92 Book Reviews

Book Reviews The Potter’s Freedom: A Defeanse of the Ref- misrepresents Calvinistic arguments and ormation and a Rebuttal of Norman Geisler’s argues his own case poorly, employing a Chosen But Free. By James R. White. number of exegetical and logical fallacies. Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2000, 343 In this review, I will summarize the pp., $17.99. polemical strategy of White, evaluate his arguments and interaction with Geisler, Several features give unusual importance and relate the issue to contemporary to The Potter’s Freedom for contemporary Southern Baptist life. evangelicalism in general and Southern Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free [CBF] Baptists in particular. First, the debate warned his readers against a system of involves two effective and passionate thought that he considered a “hideous Christian apologists who affirm inerrancy error, … shocking, …hav[ing] a devastat- without equivocation. Both also have ing effect on one’s own salvation, …theo- trained themselves to detect error destruc- logically inconsistent, philosophically tive of Christian truth and have active insufficient, and morally repugnant.” It ministries of positive instruction in the makes its adherents go through “exegeti- faith and debate against error. Second, it cal contortions.” Geisler names the system has immediate implications for the cur- that he describes as “extreme Calvinism.” rent turmoil in evangelicalism over Open He intends to defend a kinder gentler Theism. Third, these doctrines under dis- version of Protestant doctrine that he cussion reflect the give-and-take of the prefers to call “moderate Calvinism.” Southern Baptist theological renewal. [White, 17-19] Fourth, White presents an argument that James White cannot conscientiously corresponds perfectly with the theologi- allow Geisler to go unchallenged on these cal concerns of Southern Baptists in the unkind and ungentle charges, particularly early generations of denominational life. in light of the mangled portrait of historic Geisler’s book prompted the strong Reformed theology set forth by Dr. response by White in its claim to repre- Geisler. An artist would go far in his sent “moderate Calvinism” as opposed to credibility to compare his talents with “extreme Calvinism.” Just as one man’s “The Night Watch” by Rembrandt rather trash is another man’s treasure so is one than “Saturday Night Bath” by a third man’s “moderate Calvinism” another grader. White considers Geisler’s presen- man’s Arminianism. Along the way of tation so flawed at the point of accurate defending his moderate version of Calvin- description that it makes his own presen- ism, Geisler seeks to repudiate every dis- tation virtually useless in advancing seri- tinctive doctrine of Calvinism and replace ous discussion on these important issues. it with his own stylized theology. James Rather “CBF will be a source of great con- White could not let this redefinition go fusion, not enlightenment, on the subject unchallenged. Not only, according to of the sovereignty of God and the will of White, does Geisler give misleading man” [19, 20]. White knows Dr. Geisler signals with his nomenclature, he badly personally, considers him a worthy apolo- 92 gist of mere Christianity, and respects his are Matthew 23:37, 1 Timothy 2:4, and style of direct confrontation. His rejoinder 2 Peter 3:9. Chapter seven unfolds several takes the course of an “honest, direct refu- key passages in which Jesus himself tation and interaction,” consistent with the proves to be an “extreme Calvinist,” such spirit and style of Geisler himself. as John 6:37-40, John 6:41-45 along with In his introduction, White gives a the ways in which CBF treats the passages. clear presentation of five particular issues Chapters eight and nine consist of White’s that he finds disturbingly misleading in response to Geisler’s exegetical evidence Geisler’s diatribe against Calvinism. for election conditioned on human White repeatedly engages Geisler along response with chapter nine being given the line of these five issues: redefinition totally to Romans 9. Chapter eight has an of the terms of the debate, poor presenta- extensive exposition of Ephesians 1:3-11 tion, the nomenclature of “knowingly pre- closing with the remark, “If it is Dr. determining,” inexplicable omissions Geisler’s intention to lead people to ‘avoid of Reformed argument and exegesis extreme Calvinism,’ that is, avoid the (“silence speaks volumes” as White puts Reformed faith, then he must do more it), and poor exegesis. We will visit each than offer eight short sentences in of these issues briefly later in this review. response to such passages as this” (181). In chapter one, “The Vital Issue,” White Chapters ten, “The Perfect Work of Cal- summarizes briefly the Reformed doctrine vary,” and eleven concern particular of God’s sovereignty and the five-lettered atonement, the former containing White’s flower of Reformed soteriology. In chap- exposition and the latter White’s critique ter two, White leads the reader through a of Geisler’s assertions of general atone- critical examination of Geisler’s construct ment. This chapter also includes discus- of “Determinately Knowing.” Chapter sion of the vexed historical question three contains White’s exposition of concerning Calvin’s position on atone- human inability and chapter four follows ment for the elect. Chapters twelve and with White’s examination of CBF on thirteen follow the same pattern for irre- human will. Chapters five through nine sistible grace, first White’s exposition and all treat unconditional election within dif- then His critique of CBF. White’s opening ferent contexts of the argument. Chapter sentence to chapter thirteen gives due five defines the Reformed view of uncon- preparation for the shocking portrayals ditional election through a series of perti- CBF gives of this doctrine. “It is our hon- nent and contextually full quotes from est opinion that CBF shows the greatest leading Reformed thinkers, including dislike and uses the strongest language in James P. Boyce. White’s intent is to show denying the Reformed doctrine of irresist- that Geisler’s view can lay no claim to fit ible grace than in any other area of its within historic Calvinism. Chapter six presentation. The idea that God would engages in vigorous exegetical interaction sovereignly change a sinner from a God- with three pivotal verses that appear hater to a God-lover by the exercise of frequently in CBF, ostensibly in demon- divine power seems especially reprehen- stration that “God wants to save all men, sible to Dr. Geisler” (299). In chapter four- but is unable to do so outside of their teen, White argues that Geisler’s freely willing it to be so” (135). These verse inferences about the practical results of 93 Calvinism are false. Geisler’s accusations eternal simultaneity. In the end, however, truly are remarkable, but sadly typical, one must take a position as to whether the of a narrow, unsympathetic, unknowl- knowledge of historic (temporal) decision edgeable, reactionary mind-set. White’s and action gives rise to the decree or responses, therefore, show pluck in his whether the decree gives rise to the his- pointed, plain, and unembarrassed toric decision and action. God does in fact engagement of the issues, while he sin- know both his decree and the actual his- cerely shows perplexity that these impli- torical events intuitively and holds them cations show a style of argument “that is as elements of his perfect knowledge, but far below the kind of material we would that truth in itself does not eliminate there expect to come from Dr. Geisler’s pen” being a logical relationship between them. (333). Geisler, in accordance with his truth- White demonstrates that Geisler clearly ful conviction that “false doctrine leads to takes the Arminian side of this question. false deeds,” loads the Calvinist with a God’s determination in Geisler’s system heavy burden. Calvinism [extreme, that amounts only to an eternally present is] makes a person fail to take personal knowledge, since all of the historic (tem- responsibility for his actions; Calvinism poral) future is before him immediately. blames God for evil; Calvinism lays the The free actions of men give content to groundwork for universalism; Calvinism both His knowledge and thus his decree. is the occasion for atheism; Calvinism The only free and sovereign action God undermines evangelism, an accusation prosecutes is the creation of the particu- that has achieved most-favored objection lar world in which these things happen. status; Calvinism undercuts motivation God determines the events of the world for intercessory prayer (330-335). only passively. His discussion indicates As mentioned above, one issue his antipathy toward both unconditional addressed intensely by White is Geisler’s election and irresistible grace by charac- foundational understanding of the Divine terizing the historically Reformed view as sovereignty/human responsibility inter- a “double whammy” by which God forces action. Geisler asserts “Whatever he people “into His kingdom against their forechooses cannot be based on what he will” (68). White points out that this view foreknows. Nor can what he foreknows could not be called “moderately Calvin- be based on what he forechose. Both must istic, weakly Calvinistic, or even remotely be simultaneous and coordinate acts of Calvinistic” (71). God. Thus God knowingly determined This leads to another problem with CBF and determinately knew from all eternity to which White returns repeatedly. CBF everything that would come to pass consistently redefines the terms of the including all free acts” (58). White consid- debate. Since Geisler rejects out of hand ers it “vital to understand this concept Calvin’s doctrine of decrees, his view of in Geisler’s theology, for it is the key to unconditional election, his doctrine of unlocking the problem of his use of ter- depravity and the bondage of the fallen minology” (53).

Load more