A response to Norman Geisler
In this article I will be dealing with Dr Norman Geisler’s poor and misleading sermon called “Why I am not a five point Calvinist.” It has been well said that this man has a good record of dealing with other subjects; but on this one issue he has shown his total abandonment of sound argumentation and reasoning. And this is genuinely the case that all non-Calvinists have, it is an imbalanced position.
What is necessary to state here is that if someone generally misrepresents the Biblical truth as defined at the reformation concerning God absolute freedom in Salvation as those whom are now totally reformed in their perspectives — It is likely that they are very imbalanced on their view on other areas too. This principal is a well grounded one that can be seen in other people as well.
What does the doctrine of Total Depravity actually teach:
Total Depravity .... man is dead in sin, completely and radically impacted by the fall -- the enemy of God --- incapable of saving himself, this does not mean man is as evil as he could be nor does it mean that the image of God is destroyed, or that the will is done away with -- instead it mean that all the pervasiveness of the effects of sin -- and man is outside of Christ is an enemy of God
And also consider my own statement:
Man (Adam and Eve) was created upright, the fullest and clearest expression of God’s being. In other words, they both were the most perfect, most holy people to ever exist. This fact, not only was evident in their humanity but it also was worship of God, they could worship God without defect and sin.However, this fact was not to be perpetual; since Adam and Eve both fell into an ungodly state, they become depraved sinners. Through the fall this depravity was passed onto every generation of mankind. The reformed teaching called total depravity is in itself the same truth being expressed here, it is a statement of fact; that it is radical to its nature but it is not total in its extent. Every part of the human: the mind, the will, the emotions, the soul are all affected by the fall, man can be very evil but he is not as evil as can be.
Let us now turn to this case in question and consider it very closely to see what is being said:
Now lets begin with a scriptures in Ephesians Chapter 2-1; Ephesians 2, they appeal to this verse in support of their belief that man is so dead totally depraved, so totally sinful, so totally apart from God— you cannot even understand the gospel or receive the gospel. Ephesians 2:1 says “And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.” And it goes onto say in verse 3, “and were by nature children of wrath,” and then “made us alive” verse 5 he made us alive. So the word “dead in sin” like a dead corpse floats on the water that couldn’t hear, couldn’t see, couldn’t understand, and couldn’t believe but in his grace— according to a five point Calvinist, reached down and gave life to the corpse. Now that giving life is regeneration. Giving life to the soul, imparting to a dead person. And according to a five point calvinist, we are so dead in our sins, we can’t understand the gospel, “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” So Ephesians 2:1 and 1 Corinthians 2:14 become apart of the basis of the belief that we are so totally depraved that the only way we could possible get saved— God made us alive first, then after we are made alive then we are capable of believing. That faith follows salvation. faith is not a condition by which we get salvation— salvation is the means we get saved.
Here we have a pretty long statement given by Norman concerning his view of Total Depravity. I say his view because that is what it is, it has no basis on any believing description of the subject. It is a misrepresentation of the position that he trying to criticise and thereby dismiss. A few point to make a mention of:
First, he does not deal with Ephesians 2:1-3 at any length, it is just mentioned and passed over with no concern. There is no mention of the background of mankind being in the bonds of slavery to the evil one, to his own fallen nature, to the ways of this world as well. We must consider the passage at some depth.
Second, another issue here is in this statement “You cannot even understand the gospel or receive the gospel.” The issue here is not understanding or receiving the Gospel; the real issue is in fact, they do not have the spiritual capacity to understand the spiritual things of God— in other words, they can not embrace the truth of the Gospel, nor accept anything related.
Third, This may not have been seen by the listeners of this sermon at the particular Calvary Chapel — but it is important to note: when citing Ephesians 2:5 he misses some important words from it, he said “made us alive” but now lets see the whole verse in question “even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),” this is solely an act on God’s end as verse 4-5 demonstrate.
Fourth, I really do not understand why such people have a hard time with regeneration as Norman seems too. Since man is dead in sin— and is incapable of saving himself or doing anything meritorious on his end to gain favour or salvation. Therefore, God is the one that does all the work. He chooses man before the world was created, make a perfect all encompassing sacrifice for the individual, he regenerates the individual person by the Spirit, then unites him in Christ by faith. So on and so forth, it is important to correctly understand the bible.
Fifth, Finally, in this last statement, “That faith follows salvation. faith is not a condition by which we get salvation— salvation is the means we get saved.” It is clear from these words that this is an equivocation of terms— he starts by raising the issue of “regeneration” and then redefines it with the term “Salvation” as if they are the same thing - He will later state “Calvinist believes salvation regeneration comes before faith.” We must note that Salvation is a term that can be used to designate the whole operation of being redeemed, but it is never used as a substitute of regeneration; they are distinct things.
This completes the examination of his misrepresentation of what Calvinists believe in this regard. It is important that we deal with these misrepresentation as it is something no believing Christian should ever do. He next gives a list of several reasons for not accepting “Total Depravity” or at least his misrepresentation thereof. Let us now turn and consider them one at a time, so we can see where he completely misses the point.
First we have this,
I do not believe it because if you look at the context of this verse in Ephesians 2; you will notice in verse 8 that it it says this is received through faith- “For by grace you have been saved through faith.” Now if you’re saved through faith — then what logically comes first: the salvation or the faith? If you’re saved by grace— faith comes before salvation. Where is the 5 point Calvinist believes salvation regeneration comes before faith. Roman 5:1 says ‘we are justified by faith’. So faith is the means by which we get justification— justification is not the means by which we get faith.
Now we come to the first objection to the above misrepresentation of Total Depravity. And what do we get from Norman, nothing back a continued use of illogical argumentation. Notice the following points that are readily apparent to us in this short statement:
First, he calls upon us to consider the whole context, then abandons it and goes to verse 8. What ever happened to following a thought from point a to point b— it seems to have not occurred to Norman at all. There is no mention here of verses 1-3 and how they relate to verse 8; not only this, there is no interaction with verses 4-7 at all. So by the time we get anywhere close to verse 8 we have no real understanding of what has been discussed by Paul, not only that, there is no real understanding of the themes of the passage in question.
Second, we have this completely illogical statement given “which comes first: salvation or the faith?” and of course, Calvinism does not reject the fact that Faith comes before being saved. What is this about? It is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. the issue is regeneration that comes before faith. Regeneration is not salvation but is one subset of salvation; however, it comes before faith. This is nothing more than equivocation of the terms and is something the cults are famous for doing. The question that must be asked is this: Why does Norman who claims to be a Christian retreat to cultic tactics? Can anyone give the basis for this?
Third, we have this last statement: “Roman 5:1 says ‘we are justified by faith’. So faith is the means by which we get justification— justification is not the means by which we get faith.” No one would even contemplate arguing such a false claim as to say that faith follows justification. The issue here is what is the origin of the faith that man is justified by. Is it something that is inherent to all men or is something that has it origin outside man and is given to only those who are given to Christ and who trust in him? The bible is very clear on this issue Faith is a gift that God imparts on those whom he first regenerates.
Next we have this,
One of the things I teach is Philosophy and one of the main philosophers is René Descartes and he said, “I think therefore I am.” Well actually— he put the cart before the horse; because you have to exist before you think “I exist therefore I think.” I think the five point Calvinist put the Cart before the Horse— “believe on the Lord Jesus and you’ll be saved.” No where in the New Testament do i find the opposite. we find believe and receive salvation; not receive salvation and believe.
Here is the second objection to the above misrepresentation of Total Depravity. This time we get a philosophical overthrow of the exegesis of the bible provided by the Reformed position. This is one thing we must never do as it leads to a bankrupt system of man-centred ideology. Let us consider what is said:
First, upon seeing his manhandling of Ephesians 2 as we previously have witnessed. Now we come to the other anchor in Norman’s approach— his Philosophical underpinning: the error is a grave one, one day we have one kind of thought being made king; the very next there is another— it is nevertheless, a never ending cycle of deadness. The bible is clear in Colossians 2 8, and 2 corinthian 10: 4-5 tells us to completely subject these thing to grander authority of Christ.
Second, this René Descartes statement, “I think therefore I am.” statement is actually a good one to refute Normans position. “I think” presupposes that I exist. Therefore, I exist in order to think about any point of contention. But in seeing the error in this philosophy is far greater than allowing philosophical position mislead us into erroneous understandings of the Character of God, of Salvation and man. Having already exposed Norman equivocation of terms in Regeneration and salvation being the same point.
Third, as we have already noted and documented Norman’s revision of Calvinism terminology and teaching. We should note that it doesn’t mean that this misrepresentation is legitimate; it is in actual reality a false dichotomy and a matter of illogical referent — an act of equivocation. For he states, “Calvinist believes salvation regeneration comes before faith.” This is not what Calvinism has ever believed nor taught.
Next we have this,
How do you explain the fact that we are dead— the bible says ‘we’re dead in trespasses and sin’. Dead can be understood in two ways: (1) Annihilation. (2) Separation. Now we know in the bible ‘death’ never means the first one that your totally out of existence. Death in the bible means means separation— the prophet said “your sins have separated you from your God.” Death brings a wall of separation- you die, what happens? The soul separates from the body. ‘Absent from the body present from the Lord’ (2 Corinthians 5). ‘It’s better to depart and to be with Christ’ (Philippians 1:25). Or the book of Genesis it says ‘Her soul was in the process of depravity’. So death in the bible is understood as separation not Annihilation. But for all practical purposes we could understand it as as Spiritual annihilation.
Here is the third objection to the above misrepresentation of Total Depravity. And now we get a rather facile attempt in discussing the biblical picture of man being a sinner; in particular, we are addressing Paul’s words “dead in sin.” Let us now consider this at length to see what we can gain from it:
First, the idea that there only being two kinds of death in view is rather too simplistic too say the least. And to only mention (a) Annihilation. And (b) Separation. Reveal more about the philosophical presuppositions behind this understanding; it is not biblical founded. There are three kinds of death in the bible (1) Physical death (separation of the soul from the body). (2) Spiritual death (alienation from and rebellion towards God; as James says “enmity with God”) (3) the second death (which is not exactly easy to determine; but it seems to be eternal punishment).
Second, When Calvinist speak of being “dead in sin” it is of course that of the second point. We must remember this as it is an evident reality in all mankind; every human is born wicked depraved and without the capacity submit to God in a real spiritual manner. Nevertheless, they like us all can take in bare facts about the gospel such as: the divinity of Jesus, the virgin birth, the miraculous life of the Lord, the death and resurrection as well as other small facts.
Third, Norman’s slip of a twist must be noted: “But for all practical purposes we could understand it as as Spiritual annihilation.” There not one bit of supporting evidence to establish this claim; it remain as his own misrepresentation and a straw man of the position he is trying to refute (quite unsuccessfully might I add). Sure you can raise a dummy and knock it down but that is not really dealing with the reality of the matter at hand.
Next we have this,
In short, depravity involves corruption of life not it destruction. Man was created in the image and likeness, in Genesis 9:6 “even unsaved people still have the image of God.” Genesis 1:27 says “God created man in his own image.” Yes, Adam fell. Yes, he separated from God. But he separated from God. But he separated from God; he still had God’s image. Because after the flood, Noah was told “whoever sheds man’s blood shall his blood be shed— for the image of God is still in him.” In other words, don’t kill an unsaved person because they’re still in the image of God. James 3:9 says “it’s wrong to curse another human being.” Cause they made in the image of God. So the image of God is defaced in man but not erased— for all practical purposes 5 point Calvinist believe that it is erased.
Here is the third objection to the above misrepresentation of Total Depravity. And it is yet another misrepresentation of what the reformed position teaches regarding the ‘image of God’ let us consider it very closely to see what we can gather:
First, it is the reformed or calvinist position that the human race since the fall of Adam has suffered a grave defect; for God created the first parent as upright, sinless, flawless in both character and nature and they were able to obey God in a pristine fashion. But this has changed in a very discernible way — we no longer are in this way as was the first parents Adam and Eve; we have become totally depraved and are radically corrupted. The bible very straight forth on this matter even in the Ephesian 2 passage we have one of the most riveting truth claims from God.
Second, The image of God has been severely and radically compromised from the fall— it is best understood as a holistic alteration in every facet of the human being: the mind, the will, the emotions and the soul. And as a result of this defect on all mankind, all men have a certain incapacity or a very real inability to please God or even to anything spiritually right in and of himself— they are incapable of doing spiritually good things in the sight of our great God. (This is what John 6:44,65, Romans 3:10-18, 8:1-8 all make clear) Sin is not just small thing but it is life altering and life compromising thing which we must take serious.
Third, once again, Norman has misrepresent the Reformed position on the matter of how we view the “image of God” by saying ‘for all practical purposes 5 point Calvinist believe that it is erased.’ Constant straw man attacks such as these are enormously distracting from the reality. We do not and never have believed that the image of God has been annihilated or erased— and what is more there is not one reformed writer who gives any credit to such a foolish ideal.
Next we have this,
To get the illustration even more clearly: let’s look at Genesis chapter 3 — in Genesis 3 in the Old Testament Adam and Eve sinned. According to the bible, they became dead in trespasses and sins. To me the best way to understand the bible is by the bible …. when we consider chapters 2 and 3. Now here is what a spiritually dead person can do. Note several important things about this, even though Adam was spiritually dead— he could (1) hear God. (2) understand what God was saying. So even in our fallen state, the image of God is still in us. Our ability to hear, our ability to respond to God is there: both in the negative and positive response. In fact unsaved people can understand and perceive the truth of God (Romans 1:19)
Here is the fourth objection to the above misrepresentation of Total Depravity. And there are a number of issues being thread in this statement that need some consideration. Let us consider it very closely:
First, the issue being presented here can not be established from the text of the bible— let alone all of scripture. For Norman to assert that “because Adam and eve could hear and understand God; therefore, so can we” is a startling claim. But unfortunately, the scripture does not give any basis for this assertion. It in fact, ignores the New Testament attestation to contrary (John 6:44-45, 65. Romans 8:1-8).
Second, it confuses the two ideas— every one can hear and understand God’s truth in the physical sense (as Adam and Eve do here in Genesis 3). That, however, does not translate to the reality of the fact that Spiritually dead man cannot and never will submit and obey the Gospel truth. It take an act of God on an individual in order for one to even do such a thing— this act is called Regeneration.
Third, the confusion gets even more obvious in the last sentence. Not only does Norman mix up the categories of physical and spiritual things as in hearing and understanding; but it goes onto state that “In fact unsaved people can understand and perceive the truth of God.” Note, the calvinist position is that the unregenerate can not understand the spiritual truth, nor can they embrace and obey them— still this has nothing to do with Romans 1: 19 which about the existence of God in creation.
Next we have this,
Both scripture and good reason inform us that depraved human beings have the power of free choice. The bible says fallen man is ignorant, depraved and a slave to sin. But all these conditions involve a choice…. Even our enslavement to sin is a result of free choice… Even spiritual blindness is a result of the choice not to believe … fallen beings are free… And the vertical ability to believe is everywhere implied in the Gospel call (Acts 16:31; 17:30). Freedom for God’s creatures, as it is for the God in whose image they are made, is described in James 1:18 “of his own will begat he us with the word of truth.”
Here is fifth objection to the above misrepresentation of Total Depravity. And the key theme made in this is though we are depraved in nature, enslaved to sin nevertheless “we are still free to choice” but this completely misses the point. Let us consider this at much length:
First, we have this duo of sources of authority “Both scripture and good reason” being invoked. Yet for a true Christian this is not to be the measure we come to truth about man; our sole place of authority is in fact, the bible alone— for all other things should be made subservient to the final rule on all matters. But here we must see that even in Norman’s case, reason trumps the authority of the bible just as does philosophy.
Second, we are told that scripture and reason “inform us that depraved human beings have the power of free choice.” Putting aside for a moment, reason. What passage of scripture does Norman suggest? None, for there is nothing the bible says about our choices “being free” in fact, we are told quite the opposite conclusion of this matter at hand: the scripture says that our choices are determined by many secondary factors including our own nature (James 1: 15); But the ultimate or primary factor happens to be God himself (Proverbs 15, 17 and 21). And onto the reason, since we are dealing with a fallen, depraved humanity this too has been effected in a very real way.
Third, he gives a list of different things that have been effected or coursed by sin— and then turns and says that they are the “result of free choice;” however, he is very strapped with any biblical parameters to give us a logical case for this assertion. The dispute here is not whether man exercises choices, it is in fact, the place of choice in things such as being a slave to sin. Let us bear in mind, that we are not “slaves to sin” because we choice to sin (and yes there is a choice in that) — we are, in fact, handed this enslavement by our first parents when they chose to sin and the whole of mankind after them fell not by choice but by consequence of it.
Fourth, this old beaten dummy of “And the vertical ability to believe is everywhere implied in the Gospel call (Acts 16:31; 17:30).” or to put another way, “Man must have the ability to choose to obey inherently or the many commands in the scripture are just empty words.” This again, is a false assertion on the part of the”free-willer” simply because giving a command does not necessitate the ability to obey and comply— Only those to whom the Spirit opens their hearts by grace can in fact respond such as Lydia in Acts 16. Every time the gospel message goes out and it met with acceptance it is because God is working in the person for his own purpose to be established.
