Jul
28
White Responds to Turek: If We Don’t Have Free Will to Accept God…
I like Frank Turek. I appreciate him as a Christian apologist who is reaching a lot of people through his speaking engagements and educating via the CrossExamined Academy. But, I don’t always agree with him — sometimes in approach, sometimes in content. His understanding and handling of Calvinism and the Doctrines of Grace (i.e., Reformed theology) is one area that is very frustrating.
With Reformed friends like Greg Koukl, one would think Turek would have a better understanding of Reformed theology, but from what I have heard, he is typically simplistic(?). Maybe he just figures he knows all he needs to and has no interest in attaining a better understanding. (I prefer this explanation over one in which he does have a good understanding of Reformed theology but decides not to give a fair representation.) He can get away with it, too, when speaking to his audiences, who usually don’t know enough to challenge him. Plus, he’s often the one running the show, as it were, or the guest of a likeminded organization like Soteriology 101.
Reformed theologian/pastor/apologist James R. White took a few minutes on his own podcast (“The Dividing Line”, posted 11/14/2023) to react/respond to some comments Turek made while doing audience Q&A at a conference awhile ago. White’s whole commentary about Turek’s comments is about 25 minutes, but I have reproduced a shortened version of the relevant section below with a few comments of my own.
— — —
Turek (on video): If we don’t have free will to accept God, then it would seem that God is immoral for judging us when we don’t have the capacity to choose Him.
White (in podcast reaction; part quote, part summary): Dr. Turek is not Reformed, and we have responded to his anti-Reformed statements many, many times before. This is the same objection that you would have, for example, to Original Sin — to being “included in Adam” and receiving from Adam all that Adam can give to you, which is death and judgment. It would be an objection to being in Christ and receiving from Christ what you do not deserve — that which is imputed to you by your union with Christ. It is, in essence, the objection of Romans 9: “How then does He still find fault for those who resist His will?” This is why these people have to reject Paul’s application — insisting that it must be about nations and not individuals –, despite his using the “vessels of honor, vessels of wrath” application in Scripture. It also dismisses Paul’s arguments in Romans 5.
Me: Doesn’t this Arminian reasoning (like Turek’s) also contradict what the New Testament says about the Mosaic system not being able to save, because we aren’t able to do it on our own? Why did God demand holiness from the Hebrews, if they didn’t have the capacity (as sinful, fallible humans) to actually do everything demanded of them? We cannot consistently — or, usually, for that matter — do what is pleasing to God even once saved, let alone while in the fallen state.
Turek (on video): Why would [God] say He wants all to be saved when only certain people are saved?
White (my summary): That’s the same question the universalist asks. First question in response should be, “Where do you get the idea that God wants everyone to be saved?” (See discussion in ch. 6 of The Potter’s Freedom: “CBF’s ‘Big Three’ Verses”.) Also, what about all the nations in the Old Testament that God never sent a prophet to? Did He want them saved, too?
Why doesn’t God save everyone? The simple answer is that He chooses not to do so. But, why? “Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?” (See Job and Psalms.) Why would God create a world that would have evil in it? For the demonstration of all His attributes, and to the praise of His glorious grace (see Ephesians 1). Those may not be emotionally satisfying answers, but they must be sufficient for those of us who follow Him, because that is all that He gives us in His Word.
— — —
In putting this post together, I came across another quote by White that I had written down (probably from another podcast) regarding “free will”:
“Obviously, we believe that Man’s choices are free in the creaturely realm. He is a creature of God. He has been placed into Time, and so he acts on the basis of his nature and on what fills his heart, and so on and so forth.
What I had said was, there are not two autonomous wills. “Free” and “autonomous” are not the same thing. Autonomy is self-law, right? And, so, autonomy would have no authority above the will. And, if you are a creature… if you are the pot, there will always be a Potter. And the pot will never be equal [let alone superior] to the Potter. And, so, autonomy is an ultimate level of authority. Hence, when we’re talking about wills, God has autonomy, because there is nothing above Him. We never have autonomy. So, it’s always a matter of comparing creatures to the Creator, and then fallen creatures….”
I hope this has all been at least somewhat helpful in understanding the Reformed position. I’m sure some of you — especially the aggressively anti-Reformed types — will feel compelled to defend Turek, correct me/White, explain (or at least declare) everything wrong with Calvinism, etc. I’m not looking for a big theological debate, so any responses I give will be limited.
As always, please keep it civil and respectful.
