Question:  Looking through your Q&A’s about predestination, I see that you have recommended “Chosen But Free” more than once to people asking questions -–and that this is presented as a “balanced” view.

            Have you read (and what are your thoughts) “The Potter’s Freedom” and “Four [Five?]  Views on Predestination” (which Geisler also participated in)?  I disagree that “Chosen But Free” presents a balanced view.  I think it presents an incorrect view of both classical Arminianism and Calvinism – and confuses the reader with ‘moderate Calvinist’ definitions of terms (i.e. – determined, foreknow).

            Do you think it would be a good idea for people to reference these other books mentioned above to get a view “from the other side” as it were?

            Rick

Answer:  Dear Rick,

            Your question is more detailed than many I receive.  We do not offer in-depth research or answers, as most of our answers have to be short because of time constraints.

            The ongoing debate between Calvinism and Arminianism is approached and discussed in many places – and Geisler’s book, as you note, is not the only, or even the best.

            The position we take at PTM is that Christians do not need to adopt either view in order to be true, or better – for the view is not central to what Christianity has traditionally considered to be the core beliefs of the historic faith.  So, first and foremost – we re not better if we adopt and defend one view over the other.  Unfortunately, I know that this debate leads to such conclusions and such claims – PTM rejects such claims, for they do not comport with the gospel of Jesus Christ, that we are saved by God’s grace, not by anything we say, do or believe – but by his grace.  To God goes the glory.

            Having said that, we do believe that the Bible is to be studied, to be prayerfully considered, and we encourage discussion of predestination, the sovereignty of God, free will, foreknowledge, determinism, etc.  But, the purpose and goal of such study should not be to exalt ourselves, our church, our denomination, and our ministry – but to exalt God.

            The fact that humans are captive to time and space, let alone sinful human nature, is a part of this discussion.  The discussion is all about how we might better understand the perfect and holy God who is outside of time and space, whose thoughts are not our thoughts, etc.  Having participated in this debate, it would seem that some who are quite dogmatic take upon themselves near divine status, as they pronounce others to be deficient, lacking, if not reprobate or even heretical.  This the product of studying the nature of God – by an imperfect, flawed human? 

            So, yes, you are correct.  Many of our answers are brief on this issue – and there are many sources.  I have many Arminian and Calvinian friends – a few feel I compromise because I don’t jump into their doctrinal formulation.  If I have, then I stand before my Master, and he will judge me on this issue (and all others!) – but I resist their judgment on the basis of Romans 14 – we all stand or fall before the Master.  PTM believes that we should not divide on such a “minor” (I realize some would take exception to this characterization) issue, while there is much work to do about the core, essential beliefs of Christianity.

            In Christ,

            Greg Albrecht