Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
80 of 91 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Not an issue that will just go away, December 23, 2000
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.
|
|
|
95 of 129 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Disappointing Effort from a Highly Respected Scholar, September 23, 2002
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.
|
|
|
25 of 35 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Overall effective in its thrust, June 17, 2002
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.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Jerry L. Walls
by Dave Hunt
by Dave Hunt
by R. C. Sproul
See all 15 books citing this book
