CHOSEN BUT FREE: A BALANCED VIEW OF GODS SOVEREIGNTY AND FREE WILL PDF, EPUB, EBOOK

Norman L. Geisler | 288 pages | 01 Sep 2010 | Baker Publishing Group | 9780764208447 | English | Ada, MI, United States "Chosen But Free?" by James Harrison

This is why he answers the way he does. If, for example, Paul were teaching that election was based on foreseen, freely chosen faith, his answer would have been quite different. They have the ability to believe and they freely choose not to. Obviously, they are responsible for their unbelief. If this were not what Paul was teaching there would be no reason to ask such a question. Geisler not only ignores this fact, but attempts to deny the obvious force of what Paul is saying. He cannot be for His own essential good and be against it by giving Lucifer the desire to sin against Him. In short, God cannot be for Himself and against Himself at the same time and in the same sense. Geisler demonstrates a logical leap by assuming that an act or event which seems to our finite eyes and minds to be against God, cannot in fact be for God. What Geisler is presenting here is another version of the classic problem of evil. Simply put, the problem of evil states that God cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving. If He is all-powerful, He could prevent evil from occurring. If He is all-loving, He would want to prevent evil from occurring. But evil exists. Therefore, the argument goes, God is either not all- powerful or He is not all-loving. But those who propose this argument overlook a fatal flaw that even atheist philosophers such as Michael Martin admit, and it is the same flaw that Geisler overlooks. The problem of evil is not a problem if God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing that evil to occur. Likewise, Geisler is making a logical leap when he ignores the possibility that there is a morally sufficient reason, ordained within the sovereign plan of God, for allowing Lucifer to sin. If one denies this, as Geisler does, but also admits, as he does, that Lucifer did in fact sin, one has just abandoned any possibility of the existence of a truly sovereign God. The only way to avoid this conclusion is to join the free-will theists in redefining the nature of sovereignty. It is interesting that Geisler spends an entire chapter rightly critiquing free-will theism while never seeing that position as the logical extension of the very position which he holds. Clark Pinnock, Gregory Boyd, and others have correctly diagnosed the logical implications of the Arminianism which Geisler here sets forth. Hence, freedom as defined by Geisler and Arminianism, is an illusion. The free-will theists, having seen where the logic of Arminianism leads, were faced with two choices if they were to be consistent. Pinnock, Boyd, and others have taken the latter course. It is an unbiblical conclusion, to be sure. But it is, at least, logically consistent. Geisler has not yet faced up to the problem. Rather, he continues to hold to a logically indefensible system. For instance, in a discussion of irresistible grace, Geisler states,. In spite of some apparent inconsistency on this point see his comments on Luke , John Calvin faced honestly the biblical teaching that the Holy Spirit can be resisted. You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! One marvels. The assertion that Geisler makes is a classic example of question begging. But it is incumbent upon those who would undertake a work such as CBF to do more than assert. Within the Calvinist system, none of what he quotes here, either from Scripture or Calvin, presents the slightest problem. It is, in fact, entirely consistent. Who are these that Stephen is addressing? How does Stephen address them? Is this not a wonderfully accurate description of an unbeliever in his natural state? Of course the unregenerate resist the Holy Spirit. That is why regeneration is necessary. In fact, if God is one indivisible being without any parts, as classical Calvinists believe, then His love extends to all of His essence, not just part of it. Hence, God cannot be partly loving. But if God is all-loving, then how can He love only some so as to give them and only them the desire to be saved? If He really loves all men, then why does He not give to all men the desire to be saved? It only follows then that, in the final analysis, the reason why some go to hell is that god does not love them and give them the desire to be saved. There are many who deny eternal hell and would turn Dr. Apparently, that is not inconsistent with the love of God. Both Arminians and Calvinists agree that there is something God values to a greater degree than the ultimate salvation of every man, woman, and child. The typical Arminian response is that God does not desire robots. The Calvinist, in addition to denying the assertion that a lack of Arminian free-will equals a robot, will agree that there is something which God values more highly than the salvation of every man, woman, and child. But it is something infinitely more valuable than the absolute free-will of His creature. It is, rather, the glorification of His own attributes, specifically, those of His mercy and justice. His utmost concern in all that He does is His own glory. That includes the existence of eternal hell, whether Dr. Geisler is able to understand it or not. Further examples of logical leaps could be multiplied. A spiritually dead person, then, is in need of spiritual life from God. But he does exist, and he can know and choose. His faculties that make up the image of God are not absent; they are simply incapable of initiating or attaining their own salvation. Like a drowning person, a fallen person can reach out and accept the lifeline even though he cannot make it to safety on his own. The problems in this statement should be obvious. Is there really someone who has denied the existence of spiritually dead men? Is there someone who has theorized that this world of unbelief is populated by phantoms, or figments of imagination? What actual meaning can such a statement have? Metaphors are used in order to convey meaning. Furthermore, with no logical or exegetical warrant, Geisler takes it upon himself to change the metaphor of Scripture. No longer are we speaking of a dead person, but this metaphor of death is now equated with a new metaphor introduced not by Scripture, but by Geisler himself A drowning man, Geisler tells us, can reach out and accept the lifeline. True enough. But can one who is already drowned do so? A related logical leap takes place in the preceding chapter. In commenting upon a quote by the Puritan William Ames, and attempting to represent the Calvinistic view, he says,. In fact, fallen human beings are so dead in sin that God must first regenerate them before they can even believe. Dead men do not believe anything; they are dead! Are there degrees of deadness? In the movie, The Princess Bride, the hero of the story, Westly, has been tortured to death by the evil Prince Humperdink. Having been found by his friends with no apparent signs of life, his body is carried to the home of Mad Max the Miracle Worker. It appears that Dr. Either dead is dead or it is something other than dead. In spite of the of the problems found in CBF which have been presented thus far, that which causes the greatest degree of frustration for the reader concerns Dr. When an author is dealing with a tradition that has produced such a super-abundance of exegetical material, one would think that exegesis of pertinent passages would be a priority. But if one were to assume such a thing, one would be terribly disappointed with CBF. In response to this wealth of exegetical treasure, we are provided with virtually nothing. At the most, texts which are central to the issue at hand are given one page, but the vast majority of texts do not rate even that much, but merely a paragraph or two. As the reader would expect, very little real exegesis takes place within those kinds of space restraints. The result is assertion after assertion, with virtually no serious attention given to either the text itself, or to Reformed explanations and exegesis. Apparently, Dr. Geisler believes that nothing more needs to be said concerning he contention that this verse supports his proposition. But does it? The first observation one might make concerning this verse is that Dr. Geisler has failed to quote it in its entirety. The context speaks for itself. With no exegetical support whatsoever, Geisler attempts to turn this verse on its head, claiming for it a meaning in direct opposition to what it actually says. On that very same page of CBF we are provided with another example of exegetical headstands. In these verses, John states,. And yet, amazingly enough, Geisler moves from this clear passage to a completely different passage and states,. Jesus was speaking to hardhearted Jews who had seen many indisputable miracles including the resurrection of Lazarus [John 11] and who had been called upon many times to believe before this point cf. John , which reveals that they were able to do so; He assumes that if God commands something, that command necessitates the ability to obey. But we need not look far to see that this is not the case. The Mosaic Law was commanded. All Israel was obligated to obey. Did they? Obviously not. Could they? And yet they were commanded to do so, and held accountable for their failure. The people of God have been commanded to love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, and strength. Have we? Can we? The answer is clear. And yet, because of his faulty premise, Geisler is unable to deal with the clear words of the text. So that they would not see and be converted. It was their own stubborn unbelief that brought on their blindness. Thus, it was chosen and avoidable blindness. John says that their blindness was the work of God. Geisler says that it was their own choice. I was recommended this book due to some radical viewpoints that were being taught at my church which I prayed to the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth. The Christian Radio show host that I highly Norman L. The Reformed movement has gotten younger and more outspoken since Chosen But Free was published more than ten years ago, making the topic of divine election one of utmost importance to the church today. Young Christians in particular are in constant debate over these issues, wondering what is true and how it might affect their lives. People on both sides of the debate will want to read a "middle-ground" book. In addition, this revision deals more directly with the personal issues involved in the debate. For example, how do our beliefs about free will affect us when it comes to perceptions of love, personal responsibility, and purpose? And how does it affect our ability to worship God? What Are the Alternatives? Whos in Charge? Avoiding the Extreme Sovereignty View. Buy New Learn more about this copy. Customers who bought this item also bought. Stock Image. Published by Bethany House Publishers New Paperback Quantity Available: 1. Seller Rating:. Seller Image. Westlake, OH, U. Published by Bethany House Publishers. New Quantity Available: 1. Chosen But Free, rev. Published by Bethany House Chosen but Free Norman L. New paperback Quantity Available: 1. New Paperback Quantity Available: 2. New Quantity Available: 3. Majestic Books London, United Kingdom. Chosen But Free by Norman L. Geisler

Have we? Can we? The answer is clear. And yet, because of his faulty premise, Geisler is unable to deal with the clear words of the text. So that they would not see and be converted. It was their own stubborn unbelief that brought on their blindness. Thus, it was chosen and avoidable blindness. John says that their blindness was the work of God. Geisler says that it was their own choice. Note that Geisler cannot demonstrate his point by addressing the text at hand. Instead, he must reach into a different context altogether, that of John 8. We are given a plain statement of fact: If one does not believe that Christ is I AM, they will die in their sins. Every word of that is true, and yet not one word of that tells us whether or not His hearers are able to believe. A perfect example of the lack of any real interaction with pertinent texts is found as we examine this crucial passage. But his question was one of ability. So is this verse one which speaks to ability, or rather, the lack of ability. But what does Geisler read in this text? What we have in reply to the plain meaning of the text are more assertions of his already declared position. We are born with a bent to sin, but we still have a choice whether we will be its slaves. Is that what the text says, even though it appears on its face to be saying the very opposite? Apparently not even Dr. Geisler believes so, for he provides not one shred of supporting evidence that would lead us to understand the text in any way other than what it actually says, namely, that the unregenerate are unable to please God. He simply, once again, offers his assertions, based on his presuppositions. But again, one would be wrong. Even in support of his own contentions, the most the reader finds is a few paragraphs with only the most cursory attempt at what one could call exegesis. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. From the time of the later Augustine this text has been manhandled by extreme Calvinists. If only Dr. Geisler would have handled the text at all. But he does not. We find no independent exegesis of any kind, indeed, no exegesis whatsoever. Neither will one find any interaction with Calvinistic interpretations. They have, of course, and that position is not difficult to defend. Was Paul speaking about each individual in the world? That is the assumption that Geisler and other Arminians make. But is that assumption warranted? Upon closer examination of the text, one may decide that his first assumption is not necessarily a true one. First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,. Are we really to believe that Paul was exhorting Timothy to pray for every specific individual in the entire world individually? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. What, then, is Paul saying? We are immediately given help in our understanding as we continue reading in verse two. Such examples could be found in Acts ; ; Gal. They are arguments that unfortunately, Dr. Geisler has neglected to deal with. One wonders how Dr. Geisler can expect to convincingly prove his points when time and time again he refuses to deal substantially with opposing viewpoints. Assertion and ridicule are no substitute for sound exegesis and argumentation. Unfortunately, CBF largely consists of the former and is sorely lacking the latter. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. This is no exception. First, The plain meaning of 2 Peter and then the Implausible interpretation by extreme Calvinists. Words have limits to their meaning by context. It behooves us to once again point out the fact that assertions and ridicule are not proof. We do not really know whether or not the Calvinistic view is unreasonable, because the Calvinistic view is never really interacted with. The most that we find in the two short paragraphs headed, Implausible interpretation by extreme Calvinists, are more assertions concerning what Calvinists believe and additional assertions that there is no basis for those interpretations. In the face of literally volumes of reformed exegesis and argumentation on this very issue, Geisler offers his readers 14 sentences. Is the Calvinistic view unreasonable? Geisler is absolutely correct. Word meanings are limited to their context. As we do this, we run across a number of interesting items that Dr. Geisler never sees fit to mention. Rather, Peter is speaking of the parousia That said, all we see in this passage, including his passing mention of repentance, must be seen in the light of what Peter is actually discussing, namely, the reason for delay in the return of Christ. Yes, we are. The pronouns that Peter uses are extremely important. But what about those verses in between? How are the mockers referred to? The mockers are not part of the beloved. This is a crucial part of the context of the passage and yet goes unmentioned by Dr. Why is this crucial? They are those to whom he writes his epistle. In 2 Peter we read,. Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: Grace and Peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. Need we say more? Peter makes himself clear. This is such a careless statement. Surely Dr. Geisler realizes that words have more than one legitimate meaning. But any dictionary will provide definitions such as the following:. Admittedly, one cannot argue the meaning of biblical terms from an English dictionary. But it can and should be pointed out that to portray the meaning of certain terms as inarguable, and self-evident, is to avoid the very issue in question. Evidence for the assertion may have been helpful, but again, we find none. Instead, we find outrageous statements like the following,. Sproul is aware of how dangerous it is to change the Word of God. To accuse one who disagrees exegetically of changing the Word of God goes beyond the pale. Rather, he is doing the job of the exegete. That is, he is interpreting the Word according to its grammar and context, something that Dr. Geisler has not bothered to attempt. This accusation is a common one for Dr. Geisler, for he throws the same charge at John Owen, as well. Arguably, the best defense of extreme Calvinism on limited Atonement comes from John Owen. This needs no response, simply a sober reminder that God repeatedly exhorts us not to add to or subtract from His words Deut. Quite the contrary. Like Sproul, Owen was exegeting the text. After ten full pages of closely reasoned argumentation, Owen concludes with the words that Geisler quotes. But wait. There is no retranslating going on. It is unfortunate for all concerned that Dr. Geisler prefers to misrepresent Sproul and Owen rather than to deal substantially with their arguments. But that, alas, is what characterizes CBF from beginning to end. To examine and respond to each inaccuracy found in CBF would require a book-length treatment many pages in excess of what Geisler has himself written. Geisler point by point but rather to demonstrate the general problems which are found throughout CBF. This is a responsibility that cannot be taken too seriously. Let us not be confused by the one who would take familiar terms and twist them into unrecognizability. Let us not be lulled into inattention by those who would distort the opinions of others in order to make their own viewpoints appear self-evident. Let us not be led blindly into the labyrinth of illogic without first examining the legitimacy of the premises which are offered. Let us not be dissuaded from our task of solid exegesis by those who would convince us that no difficult exegetical issues exist, or that there is no reasoned disagreement among men of keen intellect. Truth needs no adjective. Truth is truth. It is neither balanced, nor moderate. It simply is. James M. This article is used by permission of the author. Please join others who have commented upon this and other topics in our Discussion Group. Return to the Home Page. Predestination Index. Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Chosen But Free by Norman L. The seemingly endless debate between Calvinism and Arminianism continues to make its rounds throughout the Christian community. Polarized beliefs have dominated and divided the theological landscape of the twentieth century, while many observers wonder, "Does it really make a difference? But rather than pitting one strong perspective against another, this brilliant work presents a cogent and sensible moderate view, providing readers with one of the first books that convincingly affirms both the sovereignty and foreknowledge of God and the human responsibility to either receive or reject Him. Get A Copy. Paperback , pages. More Details Original Title. Other Editions 4. Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Chosen But Free , please sign up. Someone said that there is a Kindle Edition out there. I can't find it anywere See 1 question about Chosen But Free…. Lists with This Book. Community Reviews. Showing Average rating 3. Rating details. More filters. Sort order. Start your review of Chosen But Free. Aug 17, Josh rated it did not like it Shelves: theology , pelagian. Due to the fact that people I know and respect have spoken highly of Norman Geisler's book, Chosen But Free, and people I know and respect have also spoken quite critically of this book, I decided to grab the Kindle version and give it a read. There is praise to be offered and well-deserved criticism to be voiced as well. Chapter 1 is a great introduction to the topic of God's sovereignty. Geisler spends an extended amount of time affirming God as sovereign over all, even the choices of men. On t Due to the fact that people I know and respect have spoken highly of Norman Geisler's book, Chosen But Free, and people I know and respect have also spoken quite critically of this book, I decided to grab the Kindle version and give it a read. On the surface and divorced from the rest of the text, chapter 1 is a tremendous defense of God being God over all, even the hearts of men. Geisler spends the rest of the book, however, undermining the firm foundation that Scripture laid for him in the first few pages. Geisler's entire thesis centers around his argument that love can only be love if it is totally free that is, free of any influence whether external or internal. Coupled with that is the strong insinuation that the moral free choice is either the totality or the majority of what it means to be created in God's image. Geisler never offers any consistent Scriptural basis for his position. As far as I can see, He roots this assumption in his own opinion and the fact that his entire soteriological framework would come crashing down upon itself if this were not the case. Due to the subject Geisler undertakes and the fact that so many have perpetuated this reductionist attitude from within the ranks of professing Calvinists, I can understand why Geisler sees it this way and portrays it as such. Going further, Geisler even accuses the dissenter of dishonesty, saying that he tries to hide what his doctrine actually teaches. This begins a hundreds of pages of rhetoric based on Geisler's army of straw men. The main problem, however, remains that the view he presents is not, for the most part, the consensus view of those that he labels with the position. His reasoning is simple although not stated. If he were to admit that this lack of viable choice has limited their free will, thus making their love of God after conversion null due to the lack of libertarian freedom, then his entire premise falls. Rather than address this, Geisler chooses to make a couple of points. This seems like an odd point to make, a point with which I agree, because it is the basis for his entire premise. I am glad he admits it is not biblically based, I just wish he would have felt free not to propagate such an unbiblical and speculative position in the first place. He follows with the argument that some decisions are once for all, but his argument is really a red herring because the point is about continuing freedom. This would be a good point for Geisler to acknowledge and submit to the view of creaturely freedom espoused by Johnathan Edwards a view repeatedly mocked and misrepresented by Geisler in the book because it would be helpful to see why we are free. Edwards argues that freedom is the ability to do what we want, to follow our desires. Rather, we freely do what we want to do. Sinners freely sin because, by nature, they are sinners. God even limits His own freedom in this sense, consistently in Scripture indicating that He will never do anything contrary to His nature. Indeed, that He cannot that is, He is not free to do anything that is contrary to His nature, His ultimate desires. This is why, for us to believe in God, we must be gifted a new nature. Regeneration must precede faith, because left in our sin nature we will never choose God. Geisler also attacks the reformed presentation of God as unloving for a number of reasons. Geisler argues that for God to be all- loving, He must make a way and offer of salvation unto all, without violating their libertarian free will. Beyond that, He is not truly loving even to the elect because in raising them with an irresistible effectual grace from spiritual sickness death , he violated their free temporal and sin-bound will. I would pose a couple of questions. Who would argue that it would be unloving for a father to pull a toddler out of the way of a speeding car simply because it was done against their immediate see momentary, ignorant, deadly desires will and that any affection shown after would be coerced and not true appreciation and love? This Father's love was irresistible, because if He allowed ultimate resistance, the child he loved would have perished. Our court system recognizes that for a parent to not offer irresistible love in this manner is criminal, why should the God of the universe be held to a lower standard than any citizen of this country? My second question would be, if God does not offer the post-fall Satan a chance at redemption, then is He unloving? To prove this point Geisler even seems to indicate in his footnote reference of Charles Darwin and Bertrand Russel that for us to believe in a God who damns sinners eternally is undermining the love of God. See footnote and please correct me if I have misread this. Geisler makes such a habit in the book of misrepresenting the opposing view and then dismantling this creation he has ascribed to his opponents that it is difficult to believe it is all without intent. The tone throughout the book was not one of genuine discourse in a spirit of communal edification, but rather that of someone who cherishes a view of freedom beyond the Scriptures, the community of faith and even God Himself. This book could have been good, but it crumbled under the weight of its flawed premise and the presuppositions of its author. For a one-stop source of differing understandings of the doctrine of election, see Perspective on Election edited by Chad Brand. View 2 comments. I often see overly negative reviews on various books and think to myself, "Sheesh, imagine being that guy. Surely he's being dramatic. In my mind, 'that guy' is usually not credible. I'd like to think I can generally avoid giving explosive and partial reviews. As I write this I can think of numerous books I've read that I both disagreed with and didn't hate. So with all that in mind This book was not good. It made sweeping statements. It failed to make I often see overly negative reviews on various books and think to myself, "Sheesh, imagine being that guy. It failed to make basic distinctions that anyone who's listening to both sides would make. It was poorly explained and self contradictory at many points I still don't think I can tell you what Geisler actually thought on this topic. It was structured terribly and as a result was tediously repetitive. It consistently asserts propositions without proving them. It did not exegete passages, but dealt with singular verses in isolation from their context he never walks through any passages verse by verse to give the thrust of what a passage is saying. The book is riddled with simple errors I'm not talking differences in interpretation, I'm talking surface level saying things are in the text that aren't and vice versa. Many of the arguments were honestly infantile in their sophistication. He seems almost unaware of the various historic labels used for the positions on this topic within the last years of Protestant theology, and thus uses labels that are confusing and revisionist ie. He classes himself is a 'moderate Calvinist' and consistently labels the historic reformed faith 'extreme Calvinism,' but then he's not even consistent with that in terms of who he puts in which box, labelling Sproul as extreme, but the Westminster Confession of all things as moderate. It barely interacted with historical sources from within Protestantism. Its responses to critiques of past editions were condescending and empty. On top of that, the writing was really poor. I struggle to believe someone over the age of 18 wrote it, let alone a Ph. D in philosophy. I'd almost bet money it was a ghost writer. I teach year olds, and if they handed in pieces of fictional writing this convoluted, I'd send them away to refine and edit their work. How this book made it through the final stages of publishing in this state is beyond me. I've known of this book for a long time and have heard various things about it, so I'm glad I finally got to it. My copy is now heavily annotated, and the thought crossed my mind multiple times that a response needs to be written to this. Thankfully, I don't have to write it. View all 3 comments. Aug 12, Bryant Rudisill rated it it was ok. Has the great apologist of the Christian faith; a modern-day Thomas Aquinas; today's philosophical genius prepared a truly "definitive" work in finding a middle ground between historic Calvinsim and historic Arminianism? With the scholastic notoriety of this philosopher-theologian one would think so. However, what we have here presented by Dr. Norman Geisler is nothing more than post-modern philosophical humanism read into the texts of our beloved Scripture. Geisler's "exegesis" of Holy Text Has the great apologist of the Christian faith; a modern-day Thomas Aquinas; today's philosophical genius prepared a truly "definitive" work in finding a middle ground between historic Calvinsim and historic Arminianism? Geisler's "exegesis" of Holy Text presupposes his philosophical bias, and in doing so completely contorts and distorts Scripture from its true context and meaning. In an attempt to not to appear like a new wave of Arminianism attempting to rise up from the seed of its late father, Pelagius, Dr. Geisler has made every attempt to redefine the points of historic Calvinism to suit his whim. Friends, this is not the work of our beloved scholar, Dr. Norman Geisler. As I approached the end of this treatment on God's sovereignty and man's will, all I could hope was that it was either a big joke he would clarify or that a fraud had stolen our fellow brother in faith's pen. No sound exegesis of God's Word is offered. It is treated in a flippant and simple manner. Historic Calvinism and even John Calvin himself is taken out of it's original context and misrepresented. Geisler brandishes his sword against the straw men caricatures he's created of the "5 points," YET even then he is unable to overthrow the Reformed faith we so hold to as pure gospel. In allowing his own reasoning to interpret Scripture, rather than looking to Reason Himself found IN the Scripture, we have yet again another attempt to raise the dead corpses of the followers of Pelagius and Arminius. In response to Dr. Geisler offers no exegesis against the questioned text; no defense against the argument's that White has used to reveal the "king without his clothes," so to speak. Instead, Dr. Geisler affirms he agrees! Theologian James White Love in the Balance. Molly Lovelace dreams of being a society leader Molly Lovelace dreams of being a society leader in Lockhart, Texas, but being smitten with handsome wrangler Bailey Garner doesn't seem the quickest route. If only he would settle down so he My Father's World. As the wagon train made its descent from the mountains, the warm colors of autumn As the wagon train made its descent from the mountains, the warm colors of autumn tried in vain to cheer the weary young Hollisters. Their mother had perished in the desert, and they had heard that their father was dead Summer Abernathy wakes up one morning to find her husband missing, three men in her Summer Abernathy wakes up one morning to find her husband missing, three men in her home intent on finding him, and the life she's been living based on a lie. Which Kyle Abernathy did she marry? The computer programmer she Seen from a human perspective, things appear hopeless. But as we consider the Baker Publishing Group. Whos in Charge? Avoiding the Extreme Sovereignty View. Avoiding the Extreme Sovereignty View continued. Avoiding the Extreme Free Will View. Seeking a Biblical Balance. Is Faith a Gift Only to the Elect? Biblical Support for Unlimited Atonement. Jonathan Edwards on Free Will. Is Regeneration Prior to Faith? Monergism vs Synergism. Extreme Calvinism and Voluntarism. Understanding Calvinisms Five Points. So What? Responding to Critics. Great Church Fathers on Free Will. Was Calvin a Calvinist? The Origins of Extreme Calvinism. Answering Objections to Free Will. For example, how do our beliefs about free will affect us when it comes to perceptions of love, personal responsibility, and purpose? And how does it affect our ability to worship God? Norman L. Geisler taught at top evangelical colleges and seminaries for over fifty years and was distinguished professor of apologetics and theology at Veritas Evangelical Seminary in Murrieta, California. What would you like to know about this product? Please enter your name, your email and your question regarding the product in the fields below, and we'll answer you in the next hours. You can unsubscribe at any time. Enter email address. Welcome to Christianbook. Sign in or create an account. Search by title, catalog stock , author, isbn, etc. Bible Sale of the Season. By: Norman L. Wishlist Wishlist. Advanced Search Links. Product Close-up. Add To Cart. Chosen by God [R. Why I Am Not a Calvinist. If God, Why Evil? Jesus Among Other Gods.

But his question was one of ability. So is this verse one which speaks to ability, or rather, the lack of ability. But what does Geisler read in this text? What we have in reply to the plain meaning of the text are more assertions of his already declared position. We are born with a bent to sin, but we still have a choice whether we will be its slaves. Is that what the text says, even though it appears on its face to be saying the very opposite? Apparently not even Dr. Geisler believes so, for he provides not one shred of supporting evidence that would lead us to understand the text in any way other than what it actually says, namely, that the unregenerate are unable to please God. He simply, once again, offers his assertions, based on his presuppositions. But again, one would be wrong. Even in support of his own contentions, the most the reader finds is a few paragraphs with only the most cursory attempt at what one could call exegesis. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. From the time of the later Augustine this text has been manhandled by extreme Calvinists. If only Dr. Geisler would have handled the text at all. But he does not. We find no independent exegesis of any kind, indeed, no exegesis whatsoever. Neither will one find any interaction with Calvinistic interpretations. They have, of course, and that position is not difficult to defend. Was Paul speaking about each individual in the world? That is the assumption that Geisler and other Arminians make. But is that assumption warranted? Upon closer examination of the text, one may decide that his first assumption is not necessarily a true one. First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,. Are we really to believe that Paul was exhorting Timothy to pray for every specific individual in the entire world individually? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. What, then, is Paul saying? We are immediately given help in our understanding as we continue reading in verse two. Such examples could be found in Acts ; ; Gal. They are arguments that unfortunately, Dr. Geisler has neglected to deal with. One wonders how Dr. Geisler can expect to convincingly prove his points when time and time again he refuses to deal substantially with opposing viewpoints. Assertion and ridicule are no substitute for sound exegesis and argumentation. Unfortunately, CBF largely consists of the former and is sorely lacking the latter. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. This is no exception. First, The plain meaning of 2 Peter and then the Implausible interpretation by extreme Calvinists. Words have limits to their meaning by context. It behooves us to once again point out the fact that assertions and ridicule are not proof. We do not really know whether or not the Calvinistic view is unreasonable, because the Calvinistic view is never really interacted with. The most that we find in the two short paragraphs headed, Implausible interpretation by extreme Calvinists, are more assertions concerning what Calvinists believe and additional assertions that there is no basis for those interpretations. In the face of literally volumes of reformed exegesis and argumentation on this very issue, Geisler offers his readers 14 sentences. Is the Calvinistic view unreasonable? Geisler is absolutely correct. Word meanings are limited to their context. As we do this, we run across a number of interesting items that Dr. Geisler never sees fit to mention. Rather, Peter is speaking of the parousia That said, all we see in this passage, including his passing mention of repentance, must be seen in the light of what Peter is actually discussing, namely, the reason for delay in the return of Christ. Yes, we are. The pronouns that Peter uses are extremely important. But what about those verses in between? How are the mockers referred to? The mockers are not part of the beloved. This is a crucial part of the context of the passage and yet goes unmentioned by Dr. Why is this crucial? They are those to whom he writes his epistle. In 2 Peter we read,. Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: Grace and Peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. Need we say more? Peter makes himself clear. This is such a careless statement. Surely Dr. Geisler realizes that words have more than one legitimate meaning. But any dictionary will provide definitions such as the following:. Admittedly, one cannot argue the meaning of biblical terms from an English dictionary. But it can and should be pointed out that to portray the meaning of certain terms as inarguable, and self-evident, is to avoid the very issue in question. Evidence for the assertion may have been helpful, but again, we find none. Instead, we find outrageous statements like the following,. Sproul is aware of how dangerous it is to change the Word of God. To accuse one who disagrees exegetically of changing the Word of God goes beyond the pale. Rather, he is doing the job of the exegete. That is, he is interpreting the Word according to its grammar and context, something that Dr. Geisler has not bothered to attempt. This accusation is a common one for Dr. Geisler, for he throws the same charge at John Owen, as well. Arguably, the best defense of extreme Calvinism on limited Atonement comes from John Owen. This needs no response, simply a sober reminder that God repeatedly exhorts us not to add to or subtract from His words Deut. Quite the contrary. Like Sproul, Owen was exegeting the text. After ten full pages of closely reasoned argumentation, Owen concludes with the words that Geisler quotes. But wait. There is no retranslating going on. It is unfortunate for all concerned that Dr. Geisler prefers to misrepresent Sproul and Owen rather than to deal substantially with their arguments. But that, alas, is what characterizes CBF from beginning to end. To examine and respond to each inaccuracy found in CBF would require a book-length treatment many pages in excess of what Geisler has himself written. Geisler point by point but rather to demonstrate the general problems which are found throughout CBF. This is a responsibility that cannot be taken too seriously. Let us not be confused by the one who would take familiar terms and twist them into unrecognizability. Let us not be lulled into inattention by those who would distort the opinions of others in order to make their own viewpoints appear self-evident. Let us not be led blindly into the labyrinth of illogic without first examining the legitimacy of the premises which are offered. Let us not be dissuaded from our task of solid exegesis by those who would convince us that no difficult exegetical issues exist, or that there is no reasoned disagreement among men of keen intellect. Truth needs no adjective. Truth is truth. It is neither balanced, nor moderate. It simply is. James M. This article is used by permission of the author. Please join others who have commented upon this and other topics in our Discussion Group. Return to the Home Page. Predestination Index. See, James M. CBF, He says, Irresistible grace is exercised on all who are willing, as was stated in chapter 5. He states, Indeed, one response to the problem of divine sovereignty and human responsibility is that of extreme Calvinism. Geisler continues his misrepresentation in that same context when he asserts of Calvinists that they hold the following, If free choices were not considered at all when God made the list of the elect, then irresistible grace on the unwilling follows. In spite of this knowledge, he feels free to misrepresent the opposing view because in his opinion, This leads us into another problem with Geisler and CBF. For instance, in a discussion of irresistible grace, Geisler states, In spite of some apparent inconsistency on this point see his comments on Luke , John Calvin faced honestly the biblical teaching that the Holy Spirit can be resisted. In commenting upon a quote by the Puritan William Ames, and attempting to represent the Calvinistic view, he says, In fact, fallen human beings are so dead in sin that God must first regenerate them before they can even believe. A few examples will have to suffice. John On that very same page of CBF we are provided with another example of exegetical headstands. Romans A perfect example of the lack of any real interaction with pertinent texts is found as we examine this crucial passage. We read, The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. Geisler says, Against Calvinism. Who Made God? Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus Hardcover. Why Jesus? Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach. Christian Apologetics, Second Edition. If God is in control of human destiny, why does he hold us responsible for our choices? It's a quandary as old as theology itself. Now updated with new chapters, Geisler's popular resource offers a balanced biblical perspective on the debate between God's sovereignty Calvinism and human free will Arminianism and a rebuttal to other viewpoints. Related Products. Kenneth Keathley. Jonathan D. Laurence M. Mark R. Geisler's entire thesis centers around his argument that love can only be love if it is totally free that is, free of any influence whether external or internal. Coupled with that is the strong insinuation that the moral free choice is either the totality or the majority of what it means to be created in God's image. Geisler never offers any consistent Scriptural basis for his position. As far as I can see, He roots this assumption in his own opinion and the fact that his entire soteriological framework would come crashing down upon itself if this were not the case. Due to the subject Geisler undertakes and the fact that so many have perpetuated this reductionist attitude from within the ranks of professing Calvinists, I can understand why Geisler sees it this way and portrays it as such. Going further, Geisler even accuses the dissenter of dishonesty, saying that he tries to hide what his doctrine actually teaches. This begins a hundreds of pages of rhetoric based on Geisler's army of straw men. The main problem, however, remains that the view he presents is not, for the most part, the consensus view of those that he labels with the position. His reasoning is simple although not stated. If he were to admit that this lack of viable choice has limited their free will, thus making their love of God after conversion null due to the lack of libertarian freedom, then his entire premise falls. Rather than address this, Geisler chooses to make a couple of points. This seems like an odd point to make, a point with which I agree, because it is the basis for his entire premise. I am glad he admits it is not biblically based, I just wish he would have felt free not to propagate such an unbiblical and speculative position in the first place. He follows with the argument that some decisions are once for all, but his argument is really a red herring because the point is about continuing freedom. This would be a good point for Geisler to acknowledge and submit to the view of creaturely freedom espoused by Johnathan Edwards a view repeatedly mocked and misrepresented by Geisler in the book because it would be helpful to see why we are free. Edwards argues that freedom is the ability to do what we want, to follow our desires. Rather, we freely do what we want to do. Sinners freely sin because, by nature, they are sinners. God even limits His own freedom in this sense, consistently in Scripture indicating that He will never do anything contrary to His nature. Indeed, that He cannot that is, He is not free to do anything that is contrary to His nature, His ultimate desires. This is why, for us to believe in God, we must be gifted a new nature. Regeneration must precede faith, because left in our sin nature we will never choose God. Geisler also attacks the reformed presentation of God as unloving for a number of reasons. Geisler argues that for God to be all- loving, He must make a way and offer of salvation unto all, without violating their libertarian free will. Beyond that, He is not truly loving even to the elect because in raising them with an irresistible effectual grace from spiritual sickness death , he violated their free temporal and sin-bound will. I would pose a couple of questions. Who would argue that it would be unloving for a father to pull a toddler out of the way of a speeding car simply because it was done against their immediate see momentary, ignorant, deadly desires will and that any affection shown after would be coerced and not true appreciation and love? This Father's love was irresistible, because if He allowed ultimate resistance, the child he loved would have perished. Our court system recognizes that for a parent to not offer irresistible love in this manner is criminal, why should the God of the universe be held to a lower standard than any citizen of this country? My second question would be, if God does not offer the post-fall Satan a chance at redemption, then is He unloving? To prove this point Geisler even seems to indicate in his footnote reference of Charles Darwin and Bertrand Russel that for us to believe in a God who damns sinners eternally is undermining the love of God. See footnote and please correct me if I have misread this. Geisler makes such a habit in the book of misrepresenting the opposing view and then dismantling this creation he has ascribed to his opponents that it is difficult to believe it is all without intent. The tone throughout the book was not one of genuine discourse in a spirit of communal edification, but rather that of someone who cherishes a view of freedom beyond the Scriptures, the community of faith and even God Himself. This book could have been good, but it crumbled under the weight of its flawed premise and the presuppositions of its author. For a one-stop source of differing understandings of the doctrine of election, see Perspective on Election edited by Chad Brand. View 2 comments. I often see overly negative reviews on various books and think to myself, "Sheesh, imagine being that guy. Surely he's being dramatic. In my mind, 'that guy' is usually not credible. I'd like to think I can generally avoid giving explosive and partial reviews. As I write this I can think of numerous books I've read that I both disagreed with and didn't hate. So with all that in mind This book was not good. It made sweeping statements. It failed to make I often see overly negative reviews on various books and think to myself, "Sheesh, imagine being that guy. It failed to make basic distinctions that anyone who's listening to both sides would make. It was poorly explained and self contradictory at many points I still don't think I can tell you what Geisler actually thought on this topic. It was structured terribly and as a result was tediously repetitive. It consistently asserts propositions without proving them. It did not exegete passages, but dealt with singular verses in isolation from their context he never walks through any passages verse by verse to give the thrust of what a passage is saying. The book is riddled with simple errors I'm not talking differences in interpretation, I'm talking surface level saying things are in the text that aren't and vice versa. Many of the arguments were honestly infantile in their sophistication. He seems almost unaware of the various historic labels used for the positions on this topic within the last years of Protestant theology, and thus uses labels that are confusing and revisionist ie. He classes himself is a 'moderate Calvinist' and consistently labels the historic reformed faith 'extreme Calvinism,' but then he's not even consistent with that in terms of who he puts in which box, labelling Sproul as extreme, but the Westminster Confession of all things as moderate. It barely interacted with historical sources from within Protestantism. Its responses to critiques of past editions were condescending and empty. On top of that, the writing was really poor. I struggle to believe someone over the age of 18 wrote it, let alone a Ph. D in philosophy. I'd almost bet money it was a ghost writer. I teach year olds, and if they handed in pieces of fictional writing this convoluted, I'd send them away to refine and edit their work. How this book made it through the final stages of publishing in this state is beyond me. I've known of this book for a long time and have heard various things about it, so I'm glad I finally got to it. My copy is now heavily annotated, and the thought crossed my mind multiple times that a response needs to be written to this. Thankfully, I don't have to write it. View all 3 comments. Aug 12, Bryant Rudisill rated it it was ok. Has the great apologist of the Christian faith; a modern-day Thomas Aquinas; today's philosophical genius prepared a truly "definitive" work in finding a middle ground between historic Calvinsim and historic Arminianism? With the scholastic notoriety of this philosopher-theologian one would think so. However, what we have here presented by Dr. Norman Geisler is nothing more than post-modern philosophical humanism read into the texts of our beloved Scripture. Geisler's "exegesis" of Holy Text Has the great apologist of the Christian faith; a modern-day Thomas Aquinas; today's philosophical genius prepared a truly "definitive" work in finding a middle ground between historic Calvinsim and historic Arminianism? Geisler's "exegesis" of Holy Text presupposes his philosophical bias, and in doing so completely contorts and distorts Scripture from its true context and meaning. In an attempt to not to appear like a new wave of Arminianism attempting to rise up from the seed of its late father, Pelagius, Dr. Geisler has made every attempt to redefine the points of historic Calvinism to suit his whim. Friends, this is not the work of our beloved scholar, Dr. Norman Geisler. As I approached the end of this treatment on God's sovereignty and man's will, all I could hope was that it was either a big joke he would clarify or that a fraud had stolen our fellow brother in faith's pen. No sound exegesis of God's Word is offered. It is treated in a flippant and simple manner. Historic Calvinism and even John Calvin himself is taken out of it's original context and misrepresented. Geisler brandishes his sword against the straw men caricatures he's created of the "5 points," YET even then he is unable to overthrow the Reformed faith we so hold to as pure gospel. In allowing his own reasoning to interpret Scripture, rather than looking to Reason Himself found IN the Scripture, we have yet again another attempt to raise the dead corpses of the followers of Pelagius and Arminius. In response to Dr. Geisler offers no exegesis against the questioned text; no defense against the argument's that White has used to reveal the "king without his clothes," so to speak. Instead, Dr. Geisler affirms he agrees! Geisler is a philosophical genius and nothing can be said of his ability to take an opponent of his and find flows in their argument; however, in doing so, Dr. Geisler falls into his own "red herring" fallacy by diverting the issue. Soli Deo gloria! View 1 comment. This is a very frustrating book. Geisler calls himself a "moderate Calvinist," centering himself between extreme Calvinism and extreme Arminianism. He resents being called an Arminian because he affirms the eternal security of the believer, and opts for forms of irresistible grace and unconditional election that look for all the world like resistible grace and conditional election. Fundamental to his position is his absolute commitment to libertarian free will which he refers to as "true freedom This is a very frustrating book. Fundamental to his position is his absolute commitment to libertarian free will which he refers to as "true freedom" throughout. Yet despite this he fancies himself a moderate or centrist. He is able to do this with a straight face by establishing "extreme Arminianism" as Open Theism, while "extreme Calvinism" is stock Calvinism, held by virtually every Calvinist I have ever met including myself. How is this legitimate? Rather than rehearse all my frustrations with the book, I will simply state that he would have benefited by having a Calvinist read the manuscript and point out all the areas where Calvinists would consider his caricatures unfair. This book will encourage all those committed to libertarian freedom in their position, while not changing the minds of any Calvinists. Feb 14, J. Rutherford rated it did not like it. He also affirms a Dispensational position of Once Saved Always Saved which has oft been accused of antinomianism. After reading this book the impression I have of the author is that he wants to be in the club, but does not want to pay the dues. So, to get around this obvious contradiction, he invents new categories of Calvinism. Those he opposes are called "extreme" Calvinists. Those that agree with him are moderate Calvinist. Through this book, Geisler over emphasizes the love of God at the expense of God's other attributes s After reading this book the impression I have of the author is that he wants to be in the club, but does not want to pay the dues. Through this book, Geisler over emphasizes the love of God at the expense of God's other attributes such as justice and wrath. As a 5 point Calvinist, I was really looking forward to reading this book and with a open mind seeing the other side. This book did nothing to convince me the 5 points are error, but instead strengthened my conviction that they are Biblical. Nov 11, Tuese Ahkiong rated it did not like it. Geisler is so confusing. This was a painful read. Geisler's humanistic reasoning and horrible exegesis are truly a headache. Mar 08, David Kemp rated it it was amazing Shelves: theology. I have been looking for this book since November 5, Sproul introduced me in a whole new way to the depth and richness of the doctrine of the sovereignty of God—like water to a drowning man. From that day forward there has been a deep settled peace in my heart concerning life in general, my life in particular and my salvation specifically.

https://static.s123-cdn-static.com/uploads/4639024/normal_6020ec067be40.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9590474/UploadedFiles/D0AE93C7-CB9D-FD08-3F7A-CC0BBB5AADC4.pdf https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/9e95b071-78d1-4eb8-9497-2dd8ed876d4e/das-hexenkreuz-568.pdf https://static.s123-cdn-static.com/uploads/4645230/normal_601f1389d30a9.pdf https://static.s123-cdn-static.com/uploads/4644998/normal_6020be9e9d323.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9592551/UploadedFiles/6ACB9762-AC5A-D396-CC1C-99491C9EABF3.pdf https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/dce6bff6-fc98-45f7-899b-2a5381146dd1/xlix-ausstellung-der-vereinigung-bildender-kunstler-oesterreichs- secession-wien-marz-1918-class-658.pdf