The Drawing of God

In Exodus 7:3-4 the LORD tells Moses that He will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply the signs and wonders He would work in Egypt. He also tells Moses that Pharaoh will not heed the warnings and let Israel go free. In Exodus 7:13 we find out that Pharaoh's heart "grew hard" and that as the Lord said Pharaoh did not heed the warnings. 

We are not told "who" hardened Pharaoh's heart here, even though some translations will have "He hardened Pharaoh's heart" this is not found in the Hebrew. Just that his hard grew hard. 

When we get to Exodus 8:15 we are given explanation about who is hardening Pharaoh's heart so far.

But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not heed them, as the Lord had said.

Pharaoh is hardening his own heart, and not heeding the warnings as the LORD had said. Here the word for hardened is in the Hiphil Infinitive, a causative action that resulted in a completed fact which. Who caused it? Pharaoh.  


In Exodus 8:19 we find that Pharaoh's heart was hardened again. This time however it is in Qal Imperfect which is the action (that may be caused or not) which is NOT complete. Once again we are not told who is doing the hardening, but the fact that it is incomplete gives us some clue.


To help explain the relationship between the two, in the action of eating:

Qal = "He ate"
Hiphil = "He caused to eat, he fed" 

In Exodus 8:32 we find that Pharaoh hardens his own heart again, or "this time also" which I believe is informative.


We find twice in Exo 7 & 8 that Pharaoh's heart grew hard without the Scripture identifying who was doing the hardening, and twice we find that it was Pharaoh himself who did the hardening. The last time we find "this time also" which may only call back to the other time he was named as the cause, but I believe includes all four times.


By Exodus 9:12 however the story changes and we find the LORD hardening the heart of Pharaoh.

But the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh; and he did not heed them, just as the Lord had spoken to Moses.

In short, Pharaoh hardened his own heart first, as God knew he would, and then God hardened it further in order that Pharaoh would not collapse under the pressure on him and God would be able to show many powerful signs and wonders which would be spoken of for all History.

Much is made of the fact that the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart by Calvinists. I've written about Pharaoh's hardened heart before, but this time I want to consider a statement made by Dr. James R. White in his book "The Potter's Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and a Rebuttal of Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free" with respect to John 6:43-44:

"These are not words to be glossed over. Non-Reformed Protestants simply cannot explain Jesus' meaning." 

Now I've written about these verses before and I believe I have written about them in such a way that is completely consistent with the rest of Scripture. In this article however, I want to see if John 6 is following a pattern which is established in Scripture which does not agree with the Calvinist's view of that passage. 


Romans 1:18-32 speaks of how God handles those who reject Him. He has revealed Himself in Creation and all people know of Him through this. So they are without excuse, yet even though they know He exists and is Creator they reject Him.  What does God do with those who reject Him? 

"Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness..." "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions...""Even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting..." 

It is interesting to me that it is the Devil who first blinds the minds of people who refuse to believe. Luke 8:12; 2Cor 4:3-4 It would appear to me that this happens after the person has rejected, or hardened their own heart and then after they have rejected the Devil steals away the seed of Truth lest they should believe, and then if this persists God Himself hardens their heart, or turns them over to a reprobate mind, in order that His wrath will be revealed in the world. Romans 1:18-19 which seems to match exactly what happened with Pharaoh, and for the same purpose.


When Calvinists talk about John 6 they talk about the Lord is explaining the "inability" of people to believe in Him unless they are regenerated first. Much weight is put on John 6:43-44 and John 6:63-65


In the 5th chapter of John's letter we find the Lord speaking to the Pharisees. They are upset with Him for having healed a man on the Sabbath. The Lord speaks of the witnesses they have of Him that ought to tell them Who He truly is. The final witness He cites is the Father and He puts it this way:

³⁷ And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. ³⁸ But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe.³⁹ You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. ⁴⁰ But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

"But you are not willing to come to Me that you might have life." Here the Lord doesn't say that you are UNABLE to believe, or that you are UNABLE to come. He does say that you are not willing. They were more than willing to have their religious practices, but they were not willing to come to Christ.

In the chapters leading up to the 6th we find the Jews rejecting sign after sign, warning after warning, and revelation upon revelation.

John 6:1 says:

"After these things Jesus went over the Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of Tiberias. ² Then a great multitude followed Him, because they saw His signs which He performed on those who were diseased.³ And Jesus went up on the mountain, and there He sat with His disciples."

This is a crowd of people who had seen His healing we see in John 5. In other words, it's the SAME crowd of people. Then the Lord left there, and when these people saw that He was gone they followed after Him again and these same people found Him in Capernaum. John 5:22-25 

The Lord rebukes them for following after Him for the bread they ate instead of Him as the Bread of God. They ask Him how they too can do the works of God, and the Lord tells them the work God wants them to do is to believe on Him Who God sent - the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. John 6:26-29


He explains that He is the Bread that came down from Heaven and they say "give us this bread always" seemingly not understanding what He was really getting at. So the Lord explains, and He says that all who the Father has given Him will come and that all those who come the Lord will not cast out. In fact the Lord says that it is "the will of the Father that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have Eternal Life" not that it is the will of the Father that everyone He chooses to give life to will see and believe in the Son.


Now that they knew what He was teaching them, the Jews or the Pharisees, complained that He called Himself the Bread that came down from Heaven. They were not offended because the Lord was speaking of their "inability" to come to Him, they were offended because He said He Himself was the Bread of Life. They didn't understand how He could be when He had come from a family. John 6:41-42 But Isaiah 7:13-14 was specifically stated to help them understand and recognize Him.


The Lord then speaks very strongly to them:

⁴³ Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. ⁴⁴ No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. ⁴⁵ It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. ⁴⁶ Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. ⁴⁷ Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. ⁴⁸ I am the bread of life. ⁴⁹ Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. ⁵⁰ This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. ⁵¹ I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

Verse 45b is something that doesn't get spoken about by Calvinists very often. It is interesting that the Lord says everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to the Him. Not that people are unable to do so, or that they must be regenerated in order to become able.


The Lord does say that no one can come to Him unless the Father draws him. Romans 1 is part of that drawing. Crucifying Christ publicly is part of that drawing. However, those who have heard but who do not learn - who do not receive it. Those who disbelieve, 2Cor 4:3-4, are no longer drawn they are turned over to their reprobate minds. They are hardened. The world will see the strongest example of that after the Church is translated to Heaven and the "Time of Jacob's Trouble" or the Tribulation starts and those who disbelieved, or did not believe, will be given a strong delusion. 2Thess 2:9-12


The Lord restates His promise that He is the bread of life and that all those who eat of Him will live forever and we come to John 6:60 which (coupled with verse 66) is a thorn in the side of Lordship Salvation proponents, including Calvinists.

Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”

The Spirit calls these people "Disciples" and yet they could not accept that the Lord Himself was the source of life. They were not saved. One does not become a Christian, or a child of God, by becoming a Disciple of Jesus, or a Follower of Jesus. There are many people who followed Jesus and tried to do all the things He said and walk as He walked - who are not saved.


That being said, the Lord talks to them about their offense.

⁶¹ When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? ⁶² What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? ⁶³ It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. ⁶⁴ But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. ⁶⁵ And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”

The Lord was not taken by surprise by their disbelief, and He explained how God deals with that. All those who hear and learn will come. Those who disbelieve are blinded by the Devil, and the Lord turns them over to a reprobate mind. He doesn't draw them further. He simply presses them until they reject Him. John 6:66


But all those who have heard and learned, that is to perceive and receive, will come to the Son. We see this demonstrated next in John 6:67-70

⁶⁷ Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?”⁶⁸ But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.⁶⁹ Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
⁷⁰ Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” ⁷¹ He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve.

Just like the Lord said, all who have heard and learned will come to Him. These had heard and learned that the Lord's words are the words of Eternal Life. They heard and received. They explicitly state that they know exactly Who He is, the Christ of the Son of the Living God.


Yet isn't it interesting that Judas stuck with Him at least for a little while. The unsaved can be greatly motivated to stick it out and continue to pretend. Even with explicit teaching they will sometimes continue to claim belief, yet the Lord knows who has, and who will believe. Again, God is not surprised.


So what is the point? The point is that God deals with everyone the same way. He draws all with Creation and with the Cross, Rom 1:18-13 and John 12:32. Whether it is Pharaoh or anyone else. If one hardens his heart instead of hearing and learning, the Devil will steal the seed of truth and God will harden his heart further and reveal His wrath through it. God makes a spectacle of those who reject Him. It's so that people will know that He is in fact the LORD. It's not that Pharaoh was not able to believe, or that God had set it so that he would not be able to do so. It is that Pharaoh was turned over to his reprobate mind.


Here is an interesting question. If man being a "slave of sin" means that he cannot believe the Gospel, and can do nothing except sin - what does God mean when He says that He turns people over to a reprobate mind? Are they not already subject to it? What about hardening their hearts? Are they not already in rebellion against God? Calvinism simply isn't consistent with all of Scripture.


How do we "explain" John 6:43-44? We recognize that God works the same way He has always worked. We don't build a theology on a re-interpretation of part of a passage and then use that theology to re-interpret the rest of Scripture.


God draws all men, most men reject that drawing, and God turns them over to their own ways.

The Debater's Potter - Part 2

This series of articles are about my experience, as a non-Calvinist-non-Arminian, reading Dr. James R. White's book The Potter's Freedom. If you're just starting here, please start with the introduction in Part 1, thanks! These articles are being written AS I READ THE BOOK, so they are almost real-time reaction to it. I may change my opinions as I go. I may be persuaded. I may be offended, as I already have been with regard to White's treatment of Dr. Norman Geisler.

Why am I writing these articles? Well for some strange reason people tend to take interest in my opinions about Calvinism. Why do an as I go sort of real-time thing instead of just a wrap up after I read the book? Because, otherwise, I may not ever finish the book. I'm finding it tiresome already. I suspect that if I am writing that I'll be forced to finish it.

I DO NOT INTEND TO OFFEND ANYONE WITH THESE ARTICLES. I am reacting as I read his book. I suspect I am far from the only person who has or will react in similar fashion.

These tend to get long... so I'll skip any more introduction and just jump right back into the book from about where we left off last time.

Foreword to the Second Edition, October 2008

White writes that in comparison to Chosen But Free (CBF) that:

...this book's primary essence is exegetical. It opens the Scriptures and lets them speak. It is not a work of philosophy. It is not even a work of systematic theology per se. 

In a later paragraph:

...and all I have to do is get out of the way and let the Scriptures do their work to see true followers of Christ respond to the Spirit-breathed words of the Bible.  

Such may turn out to be the case as I continue to read. Perhaps once I am done the book I will agree that looking back over the work as a whole that being primarily exegetical was true of the majority of the text. However, as of yet that has not been the case.  I chose the title of this series of articles to be The Debater's Potter because this book, at least as far as I have gotten so far, reads like a popular debate. White is defining the argument in terms which he believes he has a strong argument against, is painting his opponent in the worst possible light, and (as we'll shortly see) is tying his opponent to a system or point of view which is most clearly wrong - as though that were Geisler's view, or even the foundation for Geisler's view.

White shoots an early shot across the bow of Geisler's ship which I am sure resounds with his personal audience of followers.

"I am able to provide a strong contrast between the man-centeredness of reducing the work of Christ to "Jesus made us saveable" and the God-centeredness of the simple proclamation, "Jesus saves." 

We'll see I suppose. However, this is not how I would characterize Geisler's position at all.

Introduction

It is most entertaining to me to find White being shocked at the following statements he attributes to Geisler:

The system is contradictory. Proponents go through exegetical contortions in order to make a text say what their preconceived theology mandates it must say. The Bible is seriously lacking in verses that support some of the main elements of this system. These people misuse texts of Scripture. The God worshiped by these people is not all-loving. Central aspects of this system are shocking. The very heart of the system is a hideous error." The system at its heart is theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant. 

White asks his readers to consider if these are about Mormonism, the Watchtower Society or possibly Roman Catholicism. Given how White will use Roman Catholicism in his first chapter I find that he includes it here most amusing. Then he states:

No... All of these phrases are used of simple Reformed Theology, the theology of Calvin, the Westminister Confession of Faith, the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, Francis Turrentin, the Puritans, John Owen, John Bunyan, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, William Cunningham, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, J. Gresham Machen, B.B. Warfield, Hermann Bavinck, Abraham Kuyper, John Murray, Edwin Palmer, John Gerstner, John Piper, and R.C. Sproul. 

Surprised? I certainly was when I first read Chosen But Free... 

Well hey all of THOSE people couldn't be wrong could they? I guess that seals the deal.

Now here is what I believe to be an important statement by Dr. White:

"And as an apologist, I firmly believe that the only consistently biblical response to the challenges made to the Christian faith is that offered by Reformed Theology." 

Then he tells us that the works of the men he names above "really need no defense" as I quoted in Part 1.

He goes on to state that CBF will be a source of great confusion and that he intends to offer "five sources of confusion that [he] believe[s] are created by the discussion in CBF." 

Redefinition of the Terms of the Debate

"The first thing that any informed reader discovers in reading CBF is that it presents a complete revision of the historic set of terms that have been used by theologians to frame and explain the debate." 

This seems like a loaded statement to me. What exactly is the authority he is appealing to here? White then states:

"Dr. Geisler chose arbitrarily to identify his position as "moderate Calvinism" and historic Reformed theology becomes "extreme Calvinism." 

If the reader reads CBF they will find that there is nothing arbitrary about Geisler's names. Dr. White is a student of Logic, and language. There is no reason for him to make such a fantastic statement other than to try to control the thoughts of his readers. Unfortunately, he is only managing to alienate this reader.  White completely skips the reasons that Geisler gives for his naming convention and goes on to try to control the reader's impression of Geisler's theology.

"The problem becomes clear when we consider for just a moment that Dr. Geisler: 1) denies Calvin's doctrine of God's sovereignty and decrees; 2) denies Calvin's doctrine of the Total Depravity of man and his enslavement to sin; 3) denies Calvin's believe that God's electing grace is given without any condition whatsoever to a particular people (the elect); and 4) denies, vociferously, Calvin's doctrine of the grace of God that brings new life to dead sinners. One could even argue that Dr. Geisler disagrees with Calvin's doctrine of atonement and with the very foundation of Calvin's doctrine of perseverance as well. If that is true, why should Dr. Geisler wish to be called any kind of Calvinist at all?" 

1) Geisler does not deny God's sovereignty, he denies White's understanding of it. I'm not sure if White holds the same view that Calvin did. I would have to read too extensively in Calvin right now to be sure, and it just isn't that critical to the article.

2) Geisler denies neither. He denies the Total Inability of man understanding of Total Depravity. Calvin did not author TULIP, and based on my study of Calvin, he would not agree with all 5 points.

3) Geisler does argue for a conditional election. Election conditioned on belief.

4) Oooh vociferously is a big word!  Geisler does not deny regeneration. He denies that regeneration happens prior to faith.

Geisler does deny that Christ died only for the Elect. It is absolutely clear from the Scriptures that Christ died for all the world, and that even those who will surely spend eternity in the Lake of Fire were bought by the Lord they deny.

White does however ask a good question. If White defines Calvinism, then why would anyone want to be called a Calvinist of any kind. I have often called my views "Calvinistic" because I believe in Grace, Salvation by Grace through Faith alone in Christ alone, Eternal Security among a few other things that sound Calvinistic. However, if Calvinism is White's to define, then I ought not ever claim the name at all.

Here's the problem. The section's title seemed to indicate that Geisler had "redefined the terms of the debate" as one of White's "five sources of confusion" yet all White did was half-accurately indicate that Geisler disagrees with TULIP. News flash: that's why Geisler wrote CBF! Saying that Calvinism is wrong doesn't "redefine the terms of the debate." However much the many forms of Calvinism disagree with each other the only deadly sin when talking about Calvinism is saying it isn't true. White doesn't even seem to attempt to show how this is supposed to lead to the confusion he is so vehemently concerned about.

Poor Representation

CFB takes no pains to accurately or adequately represent Reformed theology that is it so strongly denounces.

Pot, meet Kettle.

"All through the book the Reformed view of God's sovereign regeneration of the sinner, where God graciously grants spiritual life, faith, and repentance to a person who was spiritually dead, condemned, and incapable of doing anything pleasing in God's sight, is inaccurately portrayed as "force" and "coercion," all in an attempt to make Calvinism look like something it is not." 

OK Dr. White, what IS it then? He fails to tell us what he thinks is wrong about Geisler's characterization. Is it a technical issue? Geisler does not believe that God uses a "force" on people, but he does characterize White's Particular Redemption and Pre-Faith Regeneration as forcing Himself on group of people who don't want Him, while letting everyone else be condemned. Is Geisler wrong? How so?

White then moves on to:

"There is simply no attempt to interact on a meaningful level with the many Reformed works that provide in-depth, serious biblical exegesis and argumentation of the Reformed position." 

Unlike The Potter's Freedom, CBF didn't have the mission to go after a particular person in his work. He is making a mostly philosophical argument, based on the God the Scriptures reveal. I believe that Geisler is right to ignore many of these works, as those which I have read do exactly what Geisler says of them... When I've looked at the best work on Total Inability I found absolutely NO Biblical support for this doctrine. Why would you expect a Dr. of Geisler's stature to waste space in his book interacting meaningfully with works that have no basis? That's Geisler's point of view, and it is largely my point of view as well. It is unreasonable to think that Geisler would do so simply to please men like White. It is absurd to criticize him on these grounds, especially given the nature of CBF.

Then we get back to my wanting to introduce the Pot to the Kettle again:

"And even here, the Reformed material is handled in such a cavalier manner as to make even the effort of citing it worthless. This is clearly seen in the way which CBF will quote as little as a single sentence, and on the basis of this, accuse Reformed writers of "changing" Scripture." 

Then after quoting the section of CBF that he has issue with (I'll quote it for you in a moment) he states:

This citation is from page 214 of Owen's work. Was this great Christian scholar suggesting that we should "retranslate" John 3:16? Is this a fair representation of Owen's position? Not in the slightest.

The constant over the top praise of Reformed theologians does get tiresome. That aside, here's what White quotes from Owen's work:

First, if this word whosoever be distributive, then it is restrictive of the love of God to some, and not to others, --to one part of the distribution and not the other. And if it do not restrain the love of God, intending the Salvation of some, then it is not distributive of the fore-mentioned object of it; and if it do restrain it, then all are not intended in the love which moved God to give his Son. Secondly, I deny that the word here is distributive of the object of God's love, but only declarative of his end and aim in giving Christ in the pursuit of that love, --to wit, that all believers might be saved. So that the sense is "God so loved his elect throughout the world, that he gave his Son with this intention, that by him believers might be saved." And this is all that is by any  (besides a few worthless cavils) objected from this place to disprove our interpretation...

I have not yet shared the portion of CBF that White takes issue with yet because I want you to see his full argument first. Here we see that after what seems to match Geisler's description of how Reformed theologians handle the Text that Owen suggests that the "sense" of John 3:16 is, and he offers it in quotations, "God so loved his elect throughout the world, that he gave his Son with this intention, that by him believers might be saved."

White is correct, Owen did not suggest "that we should 'retranslate' John 3:16" Now here is what White quotes Geisler from CBF:

Arguably, the best defense of extreme Calvinism on limited atonement comes from John Owen. His response to this passage is a shocking retranslation to: "God so loved his elect throughout the world, that he gave His Son with this intention, that by Him believers might be saved"! This needs no response, simply a sober reminder that God repeatedly exhorts us not to add or subtract from His words (Deut 4:2; Prov 30:6; Rev 22:18-19). 

Now forgive me for asking, but did Geisler really say that Owen said we "should retranslate John 3:16"? Read his words yourself. For someone who takes such great offense at his theology being "misrepresented" Dr. White seems to have little issue with committing a similar crime. Geisler clearly said that Owen's response to the passage was to retranslate it as he did.

White then goes on in his reply to Geisler on this subject stating:

"As anyone reading the passage in context can see, to charge Owen with alteration of the Word of God is quiet simply ridiculous. He not only specifically says, "the sense is..." (a phrase that would have to be cited on the basis of mere honesty if CBF is serious in accusing Owen of "adding" to the Word of God, but it is painfully obvious that Owen is interpreting the passage in the light of the preceding ten pages of argumentation he had provided." 

So so long as someone provides 10 pages of argumentation they can offer a "sense" of a passage that includes MOSTLY things that are NOT written in the passage? How is providing the sense of a sentence which comes from OUT SIDE of that sentence, and out side of the Book the sentence is written in to boot, EXEGETICAL? How is it that such a provision is not EISEGETICAL? How can such a thing be thought of as anything BUT "adding" to the words of God? Does John 3:16 include the thoughts that Owen says are the "sense" of that verse? Are these hidden in the Greek? Are they hidden in the structure of the sentence? No they are not. IF TULIP or modern Calvinism, which Geisler would call "Extreme Calvinism" because it is more Calvinistic than Calvin was, is true then John 3:16 MUST mean what  Owen says is the "sense" of it. However, John 3:16 doesn't say what Owen says is it's "sense."

How does this twisted claim against Geisler get a pass by White's many enthusiastic readers? I would not let Geisler get away with anything of the kind.

After discussion of other works, White finishes this part of his introduction with:

"Indeed, if all one read was CBF, one would not be aware that there was substantial Reformed exegetical defense of the Calvinistic position." 

Is it Geisler's responsibility to support the Reformed position? I wonder if White will be responsible enough to his readers to include the substantial non-Reformed exegetical defense of the non-Calvanistic position.

Conclusion of Part 2

Well that is as far as I can get today. I continue to hope that once I get to the "exegetical" arguments that I'll find the work less offensive. I will no doubt find his defense of his theology tiresome and convoluted; as has been my experience with all defenses of Calvinism I've read in the past. I have no intention of attempting to disprove all of his arguments. Such a work would no doubt take over a year of research and writing. I'm just going to be reacting to them.

I hope that readers of this series can tell that I'm not "offended by God being free to do what He wills" or that I think that mankind "must have free will." So far my only offense has been with how unfairly White has treated Geisler. That offense is dying down in me, thankfully, but what I'm finding is that I'm shocked at White's inconsistency. What he accuses Geisler of doing he tends to do himself. I'm also not convinced that his accusations against Geisler are altogether accurate. Though I have little doubt that there are some "debate practices" going on in Geisler's CBF as well.

To see my views on TULIP and what I think of each of the doctrines in more detail than I'll be able to provide in this series please see:

Testing TULIP: Total Inability which is an EXHAUSTIVE look at this doctrine to see IF it is Biblical or not. And;

Tripping TULIP

The Potter's Freedom

"A DEFENSE OF THE REFORMATION"

I started reading James White's The Potter's Freedom last night on my Kindle. I'm working on a "First Impressions" article, but here are a few quick thoughts. I've never read anything by Mr. White before. I've never listened to him preach. I've never listened to him debate. I've only known him by reputation.

I've heard he is a fierce debater, and that some people find him to be very rude in his interaction with those who disagree with him on whatever topic. The Potter's Freedom was recommended to me by a very dear friend, who seems to hold Mr. White in high regard.

So far I find the book needlessly combative, insulting and manipulative. I'm not the least bit surprised to find such from a hard 5 Point Calvinist. I've discussed this behaviour at Lou's In Defense of the Gospel blog in an article entitled Calvinism, Religion and Worldliness and I've seen this behaviour demonstrated here ad nauseum. The one exception to this behaviour is the conversation I was blessed to have with a husband & wife couple with respect to the TULIP doctrine of Total Inability.

After doing that article on Total Inability my dear friend Fred suggested that I read White's book. Having previously disregarded the book I decided to read it. In the months since then I've been trying to purchase The Potter's Freedom on Kindle and have been unable to find it. Yesterday, I searched again and found it easily. Perhaps my inability to find it was the Potter showing me the folly of believing I had decided to read a book?

Depending on how exhausting this book is to read I intend on blogging my impressions as I go. For the record I believe that Mr. White's target, Norm Geisler and his work Chosen But Free puts forth a reasonable, plausible, reasonably Biblically defensible position which is very close that which I would hold. I have a higher view of God's sovereignty than what I think Mr. White allows for in his thinking. I guess I will find out as I read. However, based on what I've read so far I don't expect the book to be convincing, I expect it to be infuriating. So far as I've read, the author commits everything he complains about Geisler doing and claims near infallibility of the authors of the Reformed movement. Mr. White is a skilled debater. Being able to facilitate a "win" in a debate is a far cry from holding, and being able to explain and defend a true position.

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?