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

Norman Geisler’s Second Edition of *Chosen but Free* and the New Appendix on *The Potter’s Freedom*

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 to rather unpleasant subject and it is 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'm extremely excited to be holding in my hand a Very very nicely done I'll have to admit the the picture that we have on the website and that I've had seen up until now does not do this 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 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 to the book you need to your murals your book will be signed as well. Please don't expect me. However to you know, 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, you know 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 you know, 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.

It's a 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 the level to which you have to go in studying things is frequently determined by the 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 people Why did you have to go and talk about the Greek? You know, 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 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 You know James James chapter 2 is 24 page chapter on James chapter 2 and so anyways, that's all available in the book and I I know this sounds like That 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 gonna be talking about a web web page. It's 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 for no other reason that they will have the resources available when the need arises and So give some give them some consideration 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 you know start establishing some parameters as far as when and so on so forth that that did not seem nearly as Excited about debating as the first one did in fact the letter said things long 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 on you're not very high On that list and I'm not sure who's gonna be higher on the list, but Etc. Etc.

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 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 the 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 is 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 gonna 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 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 Ripplinger now some of you know what that means. Some of you know who Gail Ripplinger 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 gonna go by or in order here. But let me just give you one example just. 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 there's a fair amount of ad hominem. He he says for example Potter's freedom virtue 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 fairly 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.

Ted sent along a Analysis of the Potter's freedom well never quoted the Potter's freedom. It was just nothing, but ad hominem from beginning to end. How terrible you are you 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. Geiser has responded and here is dr. Geiser's own opportunity to identify where I insulted Norman Geisler where did I argue ad hominem against Norman Geisler and Yet as we will see today in this entire section where he had 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 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. That's Borders on ad hominem itself actually it's Especially a 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 doctor to mine a doctor to mine is labeled as and then.

There's this whole list and we're gonna 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 widely as widely distributed as chosen but free.

The Potter's freedom is that 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 of 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?

Now 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 and that is in fact Armenian ism 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 the Potter's freedom. There is great confidence in trusting in God's sovereignty. Especially when it comes 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. What word mere presentation come from let me Read it again. While I am grieved 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 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 and 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 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 you heard it. 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 his exegesis a mere presentation, you know, if that was the only example that would Be an egregious error, but it 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 freedoms 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 Calvinist resort time and again to this position. Potter's freedom pages 39 and 178. Well, I 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 the 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 and still 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 to 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. I 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 pages 38 through 9 say that even though it's found right there on 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 the 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 is 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 as 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 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 to 39. Philippians 2 6 to 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 freewill 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.

It's God's grace to be praised because we can be saved or because we are saved. End quote. 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 in either 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 gonna 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 on to 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 of the that I 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 Occam? 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 and 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 a deep DEEP with a little smiley face next to it because 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 and 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 Calvinist 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 and quote of course that ignores ignores the entire presentation in the potter's freedom showing man's slavery to sim the exegesis of Passages such as Romans 8 7 through 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 and 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 is a jeets the scriptures to provide a foundation for that 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 and 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.

Here's 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 zone 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 and And This is where I'm just laying out the theme of the book and and laying out what dr. Geisler has said, etc Etc.

And so the 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 and as an apologist.

I firmly believe that the only Consistently biblical response the challenges made to the Christian faith. Is that offered by Reformed Theology now? There's one of the uses 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 and in a in a high school level in a grade school level class Who failed to be able to read the English language with more clarity?

Then 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 nice to engage that hominid 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 conjure 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 this allegation.

It's just one of the many Oops got the wrong page don't know what we're talking about citations up, 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 be not in depth page 136 hmm. 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 2337 this is in the chapter that surely.

Surely if dr. Geisler was going to in any way rehabilitate his book. To do 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 2337 2nd Peter 3 9 and 1st 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. Here's what we have. Matthew 2337. CBF offers no in-depth exegesis of this passage instead. We were given two sentences that summarize Geisler's interpretation of it.

And then we are then I quoted his two sentences. Also, Matthew 2337 affirms effectively that Jesus desired to bring the Jews rejected him into the fold. But could not because they would not. He cried Oh Jerusalem Jerusalem.

You who kill the prophets of stone those sent to you. 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.

Etc. Etc. 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 ten strikes. So the first four examples not a single one is even semi rational. Not even close to what was in the original writing.

I 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 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 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 And Norm Geisler responded to their response in this fashion they would have a field day with this kind of stuff and 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 on Norm Geisler is going to be able to to demonstrate all the ad hominem in the potter's freedom.