<< 1 >>
Rating: Summary: Our God does whatever He pleases (Psalms 115:3) Review: A great thanks to James White for clearing the confusion (and I would consider heresy) left by a first rate apologist Norman Geisler. The Potter's Freedom is one of the most insightful theological books that I have ever read. White completely destroys Geisler's "moderate Calvinism," which bares absolutely no resemblence to historic Calvinism, save a modified Perseverence of the Saints. White shows that Arminianism has a very shaky, if any, biblical foundation. He directs us to the God of the Bible, who "does whatever He pleases." This concept of God's freedom as opposed to man's was a great emphasis for this book. Also, White shows what true exegesis (that is study of the text) is, as opposed to Geisler's few passing comments on key texts. I would recommend this book to any person seeking to understand the biblical basis for the "Calvinist" view, as long as it is read with an open, yet critical mind. Whatever you decide, remember that God is only who we believe Him to be if we believe what the Bible says about Him.
Rating: Summary: A sound defense of standard Reformation principles Review: 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.
Rating: Summary: A Gold Mine Review: If reading a book in one day is a reflection of the worth of the writing, then The Potter's Freedom by James White is a gold mine. Having read Chosen But Free, by Dr. Geisler, I was pleased to see that White did not stoop to the same level of ad hominum attacks that Geisler seemed fond of using (Chosen But Free is, after all, little more than an outright attack on Sproul, Piper, and Edwards). While White could have easily resorted to the same tactics, he instead focused primarily on the work, keeping his tone somber, and proved he has done his research. The Potter's Freedom (hereafter TPF) not only is an excellent rebuttal of Geisler's position in Chosen But Free, but also describes Reformed doctrine with such clarity that it could easily be used as a primer for someone who doesn't know the first thing about what Calvin, Luther, etc. believed. But not only is it great at describing Reformed doctrine, in order to demonstrate Geisler's error, TPF also gives a wonderful description of Arminianism in general, and due to Geisler's misuse of historic terminology, one could easily maintain that a person with no formal training can understand much more about Arminianism through White's work than through Geisler's. In short, TPF is highly recommended for those who have read Geisler's Chosen But Free and have thought that his arguments were valid, or who have walked away more confused than ever before. TPF clearly shows the Reformed view and how Geisler's arguments are straw-men arguments against things that Calvinists do not believe. He also demonstrates that Geisler can in no way consider himself a "moderate Calvinist" but is a straight out Arminian. Further, White demonstrates that, contrary to Geisler's claim, Calvin did believe as modern Reformers do, not as the "moderate Calvinist" believes, upholding Limited Atonement. But I would also recommend TPF for those who have not read Geisler's work. Many people today have read "The Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther without having read the work Erasmus wrote that prompted Luther's response. In the future, theologians will look back and read The Potter's Freedom without having read Chosen But Free because TPF is the better book of the two, and it is the one that history will deem best.
Rating: Summary: Learning Calvinism Review: 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
Rating: Summary: An Exegetical Case for Calvinism Review: James White's book, The Potter's Freedom, can easily remind one of the Luther-Erasmus debate in 1517. Dr. Norman Geisler's work, Chosen But Free, analogously functioning like Erasmus' work, is really an attempt to make sense of God's sovereignty and man's (libertarian) freedom in a way that is compatible with the Biblical data. In doing so, Geisler's presentation of the view he believes to be horrendous, Calvinism (or more precisely according to his terminology, "extreme Calvinism"), fails to make sense of certain texts that appear to "plainly" argue against it. Dr. White's book, then, attempts to clarify what Calvinism *really* teaches and further attempt to respond to Geisler's arguments for his "moderate Calvinism," which is fundamentally four-point Arminianism. This book, as I see it, has several general points that recur throughout it. These are: (1) Geisler's interpretation of the Bible is rooted in the philosophical precommitment to libertarian freedom; (2) Geisler is not a Calvinist in any meaningful historic use; (3) Calvinism is caricaturized in CBF; (4) The Bible does in fact teach Calvinism; and most importantly: (5) CBF fails to provide a case for man's freedom and God's sovereignty based upon an exegetical examination of the Scriptures. I have found this work quite insightful for dealing with several texts. Furthermore, White brings up points about the Greek language and about historic figures (like Calvin) that are relevant in demonstrating that the scholarship or work put into CBF is less than adequate. For instance, Geisler makes the point about the word "or" or "out of" and says the Greek word is "EK" (epsilon, kappa) in a particular text. Unless one can actually read Greek (koine), then one would otherwise be unaware that the word does *not* appear in that text. So, I have found this work both edifying and insightful. However, there are questions that I believe White has not addressed, or points that he addresses but I would say does so inaccurately (or at least insufficiently). For instance, Geisler comments that if Calvinism is true, then God is responsible for evil. White's response is, "This is false." I think Geisler is correct in so far as it goes, but how that point can function as an argument against Calvinism and *not* Geisler's own view is beyond me. It seems that any view that posits God with exhaustive foreknowledge and control over every event must concede God is responsible in some sense. So, there are a few philosophical quibbles that I have with James White about how to respond to Geisler on these issues. But regarding the exegetical issues, which is what James White's book focuses primarily upon, I think that my criticism here is too small to consider docking him a star (on the Amazon review). Exegetically, his work deserves all five.
Rating: Summary: Excellent book! Review: Let me first defend The Potter's Freedom in response some of the reviews below. Some say that James White misses his target since he is arguing against Arminianism and not Norman Geisler's moderate Calvinism and thus is using ad hominem. In actuality, Norman Geisler holds to what many of the four-point Arminians hold to: sovereignty of God allowing for man to choose his salvation, though he cannot lose his salvation even when he choose to fall away (the modern view of eternal security as opposed to perseverance of the saints, which says those truly saved will persevere by the power of God to the end and not fall away though they may fall into grievous sins). Let's look at Geisler's "four points of Calvinism." He says he holds to total depravity but defines it in such a way that man is sinful but does have inward goodness to turn from his sins, which hardly is distinct from Arminians at all, though Arminians can rightfully Geisler is closer even to the heretical Pelagians. Geisler defines unconditional election as unconditional from the standpoint of the Giver but conditional on our faith, thus using a form of smoke and mirror tactic to hide his class election views. And the view of election being conditional on our faith rather than being the cause of our faith is is precisely Arminian! Geisler then defines irresistable grace as God's grace on the willing, thus denying the view of the verry term he says he holds to! In truth, if one is already willing, then one would not need grace! That view is even more extreme than Arminian and closer to Pelagianism. Only on perseverance of the saints does Geisler even come close to holding to a single point of Calvinism. On virtually every verses other than on the last point, Geisler agrees with the Arminians. His presupposition is God cannot work and will not work on the unwilling to make that person willing. That is Arminian NOT even mild Calvinism NOR Lutheranism (both of which Geisler says he holds to same views as). If we want to discuss ad homs, let's consider that Geisler based on those redefining of terms, calls himself a moderate Calvinist who holds to same four points as Calvin. Then on the basis of his misrepresentations of what Calvin wrote (as in portial citatations), call others who hold to all five points "extreme Calvinists." This is though he ends up saying that if a person holds to any of the five points is "extreme Calvinist." In other words, James White hits his target to refute Geisler's four point Arminian views! On another note, it seems as if defenders of Geisler here completely ignore these facts, as well as the fact that Calvinists do NOT hold to God forcing man to believe against his will. Also, they ignore that Geisler distorts Augustine, Calvin, Calvinism, Lutheranism, even Arminianism (which is NOT open theism and does NOT grace of God in foreknowledge view), as well as RC Sproul, John Piper, and history. For example, Aquinas as well as John Hus and Wycliff were Augustinians on election and grace! White does NOT need to refute Geisler's man-made philosophies with philosophical thoughts, but with the Word of God, and that he did! Just because one cannot understand the paradox of total depravity and human responsility does not make either untrue. John 6:44, 65, Romans 8:7, etc. remains as true as Acts 2:38-39 and Romans 10:9-10, and Calvinists affirm them both! On the question of omnibenolvence, White shows from Romans 9 and other passages that it is unbiblical. On evil happening, Calvinists hold to God wills in sense of permission but NEVER morally. For example, God planned out Joseph's life for good which involved the evil acts of his brothers, and God choosing to permit to take place rather than striking dead before they can carry them out! The only fiction here is the delusion people have that Geisler is Arminian, and that the Bible is to be understood by vain philosophies of God made in their image!
Rating: Summary: Norman Geisler Exposed Review: Norman Geisler describes himself as a "moderate Calvinist". In his book "Chosen But Free", Geisler's moderate Calvinism turns out to be nothing more than four-point Arminianism. This is the conclusion that James White, author of a number of books including "The King James Only Controversy" and "The Forgotten Trinity", comes to in his recent book "The Potter's Freedom". From Geisler's unique understanding of God's foreknowledge, to his plain and simple passing over of crucial biblical texts, White has painstakingly documented and refuted the many errors and contradictions found in Geisler's exegesis of Scripture. I was also quite happily suprised to discover that White's book is much more than just a refutation of "Chosen But Free", but is also one of the most easy-to-understand books on Reformed theology I've ever read. I highly recommend it to anyone who has either read "Chosen But Free" and would like to get another viewpoint, or to anyone just getting their feet wet with Reformed theology. Rick.larson@lawson.com
Rating: Summary: The Potter's Freedom by James White Review: The Potter's Freedom is an excellent explanation of the differences contained within Arminian and Calvinistic theology. James White's easy to read book reveals the heart of Norman Geisler's book "Chosen But Free". James White uses excerpts from Norman Geisler's book and clearly contrasts the differences between the two major theological sides throughout history. This book is very good at helping the reader clearly define their own theological persuasion as they consider the depths of the Sovereignty of God. A theological treatise without the difficult reading that you would find in Jonathan Edwards' work.
<< 1 >>
|