continue to let him in their circles. It’s their loss. And their expected behavior just proves that they are just as hard-lined and close-minded as they blame us for being. I hope I’m wrong about what will happen. Maybe they will continue to let Baucham preach at the SBC Pastor’s Conference and other places. I will be surprised if they do, though.

The issue is this: Does he [White] or does he [White] not affirm the biblical concept that God desires the salvation of all men?

Stephen Newell said:

A simple search of White’s website will answer your question fairly quickly. I’m surprised you haven’t already done this legwork. That’s sloppy.

1) If it’s that “simple,” then you could easily show me the link and quote his website. Where on his website does he address the above question?

2) Also, if you’re familiar with his theology and the contents of his website, then how do you interpret White on this? Do you think he affirms or denies that God desires the salvation of any of the non-elect?

3) Have you bothered to listen to this Dividing Line phone call yet? He clearly denies God’s universal saving desire in the call. Would you agree?