Rating: 
Summary: DO NOT SUPPORT THIS BITTER BICKERING
Review: Did you read these reviews? When will these clowns get a clue? Geisler clearly demolishes Calvinism. Offended? Good, you should be if you place Calvinism above scripture. You should also be offended by this book if you place your faith in the intellectual elite and the institutionalized Christianity that Calvinism promotes. When did any man's OPINION supercede scripture? Then why rest in them? Stop referring to the writings of Calvinists like Spurgeon, Edwards, Piper, MacArthur, Boettner, Sproul, Packer, Owens, Gill, Baxter, and White when just like any other man they are fallible! Yes, this includes all the Arminians. What ever happened to Sola Scriptura? You hypocrites!Geisler clearly demonstrates that Calvin himself was never Calvinist and Arminius was never Arminian. He proves that BOTH Calvinism and Arminianism are simply concoted systems of belief that promote what the adherents of these men believed. It's a fact. John Calvin wrote the first edition of the "Institutes of the Christian Religion" in 1535. Jacob Arminius, who was a strict Calvinist originally, wrote "Declaration of Sentiments" in 1608 after he studied to defend the supralapsarian position which he later outwardly rejected in this declaration. After Arminius died, his views were expanded further and systematized by two men, Simon Episcopius, and Jan Uytenbogaert. Under their leadership the followers of Arminius in 1610 presented their views in the "Arminian Articles of Remonstrance". As a response to growing challenge of Arminianism, the Synod of Dort gathered for seven months to present "The Five Points of Calvinism" or also known as "The Canon of Dort". This is where we get the acronym TULIP however it is not a where we get Calvin's distinctives. It was simply an exaggerated misrepresentation. You can discover this for yourself by not being lazy adherents who sit in the pews and instead do the same research that Geisler did. Examine the writings in which he makes his claims and supports his arguments with. Most of the important ones are free reads on the internet. You don't need to read a rebuttal book by White for this. Anyone who knows White, personally or academically, knows that HE is a contentious and divisive person. White is counting you won't do the extra work and simply provides another slanted opinion. To start, I would recommend reading first the Bible. Then continue with Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion" and then Arminius' "Declaration of Sentiments". These are the original writings of these men. Compare each of these men's writings to the writings of their adherents that would follow. For the Calvinists, read the "The Canon of Dort" and for the Arminians, read the "Arminian Articles of Remonstrance". Now watch how far you mouth drops. Now do the same for others such as Augustine, Pelagius, Cassian, Luther, Edwards and so on. Don't have the time? Then you don't have the time to waste funneling false claims either. Eventually you will be humiliated enough to admit Geisler makes some good points and wondering why you were stupid and lazy to just sit in the pews and take in all those lies. Geisler also provides adequate proof for the argument that there are legitimate positions in between both of these opposing camps. Where does it say that scripture is to follow the rigid systematic theology of man? Certainly not the Bible. Geisler is profound in how he explains these opposing theologies with both the use of history and the simple exegesis of scripture. While I'm not in absolute perfect agreement with all of Geisler's positions, the majority of his argument is sound. This is an excellent book to get a head start on some of the basics. It is more than worthy of five stars. Buy it, and keep it. Just take and make the time to do your homework before coming to any conclusion. Most importantly, keep your Bible by your side and remember to use the Bible as your final and absolute authority on everything. For those that must know and categorize me. I neither hold to a traditional Calvinist position nor the traditional Arminian position. My position is better known as Secure Arminian. This is a position which holds to a pre-salvation Arminian position and a post-salvation Calvinist position.
Rating: 
Summary: Avoiding the Extremes
Review: Dr Norman Geisler, who is one of the most prolific Christian writers in the last fifty years, has tackled another controversial subject. In "Chosen But Free", Dr Geisler tries to strike a balance between Arminian (Man's free will) and what he calls extreme Calvinism (God's Total election based on His will). Dr Geisler holds to the position of what he calls moderate Calvinism, which is that both God's election of the saints and humanity's free will are both true in this line of tension. Geisler correctly points out some of the logical and Biblical flaws in the Calvinist position. Some of the cirtics to this book have mis-represented Geisler's position. Geisler is letting "God be God", by demonstarting the truth of God's message in this debate. The extreme Calvinist have always been selective in their use of scripture and the book points this out. While there are some weakness with the Arminian position, Geisler spends less time on the subject and uses it basically to contrast the two positions and then spell out the moderate Calvinist position that we are free as well as elected.
Rating:
Summary: Recommendations
Review: For several superb works on Calvinism, I recommend the following. Search for them on the web (many free materials are available from these authors). Gordon Clark (Trinity Foundation):
- Biblical Predestination
- God and Evil Vincent Cheung (Reformation Ministries International):
- Systematic Theology
- Ultimate Questions
- Presuppositional Confrontations
Rating:
Summary: Sadly misrepresents Calvinism
Review: I had read Geisler on apologetics and appreciated the work (even though I didn't agree with every point). But I could not appreciate this book at all because it completely misrepresents Calvinism and then attacks the misreprententation. If you want to argue for Armninianism, which is exactly what Geisler does (always claiming he isn't), then one should at least be honest about your opponent and about your position. A book on this subject should deal at length with Romans 9 directly as well. Get another book, this one will "win" the argument simply through misrepresenting everything!
Rating: 
Summary: Geisler doesn't get it.
Review: I have read through "Chosen But Free", and found it interesting. Geisler can't take the reality of a holy God being more "free" than a fallen race of humanity. It also seems to insult his pride and self that the "freedom" we enjoy is limited to some earthly actions, and is all but non-existent when it comes to spiritual actions (outside of the actions of the Holy Spirit, that is). Philosophically, Geisler really can't explain all of this, but he tries anyway. Unfortunately, everyone who reads his book and fails to read James White's response book as balance will be making a horrible mistake, in thinking Geisler is the last word on this. Labeling Calvinists who hold to the "TULIP" view as "extreme" is another trick to turn the reader against this view. Who wants to be an "extremist" about something, given the current stigma attached to that word? Do yourself a favor. Look at "Potter's Freedom", read both books, then look at the Scripture. Ask the Spirit for help, and make a spiritually intelligent decision about the matter.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing
Review: I obtained this book as a counterpoint to Dr. James White's The Potter's Freedom. Unfortunately, White was fairly accurate in his representation of CBF. Although I can respect Dr. Geisler's attempt to reconcile the two viewpoints. I cannot believe some of the types of arguments, attacks, and misquotes of various Reformed Authors' both Modern and Classic. I agree with White considering the work on other subjects that Geisler done. This is probably not his work. I refuse to believe so unless proven otherwise.
This issue is of the utmost importance. It creates these armtwisting and pressure methods that cause more damage than help to the cause of Christ. Mind you they are unbiblical. Geisler keeps pushing on Man's Freedom.
Rating: 
Summary: Not as bad as I thought!
Review: I read Dr. James White's book, The Potter's Freedom, awhile back now, but never felt the urge to finish reading Geisler's book. Why, you ask? Well, I took Mr. White at his word and believed what he had to say about Geisler's work and therefore felt that I didn't need to read this book to understand what Geisler was attempting to say. Nevertheless, I finally got around to reading Norman Geisler's book and am amazed to say, that it was not as bad as it was made out to be. That being said I do believe the book suffers from some serious weaknesses, but overall the book has it's advantages and disadvantages. First, I will deal with the disadvantages because I think they drag the work down and make it weaker than it could have been. Geisler is driven more by philosophical argumentation than by biblical hermeneutics and wrestling with Scripture to understand what it is truly saying. To Mr. White's credit, PF did contain more exegesis and solid scriptural argumenation and therefore White's case was more biblially oriented and coherent. Geisler on the other hand, argues more within the confines of an Aquinas like philosophical system. Not to say that this is a bad thing, but doing so at the expense of biblical exegesis is a big mistake. Geisler repeatedly refernces several Scriptures to prove his point, but he rarely interacts with those verses to determine their true meaning. Moreover, when he does deal with Scripture passages Geisler opts for rapid fire proof texting, and offers limited treatment on each text. Geisler opts for quantity over quality and it severly detracts from this work. Second, Geisler's distinction between the moderate Calvinist idea of election in accordance with foreknowledge and the Arminian idea of election based on foreknowledge is a confusing idea and not well explained. In fact, I think most Arminians would agree with Geisler's model of God electing in accordance with His foreknowledge, that is knowing what will happen and brining it to pass. If Geisler could have demonstrated that one idea was different from the other then I think he would have made a stronger case. Now, for the positive aspects of this book. I appreciated Geisler's method of argumenation. CBF contains numerous quotes from several well known Calvinist authors like RC Sproul, Jonathan Edwards, and others. Geisler wrestles with traditional Reformed doctrine by assessing the arguments of seveal of the systems well known and loved apologists. Next, virtually every traditional Calvinist takes issue with Geisler's insistence that fallen man can receive God's gift of salvation. Yet, this is the view of traditional Dispensational Calvinists like Lewis Sperry Chafer and Miles J. Stanford. These men were very Calvinistic in their Scriptural understanding but they did not hold to the traditional idea of total depravity, or man being completely dead and unable to do anything in sin. Dispensational Calvinists argue that dead in sin just means separation not total deadness, and that fallen man can't come unto God, but when the gospel comes unto man with power, that man can respond to it. In fact, Miles Stanford clearly demonstrates that being dead in sin means we are separated from God, and he shows from John 5:25 that spiritually dead individuals can respond to God. Therefore, Geisler's view that men can respond to God and receive the gift of salvation is an established view and one that is held by Dispensational Calvinists and has Scriptural support. Geisler does an admirable job of demonstrating that if spiritual death is conceived of in the way that traditional Calvinist's do, then the second death can be nothing else but annihalation accompanied by inability to anything, and this view is to be rejected as unscriptural. Also, I think Geisler's argument here is stronger than White's because if depravity is total deadness and inability as White argues, then mankind cannot do anything whether it be good or bad. White is inconsistent on this point, stating that men are spiritually dead in sin and need Spiritual resurrection, but yet at the same time they are in spiritual rebellion against God and committing sin. If men are rebelling spiritually, then they aren't dead and the traditional Calvinist view is wrong. Second, Geisler's argument that the gift of salvation is unconditional from the standpoint of the giver, but conditional from the standpoint of the receiver makes sense. James White never really refutes this idea and I think it is an argument with some substance. Furthermore, Geisler shows from numerous scripture passages that unlimited atonement makes sense, and that limited atonement does not make sense of all that Scripture has to say on this issue. Dr. White does deal with some of Geisler's arguments, but as Geisler says in his response, White doesn't deal with several key passages leaving room for disagreement on the issue. Overall, this is a decent book with some positive aspects, it also has several weaknesses that detract from it's effectiveness. Overall, I think James White's book is the stronger of the two, but Geisler's book is no pushover. Geisler nicely illustrates how traditional Calvinism is inconsistent on several key issues, and cannot effectively deal with the problem of evil and the source of human actions. Geisler's work is definitely not the most convincing work, but it does do enough damage to make one have some serious questions about traditional Reformed teaching.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent treatment of subject at hand
Review: I thought Geisler did an excellent job of handing a very difficult issue. I would recomend this book to anyone interested in searching the scriptures and understanding the arguements for and against each position. I found his analysis of the scriptures for and against each point to be fair and quite helpful. The issue is best viewed by the illustration of a pulley. If you imagine Predestination on one side and free will on the other you can view what happens in this controversy between Calvinism and Arminianism. If one tugs too much on the free will side the pulley will become unbalanced and if one tugs too much on the predestination side the pulley will become unbalanced. Both views are taken to the extreme. What Geisler offers is a balanced view of Biblical election and free will. I felt that he did an excellent job of communicating it. I find it unfortunate that people have sunk to the low of bashing Geisler simply because they disagree with his view point. This is a must read for anyone seeking a balanced, Biblical view.
Rating:
Summary: Doesn't bring anything new to the table
Review: I thought this was a good honest presentation of Geisler's view of predestination, but its nothing new at all. Not only is it nothing new its been refuted many times over already. In all honesty this very position was refuted by Keith Mathison (I believe successfully) in "Dispensationalism Rightly Dividing the people of God?" It was refuted (I believe successfully) yet again in James White's The Potter's Freedom. Even G's 2nd edition. Argumentatively the big hang up of the book is a poor understanding of the opposing view of Calvinism, and also that Geisler falls into that oh so easy trap which is using our very finite wisdom and finite understanding of logic to declare what God can and cannot do, and trying to fit the most profound mysteries of God into the simple 2 premise then conclusion argument scheme philosophers love to use. This book relies more on logic than on scripture, and as a philosopher I can say it does not use it very convincingly or even compotently at times. Next, this book is a smear campaign on RC Sproul, that is always a bad precedent for writing a book. Usually each chapter goes like this. Misrepresentation of 5-point Calvinism, quote of Sproul, smear of Sproul, another quote of Sproul, smear of Sproul, philosophical argument, smear of Sproul, exegesis (usually inadequate), smear of Sproul. I didn't appreciate the fact that Geisler was so focused on Sproul it made this work look like just an opportunity to attack a godly teacher. I know some will read this book anyway, and as I read it I wanted an answer to this particular question and the silence speaks volumes... Geisler makes a HUGE deal about how choosing believing, receiving, accepting implies free will. But he not once explains why it should mean free will in his sense of the word rather than just a will in the "extreme Calvinist's" sense of the word. Calvinist's believe people choose, receive... but they don't take a logical leap into the dark and say it means free will, but rather just a will because that is all the scriptures allow for. Geisler had to prove this a faulty view for his argument to work, and he didn't even touch it. That is something to take note of as you read this book. Finally, Calvin honestly, trust me, believed in the L in TULIP. Trust me, I have seen the writings. It's pretty laughable to suggest he didn't. Smacks of ignorance too.
Rating:
Summary: Not Thought Through
Review: Many of his views at surface value are similar to the objections of young christians who reject the reformed view of predestination. They would say,"It just can't be right! God gives us a choice! We have free will! God wouldn't be fair if He decided who would accept and reject Him!" If God was to be fair, we would all perish in our sin. As Americans, we feel like we have rights and we deserve the right to choose. Well, we don't have the right to tell God to do anything. He is merciful in His choice to redeem those He has called. In Geisler's book, his views are very distorted, once thought through and one has carefully looked at scripture. But I must admit, many Christians who don't want to think these issues through will like Geisler's book. It will make them feel more comfortable because it agrees with the freedom of man to choose apart from God's intervention. A more accurate book on this topic is RC Sproul's Chosen By God. Honestly, for 5-7 years, I didn't even want to look at this subject. Most people don't tackle it, they run from it. Or they say what difference does it make? It makes a whole heck of a lot of difference. Being in ministry, it is the difference between everything relying on me to convince someone to make "a choice" to believe (Geisler's view) or knowing that God is going to use me in His perfect plan to redeem those He has called...no pressure on me to "succeed"..simply to testify to Him and what He has done through Christ. If Geisler's view is correct, then people in ministry would be neurotic (many are) and should get out there with all their "John 3:16" signs and try to convert as many as they can! Or you can be free to rely on the Sovereignty of God and know it is His plan...We can serve Him in gratitude...not guilt or obligation.
| 
