Norman Geisler's Second Edition of Chosen But Free, Part 2 of 3 - Logical Fallacy?

Last week we began responding to Norman Geisler's new chapter slash appendix in the second edition of his work,

Chosen But Free, and we continue that work this week, but I must, before engaging that rather unpleasant subject, and it is unpleasant, it is unpleasant to constantly encounter just tremendously fallacious argumentation, poor citation skills, and a complete and utter inability to examine context, but before we do that,

I must admit that I am extremely excited to be holding in my hand a very, very nicely done,

I'll have to admit the picture that we have on the website and that I've had seen up until now does not do this book any justice at all, it's not a fancy cover, but it is a very nicely done, very professionally done cover.

I hold in my hand The God Who Justifies, The Doctrine of Justification. It is an exactly 400 -page hardback volume from Bethany House Publishers, and I am just truly excited to see this book out.

It looks wonderful. Bethany House did a great job on it. It's been a long time coming, and we expect the full shipment of books to arrive as soon as possible.

We have put an offer on the website that through, I believe, the 27th, if you order a copy of this book through Alpha and Omega Ministries, my hand will cramp, which means that for some reason people like signed copies of books.

I don't know why, I've never really figured it out, but people do, and so if you order a copy of The God Who Justifies over the website by the 27th, and yes, that does include all of you who have already ordered the book, the hundreds of you who have ordered the book, your book will be signed as well.

Please don't expect me, however, to sit there and look at your order and go, oh, this is

Tom Johnson, and to Tom Johnson, my best friend who I've never met, that kind of thing.

I'll just be signing them, and a few of you I might go ahead and sign a little bit more than that, especially those of you whose names appear in the front of the book, and there are a few of you who are in the chat room right now or listening in other ways.

If that's the case, I'll probably write a little something more there. But anyhow, it's out.

It looks wonderful, and I'm very excited that this book is going to be available. There is a very nice scripture index in the back and a full subject index and bibliography and the whole nine yards.

It looks really, really neat, and I'm very excited that it is now available, and we should be working very, very hard at shipping out all those orders over the next week or so, and those of you who get it,

I'm looking forward to your reactions to it. Please be aware of the fact that it's a little bit like the King James Only controversy in that, look, the level to which you have to go in studying things is frequently determined by the level of heresy that is currently prevalent in your society or in the situation that the

Church faces. And there's a lot of false teaching about justification going on out there, and so the first eight chapters present the doctrine, and then the chapters after that present a pretty in -depth exegetical defense of the doctrine.

And so I know that I've gotten a number of people who have somewhat complained about the Forgotten Trinity, because when

I talk about John chapter 1, and I deal with the

Greek, because, well, you have to. Jehovah's Witnesses do. Jehovah's Witnesses will come to your door, and they'll talk about Greek articles, and they'll talk about syntax, and they'll talk about grammar, and so on and so forth.

Well, you have to respond to those things. Well, I constantly get complaints from people, why did you have to go and talk about the

Greek? That's just really confusing. And it's like, well, that's the language it was originally written in. And since there are all sorts of books out there attacking the doctrine of justification, utilizing the

Greek language and anything else they can get their hands on, well, there's a fair amount of Greek in here.

In fact, when we get into the exegesis of the text, it looks pretty much like if you picked up a critical commentary on Romans, a critical commentary on James, James chapter 2.

There's a 24 -page chapter on James chapter 2. And so anyways, that's all available in the book.

And I know this sounds like an advertiser or something like that, but I really would encourage you to consider getting a copy for your pastor.

Getting a copy of this book for your pastor. I hope next week I'm going to be talking about a web page, a page on our website talking about the new

Webster King work on Sola Scriptura. I've got the graphics for that. We just need to get the details as to cost and things like that, and we'll be making that available.

And please, please, please, as you're looking toward the holidays, as you're making plans toward the holidays, think about your pastor and think about providing him with some really, really, really, really good reading.

A lot of pastors just sort of get ignored around that time of year, and we don't want to do that.

So think about providing them with these books for no other reason that they will have the resources available when the need arises.

And so give some consideration to that. I think it would be very, very, very helpful to them in that way.

Just a little bit of, one other bit of piece of information. I mentioned a few weeks ago that Dave Hunt had said he will debate me.

I got another letter back as I was seeking to start establishing some parameters as far as when and so on and so forth that did not seem nearly as excited about debating as the first one did.

In fact, the letter said things along the lines of, well, it's up to my publisher. That hadn't been a part of the first letter.

And my publisher has given me a list of people that he would like to have me debate, and you're not very high on that list, and I'm not sure who's going to be higher on the list, but et cetera, et cetera.

So I'm a little concerned. There's a little bit of backpedaling going on here. I don't know.

We'll find out, but we're going to keep pressing forward on this issue and attempt to get some of these people who are out there slashing away at the doctrines of grace, rather blindly, unfortunately, to engage in a meaningful debate of the subject because we truly believe that when you hear both sides together, you will be able to see the truthfulness of what is being said and you will be able to compare the cogency, consistency of the arguments for both sides.

And that's what we want to have happen. Now, one of the things that we've been doing, we started last week, is looking at the new second edition of Chosen But Free.

You may recall about two summers ago, we spent about nine programs reviewing

Dr. Norman Geisler's book, Chosen But Free, and then I wrote my book, The Potter's Freedom.

Dr. Geisler has been invited to debate me on the subject numerous times. He has declined every opportunity that has been provided to him.

It is very clear he has no intention of engaging in a debate with me one -on -one. However, a few weeks ago,

I was informed by email that there is a new edition of Chosen But Free and that there is a chapter allegedly responding to The Potter's Freedom.

Well, one thing I can tell you, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that if this is a response to The Potter's Freedom, whoever wrote it didn't read

The Potter's Freedom. Oh, certainly they leafed through it and they wrote down page numbers.

Half the time they're wrong, but they wrote down page numbers and they put together a response. But there certainly was no attempt on the part of the author of this response to understand what

The Potter's Freedom was saying. It is clear to everyone that when I read

Chosen But Free, that I read it with a desire to understand it. I didn't read it because I thought

I was going to agree with it. Of course not. But I did read it with a mind that wants to understand exactly what

Dr. Geisler is saying. I went back to previous books that Dr. Geisler has written. I ordered used books over the internet so that I could follow the development of Dr.

Geisler's thought. And so I handled his material with the kind of respect that is necessary for engaging in this kind of theological dialogue.

I believe the issues of God's sovereignty and God's grace and the gospel require our utmost attention and our utmost respect.

And if we do not engage in meaningful research and discussing about these things, we are showing disrespect to God himself.

Well unfortunately, the attitude that I displayed toward Chosen But Free is not the attitude that is found anywhere in this brief and extremely shallow response provided in the new edition of Dr.

Geisler's book. Now let me mention something. There are a number of times I've already in last week's program, and I probably will in this week's program, refer to Dr.

Geisler says, Dr. Geisler says, because this is in his book. However, having worked through the entirety of the response, looking up every single reference, both the

Chosen But Free and the Potter's Freedom that is provided, I have come to the conclusion that there is a very strong possibility that Dr.

Geisler did not write this. Or more precisely, that what this is, is

Dr. Geisler gives the Potter's Freedom to an undergraduate or graduate student and says, tell you what, read through this and give me a few pages of what's obviously wrong here.

The undergraduate student does so, hands it to Dr. Geisler. Dr. Geisler sits down with it, fills out some of the quotations, fills in some sentences, adds a few of his own thoughts, etc.,

etc. And it now appears before the Christian public as the result of a man who is considered to be a leading scholar as a

Christian leader. And in reality, I said, I've said this before, but I'm going to say it again.

And I say this with all seriousness. And I would say this, whether Dr.

Geisler was responding to my book or whether Dr. Geisler was responding to a book written by a non -Christian.

If a non -Christian responded to Dr. Geisler and Dr. Geisler's response partook of the same kind of constant failure to do any kind of meaningful reply at all,

I would say the same thing in that situation that I'm saying, even though it's my book. Obviously, I can know more about it because I know my book.

But quite honestly, the level of simple error, and I'm not talking an error every other paragraph,

I'm talking constant error, not just citing the wrong page numbers, but even citing a phrase so far out of context that it is absolutely positively impossible to understand how anyone could connect what is being cited with what is being said by this appendix, by the author, whoever it was.

It's so bad that it rivals anything I've ever seen written by Gail Riplinger.

Now, some of you know what that means. Some of you know who Gail Riplinger is and know that her materials are horrific.

Well, folks, that's how bad this is. And that's what forces me to go, how can anyone who has a

PhD write something like this? One of the key things that you're supposed to be able to learn to do as a scholar is read.

Read and research. Read and research. Let me give you an example.

I'm going to go in order here, but let me just give you one example. I've shared this with some friends, and they have just looked at me like, you've got to be kidding me.

Dr. Geisler accuses me, as you may have seen last week, there's a fair amount of ad hominem.

He says, for example, Potter's Freedom, offers virtually unlimited opportunities for beginning theology students to identify logical fallacies.

That's a slap in the face. It's pure ad hominem. But if it's true, then we need to look at it.

Well, he doesn't provide a single example. He tries, but every single one of them fails.

And one of the alleged errors that he presents is found under a section where he lists ad hominem.

Now, what is ad hominem? Well, he himself helps us to understand this. In the first line, he says, this fallacy literally means a response to the man rather than to the argument.

And that's a fairly good definition of what ad hominem means. Ad hominem argumentation is what you normally encounter in the internet.

Ad hominem argumentation is what I normally encounter when I look up my name on almost any Roman Catholic or Mormon or King James only site.

That's called ad hominem. Just say that you're ugly, which may be true, but that's not really an argument.

It's logically valid. That's kind of argumentation. And it's fascinating to me. I have heard so much from people.

I got a letter just last week from a fellow by the name of Ted. And Ted sent along an analysis of the

Potter's Freedom. Well, it never quoted the Potter's Freedom. It was just nothing but ad hominem from beginning to end.

How terrible you are. You responded to Norman Geisler. Oh, you're mean, and you're terrible.

And it's just blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, on and on and on and on. Someone like Ted must be really excited,

I would think, that Dr. Geisler has responded. And here is Dr. Geisler's own opportunity to identify where I insulted

Norman Geisler. Where did I argue ad hominem against Norman Geisler? And yet, as we'll see today, in this entire section where he has full freedom to identify any and all ad hominem argumentation,

Dr. Geisler fails to give a single cogent example.

Not one. And not only that, but he gives an example that just absolutely, a number of things, have left me breathless when

I've read this. Just sitting there going, you've got to be kidding me. But here's the statement.

Throughout Potter's Freedom, the author takes great pride in his exegetical skills.

Oh, that's borders on ad hominem itself, actually.

Especially given that's being said about another Christian. While any exegesis of the text contrary to his is labeled, and then we have a number of alleged examples of this, where I say that any exegesis of the text contrary to Dr.

Geisler's, or contrary to mine, is labeled as, and then there's this whole list, and we're going to go through them.

But this is the example I wanted to give you. While any exegesis of the text contrary to his is labeled, a mere presentation, page 29.

Now, let's say you didn't have the Potter's Freedom. The Potter's Freedom is not as widely distributed as Chosen but Free.

The Potter's Freedom is a politically incorrect book within Christian book circles today, because it names names, it's

Calvinistic, and it says someone was wrong. And so there are many bookstores that don't want to carry it.

They don't even want to have it in their store. So, let's say all you've seen was Chosen but Free. And let's say you picked up the second edition, and you read through this, and under the section of ad hominem, you have a well -known, respected

Christian scholar, a philosopher, talking about logical errors. You would think that if anyone would get these right, it would have to be

Dr. Geisler, right? And so he says, well, you know, the

Potter's Freedom, it dismisses any exegesis contrary to his own seemingly prideful exegesis as a mere presentation.

And then there's a number next to it, and that's the page in the Potter's Freedom. Your tendency is going to be to believe that at some point in the

Potter's Freedom, I, while ignoring Dr. Geisler's exegesis, instead of offering a counter exegesis that demonstrates that my interpretation is more consistent with the grammar, the meaning of the words, the context, whatever it might be, that instead of doing that,

I just simply dismiss his presentation as a mere presentation.

I don't actually provide any counter -argumentation, I just dismiss it with the phrase, a mere presentation.

And that if I turn to page 29, that's exactly what you would find on page 29, right? Well, some of you might have page 29 of the

Potter's Freedom, but if you don't, I would like to read you where this came from. This is, in the introduction to the book,

I have laid out some of the things that Dr. Geisler does in the sense of redefining terminology, and the fact that because he uses the term moderate

Calvinism for something that has never been considered Calvinism, that is in fact

Arminianism, and that he redefines each of the points, such as using terms like unconditional election that's unconditional from God's view, but conditional from man's view, and irresistible grace on the willing, but not irresistible grace on the unwilling, and all the rest of this type of stuff, that this creates confusion.

And then I write this paragraph, and remember, here's one of the examples from the great

Dr. Geisler, of where someone is using ad hominem against him. Here it is, quote, page 29 of the

Potter's Freedom. There is great confidence in trusting in God's sovereignty, especially when it comes to the fact that even

Christians are willing to place their own supposed freedom and autonomy over the true freedom and autonomy of God.

I have seen many precious souls struggle through these foundational issues and emerge changed, strengthened, with a new and lasting appreciation of the holiness and love of God, along with a passion for his grace that cannot be erased.

While I am grieved at the confusion that books like CBF cause, I am confident that the word is so clear, so plain, and so compelling, that the mere presentation of its truths is sufficient for the child of God, and it is to that we now turn, end quote.

That's what I said. You go, I missed the ad hominem. Where did mere presentation come from?

Let me read it again. While I am grieved at the confusion that books like CBF cause,

I am confident that the word is so clear, so plain, and so compelling, that the mere presentation of its truths is sufficient for the child of God.

That's where it came from. That's the only thing there. That's where the phrase comes from.

I don't understand how anyone could read that line, which is nothing more than an affirmation of the sufficiency and clarity of the scripture.

It has nothing to do with Norman Geisler's exegesis at all. And transfer that into an accusation of ad hominem, and saying,

I simply dismiss his exegesis when it's contrary to mine, rather than giving exegesis in response, as a mere presentation.

I don't understand how that can happen, and I haven't found anyone who's been able to tell me how it could.

There's no excuse for that, folks. I don't know how anybody could come up with an excuse for that. But interestingly enough,

Dr. Geisler repeats the exact same citation error twice in this appendix. That's what causes me to go, you know what,

I really have to wonder if Dr. Geisler wrote this.

Or, more likely, was there some undergraduate, some zealous undergraduate student, but not a scholar of any rank or any ability, to which he entrusted this work, who found that phrase, mere presentation.

Somehow, don't ask me how my children could not have possibly misread it that badly. I mean, when they were in second grade, they would have at least understood what it was about.

That's how bad it is. I mean, you heard me read it. But grab the phrase, put it in the notes, the notes then become expanded, and now it's put into print that I engage in ad hominem argumentation by dismissing

Dr. Geisler's exegesis with ad hominem arguments that do not respond to him, but instead attack him by calling his exegesis a mere presentation.

You know, if that was the only example, that would be an egregious error, but it wouldn't be a sufficient foundation for dismissing all of it.

It is the norm, no pun intended, for this response. Last week,

I had stopped where Dr. Geisler was going to demonstrate theologism as one of my many errors.

Theologism, and here's what he says, Etienne Gilson, in his classic work,

The Unity of Philosophy and Experience, identifies an error at the heart of Potter's Freedom's extreme

Calvinism, theologism. Briefly, this is the fallacy of assuming that the view that seems to give the most glory to God is true.

Extreme Calvinists resort time and again to this position, Potter's Freedom, pages 39 and 178.

Well, I had never been accused of theologism before.

I've been accused of many things, but I had never been accused of theologism, and so I look up the references to see where it is that I have argued that whatever gives the most glory, seems to give the most glory to God, that that must be true.

I didn't remember ever having made that argument. In fact, I obviously didn't, but here's what we read in Potter's Freedom, page 38.

The doctrines of grace are the biblical teachings that define the goal and means of God's perfect work of redemption.

They tell us that God is the one who saves for his own glory and freely, and they tell us that he does so only through Christ, only on the basis of his grace, only with the perfection that marks everything the

Father, Son, and Spirit do. The doctrines of grace separate the Christian faith from the works -based religions of men.

They direct us away from ourselves and solely to God's grace and mercy. They destroy pride, instill humility, and exalt

God, and that's why so many invest so much time in the vain attempt to undermine their truth. The religions of men maintain authority over their followers by, one, limiting

God's power, two, exalting man's abilities, and three, channeling God's power through their own structures.

A perfect salvation that is freely bestowed by God for his own glory is not a system that can be controlled by a religious body or group.

And even more importantly, such a system is destructive of any sense of pride in the creature man, and if there is anything man's religions must safeguard, it is man's self -esteem.

Well, there it is. I guess that's theologism. Maybe you missed where I said, well, as long as it gives the most glory to God, it must be true.

Well, of course, there's nothing on page 38 -39 say that, even though it's found right there in the review.

But like I said, I haven't found anything right in this review so far. Page 178 is also cited.

Well, maybe there's some theologism here. Let's see. We need to remember that first and foremost,

God's action of saving man is an act of grace. His will is not some dark and foreboding thing.

The emphasis in scripture is always on the wonder that God would save it all, never upon the idea that God chooses not to save a particular individual, leaving them to perfect justice.

It is the kind intention of his will that lies at the base of his action of choosing a people in Christ. Why has

God created and redeemed? It is to praise the glory of his grace. The redeemed heart naturally speaks of desiring to glorify

God. We sing of living so as to bring glory to God. We know naturally that we are to have

God's glory as our highest goal, our highest priority. So it should not be at all surprising if the most profound answer scripture gives the question of what's it all about is that it is about God's glory.

All of salvation results in the praise, the glory of his grace, all honor, glory, and power belong to him. Such is surely the heartfelt sentiment of every believer, yet our prayers and hymns are often better than our stated theology.

For salvation resounds solely to the praise of the glory of his grace, there cannot be an iota of praise to the creature. Yet if we base the success or failure of the entire work of the triune

God upon the free choice of the sinner rather than the free choice of the Savior, John 6, 37 -39,

Philippians 2, 6 -7, then how can we say that all glory and praise goes to God's grace alone?

If salvation is in any way synergistic in its ultimate accomplishment, which is surely the position of Rome, the

Arminians, and all the religions of men, then God's glorious grace must share glory with the free will decisions of men.

And is it not an empty thing to say, oh yes, God's grace gets all the praise since without his grace no one could be saved?

Is God's grace to be praised because we can be saved or because we are saved?

Is that theologism? Did I argue that this must be true because it gives

God the most glory? Well, actually, that's in a section where I am working on the exegesis of Ephesians chapter 1, and I'm talking about unconditional election.

Obviously, folks, neither passage cited by Chosen But Free contains such an error, and there's going to be more errors to come, unfortunately, as we continue our response to Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free, but we're going to take our break now and be right back.

And welcome back to Dividing Line. We are responding to Norman Geisler's, well, his or somebody's attempt to respond to the

Potter's Freedom, found the second edition of Chosen But Free, and we are scratching our heads, wondering how this thing ever made it onto pieces, a piece of paper, let alone many pieces of paper, by being included in a book.

But it's there, and so it needs to be responded to. It is truly amazing, but it's there.

So Dr. Geisler continues, interestingly, and this is after the accusation that I guess

I give too much glory to God, or something along those lines. Interestingly, this fits with their associated view of volunteerism, see under Sidestepping the

Big Issues, page 260, which also has parentage in William Ockham. After all, deists have argued that it gives more glory to God to believe that he created a world in which he never intervenes in the same way that it brings more glory to a mechanic to make a perfect machine that never needs repair, end quote.

That had so little to do with anything I said in the Potter's Freedom that the only comment that I provided beneath it was, uh, deep,

D -E -E -P, with a little smiley face next to it because it has nothing to do with anything I said, so, you know, how do you respond to something that's irrelevant?

I don't know. But it continues on, Potter's Freedom and other extreme Calvinists argue that the less credit given to man, the more glory given to God, end quote.

Actually, we argue man is undeserving of any credit at all. It's not an issue of who gets more credit, it is an issue that man is undeserving of any credit at all.

That's, of course, what Reformed people have always argued, and it's not a matter of extreme Calvinists because that, of course, is a term that Dr.

Geisler has created, and we have refuted its necessity and its foundation, and so obviously it should not be utilized.

Dr. Geisler continues, and God will get the most glory if creatures have absolutely nothing to do with their salvation, not even exercising their free choice to receive it, end quote.

Of course, that ignores the entire presentation in the Potter's Freedom showing man's slavery to sin, the exegesis of passages such as Romans 8, 7 -8,

John 6, 44, Romans 3, 11, passages that, of course, never appear anywhere in this response, nor is any response to those passages provided by Dr.

Geisler. He continues, however, this does not follow since truth is not determined by what appears to glorify

God but by what actually fits with the facts, end quote. Well, of course, but what facts?

The facts we derive from our philosophy? The facts that we derive from our philosophical presuppositions that we derive from outside of Scripture?

Or the facts derived from the exegesis of Scripture? That, of course, is the difference between Chosen but Free and the

Potter's Freedom. Chosen but Free begins with Dr. Geisler's philosophy and then isegetes the

Scriptures to provide a foundation for that. The Potter's Freedom begins with the exegesis of Scripture and moves from there.

That is the fundamental difference. That's why there's a difference between the two sides. We will see that over and over and over again.

Dr. Geisler says, as has been demonstrated in CBF, the evidence of Scripture and good reason fit better with a form of moderate

Calvinism, end quote, to which I can simply say, such is wishful thinking in light of the reality.

It would seem to be, if that were the case, that this rebuttal would have a very different tone and character to it.

It would actually provide some facts that are real, not made up in the process.

Then we have the section called ad hominem. Ad hominem.

As I said, here's Dr. Geisler's opportunity to substantiate what many of his followers have attempted to say, that the book is filled with ad hominem.

Well, let's see what Dr. Geisler interprets as ad hominem. As I read before, throughout

Potter's Freedom, the author takes great pride in his exegetical skills. No references are given there. While any exegesis of text contrary his own is labeled not consistent, page 19.

Well, let's see what's on page 19. I actually don't find the phrase not consistent anywhere on page 19, but there are two possibilities for what

Dr. Geisler is referring to. Again, this is the very beginning of the introduction. This is where I'm just laying out the theme of the book and laying out what

Dr. Geisler has said, et cetera, et cetera. The only sections that seemingly fit with this assertion is, as an elder in Reformed Baptist Church, I am always blessed to be able to introduce men and women to the great truths of the

Reformation, truths directly challenged by CBF. As an apologist, I firmly believe that the only consistently biblical response to the challenges made to the

Christian faith is that offered by Reformed theology. Now there's one of the uses of the term consistent on page 19, and I repeat it again, as an apologist,

I firmly believe that the only consistently biblical response to the challenges made to the

Christian faith is that offered by Reformed theology. Now, if that's what he's referring to, then what he's saying is I could never claim that my beliefs are consistent without engaging in ad hominem, which of course is simply ridiculous.

So let's see if there's another possibility. Under the title of Reinventing the

Wheel on page 19, I wrote the following. There are many tremendous works in print defining and defending the great biblical faith of the

Reformation. God has been most gracious in raising up men like Calvin, Edwards, Church, and Warfield, Palmer, Sproul, and Piper, who have been gifted to communicate his truth to their generations in a unique fashion.

These works really need no defense, for any person reading them can see their internal consistency and depth of exegetical insight.

These are profoundly biblical works written by men who are deeply committed to the authority of the scriptures as the word of God.

There is the only other use of the term on page 19, and you'll notice that in none of this are we talking about Dr.

Geisler's exegesis. And there is no possible way that any person could take those two phrases and turn them into ad hominems.

And if I had a student in a grade school level class who failed to be able to read the

English language with more clarity than whoever it was that wrote this, and the example just given here, that person would be sent to remedial reading.

Oh, that's ad hominem. No, it's not. If you can look at this page and tell me how either use of the term consistently or consistency can be turned into an assertion like is found in the

Potter's Freedom, okay then, you've proven that I should engage in ad hominem. If you can't, then

I've just pointed out the truth nothing more. The truth is never ad hominem.

The truth is always meant to be an argument to hide from the truth, never the other way around. Well, okay, he just missed the first one.

Well, what's the next one? Well, any exegesis of the text contrary to his is labeled not meaningful, page 20.

Problem is there's nothing on page 20 or page 19 or page 21 that is remotely related to this allegation.

It's just one of the many, oops, got the wrong page, don't know what we're talking about, citations.

So, first two examples of ad hominem have only demonstrated the inability of the author to read a text and write down numbers.

All right, how about it's meant said to not in depth, page 136.

Well, let's see, this is under, this one's the right page, we got the right page in this one, that's good.

Matthew 23, 37, this is in the chapter that surely, surely if Dr.

Geisser was going to in any way rehabilitate his book to provide any kind of meaningful response, this is the chapter he would have to have taken apart.

Because as I pointed out in the book, he cites the three verses here, Matthew 23, 37, 2 Peter 3, 9, and 1

Timothy 2, 4, he cites them over and over and over in his book.

And if I give a meaningful exegesis of each one of those passages that's different than his, well, then he's got to be able to refute that.

No effort is made at all. Instead, here's what we have, Matthew 23, 37,

CBF offers no in -depth exegesis of this passage. Instead, we are given two sentences that summarize

Geisser's interpretation of it. And then we are, then I quoted his two sentences. Also Matthew 23, 37 affirms effectively that Jesus desired to bring the

Jews who rejected him into the fold, but could not because they would not. He cried, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often have

I, I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.

God's grace is not resistible on those who are unwilling end quote. Now that's not exegesis, folks.

Exegesis does not quote a verse and say, does not give a meaning and then say, here, it's in this verse.

That's not exegesis. The exegesis provided that starts on page 137 and goes through 139.

So I provided two and a half pages of discussion of the context, the meaning of the words, et cetera, et cetera.

That's exegesis. I simply made the observation and it is a factual observation that chosen but free offers no in -depth exegesis of Matthew 2337.

That is a fact. Facts cannot be ad hominem. So first three attempts at examples of ad hominem, three strikes.

Guess what the next one is? It's the mere presentation one from page 29. That one should count for 10 strikes.

So the first four examples, not a single one is even semi -rational.

Not even close to what was in the original writing. People, I understand how there could be people listening to this going, well, wait a minute.

This is Dr. Norman Geisler. This is one of the leading apologists in the whole world.

You've got to be making this up. Folks, that's the exact same feeling I've had all the way through this.

I felt like I had fallen into a time warp or something, some new dimension where things just are weird.

When I started reading this stuff and started looking up these passages, I could not believe that this made it into print.

It's shocking. It's absolutely shocking. Someone very, very well said, what if Norman Geisler had written a book about Mormonism and the

Mormons responded and Norm Geisler responded to their response in this fashion?

They would have a field day with this kind of stuff.

I would hope there's not a publisher on the planet that would publish this kind of stuff in that context.

Somebody didn't do their homework. Well, there's only one other example given.

And I know those of you who just, you know, you were just all excited, Norm Geisler is going to be able to demonstrate all the ad hominem in The Potter's Freedom.

Well, last example, page 254.

Page 254. That allegedly his exegesis is not based on definitive works.

And the only two quotation marks there is the word definitive. Well, this is dealing with the issue of John Calvin's view of the atonement.

So it's not even talking about exegesis, first of all. And there's nothing on the page that uses the term definitive.

And so I've looked and I've looked and this is where I quoted

Geisler saying the following, even John Calvin was not an extreme

Calvinist on this point, for he believed that by Christ's death, all the sins of the world have been expiated.

Commenting on the many for whom Christ died in Mark 14, 24, Calvin said, the word many does not mean a part of the world only, but the whole human race.

This means that people like Jonathan Edwards, John Gerstner, and R .C. Sproul, who believe in atonement, are more extreme than John Calvin.

Hence, they have earned the title extreme Calvinist. That is the basis of the entire distinction that he makes of extreme

Calvinism is his assertion that Calvin believes in a universal atonement.

Now, how that would in any way, shape or form help people understand what the various positions are, I do not know. But anyways, then

I commented on his quotation. Knowing that such a statement can be challenged, Dr.

Geisler included an appendix titled, Was Calvin a Calvinist? This appendix amounts to a grand total of five pages of citations.

There is not the first attempt to interact with a single reformed work on the subject. Other than a reference to R .T.

Kendall's Calvin and English Calvinism in 1649, no work of scholarship is cited, referenced, or noted, including the responses written by Calvinists to Kendall's work.

Only two of the passages cited by reformed authors who believe Calvin did hold to a particular view of the atonement is cited.

And even then, it garners no response nor discussion as we will see. Yet, despite the complete failure to interact with any viewpoint other than its own,

Dr. Geisler concludes the appendix with these words, Whatever else Calvin may have said to encourage extreme

Calvinism's tulip, he certainly denied limited atonement as they understand it. For Calvin, the atonement is universal in extent and limited only in its application, namely to those who believe, end quote.

So there's nothing on the page that talks about his exegesis.

There's nothing on the page that talks about definitive works. The closest we can come is no work of scholarship is cited, referenced, or noted.

And again, guess what? That's the fact. That's the fact.

That's all there is to it. That's not an homonym. And that's it. Those of you who are waiting for Dr.

Geisler to provide all those examples for you, that's it. That's all he provided and he struck out on every single one.

Didn't get pages right. Ignored context. It's amazing.

I don't understand it. I do not understand it. But the entire response is like this.

In fact, it gets worse. It gets worse. The next section is name calling.

Name calling. Dr. Geisler says that I engage in name calling. Another favorite technique of Potter's freedom is the fallacy of name calling.

Consider only the following out of numerous examples. Did you notice that?

See, that way you could say, well, okay, maybe my example is here. But there are numerous examples of name calling.

You can't defend yourself against an assertion like numerous examples. But I would submit to you that if these are all fallacious, then probably the numerous examples are fallacious as well.

He says my reasoning and conclusion are labeled a nonresponse on page 217.

So if I examine Dr. Geisler's attempt to make an assertion,

Dr. Geisler's attempt to maybe respond to a reformed position and determine that it is a nonresponse, that it has no merit, then that must involve me in name calling.

I guess that means that Dr. Geisler would never write anything that would be a nonresponse. Well, except for this particular appendix.

Well, what is on page 217? Well, this is in the section on Romans chapter nine.

And again, for those of you who were hoping and praying that Dr.

Geisler would provide a full response to Romans nine and demonstrate that all the things we pointed out, errors and the like in his exegesis were wrong.

It's not there. It's not there. There's no attempt even. But page 217 is where Dr.

Geisler is talking about the word hated. God loved

Esau and hated, God loved Jacob and hated Esau. And here's what

Geisler says. Fourth, the

Hebrew word for hated really means loved less. Indication of this comes from the life

Jacob himself. The Bible says Jacob loved also Rachel more than Leah. The Lord saw that Leah was hated.

Genesis 29, 30 to 31. So even one of the strongest verses used by extreme Calvinists does not prove that God hates the non -elect, or even that he does not love them.

It simply means that God's love for those who receive salvation looks so much greater than his love for those who reject it, that the latter looks like hatred by comparison.

I just sort of stopped to just sort of notice that a little bit later on, he's going to say that I deny omnibenevolence.

And yet he just said that God has different kinds of love for different people, which is exactly what I've said.

Well, anyways, a couple of illustrations make the point. The same loving stroke that makes a kitten purr seems like hatred if she turns the opposite direction and finds her fur being rubbed the wrong way, end quote.

Well, here's what I said, and this must be the first example of name calling. My reasoning and conclusion are labeled a non -response.

Here's what I said, quote, one is immediately struck by the fact that the key issues present in Reformed exegesis of the text are utterly and completely ignored by CBF.

Aside from one footnote addressed below, the entirety of the response, this section of Romans nine can be summed up as one, this refers to nations, not individuals, and two, hated doesn't mean hated, but loved less.

With all due respect to Dr. Geisler, this is a non -response that does not focus upon the text at all.

There is no exegesis with which to interact. We will, however, respond to both assertions that are made.

Well, that's what I said. With all due respect to Dr. Geisler, this is a non -response that does not focus upon the text at all.

Well, simple fact of the matter is, it didn't. If Dr. Geisler would like to show us where he actually provided meaningful exegesis of the text and somehow

I missed it while reading Chosen but Free, then I guess that might be name calling, but that's not the case.

Then the next two, both cite page 253, and he says, my reasoning and conclusion are labeled shallow at best and simplistic arguments, and page 253 is cited for both of those.

The problem is, the phrase shallow at best does not appear anywhere on page 253.

So I'm like, I think I remember somewhere,

I don't know where, where I mentioned something about shallow at best, but I'm not going to sit here and go through the entirety of my book just to try to find a page reference when someone critiquing my book, and as we have demonstrated, extremely unfairly, without any particular interest in being fair to it, doesn't get the number right.

Yet again. This is, what, two that we've had now within just two paragraphs?

But simplistic arguments, well, I think I can find that one. Page 253, and this is after the, this is in the section on particular redemption, and I had said, this kind of argumentation leads to such troubling conclusions as asserting that it is the plain teaching of other scriptures that not all

Christ died for will be saved. This is the reasoning offered, and then here's a quotation from Norman Geisler, The Doctrine of Limited Atonement claims that all

Christ died for will be saved, but the above passages and many others reveal that one,

Christ died for all, and two, all will not be saved, Matthew 25, 41,

Revelation 20, 10. Thus, not all Christ died for will be saved. The Doctrine of Limited Atonement is contrary to the clear teaching of scripture.

End quote. So that is, that's the issue. Okay? There's the citation.

Then I responded as follows. Such simplistic arguments ignore the vast mountain of Reformed literature, let alone the plain teaching of Hebrews 7 through 10 and Romans 8, 31 through 34.

While readers of CBF, will readers of CBF be familiar enough with the exegesis offered by Reformed writers to recognize that the issues are not being dealt with in a truly scholarly and fair manner?

That's what I said. That by ignoring, and again, this is one of the main issues in regards to chosen but free.

It does not interact with the other side that it is critiquing. And I think this comes out clearly in this appendix, where simply to me, it seems that there is no desire on the part of whoever wrote this to understand what the other side is saying.

In fact, no desire to show any respect for what the other side is saying at all.

And so these are simplistic arguments. There's no exegesis offered to substantiate these things.

Is Dr. Geisser to be allowed to simply cite a passage, ignore providing exegesis, and therefore say, ah, well, as long as he cites it, it must be right.

I should certainly hope that we never, ever give anyone that kind of authority, that kind of a pass.

Anyone has to be held accountable for what they say.

Well, is that name calling? No, it's not name calling. It's identifying fallacious argumentation as fallacious argumentation.

Next he says it's name calling to say that his book is a source of great confusion. Is it?

Well, we'll find out in just a moment. We come back on The Dividing Line and continue our response to Norman Geisser.

We'll be right back. And welcome back to The Dividing Line.

We are looking at, well, it's somebody's response. It's in Dr.

Geisser's book. I guess it's his response. I can't imagine that it is, because as we've been working through it, and we're only,

I'm looking at my screen here, and everybody's going to just turn off and never come back again if I tell you this.

We're on page five of 25 pages. Page five of 25 pages.

And you say, wait a minute, you've documented error after error after error. Yeah, and I'm only a fifth of the way through.

Yeah. That's how bad it is. And you see, I have to go through this.

Somebody said, ah, just pick the worst ones that go on from there. There's one little problem. First of all, I know Dr. Geisser's followers.

I've heard from him since I wrote The Potter's Freedom. And if I respond to 19 out of 20, 19 out of 20, and just absolutely nail those 19, just send us just home run each one.

Just demonstrate that every single thing in those 19 points is completely fallacious.

It's the 20th one that they're going to focus on. So I've got to be complete.

I've got to be thorough. I think it is, sadly, a valuable example of how to, in essence, cover your trail when you've written something that's just really, really bad.

There's one thing for certain, and this is a comment that many who have, many who have,

I just saw a comment in the chat room, you won't find any love in John Calvin. Oh, please.

Whoever said that is a very ignorant person of the writings and the life of John Calvin.

I would like to point that out. Good grief. Anyways, ad hominem, here we go again.

I see it never, never ends. But not only that, I'm going to make some comments toward the end of my review.

And I'll tell you right now, I am going to challenge Dr. Geisler to simply pull this thing.

I'm going to challenge Dr. Geisler to remove it from his book. And obviously,

I have to have a reason. And the reason is, it is horrifically bad.

And I don't mean that, oh, well, you just don't like it because he's responding to you. No, folks, have you been listening? There's no substance here.

It's embarrassing. And I wouldn't care who he was reviewing. I wouldn't care who he was reviewing.

It's simply that bad. I've even been looking at alleged name -calling.

Name -calling. And we've seen so far that all of them listed. Well, some of them we couldn't even find the pages that are listed on, but not name -calling, an identification of errors of argument.

And unless Dr. Geisler is going to claim, hey, you can't show where I've been wrong in an argument, that's calling me a name.

Unless that's what he's saying, then quite obviously, it's not name -calling to point out errors in what he's said.

And the next thing, it's calling names to say that his book is a source of great confusion.

Well, I've already read exactly what I said here. Oops, excuse me.

Let me try it again. There, I used the cough button that time. Sorry about that. I was on the other side of my desk.

I just couldn't get to it in time. Have this wonderful thing sitting here, you know, we've worked hard to get it and I went and coughed on the air.

Anyways, where is the phrase source of great confusion? Well, I thought

I had it marked. It says page 19, but I thought that was on page 29.

Oh, well, that does say while I'm grieved with the confusion that books like CBF will cause. And I did say that it was a source of great confusion somewhere.

But it's not. Ah, there it is, very bottom of the page. There we go.

My eyesight is not what it used to be. Bottom of page 19. As a result, many will take his conclusions.

Actually, let me back up just a moment here. Given that Dr. Geisler is a prolific author who has addressed a tremendously wide variety of topics, his work automatically carries the weight of his previous experience and scholarship.

As a result, many will take his conclusions at face value. But it is my firm conviction that CBF will be a source of great confusion, not enlightenment on the subject of the sovereignty of God and the will of man.

Why do I say this? I offer five sources of confusion that I believe are created by the discussion in CBF.

And those five sources then take up pages 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28.

So I provide eight full pages, eight full pages of documentation.

Wow. Someone just blew my headphones right off. Eight full pages of documentation.

And yet, not any of that is responded to by Dr.

Geisler. But despite the fact that I provide eight actually, it's nine, isn't it?

Yeah, nine pages of documentation and argumentation, citations from his own book, all in context and all with the right page references, yet I'm engaging in name calling since I said his book is a source of great confusion.

Does anyone else notice that these alleged logical errors are actually illogical? And that they aren't the errors that he's claiming they are?

Hmm. Well, what's the next alleged name calling that his arguments are not substantial?

Page 25. Well, that's after a citation that I provided from R .K.

Wright. And then I said, the parallels to CBF are striking. CBF offers no substantial refutation of Reformed exegesis.

Indeed, if all one read was CBF, one would not be aware that there was substantial Reformed exegetical defense of the

Calvinistic position. Well, that's true. Is Dr.

Geisler claiming, and unfortunately I think he is, that CBF does offer substantial refutation of Reformed exegesis?

I honestly think that Dr. Geisler thinks he did. And one of the reasons I think that he thinks he did is because in a letter that he wrote to me early on,

I had asked him as I was writing The Potter's Freedom, what about John chapter six verses 37 through 44?

I mean, some of you have read Drawn by the Father. You know that I have a whole chapter on it in The Potter's Freedom.

There's a whole section on that in God's Sovereign Grace and so on and so forth. It's obviously a very important part to me.

Anyways, I think it's obviously foundational to the Reformed perspective to emphasize that passage because it is so clear.

I mean, some of you may have seen in the Roman Catholic section on our website, big, long debate.

Well, not really a debate, just an email discussion that came out of an earlier dividing line program regarding John six between myself and Robert St.

Genes. And so if you're going to provide substantial refutation of the

Reformed position, then obviously you're going to have to deal with John chapter six.

But there wasn't anything about it in the book. There's certainly nothing of any exegetical value.

And so I had written to him and I'd said, why did you skip this? And when Dr. Geisser wrote back, he claimed that he had provided full and in -depth exegesis of John chapter six in the book.

And so I wrote back to him and I said, where? And I cited every single place where that verse appeared in all of Chosen but Free.

And none of it by any stretch of the imagination could even be given the phrase shallow exegesis, let alone in -depth exegesis.

And so I really think for some reason, and I don't know why, I think for some reason

Dr. Geisser really thinks that he has just absolutely refuted

Reformed exegesis. Now, if that's the case, that means he doesn't know it. And that might explain why he doesn't interact with any meaningful

Reformed apologetic sources and why he might well be tempted to hand the

Potter's Freedom to an undergrad student and say, hey, hey, here, you want to have a independent study project? Here, find some errors in this and we'll take care of it.

Now that would be a very cavalier attitude. It would not be a scholarly attitude at all. But I don't know how else to explain this.

I really don't. The book is a source of great confusion. When you redefine all the fundamental terminology, it's going to create confusion.

And I demonstrated that. Next, he takes Umbridge to Not Substantial and then page 23.

This one gets pretty, this one, you know, this sounds bad. He says that I referred to his exegesis as quite simply ridiculous.

Now, that's pretty, that's pretty nasty. Quite simply ridiculous. But here is the context of this quite simply ridiculous.

He cites page 23 and that's where it is. The page citation is correct. But what's going on on these pages?

Well, if you have the book, you can look at it. But this is under my assertion that Dr. Geisser in his book,

Chosen But Free, engages in poor representation. And then I documented this.

And let me just, I think this is important. I think y 'all need to understand that sadly, this kind of misrepresentation of me took place of others in Chosen But Free.

Starting on page 21, most frustrating to the Reformed believer who has provided a reasoned and scripturally -based defense of his or her beliefs is the utter lack of serious interaction on the part of CBF with such works.

There is simply no attempt to interact on a meaningful level with the many Reformed works that provide in -depth, serious biblical exegesis and argumentation in defense of the

Reformed position. While some works, such as Owen's The Death of Death and The Death of Christ and Piper's The Justification of God are mentioned and even cited, the responses are so surface level they amount to nothing more than a dismissal, not a rebuttal.

And even here, the Reformed material is handled in such a cavalier manner as to make even the effort of citing it worthless.

This is clearly seen in the way in which CBF will quote as little as a single sentence.

And on the basis of this, accuse Reformed writers of changing scripture. For example,

Dr. Geisler quotes from John Owen and writes, and here I'm quoting now from Geisler, arguably the best defense of extreme

Calvinism on limited atonement comes from John Owen. His response to this passage is a shocking retranslation to,

God so loved his elect throughout the world that he gave his son with this intention that by him believers might be saved, exclamation point.

This needs no response, simply a sober reminder that God repeatedly exhorts us not to add to or subtract from his words,

Deuteronomy 4 to Proverbs 36 and Revelation 22, 18 through 19 end quote. This citation is from page 214 of Owen's book.

Was this great Christian scholar suggesting that we should retranslate John 3 .16? Is this a fair representation of Owen's position?

Not in the slightest. This citation comes toward the end of a lengthy discussion of the passage, a discussion

I note that is significantly longer and in more depth than any discussion of any passage in all of CBF.

There is no attempt whatsoever on the part of CBF to address the actual argument and the reasoning set forth.

Here in context is what Owen said. First, if this word, whosoever be distributive, then it is restrictive of the love of God to some and not to others, to one part of the distribution and not the other.

And if it do, and if it do not restrain the love of God intending the salvation of some, then it is not distributive of the four mentioned object of it.

And if it do restrain it, then all are not intended in the love which moved God to give his son.

Secondly, I deny it. The word here is distributive of the object of God's love, but only declarative of his end and aim in giving

Christ in the pursuit of that love to wit that all believers might be saved. So the sense is

God's to love his elect throughout the world that he gave his son with this intention that by him believers might be saved.

And this is all that is by any besides a few worthless cavils objected from this place to disprove our interpretation.

And quote, I continue with what I said. And here's what guys are objected to as anyone reading the passage in context can see to charge

Owen with alteration of the word of God is quite simply ridiculous. He not only specifically says the sense is a phrase that would have to be said on the basis of mere honesty.

If CBF is serious and accusing Owen of adding the word of God, but it is painfully obvious that Owen is interpreting the passage in the light of the preceding 10 pages of argumentation he had provided.

One cannot avoid noting that aside from this allegedly sober reminder offered by Geisler, there is not a single word of meaningful argumentation or refutation provided.

And I then went on from there, as we will see in a few moments to give a similar example from John Piper's work, where guys are treated his work in the same cavalier and quite simply ridiculous fashion.

And so it is not name calling to identify the statement on the part of Norman Geisler, which ignored 10 pages of argumentation from Owen, did not cite the full sentence, including the phrase the sense is, call that a re -translation and then charge

Owen with adding the word of God, folks, that is quite simply ridiculous. So I have now substantiated the phrase and hence it is not name calling, it is truth.

And the only way to respond to that on the part of Dr. Geisler or whoever has written this appendix would be to demonstrate that they had fairly dealt with John Owen.

If they didn't deal with John Owen fairly, then guess what? It's not name calling and it needs to be repented of.

Page 62, I allegedly said his exegesis is almost frightening.

Well, I think I read from this beforehand, but here's the section.

Not only does Dr. Geisler here admit that his view is in harmony with the Arminian view and contradictory to the historical reform position, but he in essence undermines his own previous assertion that predetermination and foreknowledge are one and indistinguishable by saying that what is willed is conditioned on, my emphasis, they're freely choosing it.

It is almost frightening to consider that here God's will is said to be in accord with his unchangeable knowledge and that his will never changes since he wills what he knows will happen.

Now let me repeat this because again, Dr. Geisler's position is rather unique in this predeterminately knowing, knowingly predetermining stuff.

Here's what I said. It is almost frightening to consider that here

God's will is said to be in accord with his unchangeable knowledge and that his will never changes since he wills what he knows will happen.

It is vital to see this. Men act freely, autonomously, while God's will is defined by his knowledge of what takes place in time.

Truly this makes man the determiner and God the perfect knower. Yet the only positive, free, active will in all of this is man's, not

God's. At its root, this in no way differs from the Arminian viewpoint that God elects on the basis of what he foresees.

So I wasn't talking about his exegesis. I was talking about his position and I said that it is almost frightening to consider that what

Dr. Geisler is saying is that God's will is in accord with his unchangeable knowledge and that his will never changes because he wills what he knows will happen.

And that is frightening, folks, because that means that it's us that determines what happens, not

God. And that is frightening. And that's not name -calling. That's truth. That's all it is.

It's truth. He says on page 71 that I confusion.

Well, I did. I said that CBF operates on the assertion that God's knowledge and God's predetermination taken passively are identical and that in reality there is no positive, active, sovereign decree of God that gives form and shape to time and history.

This viewpoint plays upon the term determination and the possibility of taking the word actively or passively. God's determination of events becomes passive, yet despite this, the author connects this passive determination of events in time with the term sovereignty, which truly admits of no such passive concept.

The result is a tremendously confusing presentation that seems to promote both the idea that God is absolutely sovereign and a man is absolutely free.

But in reality, the position presents a God who is limited to having a perfect knowledge of free events. The extent of his sovereign actions is in granting freedom.

He does not control what his creatures do with that freedom, but only knows the results perfectly. This system is driven primarily by philosophical concerns, not by biblical exegesis, as we shall see when we examine the biblical argumentation presented in CBF.

Well, is that not true? And can truth be name -calling?

No, it cannot. The next listed phrase is utterly amazing. And doesn't it seem to you that this looks like someone going through and making notes and, oh, he said utterly amazing on page 87, and oh, page 71, tremendous confusion.

Oh, we'll get him for that. That's what it sounds like to me. Let's not worry about context. Let's not worry about whether it's true or not.

Let's just list these things out and make him look bad. Page 87.

This is in the chapter on the inabilities of man. I am providing exegesis of John chapter 8, verses 31 through 34.

And I say the one who commits sin is the slave of sin. Slavery is servitude, not freedom.

Christ's words tell us that sin is a taskmaster, we the servants. We do not rule over it.

It rules those who are under its power. Slavery is antithetical to free will. Man in sin is not free to do what is good.

It is utterly amazing then to read the words of Dr. Geisler who writes, we are born with a bent to sin, but we still have a choice whether we will be its slave.

End quote. How can this be when the Lord teaches that sin brings slavery? What kind of choice is left of the slave concerning his servitude?

That's what I said. So is it name calling to say that it's utterly amazing when

Dr. Geisler says we are born with a bent to sin, but we still have a choice whether we will be its slave? Is it utterly amazing when someone says that slavery is a matter of choice?

Of course not. It is utterly amazing when someone can be so dedicated to their absolute dedication to free will that they can listen to Jesus say, he who commits sin is a slave of sin and go, yeah, but that's your choice.

You could just slave, choose not to be a slave, be a slave, choose not to be a slave, so on and so forth.

Well, it is utterly amazing. This whole thing is utterly amazing, actually. We're getting close here to the end of the name calling.

We're getting about to the end of page five of 25. Yes, I know what that means.

And I have been trying to go as quickly as possible. But every time you look, have you noticed we're just going phrase by phrase, error after error, after error, after error.

How do you explain this? I think you see now why I just sit here and go, nobody with the amount of schooling that Norman Geisler has could do this.

He just have to have been sitting there with what somebody else gave him. There's just no other explanation to this.

Utterly amazing indeed. Completely fallacious, page 165. Well, I remember that's one of my favorite phrases, completely fallacious.

I use that a lot with certain people in the chat room. Just waking them up there, see if they're still listening or if they're just sort of off doing their own thing, which some of them are.

But I like referring to the assertions of Pete as completely fallacious and the assertion that Java actually does work while he says he's in the chat room as completely fallacious as well.

We'll see if either one of them heard that. Page 165 is dealing with John chapter six.

And one of the most amazing things is how Dr. Geisler did at least try a couple of times to deal with some later verses and say some incredible things.

On page 164, I start, finally, if we read this errant interpretation of John 1232 back into John 644, and to do so would require some kind of demonstration, the simple word draw must have the exact same meaning and objects in both contexts, something

CBF does not even attempt to prove. We do exactly as Geisler asserts, create universalism, but not because the reformed view is in error.

We have already seen that all who are drawn are also raised up. Rather than using this argument to overthrow the plain meaning of John 644,

CBF should see that the group that is being drawn is not every single individual, but the elect as indicated by the context and that the result is indeed the reformed view of irresistible grace.

Then I quote from Geisler. Third, the word all cannot mean only some men in John 1232.

Earlier, John 2, 24 through 25, when Jesus said he knew all men's sin, it was clear that he was not just speaking of the elect.

Why then should all mean some in John 1232? If he meant some, he could easily have said so.

End quote. Here's my response. Again, this kind of argumentation is completely fallacious.

First, John says Jesus knew all men, not that all men sin. This is a simple misreading of the text.

And I pause for a moment. It was a portent of things to come. Obviously, simple misreading the text of scripture and the simplest reading text, the power of freedom seems to be endemic.

Secondly, CBF makes no attempt to prove that the phrase all men in John 2, 24 is to be understood as synonymous with the use in John 1232.

Jesus, as God, would know all men, but it does not follow that this means the Father must draw all men to Christ, nor that Christ must draw all men to himself by his death.

To know and to draw are obviously completely different actions. Jesus knew as a function of deity, the

Father chooses to draw as a function of his freedom. To connect John 2 with John 12, so as to interpret

John 6, should immediately cause any careful student of the Bible to recognize that we here encounter a example of eisegesis that comes from an unwillingness to accept what the text itself teaches.

Further, asking why Jesus said all begs the question. If the Reformed exegete is right and Jesus means all kinds of men, as in Jews and Gentiles and expected to be understood in that context, why would he then say some kinds of men?

That would mean Jesus is excluding some kinds of men, which he does not, et cetera, et cetera. And so I personally found that to be a very clear refutation of what

Geisler was trying to do in associating John chapter 2 with John chapter 12 there, and his argumentation is completely fallacious.

And again, when you substantiate what you are saying, obviously in that situation you are not engaging in name -calling.

What makes something name -calling is that it forms the core of the argument, and that it is meant to skew the of the person hearing it.

None of these things that have been cited even come close to that. And yet, when you throw them all together in an appendix and you present to people who may never read

The Potter's Freedom, well, I guess if people just trust you, it may look good.

But I don't understand it, and I certainly would never, ever, ever engage in that kind of writing.

I wouldn't care if it made me look good or not. You just don't do that kind of thing.

You just don't do it. Well, the next section is on John 644.

Dr. Geisler's amazing comments on John 644, and in fact, all three of them, he lists three of them, completely backward, 168, the most amazing statement, 167, and even a most torturous line of reasoning, 169.

All of these are in reference to what Dr. Geisler said about John 6, verse 44.

And given that that's a vital passage, I think I'll save that till next week. Besides that, the applause has begun.

The studio audience is ready to go home, and therefore they let us know that it's time to wrap things up.

And yes, we're going to be archiving these, and yes, there's going to be an article eventually, and maybe an appendix to the

Potter's Freedom and all of these things. And you say, why? Why not just give the leading elements of it?

Well, folks, because we're learning things as we go along, and I appreciate your patience as we've been looking at these things.

I hope it's useful to you as you respond to others who sadly will utilize this kind of argumentation against the doctrines of grace.

We need to be prepared to answer. Thanks for being with us today as we've been helping to equip you. We'll be back again next week.