|
Publications
| For More
Information |
A CRITIQUE OF THE
POTTER’S FREEDOM BY JAMES
WHITE
LAURENCE M. VANCE
Vance Publications
Pensacola
,
Florida
I. Introduction
One thing Calvinists can never be accused of is failing
to present their views. Of all the books written by Calvinists during the past
ten years, James White’s book The Potter’s Freedom
is perhaps the most polemical. And because it is so illustrative of the
Calvinists’ continual rehash of their errors, it merits further attention
because of its prominent place in the current round of what I call the TULIP
Wars.
James White is the director of Alpha and Omega
Ministries,
an apologetics ministry he co-founded in 1983. In addition to his crusades
against the King James Bible,
he has debated assorted atheists, Catholics, and cultists. He has also
authored a number of good books, such as his recent work on justification.
White’s theological position should have been apparent even before he wrote
his book on Calvinism since he is a member of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist
Church. A Reformed Baptist Church, although it is inherently Calvinistic, is
not just a polite term for a Calvinistic Baptist Church. Many Calvinistic
Baptists would never describe themselves as Reformed because they would
shun, and rightly so, the immediate identification with Reformed Theology—a
system of theology that rejects dispensationalism and premillennialism. A
Reformed Baptist is therefore not much more than a Reformed Christian who
baptizes adults only and by immersion only.
Article III of the constitution of the Phoenix Reformed
Baptist Church
states: “We do hereby adopt as a reasonable expression of our faith the 1689
London Confession of Faith as republished in 1974 under the title A Faith to
Confess.” As any student of church history knows, the 1689 London Confession
of Faith is nothing more than a “baptized” Westminster Confession of Faith,
put out by the Presbyterians in 1646. This 1689 Baptist confession made its way
to
America
in 1742, and with the addition of two new articles, became the Philadelphia
Confession of Faith. Neither the Westminster Confession of Faith nor either of
the Baptist confessions are the slightest bit dispensational or premillennial.
The statement of faith on the Alpha and Omega Ministries website simply says:
“We believe that Christ is coming again to judge the living and the dead. This
promise is found throughout the inspired Scriptures.”
II. Don’t Judge the Book by its Cover
White’s book The Potter’s Freedom is said on
its cover to be “A Defense of the Reformation and a Rebuttal of Norman
Geisler’s Chosen But Free.” But the cover alone is a typical
Calvinistic misrepresentation, and for two reasons.
The first problem is that the title is based on a twisted
view of the passage in Romans 9 regarding the potter and the clay. Romans 9 is
the “haven of reprobation” for all Calvinists. In Romans 9, Calvinists
throughout history have seized upon three verses and made them the pillars to
support their teaching of the reprobation of the non-elect. The three verses in
question are: “Esau have I hated”
(Rom
9:13
), “whom he will he hardeneth” (Rom
9:18
), and “vessels of wrath fitted to
destruction” (Rom
9:22
).
The third verse is part of the account of the potter and
the clay in Rom 9:22-24. “What
if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured
with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he
might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had
afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only,
but also of the Gentiles?”
According to one Calvinist, because the potter has power
over the clay, this proves “God’s absolute sovereignty to determine the
final destiny of men, either to honor or dishonor, to salvation and glory or to
damnation and desolation.”
When White called his book by the seemingly innocuous title The Potter’s
Freedom, he was actually saying that God, as the potter, has the freedom to
foreordain the “elect” to heaven and the “reprobate” to hell by a
sovereign, eternal decree.
Does Paul’s illustration of the potter and the clay
have anything to do with the salvation of NT Christians? The potter and the clay
was a common illustration in the OT (Isa 29:16, 45:9, 64:8; Jer 18:1-6). Never
is it a reference to anyone’s salvation.
Israel
is said to be the clay (Isa 64:8; Jer 18:6). The clay is formed, not created.
There was no clay before the foundation of the world, and neither is anyone said
to be fitted or prepared before the foundation of the world. And although the
“vessels of mercy” are said to be “afore
prepared unto glory” by God, no agent is given in the case of those “fitted
to destruction.”
The second problem with the cover of The Potter’s
Freedom is that the unsuspecting reader would never think that the book is
actually a defense of Calvinism, not the Reformation. White uses the old
Calvinist “guilt by association” argument. As everyone knows, the
Reformation pitted the Reformers against the Roman Catholics. Therefore, if you
are against White’s book, you must be against the Reformation—and for the
Roman Catholics, or at least that is the implication. Calvinists like to refer
to Calvinism as the gospel, biblical Christianity, the faith of the Reformation,
New Testament Christianity, the Doctrines of Grace—anything but Calvinism. But
if Calvinism is all these things, then anything that is opposed to Calvinism
must be opposed to the gospel, biblical Christianity, the Reformation, and
salvation by grace.
Regarding the Reformation itself, there are several
things that bear mentioning. First, it is not enough just to defend the
Reformation. The Reformation was a reform and not a wholesale return to biblical
Christianity. The Reformers had numerous Roman Catholic hangovers: infant
baptism, baptism by sprinkling, the uniting of Church and State, amillennialism,
and a false conception of the nature of the local church.
Additionally, because they are hung up on the
Reformation, Calvinists have substituted Reformed Theology for the Bible. The
final authority for a Calvinist is not the Bible at all, it is Reformed
Theology. One of the endorsements in the back of White’s book says that
“James White’s book, The Potter’s Freedom, is as clear a
presentation of the Reformed doctrine of salvation as I’ve ever read.” That
statement is classic, and is reminiscent of Loraine Boettner calling his book on
Calvinism The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Calvinism is a
Reformed doctrine. It has its own plan of salvation—the Reformed doctrine of
salvation—that is different from the plan of salvation found in the Bible, as
will presently be seen.
The descendants of the Reformers—Christian Reformed,
Dutch Reformed, Presbyterians, etc.—don’t think that Baptists like James
White are real Calvinists. Herman Hanko, a Dutch Reformed Calvinist with
impeccable credentials, says that “a Baptist is only inconsistently a
Calvinist.”
So, in spite of the attempt of some Baptists to call themselves Calvinists or
Reformed, and in spite of the fact that it is the Calvinistic Baptists who are
the most zealous Calvinists, the fact remains that Baptists are only
second-class Calvinists.
Therefore, it is no surprise that White’s book contains
endorsements by Presbyterian and Reformed authors such as Jay Adams, Kenneth
Gentry, Joel Beeke, Robert Reymond, and George Grant. What is disturbing about
the endorsements section is that it also contains endorsements by three members
of the Southern Baptist Founders Ministries and the Southern Baptist author and
teacher Tom Nettles. Dr. Erwin Lutzer, the Senior Pastor of
Moody
Church
in Chicago, and Dr. Daniel Wallace, the Greek scholar from Dallas Theological
Seminary, also have endorsements in the book.
III. Ten Arguments that Crumble Under Scrutiny
As anyone who has studied the writings of Calvinists
knows, there are a number of standard arguments and innuendos that all
Calvinists use to discredit their opponents and promote their theology—and
White is no exception. And as we have seen already, this is even apparent on the
cover of the book.
First, White tries to make all Christians either
Calvinists or Arminians (pp. 20, 295). Once this grouping is made, Arminians are
made to look so bad that Calvinism is chosen by default. To a Calvinist,
Arminianism is anything that is opposed to Calvinism. Thus, we continually read
of Arminians (p. 147), Arminianism (p. 175), Arminian positions (p. 235),
Arminian preachers (p. 231), Arminian exegetes (p. 153), and Arminian views (p.
136). Other forms of this argument use Augus-tine and Pelagius (p. 40) or Luther
and Erasmus (p. 34).
Second, White uses the guilt by association argument (pp.
33, 85, 92, 233). After consigning all Christians to one of two groups
(Calvinists or Arminians), Calvinists typically associate Arminians with every
conceivable heretic or heresy so as to discredit them. The most common enemy is
Roman Catholicism. Thus, in White’s book, to reject Calvinism is to be
associated with Roman Catholicism, Ignatius Loyola, Jesuits, Thomas Aquinas, and
the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Third, White claims that non-Calvinists misrepresent
Calvinism (p. 21).
This argument is typical of Calvinists. They have written so much espousing
their system that it is almost impossible to misrepresent them. No one has to
create a caricature of Calvinism; an abundance of quotes from Calvinistic
authorities on any subject relating to Calvinism can always be found. But when
this is done, and their true beliefs are exposed, Calvinists say that they are
being misrepresented.
Fourth, White exalts God’s sovereignty above His
holiness (pp. 41-44). The fact that God is sovereign is obvious. If God was not
sovereign he would not be God. The rulers of many countries have absolute
sovereignty, but that does not mean they are holy or even good. The important
thing about God is that he is sovereign yet holy. White relates God’s decrees
to Calvinism (p. 45). The decrees of God in the Bible do not relate in any way
to salvation, and none of them are said to be eternal, like all Calvinists
teach. He maintains that God has decreed not only salvation, but everything that
has taken place, is taking place, and will take place (p. 45). White also claims
that God only has foreknowledge of what He has already decreed to take place
(pp. 53, 57). This is an attack on God’s omniscience. What kind of power does
it take to know something that you already decreed to take place?
Fifth, White appeals to men (pp. 125-31, 255). Calvinists
are always appealing to men: Augustine, Calvin, Pink, Edwards, Hodge, Dabney,
Boyce, Gill, Berkhof, et al. Calvinists claim that all the great preachers,
teachers, and commentators throughout history have been Calvinistic, and,
because they are in the majority, they must be correct. One man in particular
that White appeals to is Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892), the great Baptist
preacher (pp. 36, 277). Since Spurgeon was one of the few Calvinistic Baptists
in history to have a large church and a fruitful ministry, all Calvinists,
whether Baptist or Reformed, appeal to Spurgeon as if his ministry was the
result of his Calvinism instead of in spite of it.
Sixth, White appeals to extra-biblical sources like
creeds and confessions (pp. 78, 125). Whether it is the Canons of Dort, the
Westminster Confession, the Second London Confession, or the Westminster
Catechisms—Calvinists often put the words of men above the Scripture.
Seventh, White uses the standard proof texts: John
6:37
, 44; Rom
8:28
; 1 Cor 2:14; Acts
13:48
; Eph 1:4; 2 Tim 1:9; and Romans 9 (pp. 96, 109, 154, 159, 186, 195, 208, 211,
213). Calvinists never seem to tire of running around the same circuit of
verses.
Eighth, White claims that Jesus Christ taught Calvinism
(pp. 153-69). Chapter 7 in White’s book is called “Jesus Teaches ‘Extreme
Calvinism.’” What a better authority to which to refer? Why not just say
that to deny Calvinism is to deny Christ?
Ninth, White overwhelms the reader with theological terms
(pp. 91-92). Calvinists are the masters at this tactic. One barrier to
understanding Calvinism is that one must learn its vocabulary: synergism,
monergism, effectual calling, preterition, Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, and
jaw-breakers like supralapsarianism, infralapsarianism, and sublapsarianism.
Tenth, White makes all sorts of false implications that
are standard operating procedures for a Calvinist. He implies that if you are
not a Calvinist then you deny salvation by grace (p. 91). He implies that a
rejection of Calvinism means that justification by faith must be rejected as
well (p. 36). He implies that a denial of Limited Atonement means that the
substitutionary nature of the Atonement of Christ is being rejected (p. 233).
IV. Conclusion
Having read all the works of past and present Calvinists,
I can say that James White’s book, The Potter’s Freedom, although
ostensibly written to refute Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free, is
merely a regurgitation of all the discredited Calvinist arguments that have ever
been presented. This does not mean that everything in Geisler’s book should be
defended, but it does mean that White’s book is a weak attempt yet once again
to advance the Calvinist agenda in what has become a TULIP war.