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? 

God's Rube Goldberg Machine

Welcome to this first ever guest authored article at OMW!


Please welcome Pete Chadwell of the TRoutMac blog and engage him in conversation on this controversial yet important topic. Thanks!

You don't have to dig very deep into Christianity to bump into this age-old controversy regarding God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. One school of thought will object (to varying degrees) to the idea that man has any free choice at all because, so they say, to imagine that man can make genuine free choices is to throw God's sovereignty under the bus. In order to affirm God's sovereignty, we must deny that humans have free will.

I have a way to "test" this notion. I don't aim to prove here that man has free will, though I have very good reasons to think that he does. But I do intend to demonstrate an irony: That denying human free will for the sake of preserving God's sovereignty can be seen to diminish God's sovereignty.

Before we do that, I think it's necessary to consider carefully what it means to say that man was created "in the image of God." In my research I have encountered various ways of expressing this idea, but the Christian Q & A web site GotQuestions.org (http://www.gotquestions.org) begins to sum it all up with this:

"Having the “image” or “likeness” of God means, in the simplest terms, that we were made to resemble God."

But, the article goes on to explain that this "resemblance" isn't intended to be visual, but rather relates in some way to God's attributes. And an article at Answers In Genesis echoes this general sentiment:

"God endues man with some of his divine attributes, thereby separating and making him different from the beasts."

I don't anticipate the need to defend God's attributes here… most Christians seem pretty committed to the idea that God has attributes such as perfect righteousness, sovereignty, justice, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, immutability and so on. And few Christians would object to the notion that these attributes are unlimited in their capacity and scope. There's an absolute or infinite quality about God's attributes. And I think it's pretty clear to most folks, particularly Christians, that man's attributes, though they might correspond to God's attributes, are far from unlimited.

The conclusion I've reached is this: To be "made in the image of God" means that God chose to give man versions of God's own attributes that are finite or limited in some crucial way.

The article at GotQuestions.org also had this to say, which lends itself nicely to the analogy we're going to explore related to God's sovereignty and man's choice.

"Anytime someone invents a machine, writes a book, paints a landscape, enjoys a symphony, calculates a sum, or names a pet, he or she is proclaiming the fact that we are made in God’s image."

I'm particularly interested in the "invents a machine" portion of that sentence… you'll see why shortly.

Next, we have to examine and come to an understanding of the word "sovereignty". I've seen the idea of sovereignty expressed in different ways, but I'm going to argue that they all have a common thread having to do with the ability to make decisions which are not determined or influenced by any outside entity. Certainly, sovereignty relates to authority. A person who is in authority has the right to make decisions which affect those whom he has been given authority over. You can see the word "reign" in "sovereignty," and we can easily relate this to the reign of a king, or even the reigns of a horse. As long as the rider of the horse is holding the reigns, it is he who decides where the horse is going to go. He is, in this context, "sovereign" over the horse.

Here are a couple of characterizations of "sovereignty" that I discovered, each of which relate to making decisions independent of any outside influence:

"Supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community."

"Supreme authority within a territory"

Well, alright… both of these definitions rely on the word "authority." So let's take a second to examine how that word is defined:

"The power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine."

Can you see how words like "determine," "adjudicate," and phrases like "settle issues or disputes" relate to decision making?

But at this point we face a problem, because although we might understand that God's attributes are infinite and ours are finite, we seem to be unable to grasp things like infinity and eternity. As humans, we are locked inside the finite and while we can assent to the idea of the infinite, our minds cannot get control of such an idea. So how can we understand what unlimited or infinite sovereignty looks like? Well, I would suggest that we can't. But we can understand man's sovereignty… we're all too familiar with its limitations. So it seems to me that we could use that knowledge to help us understand God's sovereignty, because if we know what man's sovereignty is, then we know what God's sovereignty is not. God's sovereignty has to be qualitatively superior to ours. If it turned out that our view of God's sovereignty ended up being qualitatively equivalent to man's, then we'd have reason to think we had it wrong. Does that seem fair?

So, I have an illustration regarding God's sovereignty and man's freedom which, I think, helps us to examine and assess our own view of God's sovereignty.

In the mid-1900's there was a cartoonist named Rube Goldberg. He became famous for cartoons that depicted wildly complicated contraptions that performed very simple tasks. Today, engineering students frequently enter Rube Goldberg machine contests or have assignments to build Rube Goldberg machines as an excellent exercise in creativity and a general engineering challenge.

If you want to waste some time over at YouTube, just type "Rube Goldberg machine" into the search field. You will be treated to hundreds of videos of amazing and clever contraptions, painstakingly designed… some occupying multiple rooms in a house. It boggles the mind to think about how much time and effort went into these things. And being Rube Goldberg machines, the end game for each machine is comically easy and should not have required so much effort. One machine I viewed poured a bowl of cereal. Another crushed a grape. There are easier ways to pour a bowl of cereal or crush a grape. But Rube Goldberg machines are really created for everything but efficiency… their creators know there are easier ways; but Rube Goldberg machines are all about being creative and taking the road less traveled.

The creator of a Rube Goldberg machine, having been made in the image of God, is expressing God's attributes, albeit in a finite way, and one of them is sovereignty. That is, he or she makes decisions--and has the proper authority to make these decisions--about what the final objective will be, how the cascade of events will be initiated, how each segment of the machine will accomplish work towards the final objective, how the laws of physics and chemistry will be exploited to accomplish that final objective, etc. The creator of a Rube Goldberg machine is making decision after decision as the machine takes shape. He or she rules over the machine they are creating.

And yet, their sovereignty is limited. Because for one thing, the creator of a Rube Goldberg machine didn't create the laws of physics and chemistry, nor did they create atoms and molecules that make up all of the component parts of the machine. But when it comes to carefully selecting the various component parts for a given machine, isn't it interesting that nobody ever uses any kind of living creature in their machine? I mean, why not use a cat, for example? I have an idea as to why this isn't done: You see, a cat has a mind of its own--a will, and it's highly unlikely that the cat will cooperate with the creator's plan for the machine. On the other hand, inanimate objects like ramps, levers, balls and dominoes are entirely predictable and can be relied upon (once placed in the proper arrangement) to contribute to the function of the machine.

Could God herd cats?

Suppose that I build a Rube Goldberg machine, with all the usual ramps, levers, dominoes, pulleys, counterweights and so on, but in this machine, I choose to employ a cat. You know, maybe there's a surface for the cat to stand on, and maybe a box with a plate of tuna inside. The plate rests on a spring-loaded gizmo and at a crucial point in the chain of events, a door would slide open giving the cat access to the tuna, he would eat the tuna, the reduced weight would unload the spring, the support would rise up and trip a lever that knocks down a row of dominoes and on it goes…

But wait… that's only what I intend to happen. Suppose at that crucial moment as the machine does its thing, the cat decides it needs to visit the litter box. Or cough up a hairball? See, even though I'm the creator of this machine and even though I have a kind of "sovereignty" over the machine, I cannot accommodate the free and unpredictable actions of a cat in the function of the machine. Because of this, as you survey various Rube Goldberg machines posted at YouTube, you aren't likely to find any that use elements such as a cat, elements with anything like free will. Our sovereignty is limited in that way.

Now, Rube Goldberg machines can take various forms… actually the only thing that distinguishes a Rube Goldberg machine from any other is that efficiency and simplicity are not among the objectives for a Rube Goldberg machine. But any machine operates the same way… there is an end-goal, an objective, and there are component parts which contribute to that final objective. In his 1996 book "Darwin's Black Box," Michael Behe devoted a whole chapter to the discussion of a biochemical machine found in mammals known as the blood clotting cascade… except this isn't a "machine" in the usual sense, but rather a complex chain of chemical reactions at the molecular level. The chapter was titled "Rube Goldberg in the Blood."

Well, suppose we look at God's plan for history as a kind of giant Rube Goldberg machine. It has an objective and it has component parts, but in this case, a large number of the component parts in this machine are PEOPLE. God uses these component parts to accomplish His final objective. And with God as the creator of this machine, we know He created everything in the machine… all of the component parts. And as creator of this giant Rube Goldberg machine, we know He has sovereignty over it. But this is where we can, perhaps, learn something about God's sovereignty compared with man's sovereignty. Again, we know our own sovereignty inside and out. We live within its limitations daily. And we know that if our view of God's sovereignty is correct, He will not be subject to those same kinds of limitations. So, since there are a large number of Christians who firmly believe that God's sovereignty and human free will are mutually exclusive, consider this question carefully:

If we think it's impossible for God to be sovereign over a machine made of component parts which have free will, then isn't the sovereignty we're ascribing to God qualitatively equivalent to our own sovereignty?

My view of God's sovereignty is that it is qualitatively superior to man's, and to use our metaphor here, that means that He could choose to make a giant Rube Goldberg machine, give all of the component parts genuine free will, and still expect His objective to be met. But to say that man can't have free will because it would compromise God's sovereignty is to think of God's sovereignty as being no better than man's.

Again, this illustration is not intended to prove that man has free will. It is only intended to demonstrate that affirming genuine free will in man does not translate to a low view of God's sovereignty and actually can be seen as being consistent with a very high view of God's sovereignty. In other words, there doesn't need to be any tension between God's sovereignty and man's choice if we have a high view of God's sovereignty and especially if we also take into account God's other attributes such as omniscience and omnipotence.