The Challenge to "Whitean" Theology: A Reflection on the Debate

JAMES WHITE ON THE ATONEMENT & THEOLOGICAL DEFICIENCIES

The recent debate on the extent of the atonement proved to be a passionate exchange of theological ideas, with both sides advancing defenses for their positions. The responses from James White and his co-debater were, at times, creative, particularly in their exegetical treatments of passages such as John 3:16 and 2 Peter 2:1. However, their approach ultimately faltered in the broader theological and historical context (and, failed ultimately to be convincing regarding the use of ‘cosmos’ in most instances of Scripture), failing to align with the long-standing theological framework articulated in the Lombardian formula.

The Lombardian Formula and the Value of Christ’s Sacrificial Death

One of the key points emphasized in our argument was the inconsistency of White’s view within the wider Christian tradition. The Lombardian formula affirms that Christ’s atonement is "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect." This crucial balance ensures that Christ's death is both universally sufficient and particularly applied. By rejecting the actual sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, White and his co-debater position themselves in a historical and theological outlier stance, diverging even from many within their own Calvinistic tradition. This departure diminishes the atoning value of Christ’s sacrifice and disrupts the trajectory of divine benevolence and hospitality as revealed in Scripture.

Tradition and Scriptural Interpretation

While one may debate the authority of tradition vis-à-vis Scripture, the fact remains that the overwhelming testimony of church history has affirmed unlimited atonement, and where deviations have emerged, they have often been met with resistance or condemnation. This is not a small interpretive matter. And, don’t be fooled by the dismissal’s motivation. White too appeals to tradition in debate when it is convenient (see here and here). And, in both cases, the use of tradition has to do with novelty that is not necessarily at odds with traditional authority or consensus opinion, but in this case White’s (and his partners’) idiosyncratic commitments clearly are. And, this commitments are, even, starting to come under fire amongst Reformed theologians on their own tradition. In fact, it seems that there is a growing set of evidence concerning the Reformed tradition affirming some version of ‘unlimited’ atonement that have been largely ignored. To ignore this trajectory and construct an idiosyncratic interpretation undermines the very role of the confessing and sacramental community in carrying forth divine revelation. Unless one fully embraces a "Solo Scriptura" framework that disregards all traditional authority, the weight of historical theology should not be so easily dismissed.

The Cosmic Scope of Atonement

A fundamental problem with White’s position is its failure to acknowledge the overarching scriptural trajectory of divine hospitality and benevolence (following the rythmic cycle of God’s charateristic activity of giving life and blessing life in the covenants reflecting creation and expanded to the world in the New Covenant). Scripture consistently presents God as being on a mission to bless and restore creation, with Christ’s atonement playing a central role in this cosmic narrative (and further buttressing the Church’s dominant confession regarding his actual sufficiency as represented in the Lombardian formula). The notion that God did not send His Son to condemn the world, but to save it (John 3:17), highlights this expansive vision. By introducing a restrictive model of atonement that dictates a certain logical relation to election without a clear and objective grounding (beyond human inability to peer in for the universal call to faith and repentance, White’s position fractures the biblical narrative and undermines the very mission of God.

The Problem of White’s Hermeneutic and Philosophical Resistance

Another major weakness in White’s approach was his resistance to philosophical clarification, despite subtly introducing philosophical arguments of his own. One notable instance was his assertion that God’s wrath must be exhibited as an attribute—an argument that lacks explicit biblical warrant and relies on external philosophical reasoning. Such inconsistencies raise questions about the coherence of his theological methodology. In many ways, one cannot avoid philosophical precision when it comes to exegesis of texts as we move into the realm of lexical semantics and beyond into the designated meanings of words and their usage in context and in relation to wider theological issues. By also entering these waters, it helps to shore up other coherent options and show why it is that they can satisfy the desirables of a Calvinist soteriology (or Arminian soterilogy) that is consistent with the Church’s confession about Christ’s atoning work being actually consistent. Moreover, much of the discussion veered into the doctrine of election—particularly an extended focus on Romans 8 and the so-called "golden chain" argument from White’s 

The Potter

’

s Freedom

—rather than engaging directly with the debate’s central topic: the extent of the atonement.

The "Gap" in White’s Theological System

One of the most significant issues that emerged was the unaddressed theological "gap" between divine causation and human response. On all views, human response plays a role in the application of atonement and justification. However, White failed to clarify how, under his model, human response is brought about—whether through divine causation, compatibilist freedom, or some other mechanism. This metaphysical ambiguity leaves open crucial questions about divine determination, human agency, and the contingency of justification. While we refrained from pursuing the moral implications of this system in the debate, they remain an essential aspect of the discussion.

Conclusion: The Necessity of a Coherent and Biblically Rooted View of Atonement

Ultimately, our position maintains that unlimited atonement upholds the full sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice, aligns with the historical witness of the church, and best accounts for the biblical trajectory of divine hospitality. White’s dismissive approach to these issues, combined with his failure to engage deeply with the theological and philosophical ramifications of his position, leaves his argument unconvincing. For those committed to a robust, biblically faithful, and historically grounded understanding of the atonement, unlimited atonement remains the superior and more coherent view. The gospel is not restricted in its provision but extends to all, reflecting the boundless grace and benevolence of our redeeming God. View full debate here:

Notes

In terms of spelling out this issue in terms of sufficiency and efficacy, Oliver Crisp has explored these concepts in such a way as to signify the expansive Reformed options as consistent with the wider orthodox tradition. See for example his:

Participation and Atonement

(Baker Academic, 2022);

Deviant Calvinism

(Fortress Press, 2014). Also see Joshua R. Farris and S. Mark Hamilton, “Reparative Substitution and the ‘Efficacy Objection’,

Being Saved

(SCM Press, 2018).