A Correction and Amplification

Maybe you’ve heard that the tongue is a difficult creature to tame. Mine is no exception. Especially when it is hitched to an overloaded memory.

Recently, I had the privilege of joining MethodMinistries on YouTube to discuss the extent of the atonement. It was a good talk, and I very much enjoyed chatting with Lucas.

During the course of our conversation, he asked if I had any thoughts about a recent atonement debate between James White and Jason Breda.

I did.

And I shared a few thoughts.

As is so often the case, my mind returned to the conversation later that night. Perhaps you’ve had similar experiences: you say a bunch of things at a gathering, or on a podcast, or whatever, and your mind drifts back to the things you’ve said; and as it does so, you feel a certain dismay over a particular turn of phrase—or an entire paragraph of verbiage!

Well, the truth is that I need to walk back something I said. I recall saying that I thought Mr. Breda’s presentation was clear and cogent. Truth be told, that doesn’t reflect what I think, now that I better remember what was said in that debate. Since I listen to a lot of stuff, who said what and when sometimes gets muddled in my mind.

When I revisited the debate and clicked through it quickly (after feeling that uneasy sense that I misspoke), my memory snapped back into focus. While Mr. Breda seems like a fine gentleman and an intelligent Christian, I can’t say that I think he did especially well in that debate. Among other things, I think it would also be fair to say that he articulated a rather peculiar view of Romans.

So…

Be that as it may, I’m not especially familiar with his view, and it would be wrong for me to say that I thought he was clear and cogent/convincing. In other words, it would be easy for someone to conclude that I align myself with Mr. Breda’s views. But more caution needs to be expressed here. And so I’m holding up a hand and saying, “Please accept this as just that—a mild corrective.”

Now, if I’m going to say a word about Mr. Breda, I should also add a brief word about Dr. White, since I spoke about him as well.

Here’s what I would like to add.

While I think there is much to be learned from Dr. White (and I’ve listened to him a lot!), when it comes to his particular flavor of Calvinism, and especially his view of limited atonement, he isn’t nearly as nuanced as he should be. To speak frankly and with a heavy dose of forthrightness, I would charge him with holding to an imbalanced form of High Calvinism that flirts with certain Hyper-Calvinistic tendencies (tendencies that are theological in nature, but which don’t express themselves practically in his life—since most people associate Hyper-Calvinism with certain evangelistic shortcomings). See chapters eleven and twelve of my book for insight into this sentiment of mine.

Since he is so influential in Calvinistic circles, and since his view masquerades as the only sheriff in town, nuance is lost, and his particular version of Calvinism is thought to be the default view, or the only viable view. His version presents itself as Calvinism proper. Monolithic.

Naturally, this would be quite incorrect.

Moreover, his debating style harbors a certain snarky forcefulness that sometimes presents itself as arrogance. This isn’t to say that he isn’t a skilled debater. He is. But sometimes that skill manifests itself in a curmudgeonly fashion. This is merely to say that he would do well to channel a little more of Dr. Ortlund.

To be fair, I know that I have no idea what it must feel like to have so many enemies banging on one’s door. Not to mention dealing with people who are not looking to engage in good faith conversations.

I get it.

All I’m saying, as a listener who admires a number of his qualities and work, is that I could wish that he would (1) be more fair with the historical realities surrounding Calvinistic thought, (2) be more fair with men like Dr. David Allen who have written helpfully on the history of such ideas, and (3) add a pinch and dash more kindness to his posture when debating.

——