Customer Reviews

Chosen But Free

5 star:		(32)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(21)
1 star:		(24)

 

 

The differences between Calvinism and Arminianism have been debated even before Calvin and Arminius. From Augustine to Pelagius to now Geisler and White, the issue of sovereignty versus free will has been debated. In fact, to say that this is an emotionally-charged issue is, quite frankly, an understatement. Geisler, a scholar who has written many of the books sitting on my shelves, attempts to take a moderate position. He "chooses" the best of Calvinism and mixes the ideas with some of the more appealing Arminian ideas. Needless to say, this formula has pretty much riled up the Calvinists (look at all the one-star reviews written before mine, which is not only unkind but truly unfair), and, in an uncanny way, made the Arminians rejoice. They apparently are touting this book as a complete refutation against Calvinism, yet do they they fail to see that Geisler in effect refutes Arminianism in its pure form? Such an interesting dual reaction!

Several things ought to be known when reading this book:

1) Realize that this is not the last word on the issue. The first cannon shot back was fired by Calvinist James R. White in The Potter's Freedom, who it must be acknowledged did point out several problems with Geisler's view. It too should be read to get a more complete picture. 2) Whether you consider yourself a Calvinist or Arminian, you ought to take an "open view" when reading this book first (and then Potter's Freedom). Try to leave your presuppositions at the door and let the writers do their best to convince you of their positions. 3) Realize that The Potter's Freedom enjoyed the "last word" on this subject as it had the chnace to attack Geisler's views without a chance of rejoinder. Therefore, I call upon both James White and Norman Geisler to come together for the last segment of a "trilogy" and put together a book that gives a chance of response for each position. This would be more fair. 4) Above all, let Christian charity reign. We have too many battles out there--a world that needs Jesus, whether you are Calvinist or Arminian--to spill so much blood on what has to be considered a secondary, or peripheral, issue. Sure, this issue is very important, but which camp would say that they cannot fellowship with those who belong to the other "side"? Please, let's not turn this issue into the defintion of what makes a person a Christian.

Again, I recommend that the two books are read and debated in your own mind and within your own circles. If you are like me, this will require you to do some very heady thinking. Geisler and White may certainly stretch many of your preconceived notions, if you will allow them to do so. And I think you will be a better Christian for it.

In some ways, this book was tough for me to review. I consider myself to be of a Reformed theological bent and knew going in that I would likely disagree with Geisler's book. However, I have long had great respect for Geisler and have personally profited a great deal from a number of his writings in apologetics and Bibliology. I wanted to give this book as fair a hearing as I could give it, given my own admitted theological biases, and I suppose it is up to other reviewers and interested onlookers here at Amazon as to whether this review succeeds in that effort.

There are a couple of places where I thought CBF was good. I thought that the first chapter on God's sovereignty was well in order and a good way to lead off the book. I also felt that Geisler's critique of open theism (he calls it neotheism) was very good as well. Given Geisler's theological persuasion, I have great respect for the fact that Geisler has been one of the leading voices to speak out against open theism. It's easy for a five point Calvinist to come out strongly against open theism, since it is almost a complete rejection of Reformed theology in favor of an elevated man/reduced God theology. I would imagine that it's probably much more difficult for non-Calvinists or 'moderate Calvinists' as Geisler likes to define himself, to do the same thing since Arminians are clearly more sympathetic to liberationism even though many do not go that far.

Having said this, however, Geisler's book has many severe weaknesses in it that compel me to the low review I've given it. First, and perhaps most devastating, is that Geisler's book is mostly devoid of any in-depth exegesis of Scripture. There is a lot of Scripture quoting, but not a lot of exegesis. Geisler's reputation is one of being an outstanding philosopher, a Thomistic philosopher in particular. Therefore, one of the charges that has been leveled at CBF is that Geisler is imposing his philosophy on Scripture, rather than letting Scripture drive his philosophy. Unfortunately, I am inclined to concur with this criticism in regards to this book. This book is simply not exegetically driven, and that is a huge weakness. As Geisler should well know, anyone can rattle off Scripture verses to try and support one's view. That doesn't mean that Scripture actually supports that view. An honest examination of what Scripture teaches must include the kind of exegesis that gets below the surface and attempts to seriously interact with the text. Throughout CBF, I detected a 'mile wide, inch deep' approach to Scriptural examination which I found highly disappointing.

Second, Geisler's handling of Reformed scholars and writings in CBF is both highly selective and inaccurate. Geisler makes a habit here of quoting from secondary sources rather than dealing directly with the material he apparently disagrees with. Further, when he did cite primary sources, he tended to do this in an incomplete manner that raises serious contextual problems with the validity of his scholarship here. In particular, Geisler's treatment of Spurgeon's thought was excessively cannibalistic in this regard.

Third, Geisler's use of terminology is problematic. Particularly revealing was toward the end of the book when he attempted to contrast 'extreme Calvinism' with the 'moderate Calvinism' he claims to hold. I found it quite amazing that what he was calling moderate Calvinism looked an awful lot like 4 point Arminianism, with Geisler only dissenting from mainstream Arminianism on the issue of eternal security. Being of a Reformed persuasion myself, I tried to give Geisler the benefit of the doubt on this and tried to see if his theology was in fact something other than Arminianism. But then I read what was perhaps the most revealing chapter of the book, which was his critique of 'extreme Arminianism'. I felt that surely, if Geisler is in fact a moderate Calvinist, we would see it here. But in fact, what Geisler calls 'extreme Arminianism' is open theism. Now while he was certainly correct to reject this view, he does not touch Arminianism. And I think the reason is clear - he can't criticize what he himself subscribes to.

I was still prepared to give the book 3 stars until I read the appendix which details his response to The Potter's Freedom by James White. Frankly, I felt that this response was even weaker than the rest of the book. Again, Geisler does not offer any Scriptural exegesis to refute White and bolster his own view, and I found his critique of White to be decidedly hypocritical. To accuse White of name calling and ad hominem argumentation when Geisler called mainstream Calvinism 'extreme' and 'morally repugnant' among other things in CBF was highly hypocritical. I found each of Geisler's critiques of White to actually be very applicable to his own book. And again, no Scriptural exegesis is offered to either refute White, or support the tenets of CBF.

In the end, I felt that Geisler unnecessarily asks readers to adopt an either/or mentality that I think is absolutely wrong, and one that I'm sure even he would disagree with. Given the significant lack of substantive exegesis of Scripture in CBF, I think it's hard for the reader to conclude from this work that Geisler's position has been adequately supported Scripturally. Again, there's a monumental difference between quoting Scripture and exegetically interpreting Scripture. Therefore, I think Geisler ends up creating a false choice where the reader must either decide that Geisler's view is correct without having much Biblical argumentation to support it, or they must conclude that Geisler is out to lunch on this issue because he is substituting human philosophy in place of Scriptural exegesis. I don't think there has to be a divorce of these things. I think human philosophy can be a very good thing - when it is anchored in Scripture. I was hoping that Geisler would put forth a meaningful argument that effectively interacted with Scripture. He did not, in my view. And I think this is regretable.

I have great respect for Dr. Geisler but he has not given clarity on the doctrine of election with this book. I read this book with a genuine desire to come away with a balanced view as Giesler himself claims to be making in the writing of the book. When I read the book I had questions about the doctrines of election, etc. and had some troubles with the main points of Calvinism. Geisler not only did not provide the answers but led me to seek answers elsewhere. His arguments are poor and confusing. This is not to say that the entire book is without value; he did make points that resonated with me and were convincing. But I believe that he failed to achieve his goal and the book came across as poorly presented, poorly defended Scripturally, and given the quality of many of his other books (such as his multi-volume Systematic Theology) looks to have been written in a hurry. Now that I have done a great deal more reading on the subject (I read the book about six months ago) Geisler also makes some misrepresentations of what many Calvinists believe.

After reading CHOSEN BUT FREE, I read James White's THE POTTER'S FREEDOM which was clear, well argued, well researched and Scriptural. White dealt with many of the tough passages in Scripture that Geisler either did not address or did not exegete well.

My suggestion would be to look elsewhere if you seek clarity on the doctrine of election or have questions about Calvinism.

For anyone wanting a good understanding of the debate between Calvinists and Arminians, this is definitely not the book to read. Anyone wanting an accurate understanding of the classic arguments on both sides still needs to go to the Westminster Confession and/or the Canons of Dort on the Calvinist side and the "Declaration of Sentiments" and "The Free Will of Man and its Powers" by Arminius. Dr. Geisler sets out to present four views - "extreme Calvinism", "extreme Arminianism", "moderate Calvinism", and "moderate Arminianism". Unfortunately, it is unclear whether these descriptions are used because Dr. Geisler thoroughly misunderstands Calvinism and Arminianism alike, or whether he is intentionally trying to mislead his readers. While one would hope Dr. Geisler is not being intentionally deceptive (and we ought to give him the benefit of the doubt on this question), it is disappointing that a theologian of his reputation could misunderstand both Calvinism and Arminianism as badly as he does. In Dr. Geisler's view, "extreme Calvinism" is equated with holding to the "five points" of Calvinism. The five points refer to the doctrines of Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints (a.k.a. Eternal Security). All five points are advocated in the two best-known and most widely adhered to Calvinist documents - the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession. Dr. Geisler therefore needs an argument to justify calling this kind of Calvinism "extreme". He begins with the premise that any Calvinist who goes "farther" than John Calvin did must be considered "extreme", and then takes great delight in pointing to a number of passages that seem to indicate Calvin rejected limited atonement. Having at least made a case for this view (and I believe there is some scholarly debate on Calvin's view of the atonement), Dr. Geisler concludes that anyone advocating limited atonement is an "extreme" Calvinist. With all due respect to Dr. Geisler, this is a ridiculous argument. Even assuming Calvin did reject limited atonement (and was therefore a "4-point" Calvinist who would have sided with Amyrauld), it is unclear how someone can be called an "extreme" Calvinist for siding with the vast majority of Presbyterian and Reformed theologians through the centuries. Having defined "extreme" Calvinism the way he does, one would expect Dr. Geisler to define "extreme" Arminianism as any long-held belief that goes further than Arminius. While such an argument would be equally ridiculous, it would at least have the merit of being consistent. If this was done, Dr. Geisler would have followed his observations that Arminius sat on the fence on Eternal Security and Wesley taught that a true believer can lose his salvation by concluding that Wesleyans are "extreme" Armininans. Instead, Dr. Geisler describes the heretical views of the new "Free-Will Theism" as "extreme Arminianism". This school (which is also known as "Openness of God" theology) denies God's immutability and foreknowledge of free events. Obviously, Free-Will Theism is beyond the pale of historic Christianity of any stripe, and is simply unworthy of treatment in a serious work dealing with the historic debate on Predestination.
A third view Dr. Geisler rejects is described as "moderate Arminianism". Here, he virtually ignores the four points that are common to all Arminians, and focuses on the Wesleyan doctrine that it is possible for a true believer to lose his salvation. His argument against "moderate Arminianism", then, is primarily an argument against Wesleyan Arminianism - although he also criticizes Arminius and the Remonstrants for sitting on the fence on the "eternal security" issue. Nowhere does Dr. Geisler even entertain the possibility that "moderate Arminianism" could be described as the view that the Calvinist doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints is agreeable with Scripture while the views of Arminius (and the Remonstrance of 1610) accurately reflect Scripture's teaching on the other four points. The fourth and final view Dr. Geisler discusses is given the misleading title of "moderate Calvinism". While one would expect this term to be reserved for "4-point" Calvinists, it turns out that what is being passed off as "moderate Calvinism" is not Calvinism at all. Although not always explicitly acknowledging it, Dr. Geisler ends up defending positions strikingly similar to those held by Arminius on Depravity, the Atonement and the resistible nature of saving grace. It is not accurate, however, to describe Dr. Geisler as a "four-point" Arminian since he abandons Arminius and Calvin alike on Election and adopts an Antinomian view of Eternal Security. While his view of Election is given a bit of a Dispensationalist twist, his main argument is that the reason Peter described God's election being "according to" His foreknowledge rather than being "based on" it is that neither election nor foreknowledge can be logically prior to the other. Here, Calvinist and Arminian would probably regard Dr. Geisler's treatment as confused, but a mere error. Where Calvinist, Arminian and conservative Dispensationalist alike would be horrified is in Dr. Geisler's view of Eternal Security. Here, he shows himself to side with the liberal-Antinomian wing of Dispensationalism by accepting the "fire insurance" half of Eternal Security while rejecting the "Perseverance in the faith" half. While Dr. Geisler does pay lip-service to the idea that true faith produces good works, he falls into Antinomianism in arguing Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-29 describe true believers who simply receive less in the way of rewards. On the whole, then, while it is commendable that Dr. Geisler sides with Arminius on 3 of the 5 points, and disappointing that he takes a novel view of Election, his book fails to accurately address its topic. While this is a serious criticism in its own right, his advocating the "fire insurance" half of Eternal Security while rejecting the "Perseverance of the Saints" half removes any doubt that his book is one that ought to be avoided.

Mr.Geisler clearly has had a good amount of exposure to 'The Doctrines Of Grace'(Calvinism or what the author likes to call Extreme Calvinism) and most of the book accurately represents what Calvinists believe(although there is a wide divergence among Calvinists in some areas). However,I believe he is deficient in his understanding in some areas and especially goes astray in what he believes must be deduced,if what Calvinists believe is correct.
On p.20 he quotes Edwin Palmer in his footnotes but his deductions from what Palmer has written are not sound: "that man is free-one hundred per cent free-free to do exactly what he wants. ...he does precisely what he would like.He follows his hearts desires.Because his heart is rotten and inclined to all kinds of evil,he freely does what he wants to do,namely,sin." Mr.Geisler commenting on these quotes by Palmer draws this conclusion: "This response claims that free choice simply is doing what we desire but that no one ever desires anything unless God gives him the desire to do so. If all this were so,then it would follow that God would be responsible for all human actions." The first part of Geisler's reasoning is correct('free choice is simply doing what we desire')then he moves to('but no one ever desires anything unless God gives him the desire to do so'). This is where the author's deduction goes off:God does not give men evil desires(does He use the evil that is in fallen mans heart to accomplish His will?)Absolutely! But that is not the same thing as God giving them the evil desire. In Genesis 6:5 ' God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth,and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually(mens' thoughts were only evil continually- was that God working in them to think evil continually? or was it the outworking of their fallen sinful natures,which as time passed,the effects of the fall became increasingly manifest in their thoughts and actions. Mr.Geisler takes this faulty premise and concludes from that(then it would follow that God would be responsible for all human actions). Could you find anyone that considers themselves a Calvinist that would agree with the authors deductions here,perhaps(but not many and they certainly would not be in the mainstream of Calvinistic thought on this). This exposes one of the weaknesses in Geisler's book:there would be few if any Calvinist's who believe what the author is contending for here.The writer would have been better served if he attempted to address only the strongest reasoning that has been offered by those who believe 'The Doctrines Of Grace'.I'm aware that it can be subjective as to what is the best that has been written on this doctrine, but in my judgement Mr.Geisler has fallen short here.
On p.28 the author states a premise(in the section with the heading 'How can an evil nature choose good')what is good by nature cannot will evil(since will follows nature)then he uses Lucifer and Adam(who were created good by nature but willed evil)to refute the premise.Lucifer and Adam were good by nature(until they rebelled against God). Lucifer and Adam did not inherit a sinful nature as all the descendants of Adam do.He then asserts that "it logically removes all responsibility for evil actions(by the unregenerate creatures),since they have no real choice in the evil they do." Is this reasoning from the Scriptures or developing one's theology from human reasoning? The Scriptures reveal that fallen man is wholly responsible for the evil he wills to do.He is acting according to his fallen sinful nature but that does not remove his responsibility. Mr.Geisler then writes "that evil men naturally desire to sin does not mean that they must decide to sin." He then quotes the Apostle Paul from Romans 7:15 'what I want I do not do,but what I hate I do.' Paul is speaking about the struggles of a believer here(his own struggles as a converted man) thus this is not a description of the struggles that the unregenerate experience.The author's faulty reasoning continues when he writes "If what is evil can't will good,and what is good can't will evil,then why do Christians still choose to sin?" Surely the author is aware that the Bible teaches us that sin is not eradicated(in this life)in the life of any believer.Every Christian struggles with remaining sin,though sin's reign has been broken,its presence is not removed in this life.A Christian can choose to do both good and evil,whereas unbelievers have not such struggle.The unbeliever is not subject to his creator and does not desire to be. The fool has said in his heart there is no God(according to Psalm 14)and he lives as if God had not created him and has no right to rule over him.
I think part of the problem is that the author is trying to find answers where the word of God does not apparently give us the reasons.On p.138 he relays a story in which the late John Gerstner was invited to sit in one of his classes and discuss free will.In the discussion Mr.Geisler asks Mr.Gerstner :"who gave Lucifer the desire to rebel against God."To which Gerstner replied "Mystery,Mystery,a great mystery." Geisler insists it is not a mystery but that it was God that gave Lucifer the desire to rebel against Him. Lucifer before he fell was similar to Adam before his fall, they both had free will(in this sense,they could choose to obey God or to rebel against Him)they had the ability to choose good or evil(unlike fallen sinful man who has inherited a sinful nature and does not desire to submit to the will of His maker but wants to do his own will).The Word of God is very clear on this,whether we can fully understand or explain how this can be.The Bible also clearly reveals that God is not the author of,or responsible for,the sins of the fallen angels or of fallen man.Is God Sovereign over all (even the wills of His creatures)? Certainly!Does God in His wisdom and power order all things according to His will? Yes He does! The Scriptures teach that,and I think Mr.Gesiler would agree with those statements.Whether one can fully understand or fully explain how God could create moral beings (that could choose to rebel against Him or choose not to rebel against Him and that God would not be responsible for their sin or be the author of sin).The Scriptures seem to clearly reveal that this is exactly what has taken place.Just because we can not fully understand or give an answer that will satisfy everyone does not alter the fact that the Lord has worked it out according to His will and in doing so has not contradicted His nature or character.The Lord God speaks things into existence,He creates something from nothing(no one can explain how He does that,but we know He can and Has done such things because He has revealed that it is so.
It appears to me that Mr.Geisler does understand what Calvinist's believe in general but perhaps has difficulty accepting what He thinks are its implications and thus rejects some aspects of it,and attempts to synthesize Calvinism and Arminianism.This is especially the case as it relates to the origin of evil and the question as to how a good God could create beings that had the potential to be evil? Many things taught in God's Word are difficult to receive and hard to fully comprehend but it does not negate their veracity.

It is somewhat of a shame that the ongoing debate between two extreme positions (extreme Calvinism and extreme Arminianism) seems to generate so much "heat" between Christians. It seems clear that way too many of them have failed to comprehensively look at everything the New Testament has to say about the question of "election". They simply choose to follow what they have always been taught.

Having read over the various arguments presented in this book, I would say that Geisler does a good job of steering the Church toward the simple fact that the Bible, when properly interpreted, teaches a position that is in between these two extremes. He at least tries to be fair about the subject, which is something that far too many writers on both sides fail to be. He also strives to be comprehensive in his analysis of all the various matters related to this issue, again something that few people who write about it really are.

Particularly relevant is Geisler's emphasis on the absolutely Biblical truths of unlimited atonement and the fact that God's grace can be resisted without such resistance affecting His sovereignty in any way. No amount of Scripture manipulation on the part of extreme Calvinists can circumvent these truths, as this book clearly documents the relevant verses that demonstrate them to anyone open-minded enough to let the Bible speak for itself. At the same time, Geisler also affirms the fact of God's foreknowledge ability and immutibility, two concepts which also are clearly taught in Scripture.

The insistence on the part of believers on both sides of this debate, and particularly those on the extreme Calvinist side, is unwarranted; thus, it is not surprising to find them attacking this book. Such extremists, like James White, would do well to be more fair and balanced in their evaluation of Geisler's work instead of insisting that certain of God's attributes must be emphasized over others. This perspective is anti-Scriptural. All of God's attributes count equally (including both His foreknowledge of the future AND His desire to have true relationship with humanity, which can only happen if man has some amount of free will). The second edition of this book gives a solid reply to the inaccurate charges against it found in White's response.

There are some things Geisler wrote that could be considered debatable, but overall, his work deserves a truly fair hearing by Christians everywhere. This is especially so for those who find themselves troubled by the insinuation of their fellow believers that we have no option but to choose either Arminianism or Calvinism totally. The real issue is supposed to be what Scripture has to say about soteriology, rather than what someone living during the Reformation days said.

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.

I think many people expected Dr. Geisler to "parrot" what they already believed. When he didn't, they were upset. Geisler's book is an excellent text that shows various perspectives that Christians may have on these issues, and he clearly reveals his own position. This text is an important contribution to the overall discussion of Calvinism vs. Arminianism. Dr. Geisler is an able philosopher and theologian. Don't read this text looking to find your own position reflected so you can feel good about yourself. Read this book as student of the ongoing discussion of this issue, and learn from it.

This is a really good book. Whether you agree with Geisler or not, its a must read. Its also, a very timely book. Timely for me and some others anyways.

I like this book because, it has engaged me to think in both philosophical dimensions as well as the expected theological. Many theologians seem to be unaware of the various philosophical issues that underlie their theological work. (Likewise many X-tian philosophers do not seem to have an adequate theological background to temper their philosophical work.) In Geisler, I find good handling of both philos. & theol. issues. His comments have helped me further my thoughts on Aristotle & Incontinence.

Also, this book is good reading for those who come from a Reformed view of Predestination (Sproul, Gerstner, Kennedy, etc...) but were never quite able to settle with it. There was always something tailing you. Something just did not seem right. The arguements seemed just a wee bit strained, but it was all you had to go on.

Anyways, Go read it !!!

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 lanscapte, while many observes wonder, "Does it really make a difference?" This Book answers with resounding yes.But rather then 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 forknowledge of God and the human responsibility to either receive or reject Him.