Part of the reason I wanted to start a personal site was to hold myself accountable to actually keep up with all the reading I’d like to do. Perhaps one day there will be a handful of people who follow this page to some extent, and that’d be great for accountability purposes.
For now, the only accountability will be if there’s a day missing it will drive me nuts looking at it, so hopefully that will be a contributing motivator.
The book I’m reading right now is The Sovereign Grace of God by James White. I’ve been a fan of Dr. White’s for a short while, having seen several of his debates online. They are fascinating to watch and out of all the debates I’ve watched on YouTube, his stand out by a country mile.
White’s depth of knowledge is second to none and his tactical skills in the debate arena are lethal. Often times I wonder why people bother to step in the ring with him — the only viable reason I can think of is trust in the tribe. That is to say, if you have a loyal following of your own, oftentimes they’ll just stand behind you no matter what the outcome.
I’ll give a brief example of this that I experienced personally while working at Fox News. I was in charge of producing a segment, and one of the things I had to be mindful of as a producer was being extra careful not to word things in such a way that dishonest brokers could grab a short clip and take it out of context. This would happen daily despite our best efforts, but we didn’t want to gift wrap it for our political opponents.
The next day, I walk into the morning meeting and everyone is looking at me. Didn’t take long for me to get word that Rachel Maddow was setting up some big, dramatic tease for a “gotchya” type segment — and her exposé was on the very segment I produced. I was horrified, racking my brain to think about what she could possibly use in an attempt to embarrass us.
That’s when my boss chimed in and said, “don’t worry about it. The segment was fine. Even if she makes it look bad with out of context clips, it won’t matter. Her tribe will believe her and ours won’t.”
That statement was both sad and also true at the same time. We’d often preached to the audience to trust but verify everything we did — but that’s not how most audiences operate. They choose sides and stick to that side almost no matter what. I assume the same must be true for those who wish to debate James White — even if they get absolutely smashed, most fans won’t view things objectively and will cling to their tribe.
Overly long anecdote finally aside, let’s get to the recap of what I’ve read so far in White’s book.
I’m only through the introduction and into chapter 2 since I’ve just started a day ago. Reading at night is a challenge for me — I really have to resist the urge to zone out in front of the TV, especially when the Celtics are on (like they were last night against the Bucks, getting crushed, but I digress).
Chapter 1 lays the foundation for which everything thereafter will be based upon and prepares the reader for points of friction that may lie ahead. White warns that while we may think we all agree that the Bible should be our final court of appeal, he’s seen many people question the truth of God’s Word when faced with the fact of God’s “absolute sovereignty and election of some (but not all) unto salvation.”
We can’t selectively edit the Bible to make God into something we want him to be, White argues, and I agree. This is why I think White stands out in debates, because many Christian apologists will be pushed about how there can be “evil” if God is all powerful etc etc, and what inevitably happens is the apologist will concoct some wishy-washy answer about how man just chooses evil sometimes and, basically, what can ya do? That kind of response paints a picture of a God who is not sovereign over all, who is helpless against the will of man, and ultimately is not able to stop evil.
This is why it’s critical to start with God’s sovereignty. I’ll often ask people who make such arguments if they believe God could have stopped (insert evil/bad thing that happened — child cancer, etc) if he wanted to. They have to answer yes because of course the God who created the universe can do whatever He pleases.
But they don’t want to answer that way because it puts them in the uncomfortable spot of not having all the answers and having to say, “yes, God allowed that child to have cancer. I don’t know why but I do know God is good and ultimately wills everything for His purpose.”
White goes on to talk about, when discussing matters of faith with others, seeking to get to the original point of divergence as opposed to getting into the weeds right away. I couldn’t agree with this point more and it saves a lot of headache to simply follow it.
In Chapter 2, which I’ve just started, White begins dissecting the acrostic TULIP, which comprise the Five Points of Calvinism.
T = Total Depravity
U = Unconditional Election
L = Limited Atonement
I = Irresistible Grace
P = Perseverance of the Saints
For good measure, White adds a sixth point at the beginning, and “S” representing the Sovereignty of God. White makes the case for this being a vital truth because while at the time of the reformation God’s sovereignty was generally assumed, that is no longer the case today.
An interesting historical fact I was not aware of was that those attending the Council of Dort, from which the original five points were birthed, were not viewing their efforts as starting something new. They were actually responding to new doctrines that had arisen that they felt stood in contradiction to the existing Gospel of grace found in the New Testament.
I’m halfway through the chapter and hope to finish it up tonight. Will expand more on this tomorrow — hopefully, I can take notes as I go along so I can better summarize what I’ve read.
danoffaith.com 
Leave a comment