The Debater's Potter - Part 8 - Chapter 4

Welcome back to this on going series on Dr. James R. White's book The Potter's Freedom(TPF) as I read, react to and interact with his book as a Non-Calvinist-Non-Arminian. Last time we looked at the book Dr. White is attempting to rebut, Dr. Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free(CBF) and found it to be very unlike how White has characterized it in TPF.


We are all the way up to Chapter 4 and that means we have a long way to go, but I am confident if I breeze through that I'll be accused of misrepresenting White, and intentionally ducking arguments. So on we go!


Chapter 4 - The Will of Man

"The single most important quotation in all of Chosen But Free is found on pages 233-234:" 

Because it seems so important to White I'm going to quote CBF here:

"God's grace works synergistically on free will. That is, it must be received to be effective. There are no conditions for giving grace, but there is one condition for receiving it--faith. Put in other terms, God's justifying grace works cooperatively, not operatively. 

Faith is a precondition for receiving God's gift of salvation... Faith is logically prior to regeneration, since we are saved "through faith" (Eph 2:8-9) and "justified by faith" (Rom 5:1 NASB)." 

As soon as one reads Geisler use the word "synergistically" one knows how White will respond, and he does as expected:

"Synergism versus monergism. Grace dependent upon man's volition versus the powerful, all-sufficient grace preached by the Reformation... here Dr. Geisler summarizes his soteriology by promoting the very position the Reformers rejected long ago. Saying God's grace "works synergistically on free will" is not a Reformed view." 

Notice please; once again White is offended that Geisler disagrees with his Reformed theology, not with the Bible. After his offense is made clear White goes on to imply that Geisler is actually a Roman Catholic (again).

"Rome likewise teaches this kind of synergism..."

He goes on for a bit on this but it is little more than a rehash of Chapter 1. After, he brings forth the Reformed Calvinists claim:

"Synergism is the hallmark of man's religions: monergism is the mark of the biblical gospel." 

This bold statement is left completely unsupported. Instead, he goes on to mock Geisler for a bit. His mocking picks up a theme of cleverly re-interpreting what Geisler argues to be something that would be  received at least as being distasteful, to (as I would receive it) being blasphemous.

"While God tries to save as many people as possible (limited, however, by human free will), one thing He manages to do without hindrance is to sovereignly will the freedom of man to resist His salvific will." 

It is exceedingly hard to take the man seriously in any scholarly fashion because he continually engages in this type of fallacious argumentation. Then White accuses Geisler of not using "meaningful exegesis" (whatever that is supposed to mean), which also undermines White's own argument since as of yet there has been exactly ZERO exegesis (meaningful or otherwise) in TPF.  After his rant, White moves on to (what I think is) a very interesting part of Geisler's argument in CBF.

"Geisler begins by arguing that men must be free or else 1) God is to be blamed for the origin of evil and 2) men cannot be held responsible otherwise. The fact that the Bible addresses both of these issues clearly (as we have seen above) is not addressed before Geisler comes to his conclusion that the reformed viewpoint cannot be the right one." 

I'm not sure where White thinks he has shown what the Bible "clearly" says about these things "above" I have read this book in exceeding detail, and have re-read each chapter at least twice before commenting. I ASSUME White must mean that how God works the evil that men intend for His own purpose, and that while God has determined everything and man can will nothing that God doesn't actually go against someone's will because God gives them that will... I could however be wrong. It is possible that White produced Scripture "above" which "clearly" shows the Reformed position is correct and I just missed it; not. ;)


White then goes on to complain that Geisler "completely ignored" arguments about these very issues made by Calvin, Turrentin, Hodge, Wright and Reymond. He then states:

"This is one of the major reasons why knowledgeable Reformed readers are so troubled by CBF's cavalier attitude toward such vital issues. To conclude that the entire system is bankrupt by the third page of the "discussion" shows a lack of concern for meaningful interaction or representation."

Now I find this very entertaining... but we've covered how White's accusations against Geisler are better pointed at himself several times already. Perhaps White is confused that Geisler is actually NOT in agreement with White's version of the Reformation, and Reformed theology. White seems to consistently be caught by surprise by this fact.


Apparently White has returned to the beginning of CBF, and this is his response to the first chapter. Notice that in all of our studies so far, White has not actually responded to ANYTHING from CBF's first chapter. You can see what I'm talking about by reading the Part 7 of this series where I give a review of CBF's first two chapters. Or better yet you can read Chosen But Free yourself.


To copy White: This is why I as a knowledgeable reader am so troubled with TPF's cavalier attitude toward such vital issues! White doesn't even ATTEMPT to answer the questions posed to Extreme Calvinists in the first chapter of CBF. Such as: Why blame me? Who made the Devil do it? Who made the Devil? Unlike TPF which seems to be little more than a smeer campaign against Geisler CBF digs into these questions, and many more.

"The second chapter of CBF presents the following reasons why "free will" must be true 1) Without it, men are not responsible for their actions (p. 25); 2) It is part of the way God created man (p. 22); 3) The Bible teaches free will (p. 32); 4) Denial of free will makes God the author of sin (pp. 20-21). Later in the book he argues that to embrace the Reformed position with its denial of human "free will" leads to "failing to take personal responsibility for our actions." 

Instead of answering any of these White quotes N.T. Wright's similar view of Arminian doctrine and says that:

"Wright managed to outline the second chapter of CBF to years before it was written!" 

I'm sure this was added to amuse his readers. But does anyone consider it is any kind of answer... moving from one type of mocking to another White offers what he calls an:

"example of a conversation between a Calvinist and an Arminian fits the presentation in CBF so closely that one again cannot miss the identification of Dr. Geisler's position as thoroughly Arminian:"

As amusing as these "example" conversations are they are often amusing to those who agree with you and deeply offensive to those who disagree. I think that the following, light hearted, "example" of consistent Calvinistic witnessing is funny. As offensive as I am sure it is to Calvinists, I think it is consistent with White's theology - if perhaps not his practice.

I always get a laugh out of that video, and then I feel guilty for laughing because in actuality it is tragic.


White continues:

"We are told that reason "demands that all moral creatures be morally free, that is, they have the ability to respond one way or another." Why or how reason can "demand" this is not clear."

Sigh, this is just another example of White refusing to admit he understands Geisler's argument. It is telling that White leaves out the first word of the sentence he quotes; the word "Therefore". Here is Geisler's point, you can determine if it is clear enough for White to understand or not.

"However, sound reason demands that there is no responsibility where there is no ability to respond. It is not rational to hold someone responsible when they could not have responded. And God is not irrational. His omniscience means God is the most rational Being in the universe. Therefore, reason also demands that all moral creatures are morally free; that is they have the ability to respond one way or another. 

Geisler adds footnote 21 at this point "Minimally, free will is the ability to do otherwise. The degree to which a person is free is debated among Christians who reject the extreme Calvinist's view (see appendices 1 and 4). What they agree on is that one cannot be both forced and free (see Chapter 4)."  

Whatever evil we do and are responsible for, we could have responded otherwise."

I just don't see the validity of White's claim that Geisler did not clearly explain why and how "reason demands" this to be so. There is more of the same that I just don't need to comment on, and then we find:

"Dr. Geisler knows that true Calvinists do not make the claim that the image of God is erased, for he includes a footnote that says:"

I have to giggle at the term "true Calvinists." Why is there such an obsession with adding the word "true" to the front of titles and terms in Calvinism? Are you a "true Christ Follower?" Do you have "true saving faith"? Are you "truly saved?" Apparently the "true Calvinists" agree with White's theology. Here's Geisler's footnote:

"Footnote 154 Some extreme Calvinists deny that they believe the image of God is "destroyed" in fallen humans--at least formally. But logically this is what their view demands and practically this is what they hold."

White responds:

"We are given no logical reason to accept this claim, and given the many errors found in CBF's understanding of the Reformed position there is really no reason to extend credulity to such an assertion."

Once again White claims there is no reason given but Geisler writes:

"A defense of moderate Calvinism is found in Chapters 4 & 5 ("Avoiding Extreme Calvinism") in two ways: explicitly by a critique of extreme Calvinism and implicitly in the implied alternative. Further criticisms of the extreme Calvinist view are recorded in Appendices 1-9. Footnotes 154 155"

I very much tire of reading people who don't expect their work to be examined at all.  White goes to his next paragraph and starts it with:

"Do Calvinists believe man has a will or not?" 

He doesn't answer the question at all in the paragraph, but he claims that Geisler holds that unless a will is "free" it is not "real." That enslavement equals destruction - "the clear distinctions of the Reformed confessions of faith notwithstanding." Sigh... 

Now in order to attempt an answer at his own question, White will grossly mischaracterize Geisler's point. It seems the purpose is to avoid having to answer his own question.

"Dr. Geisler says that "extreme Calvinists" believe unregenerate men cannot "respond to God." This is simply untrue."

Really? That is simply untrue? Reformed Online puts it this way: "A heart of stone is totally unresponsive to spiritual truth. An unregenerate man will no more respond to the gospel than will a rock. Regeneration is absolutely essential if fallen man is to believe." The near infallible (j/k) Monergism.com puts it this way: "The natural man does not have the mind of Christ so even if someone preaches to him until he is blue in the face, he will not respond to the gospel unless God grants belief and repentance (see John 6:65 & 2 Tim 2:25, Eph 2:8)." and also this way "A blind man cannot see unless given new eyes. Shining a light into a blind man's eyes will not help him see. Nor will people respond to the word of God apart form the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. "

Apparently White is wrong... but wait!! Not if you see it the way White wants you to.

"Unregenerate men who are enemies of God most assuredly respond to God: in a universally negative fashion..... so it is simply untrue to assert they do not respond to God."

Even if you haven't read CBF I'm COMPLETELY SURE that you who are reading this article are able to tell the context in which Geisler made that statement is exactly the same as the context in which the articles at Monergism and Reformed Online both said the exact same statement. White is simply twisting CBF and making clever arguments as much as is humanly possible.


But why does White behave this way? Well I can't read the man's intentions any better than I can read his mind, but I did notice one thing. He never answered his own question, in the context he asked it. "Do Calvinists believe man has a will or not?" Not to mention, the many other much more important questions about and challenges to his theology that Geisler asks and points out in CBF's first two chapters.


Abandoning the question, White moves on to what he calls a "common error" "of Arminians" which he says is found in CBF:

"Dr. Geisler says that we cannot believe God "violates" the free choice of any human being in order to save that person."

White goes on to interpret this and argue against his interpretation but I find the argument most funny because White wrote in his first chapter:

"We dare not think that Joseph's brothers were forced against the desires of their hearts to commit the evil... They desired to do this: indeed if God had not intervened it is sure they would have killed him outright.... but God preserved Joseph's life..." 

I think I discussed before that in a universe where every detail has been decreed to happen exactly as it will it is impossible to intervene. Yet it is funny to read White say "We dare not think that Joseph's brothers were forced against the desires of their hearts..." Why do we dare not? Doesn't the Potter have absolute freedom? Are you offended by His freedom? I jest... I jest...


OK here's White's actual argument:

"The Bible is very clear that God in His sovereign mercy frees men from bondage and sin and raises them to spiritual life. He does this not because the sinner does something to allow Him to so act, but solely on the basis of His sovereign power. This is not dehumanizing man but freeing man. Because of this fundamental misunderstanding, CBF represents the Reformed view as teaching a "violation" of man's will."

We of course are not given any Scripture to back any of this up. This is merely speculation of how a God of the Calvinist understanding would accomplish pre-faith regeneration. Of course Pre-Faith Regeneration is a completely extra-biblical thesis, that is it is something not found in or required by the Scriptures. He also adds the idea that Geisler teaches that God needs man to "allow" Him to do something. God doesn't violate the will of man, not because God needs man to allow Him, not because God is not free to, not because God is not able to, but because the God of the Scripture would not. What's more the God of the Scripture is so powerful that He doesn't NEED TO.


So if man universally responds to the grace of God in rebellion, as was White's argument against CBF above, then how is changing a person's will not "violating" it? Calling such "freeing" man from the bondage of his sinful will doesn't change the fact that it violates his sinful will. If China invaded the USA and claimed to be "freeing" the US citizens from their bondage to the US government would calling it "freeing them" change the fact that the US citizens don't want to be Chinese?  The argument is laughable in my opinion.

"There is no other way of interpreting Geisler's intention. He was not merely saying that God would not "violate" man's freedom: he was explicitly asserting that God "will do everything within His loving power to save all He can." That phrase "all that He can" is anathema to any kind of Reformed belief.... the God of Scripture is able to save perfectly and completely all He desires to save: the fact that not all are saved leads inexorably to the truth of divine election."

I wonder if finding creative ways to interpret Geisler got old for White as he wrote TPF. Here we find White implying that Geisler teaches that God is not able to save more people, it is outside of His power and abilities. Where as Geisler really teaches that God will not save more because to do so would to be go outside of His character and attributes. Geisler does not teach a weak God, God teaches a consistent, truthful, loving, and all powerful God. The very same God the Scriptures teach about. 

Dead In Sin

"Reformed authors frequently point to the biblical teaching that man is "dead in sin" as substantiation of their belief that God must be absolutely sovereign and salvation must be completely of free grace and not a synergistic cooperation between God and man since man is not capable of "cooperating" anymore than a corpse is able to help in its own resurrection." 

Yep that's what they say.

"CBF invests a great deal of effort in the attempt to redefine "spiritual death" so that it is no longer incompatible with "free choice" and human autonomy."

I didn't notice that when I read CBF.... but once again this is just another example of White being surprised that Geisler disagrees with him. Apparently if you disagree with White you are "redefining" something.  How does White "define" what he calls "spiritual death"?

"Unregenerate man is fully capable of understanding the facts of the gospel: he is simply incapable, due to his corruption and enmity, to submit himself to that gospel."

"Submit himself to that gospel"? What does that mean? The Gospel is a Report to be Believed is a good article for White to read. 

How does White explain his definition of being "dead in sin" which he calls "spiritual death" (a name chosen for no reason from Scripture that I can discern)? Writing of Eph 2 White asserts:

"But obviously Paul intends something more than "separation" when he contrasts the horrific state of the "spiritually dead" with the glorious position of the person who is alive in Christ. The very use of the imagery of resurrection shows us this." 

Oh... that's how you get that Paul was saying people cannot savingly believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ? "Obviously" he meant something more... too bad Paul didn't have access to Monergism.com back then. He would have been more clear I'm sure.... again I jest! I jest! Believe me these articles are not fun to write... not even in the slightest.


White makes an informative statement right here which I think we would be remiss not to look at:

"What is "obliterated" is the ability of man to subject himself to the law of God, not the man himself."

He's talking about what is destroyed in a man. It is interesting that to White, believing the Gospel is the same as subjecting oneself to the "law of God." It is this foundation that he builds the rest of his theology on. It is this all together wrong interpretation of believing that forces White to see TULIP in the rest of Scripture. This is manifested again when talking about sinful man coming to faith:

"Are we to believe that such a person who is totally separated from God can come up with righteous desires, love for truth, repentance toward God, etc., simply from themselves?"

Is this what must happen for a person to be saved? This truly is the thrust of White's actual argument. Since he holds to Lordship Salvation and the Scriptures are clear that unregenerate man cannot do what is pleasing to God then White must hold to a view like TULIP.


White then talks about Romans 1:18-32 and says:

"So while the unsaved man knows the truth of God's existence, this is clearly not the same thing as asserting that he is able to embrace and obey the gospel. The two concepts are completely distinct, and no effort is made by CBF to connect the two." 

While I would agree, somewhat, with White here. The two concepts are different in that one is general and the other is specific. White's Lordship Salvation aside, one what grounds does White base that men are NOT able to believe the Gospel while they can believe that God exists? He doesn't say.


What is more important however is that Paul says some very important things in the passage. Rom 1:24, Rom 1:26, Rom 1:28. God gave them over to a debased mind. Is not White's position that men are "slaves to sin" their will is already in "bondage to sin" and that this means they can do nothing but sin? Not only WHY would Paul write then that God would "give them over" to their debased mind - but HOW could that even be accomplished logically. White offers NO explanation for this.


Further, White asserts in TPF over and over that God does not interact with Humanity based on anything but Himself. Why then does Paul say that because of the people's behaviour - their refusal to worship God - that "therefore" God gives them over? Geisler isn't arguing that Rom 1 proves people can believe the Gospel, he argues that it shows God's interaction with people. Those who refuse are turned over to their debased mind, those who don't refuse? They are apparently NOT turned over to their debased mind.

White then spends a few pages complaining that Geisler isn't being exegetical (pot, kettle) and that his views are Arminian.... doesn't this get old? I am even getting exhausted with noticing it. Such behavior must be tiresome to keep up. 

White asks:

"But what does it mean to say that a spiritually dead person, while dead, can still "reach out and accept the lifeline"? How can that be? Dead men do not reach out for anything."

Great question... but perhaps you could ask it in the context of what Geisler is arguing. Geisler indicates that being dead in sin is being separated from God. Not that one is inanimate. Of course White doesn't consistently argue that the one who is dead in sin is inanimate either. For White's idea of this dead man is that he is limp with regard to believing but active with regard to rebellion. Look on a battlefield sometime Dr. White. Dead men don't fight. Your analogy fails you. 

He brings up Col 2:12-13. He says of it:

"Colossians 2:12-13 likewise teaches the truth that man is dead in sin outside of Christ."

Then he quotes CBF:

"Finally, in the parallel passage (Col 2:12-13) Paul speaks of those "dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature" being able to believe. For he said, "you have been raised with Him through your faith in the power of God."

To which White responds:

"This is all that is said. The analogy of baptism that is used in 2:11-12 precedes Paul's use of the word "dead," which is again connected with "being made alive" by Christ."

Oooh verses 11-12 precede verses 12-13?

"Seemingly the assertion being made is the person who has faith in the power of God is an unregenerate spiritually dead person."

Seems like White can understand Geisler when he wants to. He continues:

"How this is proven from the text, or why we should be lieve this in light of Paul's statement in Romans 8:8, is not explained." 

LOL.. OK I'm sorry but I just have to laugh. First, read the passage. Paul says it, not Geisler. How were we entered into all of this? Through faith.


COL 2:11-15

¹¹ In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, ¹² buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. ¹³ And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, ¹⁴ having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.¹⁵ Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

Second, we've already seen how White completely disregards what Paul is teaching in Romans 8 back in Part 6 of this series.


At this point, the article is getting too long to continue. Next time I'll look at the rest of Chapter 4 of TPF where White accuses Geisler of "A Tremendous Inconsistency" and looks at several passages of Scripture. Interestingly in one case, White is completely correct about his exegesis of the passage - yet it  undermines his argument, even though Geisler is absolutely wrong about the very same passage.


Until next time, thanks for reading!

The Debater's Potter - Part 5 - Chapter 2

*UPDATE* This was incorrectly titled "Part 4." I have fixed it, but the URL will remain the same.


I'm writing a series of articles entitled "The Debater's Potter" to reveal my reaction as I read The Potter's Freedom as a Non-Calvinist-Non-Arminian. A week ago a huge weight was lifted off of my shoulders as a short lesson from Proverbs showed me that I don't need to reveal and address every transgression in Dr. James R White's book.

I choose the title "The Debater's Potter" because White's view of God seems more fashioned for debate than for glory. His view makes every doctrine precious and any hint of question near blaspheme. It is a clever tactic for one who desires to win a debate.  I don't know if this is White's goal, his intent, or was even in his mind as he crafted the pages of his book or not. All I can report with integrity is that this is exactly how the book comes off to me.

Previously I had intended on making this article about chapters 2 thru 4, but as the fourth chapter wore on I found there were a number of things to be commented on. After reviewing Chapter 2 I think I'll continue to make articles on a chapter by chapter basis, just not go paragraph by paragraph through them.

I believe there are fundamental issues which White has serious misunderstanding about when it comes to what the Bible reports about how one is reconciled to God, God's Sovereignty, and what pleases God. These three serious misunderstandings actually inform White's view of Scripture and I believe cause him to require the Scripture to say things other than what is plainly written.

Through reading The Potter's Freedom(TPF) I have come to be sensitive to the fact that people can be offended when those they esteem are ill spoken of. I, sincerely, apologize to all who are offended by my questioning White's understanding and stating that he has serious error in his doctrine. It is not my intention to offend, but to share honest reaction to his text. I also hope that these articles will be informative. If however, after reading this explanation you are still offended please open your copy of The Potter's Freedom then turn to any page and see what White or his fans, friends and favorites have to say about Geisler. ;)

Well into his second chapter white states the following, and I agree with him.

"You often say more about your own position when you criticize someone else's, and that is the case here."

OK let's go!

Chapter 2

Determingly Knowing

The reader of TPF can rejoice that instead of a discussion about Roman Catholicism, White chooses to discuss Chosen But Free(CBF) by Dr. Norman Geisler.

Geisler's view of Election is that God chooses those whom He will save based on His foreknowledge of them. Geisler would argue that this is in accordance with Romans 8:29-30. Seeing as Geisler's wording is that of the passage I could be perplexed by White's discomfort with the view.

Anyone who has argued with me about Calvinism knows that I prefer to hold a theology that doesn't need to be explained. I much prefer to answer questions by simply reading a passage from the Scripture.  *UPDATE* I am all to often unskilled and inconsistent with this desire, but it is my honest desire. White accuses Geisler of ignoring what a passage says while re-interpreting it to suit his theology. It is true that Geisler makes mistakes with some passages, as we will see, but I do not see that White's accusation is true. As has been demonstrated already however, White's view of "exegesis" of John 3:16 surely matches his accusation against  Geisler.

Geisler uses a complicated, yet accurate, statement which is easy for his opponent to twist in to something ridiculous.  This could be a lack of wisdom on Geisler's part, or it could be that he expects those who criticize him to operate on more honorable level.

I am no fan of former US Secretary of Defense Donal Rumsfeld, however he was very articulate and exacting.  He once made the same mistake with the Press. He made the very accurate and articulate statement:

There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.There are known unknowns; that is to say there are things that, we now know we don't know.

But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know, we don't know.

Do you remember when he said this? How the press reacted? They had a field day with him. Talk show hosts had endless jokes about the statement. Were they justified? Not in the slightest. Rumsfeld was being clear and accurate. They chose to chew up his stament and make it sound ridiculous because they hated the man and what he stood for.

Geisler's phrase "Determiningly Knowing" states that because God is outside of Time and can see and interact with all of it, that any event He knows is "determined" as in it WILL in our experience happen the way God knows it will. 

White spends the second chapter of his book basically mocking Geisler for this view. He talks about the deference between something being pre-determined that it will happen, and something being engineered to happen (my words but his point).

White says that if Geisler's view is correct then Man is completely sovereign and that God is merely a spectator who happens to have a great view which gives him perfect knowledge of what to expect. That's an interesting rebuttal, and I'm sure very convincing to anyone who has not read CBF.  White seems to think that if man is allowed to believe or not believe freely then God has no ability to engineer History and accomplish what He has set out to do. White thinks that if Man is drawn by God, instead of  being forced to love God through what White calls "regeneration" then God is at Man's mercy and must simply hope that Man does the things that will allow God to do what God wills...... it truly is a train wreck of a chapter. 

"God becomes a mere servant of the creature, reacting rather than reigning." 

"What is really being said here needs to be kept in mind: the decisions or "decreeing" that takes place is done by man. God perfectly knows what man does, and passively "determines" it simultaneously as He knows it (in Geisler's view). But there is one major problem here: who is actually deciding what takes place in time?"

"God's "responsibility" is limited to giving men freedom: nowhere in these discussions do we see any emphasis at all upon god's freedom."

"...then it follows that God is truly enslaved to the free choices of men, and the creature, in fact, becomes the determiner of the course of all things in human history." 

White's view of the sovereignty of God is limited by the view of how Man works. He thinks he has a high view of it, but it is actually a limited sovereignty and not the all powerful view of God that the Bible presents. Here's an interesting view of the Sovereignty of God that I would agree with. God's Rube Goldberg Machine. 

What has White missed about Geisler's view? Geisler is talking about how God has willed to accomplish the reconciliation of lost sinners to Himself. John 6:40 NOT how God has willed to accomplish events, and His purposes in Time. Is Geisler's argument easier to knock down if it is about History than if it is about coming to faith?

In classic Calvinist form White goes from calling Geisler a Roman Catholic to calling him an Open Theist.  Do I even need to comment on this? NO. If you think White is correct go read CBF for yourself.  As much as White is well esteemed among his fans, friends and favorites I'm finding TPF to be absolutely absurd.

Skipping ahead a bit the reader finds White making a rare positive argument.

"... God does not act with "total disregard" of the choices of His creatures: His actions determine the free choices of His creatures. Dr. Geisler denies than an actively determined action can be "free," but in reality, Reformed theologians insist that for one to be free as a creature then one must have first and foremost a sovereign Creator." 

Huh? I agree with Geisler. No action that is determined by someone else is freely done by the thing that does it. The State may order a person to his death, and that person must obey but they do not freely choose to be put to death. White doesn't even begin to rebut Geisler's denial of determined actions being free.  White goes on...

"... we are mere creatures, never sovereign, never autonomous (ie without law, without a superior authority), but responsible within the realm of our createdness." 

His emphasis, not mine...

"Despite all this, there is one truth presented here: the Reformed position plainly asserts that God "does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth" (Daniel 4:35) and He does so solely on the basis of His own desire and decree, never on the basis of anything outside of Himself."

This verse doesn't say that God decrees every choice of man. It does not say that God decrees every event of History. Further, keeping in mind White's assertion "never on the basis of anything outside of Himself" let's read:

Romans 8:29 

²⁹ For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. ³⁰ Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Jonah 3:8-9

⁸ But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily to God; yes, let every one turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. ⁹ Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish?

2Kings 20:1-6

1 In those days Hezekiah was sick and near death. And Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, went to him and said to him, “Thus says the Lord: ‘Set your house in order, for you shall die, and not live.’”² Then he turned his face toward the wall, and prayed to the Lord, saying, ³ “Remember now, O Lord, I pray, how I have walked before You in truth and with a loyal heart, and have done what was good in Your sight.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly.⁴ And it happened, before Isaiah had gone out into the middle court, that the word of the Lord came to him, saying, ⁵ “Return and tell Hezekiah the leader of My people, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: “I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I will heal you. On the third day you shall go up to the house of the Lord. ⁶ And I will add to your days fifteen years. I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for My own sake, and for the sake of My servant David.”’”

I suppose I could keep going. It is clear that God "interacts" with His creation and creatures on the basis of what they do and don't do, want and don't want. God is a Father, not JUST Creator.

I'm skimming my notes, and the chapter in question, as I write so I may have missed something but it seems there have been multiple pages without the accusation of "misrepresentation" of Calvinism, or the more friendly "misunderstanding" of it, but White makes up for this in fine form.

"... CBF constantly insists that Reformed position teaches "irresistible grace on the unwilling."As we will noted later, this is straw-man argumentation, for it ignores the fact that Reformed theologians believe fallen man to be dead in sin, an enemy of God, in need of spiritual resurrection and a new heart (Ezekiel 36:26). " 

Ezekiel 36:26 is a promise to Israel, not a statement about unregenerate man. It is not even a promise to the Reformed position's group of people they refer to as the Elect. This special use of a verse out of context noted, let's return to White's argument.

"Briefly, there is no more "force" exercised in God's wondrous act of regeneration than was exhibited when the Lord Jesus cried out, "Lazarus, come forth!" (John 11:43). Resurrection is not an action of force against will: it is the bringing of new life to the dead. And that is what Reformed people believe. To call that wondrous act a "doublewhammy" that "forces" people into the kingdom "against their will" is to simply miss the point--completely." 

Again, HUH? How does this answer Geisler's point? Was there no "force" used when God resurrected Lazarus? *UPDATE* Further, were not Lazarus and his family believers in Christ already? This is not God overpowering the will of a person. It is not at all like the scenario that White wants to defend.

The Reformed position is that "fallen man is dead in sin, an enemy of God" in other places White talks about people being in open rebellion against God and wanting nothing to do with Him. How is it then that just because God supposedly gives people a "new heart" which then makes the person "freely" believe in God NOT violating the will of the person? NOT "forcing" "irresistible grace on the unwilling"?

If a man slips a drug into a woman's drink which makes her suddenly willing to have sex with him, does that mean he didn't go against her will when he rapes her? Not hardly.

White goes on:

"The Reformed view is simply the Augustinian view, and that this view is often badly misrepresented:"

Might I point out that Augustine is commonly recognized as the father of Roman Catholicism. A fact that is most amusing to me given White's first chapter of TPF.

"The grace of God operates to MAKE (emphasis mine) the formerly unwilling sinner willing. The redeemed person chooses Christ because he wants to choose Christ." 

Oh that clears it all up... He doesn't force them to do something, He "makes" them want to do it. Is there a difference here that I'm missing? This is semantics posing as an argument. It is pure silliness. If someone is unwilling and God makes them willing then God is forcing them to be willing against their will. A supposed regeneration prior to faith, based on absolutely no passage of Scripture, does not change this fact.

Nearing the end of Chapter 2 White explains that Geisler has a flawed foundation to his theology.

"CBF operates on the assertion that God's knowledge and God's predetermination (taken passively) are identical, and that in reality there is no positive, active, sovereign decree of God that gives form and shape to time and history." 

Really? Is THAT the assertion CBF operates on? Isn't it strange that someone who is so very concerned with his theology being misrepresented, and his favorite theologians not being continually interacted with seems to have no problem doing exactly the same to his chosen opponent?

He closes the chapter with:

"And if one rejects the Reformed view at its root, it should not be surprising that the rest of the system likewise suffers at Dr. Geisler's hands. One is not a Potter who has no role in determining the shape, function, and destiny of the pots." 

You often say more about your own position when you criticize someone else's, and this is the case here.

White's view is that God must have decreed every event of History or He is not sovereign. White has no passage of Scripture to support this view, but the decrees are inferred by the view White holds of God.

It is interesting then to me to read the Lord Jesus Christ, God, Creator & Sustainer of the Universe say the following:

Luke 10:31

Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

By "chance"? Doesn't the Lord mean by Sovereign Decree made in Eternity Past? How can Luke both call Him Lord and speak of something that was not decreed by Him in the same passage?

Here's another interesting one. We'll be talking about this passage in an upcoming article in this series but check it out now anyway.

1Cor 2:6-9

⁶ However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. ⁷ But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, ⁸ which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.⁹ But as it is written:“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,Nor have entered into the heart of manThe things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”

For had the rulers of this age known, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory? White spends a great deal of Chapter 2 criticizing Geisler for his view that while the event of the Cross was established in Eternity Past that the people who ended up taking part in this established event chose freely to do so. White's simplistic view of the Sovereignty of God which attributes to Him merely the kind of sovereignty a man might be able to have simply cannot work with passages like this.

*UPDATE* I should note that the Father crushed the Son, and that this event was not just established in that God knew it would happen, but that God made it happen. The people involved freely choose to be involved, but the event was decreed (for lack of a better word) in Eternity Past. In accordance with the Eternal Covenant between the Father & the Son. 

White also believes that one is Regenerated prior to having faith. As he stated above, God (not forcefully apparently) regenerates the unwilling sinner, and then formerly unwilling sinner (now he is a willing sinner? Or is he a saint?... White does not say) "freely" chooses Christ. White has not a single verse to back up the view that Regeneration happens first, but infers this by his view of what saving faith is and because he cannot accept that man could make a choice and God still be Sovereign.  He goes on and on attacking Geisler (and anyone else who has a similar view) that thinking man can believe (after Convincing and Convicting by the Holy Spirit in accordance with Geisler's and my view, but not mentioned by White) results in God having an imperfect grace that isn't able to do anything....

Yet Paul states:

Romans 5:1-2

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,² through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

It seems we have access to this grace by faith, not access to this faith by grace. This is the same form as Eph 2:8-9 where we see that Salvation is accomplished by Grace and accessed through faith.

Geisler's book Chosen But Free is easy to attack if you choose to do so in the way that White has. You get your readers to expect to be a different kind of book than it is, and then criticize it for doing that poorly.... you also change the arguments into something they are not.

In the next two chapters we'll find that White attempts to use a number of passages to support his view, I believe to no avail. We'll also find White jump on a serious inconsistency in Geisler's handling of 1Cor 2, and while he is right to jump on Geisler for this White chooses to use an equally absurd view of the passage and ignore what Paul (as it seems to me) plainly wrote. In that case we'll see how they are both wrong.

Thanks for reading again! Next time we'll look at Chapter 3.

A Discussion About Unconditional Election

So I'm reading Norman Geisler's Second Edition of Chosen But Free copyright 2001 for the first time. It is a discussion about Election seemingly from a "Moderate Calvinist" perspective. It would be reasonable to term myself as a "Moderate Calvinist" in that I tend to hold to a lot of what John Calvin wrote about, but I do not at all go beyond that. An "Extreme Calvinist" is someone who is more "Calvinistic" than John Calvin was, and that would include all 5 Point Calvinists, and many 4 pointers as well. I'm currently at page 69 of 290 (according to my Kindle).

For the most part up to this page I thought the book was presenting a view which is "more Calvinistic" than I am but it is extremely well thought out and presented so I have been enjoying it nonetheless. Turns out I was reading some of my ideas about Calvinism into what the author was writing. Also, he has opened my understanding and I believe my views have changed ever so slightly - functionally, but not practically - if that is clear at all...
I previously believed that Election was mostly about what we are elected to do BECAUSE we have been saved; ie works prepared beforehand for us to walk in, suffering, sanctification, glorification... and that also some people (perhaps John the Baptist and the Apostle Paul) were Elected to Eternal Salvation... that there is a group who were elected to Salvation, but that believing the Gospel was open to every person. I have discussed as much before. See Tripping TULIP Part 3: Unconditional Election. In that article I had these closing thoughts:

This is probably the doctrine I come closest to believing in TULIP. I believe that God has elected some to be Eternally Saved. Many are called, few are chosen sort of thing. However, I cannot let my thoughts decide what Scripture says. Scripture must always define what I think. Theology that is an inch deep and a mile wide comes from the presupposition that Salvation, Justification and Repentance are always about Eternal Salvation.

My struggle with the concept was clear back then, and has been on going since.

The Moderate Calvinist view of Election is well explained in a story shared on pages 68-69 of Chosen But Free. I'm going to quote that story here because I believe it is invaluable to understanding how God can "choose" who is saved, without also choosing who will be damned - and it is this very point on which our understanding either offends all of God's attributes or offends some or all of them.

Discussing a young Believer who is interested in marriage Geisler relates that the man (Jim) is interested in pursuing one of two women, Joan or Betty. Geisler states that the man has three possible courses of action. (1) to propose to neither of them; (2) to propose to Joan; or (3) to propose to Betty. He then notes that the man is under no compulsion to propose, or not to propose to either. It is his "free will" choice to make. Now here is the story, please read it carefully because without the context of the previous 67 pages one may jump to the conclusion that Geisler is making an Arminianistic argument that supposes God is dependant on the decisions of men; he is not.

Suppose further that the young man happens to konw that if he proposes to Joan she will say yes and if he proposes to Betty she will say no. Suppose then, in accordance with this foreknowledge of how she will freely respond, that Jim chooses to propose to Joan. Suppose even that he knew she would be reluctant at first but with persistent and loving persuasion she would eventually--freely--accept his offer. The decision on his part was entirely free, uncoerced, and not based on anything outside himself. But it was also a decision that was with full knowledge of the response and which respected the free choice of the person to whom he decided to propose. This is analogous to what the moderate Calvinists believe about God's unconditional election.

Note here that Jim's election was done according to his foreknowledge, that he determined, but she freely chose. She was not compelled, it was freely Joan's decision to accept. Jim also freely chose, soverignly chose. Yet he did not make his choice a violation of the one he chose. He did not force himself on her. He also did not choose that Betty would remain unmarried. It was not his choice, it was hers.

This view may be complicated to wrap your head around based on one short story, but note this: It lines up, I would say perfectly, with all election passages - including that God does not will that any will perish but desires all to come to repentance. Jim didn't will that Betty would be alone, she wouldn't accept him so she willed that she would be alone. Also - for those God foreknew he also predestined.... Jim foreknew Joan would accept, so he chose her - she wouldn't have been able to marry Jim if Jim didn't ask her. She was reluctant at first and he had to pursue her. She was not seeking him, he was seeking her. Sound familiar?

I find rest in my thinking, a removal of needless tension in the Scriptures, and clarity of understanding with this view.

So that's my take on it, what are your thoughts?