Category Archives: James White

An Examination of James White’s Parable: The King and the Castle

In the book The Potters Freedom, Calvinist James White sets forth a parable called “The King and the Castle”.  The purpose of the parable is to explain why (in White’s view) the concept of  “Limited Atonement” does not impugn the character of God.  White contrasts his story with one written by non-Calvinist Norm Geisler.  A summary of Geisler’s parable can be found here: The Farmer, the Boys, and the Pond.

Here is a paraphrase of “The King and the Castle”:

The greatest king of all time leaves his castle to do good things.  When the king returns, he finds that his subjects have been robbing, murdering and raping his friends.  In addition, they have intentionally set fire to his castle, and if they do not quickly escape, they will all perish in the flames.

The rebels have no justification for their behavior.  The king has always been good to his subjects.  He has provided for them, and they have feasted at his table.

Despite the king’s graciousness, the rebels have sinned personally against the king, and have done it repeatedly.  They have a long track record of rebellion despite the king’s mercy.

Even though the fire in the castle is raging and the death of the rebels is certain, they continue to destroy everything that reminds them of the king and his authority.  They are gleeful with their wickedness.  They enjoy being disobedient and hateful.  They even encourage others to join the rebellion.

If the king attempts to save the rebels from the fire, they would certainly mock him.  They would refuse to come out, they would curse the king, they would throw debris in his face, and they would run back into the smoke and flames.  Given the opportunity, they would attempt to drag the king into the flames and kill him too.

By all rights, the king should have the castle surrounded and make sure that everyone inside dies.  The king instead shows love beyond all imagination by sending his only son into the fire to pull some of the rebels out of the flames.  The son dies in the fire after saving the rebels that he wanted to save.

Given the atrocious behavior of the rebels and their hatred, the king is completely justified in saving only some of the rebels.  He saves them by his free grace, and he has the right to choose whom he wants to save, and he has the right to allow others to justly die in the flames.   In reality they all deserve to die.(1)

White’s parable is reasonable if the rebels have genuine free will.  In fact it somewhat models the parable of  the “Vineyard Tenants”  given by Jesus in Matthew 21:33-45.  However, the parable becomes silly when interpreted through the lens of exhaustive determinism where all actions are preordained.  The parable only makes sense if the rebels could do something other than what they do.

But in White’s view, the rebels cannot do other than what they do.  He leaves this “little detail” out of the parable.  In reality, the rebels are burning down the castle because the king desires it.  The king has decreed that the rebels burn down his castle, and he has caused them to do it.  He has decreed that they mock him.  He has decreed that they kill his son.  The king’s actual complaint should be against his double-minded decrees.

White believes that everything we do is necessary and has been decreed by God.   He writes:

…God has wisely and perfectly decreed whatever comes to pass in the universe.  Nothing is outside his control, nothing is without purpose…This extends…to every aspect of human history, personal relationships, and most importantly, to the life of every man, woman, and child. (2)

White goes onto say that God ordains the “actions of men, even their choices.”   Given such a view, White’s parable is absurd.  If  White’s parable is to be consistent with his theology, the castle rebellion occurs by necessity and design of the king.  Yet White makes it sound as if the rebels have a choice in the matter (the Arminian view!).  White’s parable is inconsistent at this point.  His theology necessitates that the rebellion occurs only because of the king’s good pleasure.  The king has ordained the choices of the rebels.  The rebels are puppets following the king’s script.  They cannot do other than what they do.  They rape, murder, and burn at the king’s command.

The real problem with White’s parable is that his descriptions of the king are not reconciled with his deterministic assumptions about God.  White says the king is the greatest of all times.  But a great king doesn’t ordain for his subjects to burn down his own castle.  White says the king only does good things.  But a good king doesn’t blame his subjects for doing what he has coercively caused them to do.  White says the king is loving beyond all description.  But a loving king does what’s best for his subjects, particularly when he knows they are doing precisely what he intended for them to do.

White parable inadvertently shows the absurdity of Calvinism.  A righteous king would never decree that his subjects rebel, and then punish them for doing what he caused them to do.  Such a king is not righteous or loving, he is not the greatest of all times, and he isn’t good.  Such a king would be sadistic and capricious.

————————————–

(1) The parable can be found on pages 306-312 of “The Potter’s Freedom”.  There is also a you-tube video here where White describes his parable and criticizes Dr. Geisler’s view.

(2)The Potter’s Freedom, p 45

Advertisements

6 Comments

Filed under Calvinism, James White, limited atonement

Arminian Audio: Brown / White Discussion

Christian radio host Dr. Michael Brown recently did a debate with Dr. James White. The debate lasted two days, and took place on Brown’s call in show: The Line of Fire. Brown argued from a Non-Calvinist position, and White came from the Calvinist position. The questions included: Does God love everyone? Does God give everyone a genuine opportunity to be saved? What did Christ’s atonement accomplish? Are the number of elect fixed? Does God reprobate specific individuals? Does Calvinism result in pride for its adherents?

Here are the link to Brown’s blog (where you can also comment), and the direct mp3 links.
January 26, 2010 (mp3) – Brown and White discuss Calvinism – part #1
January 27, 2010 (mp3) – Brown and White discuss Calvinism – part #2
January 28, 2010 (mp3) – Calvinists call into Brown’s show and ask him questions.

My thoughts:
Both theologians clearly had respect for each other and accepted each other as believers. Brown went out of his way to point out that Arminians and Calvinists agree on 99%, and that we are all brothers in Christ.

James White is an excellent debater, and I was afraid that he would clobber Brown. However, Brown did quite well. It no doubt helped that he was hosting the show, chose the format, and was the one asking the questions.

White depended very heavily on the “Two wills of God” theory – This is the Calvinist theory that God has a hidden decretive will that overrides and contradicts his revealed will. Thus God says that he doesn’t want us to sin, and commands us not to sin, but he has secretly decreed that we will sin, and then damns us for doing what he has decreed (so goes the theory). I think the scriptural support for this theory is non-existent, and I would have like to have seen Brown point this out in stronger terms.

I would also have liked to see Brown better develop the concept of Prevenient Grace. PG largly mitigates many of the complaints that Calvinists often have about Arminian theology (that we believe we save ourselves, etc). Brown did develop this a little more on day two.

13 Comments

Filed under Arminian Audio, James White, Michael Brown

James White / Calvinist Dictionary

A portion of the Calvinist Dictionary has found its way to James White. :)

Link here: http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2724

Thanks to Nick Norelli for pointing this out.

4 Comments

Filed under Calvinism, James White

Audio Link: Steve Gregg / James White debate

Gregg and White are doing a 5 day simulcast debate on the issue of Calvinism. I haven’t listened to any of the series yet. I don’t particularly care for White’s “strawman” style of debating, but the series should be interesting anyway. If nothing else, it’s good to see Gregg get a little more exposure.

Dates of the debate are April 3,4,7,8,9 2008. The audio is available on both of their web sites:

Steve Gregg: The Narrow Path
James White: Alpha and Omega Ministries

11 Comments

Filed under Arminian Audio, James White, Steve Gregg