“Norman Geisler considers his view a ‘middle’ ground position, however, many Reformed critics of Geisler could categorize him as holding a weakened form of Arminianism.” — Peter Sammons, Reprobation and God’s Sovereignty, 109, n.14

This is a follow-up to my post of a few weeks back. I had mentioned Dr. Norman Geisler as a notable example of someone who mischaracterizes Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism, so I thought more information about this might be beneficial.

I have friends who are big fans of Geisler, and I have benefited from a few of his works as well. (Not so much Chosen But Free, as I think James White schooled him in The Potter’s Freedom. But, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Geisler and Turek) and Christian Ethics (Geisler) were both quite helpful to me. I also own and plan to read A General Introduction to the Bible (Geisler and Nix) and Legislating Morality (Geisler and Turek).) So, while this is one of the areas where I think his work is… problematic, please don’t think this will be a pile-on and tear-down of Geisler in general.

In Chapter 8 (“Parts of Predestination, Part One”) of Reprobation and God’s Sovereignty, Peter Sammons begins with a brief overview of “A Continued History of Misunderstanding”. As examples of notable people who have misunderstood the Reformed doctrines of predestination and reprobation, he refers to Jacobus Arminius, Episcopius, John Wesley, and Harry Boer. Then he launches into the following critical examination of self-proclaimed “moderate Calvinist” Geisler’s position on this….

— — —

“More serious than historical misunderstanding is the more heinous misrepresentation which exists amongst modern scholars. Norman Geisler has presented a view of what he calls ‘Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism,’ which are not historically accurate and, as a result, have led to even more confusion regarding the nature of reprobation. Geisler attempts to offer an alternative to traditional Calvinism. However, in doing so, he presents a historically inaccurate form of Calvinism.

Geisler does not use terms in their historical context but rather redefines terms. Geisler presents the Calvinist acrostic of TULIP and labels it ‘extreme Calvinism,’ allegedly synonymous with ‘hyper-Calvinism.’ He states, ‘We use the term “extreme” (or strong) rather than “hyper” since hyper-Calvinism is used by some to designate a more radical view known as supralapsarianism, which entails double predestination (that God predestines some to heaven and others to hell), denies human responsibility… or nullifies concern for missions and evangelism.’

By conflating terms, Geisler makes a categorical error that permeates his entire perspective. Geisler’s conflation of terms becomes evident when he provides a chart showing ‘hyper-Calvinism’ alongside ‘strong Calvinism.’ His chart [from Systematic Theology, vol. 3, though a similar one is found in Chosen but Free] is as follows:

Geisler claims that he is using a similar chart to R.C. Sproul’s Chosen by God, which is as follows [though flipped, so that it aligns with Geisler’s for comparison purposes]:

Geisler is severely mistaken on his definitions of Calvinism, hyper-Calvinism, and predestination. He uses different definitions for each of the terms he employs. He claims that by believing that God makes an active choice for the reprobate, such a person is a hyper-Calvinist, which could not be further from the truth. Furthermore, he shows an inability to properly differentiate between hyper-Calvinism and historic Calvinism when he states, ‘Moderate Calvinists call the active predestination of both the elect and reprobate “double predestination.” Those who maintain it are called hyper-Calvinists.’

This is contrary to what Calvinists have historically taught. R.C. Sproul explains:

‘Unless we conclude that every human being is predestined to salvation, we must face the flip side of election. If there is such a thing as predestination at all, and if that predestination does not include all people, then we must not shrink from the necessary inference that there are two sides to predestination. It is not enough to talk about Jacob; we must also consider Esau.’

Additionally, Geisler demonstrates a misunderstanding of equal and unequal ultimacy. Sproul provides a historically correct definition of the terms, which differs from what Geisler previously set forth: ‘Equal ultimacy is based on a concept of symmetry. It seeks a complete balance between election and reprobation. The key idea is this: Just as God intervenes in the lives of the elect to create faith in their hearts, so God equally intervenes in the lives of the reprobate to create or work unbelief in their hearts.’

Ultimacy refers to the destiny God chose for men, not the means employed to bring about that destiny. Both Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists affirm that God ordains the ends of the elect and the non-elect. Where they differ is in the means God employs to bring about his double decree. Hyper-Calvinists affirm a symmetrical view, in which God works unbelief and evil into humans directly, while Calvinists believe God is not the direct agent responsible (also known as the efficient cause). The Calvinist maintains that God directly intervenes in regenerating the elect to bring them to salvation, but does not have to directly intervene in the non-elect in order for them to receive condemnation.

The hyper-Calvinist, on the other hand, asserts that God directly intervenes in the lives of the elect via regeneration, as well as directly intervening in the lives of the non-elect (via what has sometimes been called ‘degeneration’). This is where secondary causality becomes vital to understand. Because Geisler does not distinguish among the types of causality, he has mistakenly lumped true and balanced Calvinism into the same camp as hyper-Calvinism. As a result of the wide publications of Geisler (and others like him), any meaningful discussion on reprobation have been hindered, by working with definitions which do not stand the test of historical accuracy.”

— — —

Hopefully, whether you appreciate the Calvinist approach or not, you can see that Geisler dropped the ball in a number of ways on this subject. It is an unfortunate yet necessary reminder that even our heroes in the faith are/were imperfect, with feet of clay.

Tags: accurate representation, anti-Calvinists, Calvinism, doctrines of grace, double predestination, extreme Calvinist, God's sovereignty, historical misunderstanding, Hyper-Calvinism, mischaracterization, misrepresentation, moderate Calvinist, Norman Geisler, Peter Sammons, predestination, redefinition of terms, Reformed theology, reprobation, supralapsarianism, ultimacy

Posted in Religion
No Comments Yet Posted by sirrahc