The Debater's Potter - Part 1 - Introduction

Update: At the bottom of this article there is a list of links to each of the following parts of this series. 

I've been reading the Kindle version of Dr. James R. White's The Potter's Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and a Rebuttal of Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free.

The title itself is a mouthful, and makes some serious claims about the content of the book. My very dear friend, and Brother in the Lord, Fred of the Building on the Solid Rock blog is currently reading Dr. Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free; at my request. I'm reading The Potter's Freedom at his urging.

If there is one thing that Dr. White has taught me within the first few pages of his ambitious work is that even I can be offended by how someone I esteem is treated. Therefore, while I am going to state right now, right up front, that I expect I will disagree with almost everything the man writes in the book. I find his starting tone, and chosen plan for his argument to be so far off the mark as to be offensive. I am offended. I want you the reader to know this, because I probably won't be overly generous to the man. However, I do not intend to be mean spirited towards him, or hostile. I've been deeply disturbed by the things that I've read in this book about Dr. Geisler; both those things written by White and by his endorsers.

This series of articles is not intended to be a rebuttal. 

These articles will be my thoughts as I go. Most of the people who read OMW would agree that I do my level best to keep an open mind and let arguments be made. As I have written here many times before, should Dr. White convince me I will openly say so. With the exception of the revised edition of Chosen But Free, I have not ever read any response to White's work.  I can't even remember what Geisler said about The Potter's Freedom in his work. So these articles will be my thoughts alone.

White criticizes Geisler for not using extended quotations in his book. So I will be using long, and many quotations from White's book.

So here we go! 

The Title: The Potter's Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and a Rebuttal of Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free

Whoah... really? "A Defense of the Reformation" that's a big claim. Nay! That is a monstrous claim! What's more, Dr. White seems to agree with me and backs off from the title of the book in his Foreword stating:

"This is not meant to be a presentation of the Reformed view so ably accomplished by others: my positive presentation will be limited to establishing facts that are not in evidence from a reading of CBF."

I truly am struggling with what to address first. As I've been reading I've found I want to comment on almost every paragraph in the book.  White will argue almost immediately that the key issue of the Reformation was the deterministic sovereignty of God. In chapter 1 White quotes Martin Luther's words to Erasmus, and then interprets them in this way.

"What, then, is the "grand turning point of the cause," the "essential issue," the "grand hing upon which the whole turned," and "the vital part"? The truth of predestination (God's freedom) and man's depravity (his will in bondage)! Here at the very inception of the Reformation the definitional issue is laid out: God is the absolutely free Creator, the Potter, who has complete sovereignty over the pots, humans, who, as fallen creatures, find their wills enslaved to sin, in bondage and unable to "cooperate" with any offered grace." 

When I read this I was most intrigued. I had never heard before that the key issue of the Reformation was the sovereignty of God. Have you?

OK now that you've read how White interpreted Luther's words, I'll give you the modern English version (as supplied by White) of what Luther said:

Moreover, I give you hearty praise and commendation on this further account--that you alone, in contrast to all others, have attacked the real thing, that is, the essential issue. You have not wearied me with those extraneous issues about the Papacy, purgatory, indulgences and such like--trifles, rather than issues--in respect of which almost all to date have sought my blood (though without success); you, and you alone, have seen the hinge on which all turns, and aimed for the vital spot.

So it seems that Luther is talking about something more fundamental than Papacy, purgatory, indulgences and such... but what is he talking about? White does not quote Luther telling us. Instead of quoting Luther, White tells us what Luther must have meant.  Perhaps White is correct and determinism is what Luther was referring too. However, how can we know by reading White's work? We have to take his word for it.

The quote is from Luther's "Bondage of the Will" written in response to Erasmus' Diatribe in which he argues that mankind's will is in bondage to sin, but our volition - our freedom to choose - is intact. While the subject is similar, I do not believe that Luther was arguing what White says he was. I think Luther had a similar view, but not the same. Further, while Luther was definitely used of God; Luther's words are not Scripture. We are no bound to them, or by them. They are not authoritative and much less so are interpretations of his words.  Over and over again, White and his endorsers accuse Geisler of not using exegesis of the Scriptures to their satisfaction. Yet, White's main issue is what White said Luther wrote about the Reformation.

Dr. White seemingly has a slightly differing view of the writings of men however. In a foreword he wrotes:

"There are many tremendous works in print defining and defending the great biblical faith of the Reformation. God has been most gracious in raising up men like Calvin, Edwards, Turrentin, Warfield, Palmer, Sproul, and Piper who have been gifted to communicate His truth to their generations in a unique fashion. These works really need no defense, for any person reading them can see their internal consistency and depth of exegetical insight. These are profoundly biblical works written by men who are deeply committed to the authority of the Scriptures as the Word of God." 

I've bolded what White emphasized in cursive in his work. I don't think I could bring myself to write anything close to that with regard to any writing by man except that which God has revealed to us is Scripture. His praise of these men and their writing sounds much to much like 2Pet 1:19-21 for my comfort.

*UPDATE* I received a call from a Brother tonight with concern that this part of the article seems to indicate that I think White would hold the writings of these men as having the same authority as Scripture. I appreciate the concern being brought to my attention, however, that is not at all my intent. Dr. White holds a slightly different view than I do, he holds the writing of these particular men, with much more esteem than I could muster for any (non Spirit breathed) writing by any man.  As I have read through more of The Potter's Freedom I have found that White seems to hold the historical Reformed doctrines very dearly. Much of his arguments against Geisler are with respect to such. In his preface, Phillip Johnson calls this practice of White's using "his solid grasp of historical theology to make the truth unmistakably clear." I would personally hold that "historical theology" is most polluted with the doctrines of man. As Paul wrote near the end of his life that all in Asia had departed from his theology 2Tim 1:13-15 Not only that but seemingly all maner of doctrinal error can be found in the writings of the "Church Fathers" from the basis for Roman Catholicism to Infant Baptism and so on.... there are of course good and bad writings by men which have been written throughout Church history. That they are historical, or even that they were strongly held by many people - as Roman Catholicism was (and even still is) does not indicate it is Biblical. All I am saying in the above is that White values the writings of these particular men much more highly than I would value any writings by men.  My reading of his words reminds me of Peter's words about Scripture. To me, his praise is much too close. That doesn't mean I think White considers the writings the same as Scripture.

The title of the book says that White will be giving a defense of the Reformation, and seems to imply that Geisler's work offends the Reformation in some way. How so? Well if you define the reformation as being about Determinism then well I guess that would be true. However, websites such as GotQuestions?.org think the Reformation was about these 4 things:

Underlying the Protestant Reformation lay four basic doctrines in which the reformers believed the Roman Catholic Church to be in error. These four questions or doctrines are How is a person saved? Where does religious authority lie? What is the church? And what is the essence of Christian living?

Now I'm sure that Luther saw these as issues built on what he thought was the main issue. In fact the 5 Sola's are the Reformer's proposed solution to the problems, and they do agree in some ways White's position - though they do not require Determinism.  At the end of this article I'm going to ask you the reader to consider a question. This question ought to lead you to the difference between what Luther was arguing and what White is arguing.

That was the first argument of any substance that I noted in the work. However, let's back up to the beginning. I am not going to quote everything that stood out to me in the endorsements and introductions, but here are some things which reveal the tone. This is the tone that sets the stage for the book.  I've noted often that Calvinism's #1 claim has nothing to do with God. Their biggest concern, and most often made claim is that (one's particular brand of) Calvinism is misrepresented or misunderstood. The very first page after the cover has this:

Praise for The Potter's Freedom... 

"For someone of Dr. Geisler's stature to go into print with his misunderstandings was simply inexplicable. The easy thing would have been to simply let the whole thing go in an embarrassed silence,...." ~ Douglas Wilson, Pastor, Editor of Credenda Agenda Magazine

"The Potter's Freedom is a more than adequate response to the misleading and erroneous book, Chosen But Free... This book should be widely disseminated and read as it will clarify much that is often misunderstood about Calvinism." ~ Jay Adams, Ph.D., Westminister Seminary, Escondido, California

"Dr. James R. White dissects Geisler's arguments and reveals them to be based on convoluted thinking, inconsistencies, and misinterpretations of Scripture." ~ Dr. Erwin W. Lutzer, Senior Pastor, Moody Church, Chicago

"The Potter's Freedom, is the much-needed antidote to his (Geisler's) flawed (and failed) attempt, in typical Thomistic fashion, to synthesize what cannot be synthesized." ~ Robert REymond, Ph. D., Knox Theological Seminary, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Author of A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith

"First, Geisler's book is one of demagoguery, propaganda, and an embarrassing lack of accurate scholarship, while White's book is one of careful and scholarly exegesis of the Bible, coupled with a convincing exposition and defense of the Reformation Faith (i.e. the Biblical Faith) from misrepresentation and caricature." ~ Dr. Joseph C. Morecraft, III; Author, Pastor of Chalcedon Presbyterian Church, Cumming, GA; Publisher of The Counsel of Chalcedon

"...themes that Geisler has abused, maltreated and generally misunderstood..." ~ S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., AB, ThM, ThD, Former Prof. of New Testament & Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary; Former Prof. of Bible & Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

With that tone set we get to the title and copyright pages in the book. We are then treated to a dedication and few acknowledgements. After that we have the Table of Contents and then a Preface written by Phillip R. Johnson Executive Director of John MacArthur's Grace to You ministry and Elder of Grace Community Church, Sun Vally, CA

In his second paragraph Johnson hits the "misrepresentation" button right on cue.

"Dr. Geisler manages to misrepresent his friends and foes alike." He goes on to state: "The fact is, if Dr. Geisler were not a teacher of such stature, there would be no reason at all to pay any attention to his book. It is a bad book by any measure."  

In a later paragraph he states:

"Dr. White meticulously unravels the near-hopeless tangle Geisler has made of these doctrines, skillfully employing both Scripture and his solid grasp of historical theology to make the truth unmistakably clear." 

He finishes with:

"Dr. White has produced on of the finest explanations of the doctrines of grace and the sovereignty of God that has seen publication in recent years." 

The Potter's Freedom starts with a lot of praise for Dr. White, and some seriously strong words and accusations against Dr. Geisler.  I had intended on getting farther into the book in this article but there is just so much to react to.

Here's the question I promised I would ask.

If; God's sovereignty is defined as White defines it under the title of "The Decrees of the King" being as:

"The conjunction of God's absolute freedom and His Creatorship results in the doctrine of God's decrees: the soul-comforting truth that God has wisely and perfectly decreed whatsoever comes to pass in this universe.".... "every aspect of human history, to the life of every man, woman, and child"...."God's freedom extends to the actions of men, even to their choices," 

Then; how can man's will be in bondage to Sin? As is said over and over by White.

Is Sin more powerful than God? If God's sovereignty is such that our every choice is chosen by God, then Man's will - whether sinful or righteous - is in complete bondage to God.

Is this what Luther argued? I think not. Here's an interesting quote from Luther.

If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong (sin boldly), but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. ~ Letter 99, Paragraph 13. Erika Bullmann Flores, Tr. from:Dr. Martin Luther's Saemmtliche SchriftenDr. Johann Georg Walch Ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.), Vol. 15, cols. 2585-2590.

Well until next time, I trust that the Lord will lead and teach you.

Series Table of Contents (will be updated periodically)
Part 1 - Introduction (This current page)
Part 2 (Covers the first part of the book's introduction)
Part 3 (Continued coverage of the book's introduction)
Part 4 Chapter 1 - Definition of the Reformation
Part 5 Chapter 2 - Determination
Part 6 Chapter 3 - Inabilities of Man
Part 7 A Brief View of Chosen But Free (The first two chapters)
Part 8 The First 1/2 - 3/4 of Chapter 4 - The Will of Man
Part 9 The rest of Chapter 4 - Can Man Believe?
Part 10 Chapter 5 - Unconditional Election a Necessity
Part 11 Chapter 6 - John 6 verse by verse
Part 12 Chapter 7 - John 6 the Lord's teaching
Part 13 Chapter 8 - Unconditional Election
Part 14 Chapter 9 -  Romans 9
Part 15 Chapter 10 - Limited Atonement 
Part 16 Chapter 11 - Universal Atonement'
Part 17 Chapter 12a - Defining Irresistible Grace and Pre-Faith Regeneration
Part 18 Chapter 12b - Saving Faith the Gift of God
Part 19 Chapter 13 - Pre-Faith Regeneration, Omnibenevolence, Is Faith a Gift?
Part 20 Chapter 14 and Appendices - God's Relationship to Sin, Concerns About Calvinism,
Part 21 Conclusion - Highlights of the Series. Is TFP a good book? Should this series be a book? 

Applying Acts 21?

If you were the Apostle Paul how would you have reacted to what the Church at Jerusalem was practicing? Read what he was told on his arrival in Acts 21:17-25 

¹⁷ And when we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.¹⁸ On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. ¹⁹ When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. ²⁰ And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; ²¹ but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. ²² What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. ²³ Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. ²⁴ Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. ²⁵ But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”

Paul was returning to Jerusalem after having preached that if you strive to obey the Law that Christ profits you nothing, and that you are indebted to obey the whole Law. Gal 5:2-3 (for example). What's more he talks about those who compel men become circumcised do so to avoid their own persecution of the Cross of Jesus Christ, that they only want to boast in the fleshly works of men. Gal 6:12-13 He also states that he would rather they cut their own selves off - if you know what he means. Gal 5:12 Yes that is graphic and harsh.

How does Paul react to the news of Jewish Believers being "zealous for the Law"? Well some people have said that Paul made the ultimate compromise... some say he made the biggest mistake of his ministry... some say that Paul recognized that Jewish Believers are not the same as Gentile Believers in that Jewish Believers are still under the Law while the Gentiles never were and are still are not now.

The rest of Acts 21 tells us how he reacted and what ensued. Acts 21:26

²⁶ Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them

Paul capitulated, and obeyed ceremony and entered the Temple in accordance with the Law. Was Paul recognizing that he was under the Law? No. Was he compromising? Perhaps... but I don't think so. Can there be middle ground between under the Law and not under the Law? Some teachers in the Church divide the Law between ceremony and morality and claim that Christians are under the "moral law" however, here we have Paul obeying ceremonial law. Scripture does not divide the Law any more than Paul did in his actions at Jerusalem.  I don't think it was compromise.

Did he make a mistake? Perhaps an intentional mistake. I think he intentionally became a hypocrite in order to win the hypocrites. I believe Paul became all things to all men that he might win some.  1Cor 9:19-23 And even more so, Paul was acting exactly according to his words and so NOT being a hypocrite. In Rom 9:1-5 Paul says that he could wish that he was himself accursed of Christ, if by such he could win the Jews to Christ.

Was Paul, a Jew still under Law? NO! He explains his, and all Jewish Believers relationship with to the Law when he rebukes Peter, who had been living like a Gentile until some Jewish Believers showed up in Antioch. Gal 2:11-21

¹¹ Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; ¹² for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. ¹³ And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. 

¹⁴ But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? ¹⁵ We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, ¹⁶ knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. 

¹⁷ “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! ¹⁸ For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. ¹⁹ For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. ²⁰ I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. ²¹ I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”

Jews become like Gentiles when they believe because they have died in Christ, and are dead to the Law.

So was Paul mistaken to go into the Temple the way he did, under Law? No I don't think so. I think he set aside the freedom he had in order that he could win those in bondage. Read the wonderful sermon he was able to preach to the huge crowd that sought to kill him. Acts 22:1-21 I think Paul knew what would go down and used that opportunity to tell them about Christ the Just One, and the true washing away of sins - not just being purified for a moment so that one can enter the Temple.

So what's my point here? 

Well, I want everyone reading to be thinking about how we can do this with our Lordship Salvation Brothers; if they have in fact received the Gospel of Christ 1Cor 15:1-11 before they were swept aside by the wind of this false doctrine.

See while successful Discipleship is not a condition for, or of true Salvation in Christ, it is the very focus of the Epistles of the New Testament. It's interesting that today in church we were studying 1Thess and I think it's the only letter from Paul that doesn't include the correction of grave disorder. The only correction Paul gives is about the reality of our hope in Christ's return being a good thing. So I can say wholly confidently that Discipleship is a HUGE topic in the Bible. We really are supposed to submit to Christ and live holy, and do good works - we really are!

Those in the the bondage of Lordship Salvation see this as a condition for and/or an unavoidable result of salvation because it is so prevalent in the New Testament. So how can we do a better job of giving ourselves the opportunity to preach the washing of sins by the death burial and resurrection of the Jesus Christ the Just?

How can we surrender freedom to win the opportunity to preach freedom? How SHOULD we do this? Can we do this without blaspheming God?

Robb's A Law-Keeper!

Has Robb flown the Grace-Coup? Who can tell unless they check out the latest edition of Good Morning, Jesus Christ!

Rom 3:19 Moreover, we know that whatever the Torah says, it says to those living within the framework of the Torah, in order that every mouth may be stopped and the whole world be shown to deserve God’s adverse judgment.
Rom 3:20 For in his sight no one alive will be considered righteousn on the ground of legalistic observance of Torah commands, because what Torah really does is show people how sinful they are.

–Complete Jewish Bible.

Repent With Joy

So I just picked up the 4 e-Books from Taste Heaven Now. Is it really possible to "repent with joy"? I believe so. Actually so far I've been amazed at the clarity and sense of the things I've been reading there. I decided it was well worth the $25 to get the books and investigate all the way.

I suggest giving some of the free material he has a read. It's already been beneficial in my life.