Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(35)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(15)

 

 

I've read all the other amazon reviews AFTER reading this book, and I feel that the point James White is trying to make is simple: Too many Christians believe that "their own" faith is saving them, and not the faith of Christ that is given to them regardless of what man does (Romans 9:16). No man could even believe in God unless God first draws him...and this fact is rarely, if ever, preached or taught today. In that light, the book, though slow at times, is much needed in our present day of wishy-washy, "feel good" books that cluter Christian book stores: It's the entire heart of the true gospel. When Christians earnestly study the doctrines of predestination / election, their assurance will be strengthened like never before. Unfaithful study in this area leads to hate and prideful opinions that are not scriptural. Man hates to hear that he can do NOTHING to save himself. It's no wonder that many of James White's books (as well as many of the re-printed works of the puritans and Calvin) are so ignored and hated: they preach the doctrines of grace without compromise.

...after reading this book.

I bought Chosen But Free (by Norman Geisler) hoping to find a good rebuttal to Calvinist doctrine so I could continue holding to my free will theology. Boy was I disappointed! Not only is his terminology offputting, but his clear hatred of the Reformed tradition shines through. On top of that, his arguments left much to be desired. I struggled through what part I could read, and couldn't finish it. He'd cite a verse to support his conclusion, and I'd look the verse up only to find it didn't say anything close to what he claimed. It was frustrating to say the least.

After that I decided to read "The Potter's Freedom." This is an excellent book even if you have never picked up "Chosen But Free". It answered many of the questions I have had, and did so in a way that didn't want to make me run away screaming. I know some Calvinsts who's presentation of the very same facts make me want to scream, or simply tune them out.

Dr. White is NOT like that. He presents his arguments based on the Biblical texts, but does so in a way that attracts you instead of repels you. I found myself getting a whole new perspective on God and His mercy that just made me so thrilled with what I was learning that I wanted to run out and share it with everyone. I can no longer hold to Arminian theology after reading this.

I don't usually give a book 5 stars, but this book earns every one of them. It's also spurred me to look into the topic more deeply and I'm deciding what to read next.

The differences between Calvinism and Arminianism have been debated even before Calvin and Arminius. From Augustine to Pelagius to now White and Geisler, the issue of sovereignty versus free will has been debated. In fact, to say that this is an emotionally-charged issue is, quite frankly, an understatement. White is a good apologist who has served the Christian community well with his exegetical books on issues from Mormonism to the Trinity. He attempts to answer the points made by Norman Geisler, a scholar who has written many of the books sitting on my shelves, in Chosen But Free. Geisler had chosen the best of Calvinism and mixed the ideas with some of the more appealing Arminian ideas. Needless to say, this formula has pretty much riled up the Calvinists (including White) because they resent his calling his position a "moderate" Calvinist view. To White and others like him, it's an all-or-nothing proposition. (I guess to have this as a rock-solid premise means that there's never any middle ground on an issue. For instance, should the Bible always be read literally or symbolically? Could there perhaps be a middle ground depending on the context of the passage?) Regardless, White's position is that Geisler's system is severely flawed.

Several things ought to be known when reading Potter's Freedom:

1) Whether you consider yourself a Calvinist or Arminian, you ought to take an "open view" when reading Geisler's book first and then Potter's Freedom. Try to leave your presuppositions at the door and let the writers do their best to convince you of their positions. 2) Realize that The Potter's Freedom enjoyed the "last word" on this subject as it had the chnace to attack Geisler's views without a chance of rejoinder. Therefore, I call upon both James White and Norman Geisler to come together for the last segment of a "trilogy" and put together a book that gives a chance of response for each position. This would be more fair. 3) Above all, let Christian charity reign. We have too many battles out there--a world that needs Jesus, whether you are Calvinist or Arminian--to spill so much blood on what has to be considered a secondary, or peripheral, issue. Sure, this issue is very important, but which camp would say that they cannot fellowship with those who belong to the other "side"? Please, let's not turn this issue into the defintion of what makes a person a Christian.

Several minor complaints about Potter's Freedom. White likes to gather quotes from Christian leaders and influential thinkers and put their comments on the back cover as well as on several inside pages. This book includes more than 30 quotes from people such as Jay Adams, George Grant, and Daniel Wallace. Despite having used Geisler's blurbs for several other of his back covers, for some reason White does not include Geisler's recommendation on Potter's Freedom. (I wonder what Geisler would have written?) Perhaps White forgot to ask Geisler to write a blurb for this new book. In all seriousness, perhaps White ought to ask Bethany House (his usual publisher who, quite ironically, put out Chosen But Free) to delete Geisler's blurbs in future editions of White's books, as they look out of place now in light of Potter's Freedom.

One other suggestion: Although this does not make his position right (or wrong, for that matter), the typeface of The Potter's Freedom is very difficult for older eyes to read. For some reason, it was printed too light--it needs to be much darker with a different, more readable font. Also, there were at least a dozen grammatical/spelling errors that I caught. The next edition needs the perusal of a quality editor, something White has over at Bethany House.

Restating my position, I recommend that you read the two books and debate the issues in your own mind and within your own circles. If you are like me, this will require you to do some very heady thinking. Geisler and White may certainly stretch many of your preconceived notions, if you will allow them to do so. And I think you will be a better Christian for it.

I have retracted my earlier review of this work because after reading it, I realized that my rhetoric was overly harsh and unkind towards Dr. Geisler's book, Chosen But Free. Nor did I present any examples of why I thought it was bad. So I apologize if anyone was offended by my rhetoric.

Having said that, I have not changed my mind that The Potter's Freedom is, in fact, a devastating critique. Some have said that it was not thorough enough. I disagree. I believe Dr. White did a fine job of actually exegeting the relevant texts and also showing that Dr. Geisler's reliance on the 'all' texts is simply misguided.

Furthermore, I think anyone who reads Dr. Geisler needs to understand that what he is doing in the course of the book is redefining words. For example, he identifies a historic 5 Point Calvinist as an 'extreme Calvinist' and himself, a semi-Pelagian who believes in eternal security, as a 'moderate Calvinist'. This rhetoric is 'poisoning the waters' through redefinition of terms, and I believe is not terribly honest. Dr. Geisler is a very intelligent man, and surely knows that the terms have historic meaning which, unless you are a post-modern deconstructionist, we have no business monkeying around with. Dr. White does an excellent job of exposing this in The Potter's Freedom.

I would also point out that Dr. White has repeatedly challenged Dr. Geisler to publicly debate the topic, but that Dr. Geisler has refused, claiming that he does not debate fellow Christians (though he writes debate books...which I find a little odd). Dr. Geisler has only written a brief response to TPF and has written nothing more in response. Some have claimed that the debate is not over. I disagree. Dr. White has thoroughly refuted Dr. Geisler and no response is forthcoming as far as we know. Dr. Geisler has refused to debate the issue publicly. The case is closed. The strong point of historic Reformed theology since the time of the Reformation has been exegesis from the original languages of Scripture. I would invite you to read this book for a fine example.

After re-reading sections of The Potter's Freedom and also reading Geisler's chosen But Free, I have decided to amend my previous review of White's book. I still believe White's work is a solid work and it has many strengths to it, but I also believe there are many oversights and oversimplifications.

Out of both books, I believe that White's work is much better and more persuasive. White does an excellent job of delving into key texts and in the process he wrestles with them and examines them for what they are worth. His explanations for Matthew 23:37, I Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9, although not the best, are without a doubt good attempts to refute Geisler's point-blank assertions; Geisler takes these verses at face value, while White looks at the surrounding verses and attempts to clarify what these verses are really stating. Since CBF (Chosen but Free) relies so heavily on these verses to bolster it's argument, White does some serious damage to Geisler's argument when he deals with these texts.

Furthermore, White does an excellent job of providing solid exegesis for some of the standard proof-texts of traditional Reformed theology. His analysis of John 6 and Romans 9 easily eclipses any simple exegesis provided by Geisler. His sections on John 6 and Romans 9 are very strong, but there really isn't anything new here that you can't find in other Reformed works. Every Reformed book that deals with predestination always has a section that delves deep into these chapters of Scripture.

Where the book was weak was White's insistence on his version of Total Depravity. Firstly, White gives absolutely no credible reason why Lazarus' physical condition is comparative to the natural man's spiritual condition. Using this as an example to prove total deadness and the need for new life is a serious case of eisegesis since nowhere is the idea hinted at in Scripture that Lazarus being raised from the dead is like the believer's being quickened by the Spirit. Sure White resorts to the standard proof texts of Ephesians 2:1 and Colossians 2:13 to prove his point, but does nekros have to be understood in the way White does? In John 5:25 Jesus says the dead, same word in Greek, will hear His voice and live. In Revelation 3:1, Jesus tells the people of the Church in Sardis that they are dead, same word in Greek, and exhorts them to strengthen the things that remain. Obviously, looking at how the word is used in every context one can easily understand that the word doesn't carry with it the connotation that White would like it to mean because Jesus obviously tells us that the dead can hear Him. Even though this may sound perplexing, Scripture tells us it is true. I think that dead in sin is much better understood within the context of separation as Isaiah 59 says when it states our sins have separated us from God. Furthermore, when White deals with John 5, he only touches the verses where Jesus says He gives life to whom He wills. Yeah, read by itself and in isolation from the other verses this would seem to support to Calvinism. Yet, two verses later Jesus says who He wills to give life to, the ones who hear Him and believe on His name. In verse 25, Jesus says the time is now here when the dead will hear Him and live. The order is the dead hear, believe and live; Yet, White arguing for regeneration preceding faith would have the order be receive life, hear and believe. White has turned the text on it's head and made it say something it doesn't even begin to teach. Moreover, this whole passage deals a crippling blow to White's idea of total depravity since it's the dead who hear and live. Not the elect, or the regenerate, but the dead.

Finally, White does not deal with the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. Geisler, who calls himself a moderate Calvinist, also believes that a believer cannot lose his salvation, but his beliefs are substantially different from those from the Reformed Camp. I really wish White would have devoted a chapter comparing Perseverance of the Saints (POTS), the traditional Reformed position, with Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS), which is the position of Geisler and moderate Calvinism. I believe White could have dealt a serious blow to Geisler's position if he would have differentiated it from the Reformed concept.

All in all, White's The Potter's Freedom is a good book. Whether one wants to learn more about Reformation doctrines, or whether one just wants to strengthen their convictions, this book is an excellent read. Although I did find a lot more weaknesses in the text my second time through, I would still recommend this book to anyone wanting to know more about the Reformation doctrines of election and grace.

If you are wanting to learn what the debate between Arminianism and Calvinism is about, then first get Geisler's book, Chosen But Free, then read White's, The Potter's Freedom.

It will become clear that one side is philosophical and refuses to interact with the other, and simply assumes proof texts for its position. The other side actually deals with the text of Scripture first, then comes to philosophical conclusions.

I have found this to be very typical in every debate I have either listened to or read. I think the open minded reader, who loves to exegete the Word of God, will appreciate White's work.

Buy both books and enjoy.

God Bless

Howard Fisher

I never knew who Dr. Norman Geisler was before reading The Potter's Freedom(TPF). TPF gives insight into Geisler's background and of course his theology. Surprigingly Geisler gives 'new' meaning to historical Calvinism, I don't know if other Arminian theologians even attempt to do the same. TPF doesn't just make a claim, give a verse and then briefly comments on that verse (as do many Arminian writers). But, like most all Reformed Christians TPF gives an historical stance on a Doctrine then actually exegetes the verses that teach the Doctrine. To say that God Loves everybody and then quote John 3:16 is one thing, but to turn John 6:37,44; Romans 8 and 9 on their head and say that they in no way teach depravity, irresistible grace, predestination is downright ignorant. Sadly, this is what much of the Christian community now stands on. Fortunately, TPF stands on rightly dividing the Word of God.
Highly recommend this book for the avid and patient reader.

The Potter's Freedom is another excellent resource in the perennial debate over the biblical doctrine of election. James White does a great job of showing the strong biblical arguments for the truths that Arminians don't like. The reviewer from Roseville, CA writes: "I have found Calvinism to be inconsistent with the plain meaning of hundreds of passages of scripture. In order to maintain 5 point Calvinism one has to constantly resort to "ingenious" interpretations of otherwise clear passages of scripture and absurd blanket statements which completely take any meaning out of the text." What? Plain meaning of hundreds of texts? What texts? Don’t you think that god-fearing Calvinists such as John MacArthur, John Piper, J.I. Packer, John Armstrong, D.A. Carson, Millard Erickson, R.C Sproul, and many many others (the list goes on and on) not to mention Luther, Calvin, Whitefield, Edwards, Warfield, and Spurgeon have all read these "texts"? If it’s so plain, why do we still have Calvinists? "In order to maintain 5 point Calvinism one has to constantly resort to "ingenious" interpretations of otherwise clear passages of Scripture and absurd blanket statements which completely take any meaning out of the text." What? What ingenious interpretations? What absurd blanket statements? If you want "ingenious" interpretations try reading what Arminians say about Acts 13:48, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, John 1:13, John 6:37, Romans 9:22-24, Ephesians 1:4-5, Ephesians 1:11 and numerous other passages. Read the Potter’s Freedom. It is well worth your time. It is definitely food for thought for the Arminian. The reason that the biblical doctrine of election is often dismissed out of hand is not because the Bible clearly teaches otherwise; it is because it rubs our human sensibilities the wrong way. The carnal mind hates the idea that God is sovereign over everything including people. If you are a true Christian, the reason that you are not wrapped up in the filth and sin of the world is not because you had the good sense to come to Christ but because God has had mercy on you, and for His glory and pleasure He chose you out of the world which hates Him to be His own. I don’t fully understand election. Nobody does. Is it biblical? YES!

James White has written a number of books and his work The King James Only Controversy is excellent. While I appreciate his passion and scholarship, I don't think he argued his case as well as Geisler. On page 115 White takes a pot shot against Geisler and says that the vast majority of argumentation in CBF has no exegesis. So, its obvious from this statement that White has already made his conclusion and he cannot read the Bible for what it says in a wooden literal fashion. Granted there are spots here and there where Geisler does not explain himself well, but I believe he makes more biblical arguments in his book Chosen but Free than James White does. It all so often appears with Whites style that he just cannot read the Bible for what it says and not do dances around the literal reading.

Also to note that on pages 124-132 White attempts to define Unconditional Election and all he does is quote from man made confessions, and other Reformed writers such as Lorraine Boettner and others. Sadly, this pattern has been throughout the text of TPF. Yet on pages 68-74 of CBF Geisler quotes and responds to a number of verses that Reformed use to teach UE. Geisler does not merely just quote other authors, but explains the scriptures and what they REALLY teach on the issue. On page 87 White does not believe that man has the ability to repent, and believe, because he thinks that sin brings 100% slavery and man cannot repent and believe. However, the scriptures in many places say otherwise (Isa 55:6-7, Acts 17:30). On page 140 White tries to explain away the literal reading of Tit 2:11. But anyone familiar with the writings of Paul will understand that Paul does not believe that salvation is not available to all mankind as Reformed believe. Paul is quite clear in many of his writings in that he believes that Jesus died for the sins of all mankind and not just the elect. On page 150 White tries to refute Acts 17:30, which to me and most people is a very clear passage teaching for the free will of man. However, to the Reformed exegete clear can be difficult to interpret. White believes the clear meaning of the text here to be in error. I have consulted some commentaries on this text and my most detailed (The IVP NT Commentary series Acts volume) it is stated "the call to repentance is urgent because the consequences for not repenting--a final judgment and eternal condemnation--are inescapable." The commentator does not say that the command in Acts 17:30 was not for all mankind as White argues as the clear and simple reading of the text is obvious. In other places in the book does White say that "all men" does not literally mean all men. How and why he believes this is beyond me. But perhaps if White thinks "all" does not mean "all" it is strange why he does not re-interpret Romans 3:23 which says (NIV) "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Perhaps this means all kinds of people, or maybe it only means that only all kinds of people among the elect have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. On page 214 White attempts to use "logic" to totally undermine and eradicate the will of man. On this page White basically says that man is a robot and unable to do anything or think for himself and make his own choices. Perhaps he is teaching self-determinism I don't know but on page 250-51 of the book Not by Chance, ther author states that the Bible should be read for what it is and not hindered by logic. We need to read and take the Bible for its literal reading, unless the text says otherwise. Anyone other than Reformed that read the various passages quoted and explained by Geisler among other non reformed authors would believe that God died for the sins of the whole world, and all mankind has the chance to repent and believe in the gospel for the forgiveness of their sins. Man has a free will as the scriptures make so clear and Geisler has a section answering objections to free will in CBF.

Much more could be said but unfortunately, I was only able to tolerate up to page 222 and then skipped to the last chapter and will make one last comment. Geisler says that Calvinism undermines the motivation for soul winning. White goes on to give his story of he and his group evangelizing to Mormons in Utah. I commend that example and solely agree with White that the problem in evangelism today rests mostly among many new evangelicals and not Calvinists. However, White has forgotten about Fundamentalists whom for the most part have a heavy emphasis on soul winning. I am not aware of any IFB that believes in a "purpose driven" model, a "emergent model" coffee shops, rock worship, Nintendo evangelism, surfers evangelism, cartoon evangelism, or any of the many unbiblical methods that many new evangelical have succumbed to replace tract distribution, street preaching, door to door evangelism, lifestyle evangelism, confrontational evangelism and the like. This problem is not among all arminian's as White believes. Also to note that while White and some others may be an exception to the norm, in my experience most Reformed are not very big on soul winning. In the few months I was a participant in Dr. Whites IRC chat room, I did not sense a desire or an interest in soul winning among MOST of the participants. SOME of them made fun or challenged my usage of the word "soul winning." So I don't think Geisler to be in error to make a overall statement that Calvinism does undermine evangelism.

The Potter's Freedom is more of what we need in Christianity. Sanity, logic, honesty and above all Exegetical study of the Scriptures.

As for a reader saying don't support this kind of infighting. This is the Purpose Driven Mentality that permiates Christian Churches today. Who cares if what are preaching is right or biblical just Love Jesus.

This very critical issue affects how one evangelizes. Does one start using music and the 150 year old tradition of come forth or altar call. Or preach the Gospel in fullness no games and allows the Holy Spirit to work. How many times is it asked "How many people have you brought to Christ?" Is that thinking God honoring or scriptural?
White clamly and logically refutes Geisler's redefinition of Soterology. Defines Open Theism as Extreme Armianinism (which it is) and Defines 5 Point Calvinism as Extreme Calvinism. Geisler needlessly complicates the issue of Will (since he agrees with Calvinism on Security) and tries to place himself "in the middle". On Will as White points out only two views exist.

It is a good breath of fresh air to clear up a dust cloud Geisler creates and give a good defense of reformed theology. That defense is given honestly and with a great deal of respect.

If you are interested in what Calvinists really believe. Get it from a Calvinist.