Norman Geisler's Second Edition of Chosen But Free, Part 3 of 3 - A Class Project?

Well for quite some time we've been telling you they're coming they're coming they're coming and they came. Yes, yesterday the UPS man looking rather haggard Actually, we helped the UPS man out the first of 15 cases of the God who justifies coming off of the truck and Piled on that two-wheeler and dragged in here and many many Thanks to those who helped especially Katie Baker and Summer White my own daughter was in there stuffing stuff and wrapping stuff and Rich Pierce had done a brilliant job of getting things lined out and my Right hand worked very hard in signing signing books as we were getting them out.

In fact, we we processed about 200 books in just a couple of hours. And in fact some of you who had in fact already ordered the book and priority mail. We got most of them out I think Yesterday, so they're on their way to you.

The God who justifies is now going to be hitting well, I was gonna say hitting bookstore shelves and I started thinking about the condition of the Christian bookstore industry and Realized that that was a stupid thing to say actually stop laughing out there.

I can hear you In reality, they're going to start hitting websites and like our website and things like that and hopefully get into a lot of Folks a lot of pastors offices and the libraries and hopefully will be very very useful to them.

So it is available and Maybe next week or sometime after that. I'm not really sure we can take a look at the book. Maybe once the book gets out the initial shipping takes place. We can have a time when you all can call in and you can Look at you know, talk about the book ask some questions about the book, whatever it might be.

Maybe we can do something like that in the future. Today, we're gonna be finishing up. Yes. I did say finishing up. Some of you have are very very concerned that I am going to be doing this response to Norman Geisler's new appendix for the rest of my adult life and if we looked at every single error, I almost could that is how Horrifically bad this response is in fact as I was sitting here.

I Honestly, I I wanted to have the new main page article up on The on The website before the program began today. But what the main new main page article and I hope to get it up within an hour. So after the program is over today when I have an opportunity to to try to do it.

What the main page article will be is it'll be it's about 12 13 13 pages long right now written response to the Appendix it's now appendix number 13. Which of course is I think somewhat appropriate in the second edition of chosen, but free then it will link to the Notes, basically the read-along notes that I have used so far in the response and that's 25 pages long.

So there will be 37 pages and this is what I'm talking pages here. I'm talking Not double-spaced or type size like that full eight and a half by 11 pages. There'll be about 37 pages worth of material that I'll be uploading to the to the website and then linking to the Materials At straightgate .com the three dividing lines that we've done in response To this so there'll be a lot of information available.

You'll be able to both read and hear it. But as I was doing that I needed to finish up some stuff need to fix some things up in the notes Section the 25 page thing that I've been using while doing the programs and I there were a couple paragraphs I had not taken apart and looked up every reference in yet so as I was doing that I Again started encountering so much Ridiculous stuff that I was again beating my head on the wall.

I cannot believe this is in print of Gail Ripplinger lives and she has she's left the King James only camp and she's she's moved into the mainstream. It's just incredible. I was I'm looking at this. Well, here's here's what I put in the this will be in the main page article.

Let me just read it to you so you can see what I'm talking about. One of the saddest examples of the methodology of this review was found near the end of the appendix on page 262. It seems the author and I put Parentheses s author or authors.

Because I am fully convinced that this was done by an undergraduate student somewhere or more likely in fact by a class project. And let me stop for a moment and say why I think that. Not only as I was working through stuff this week and putting together the main page article.

It struck two things struck me at the same time and and together I went hmm, this is interesting. The first thing was the fact that as I put together the documentation on the incredible misuse of a single phrase.

The phrase was mere presentation twice in this article. This phrase mere presentation is used to beat me over the head to say that I engaged in ad hominem argumentation. It's used in two completely in fact contradictory ways by the authors of this particular review and As I was thinking about that and I've talked about this before it'll be in the web page.

It's where I was actually affirming the sufficiency of scripture saying that the mere presentation of God's truth from the word is Sufficient for the child of God that That Misuse of the phrase in two different ways indicates to me.

You know if only one person was writing this wouldn't they remember that they had already accused me of engaging in ad hominem based upon this before. This looks a lot like what you'd get out of a group project where you have one group over here.

You do this aspect of the book and one group over there you do this aspect of the book or you do the first hundred Pages and you do the next hundred pages or something along those lines or here's what someone did on an initial reading Pass that around the room and you this group over there you work on this paragraph and you you guys over here you come up With allegations that this guy doesn't know what he's talking about in this area.

Whatever. It might be that's what it looked like to me and then I remembered something a little over a year ago a little over a year ago a A radio personality contacted me and relayed to me a conversation a 20-minute conversation that he had with Norman Geisler about me and One of the things that dr. Geisler said to him was that he was going to use the potter's freedom in his logic classes as a textbook of how not to do logic a textbook of how to identify bad logical errors and All of a sudden it hit me.

I'm why is this so bad? Why are there page citations that are wrong? Why is it that? Anything that I've said about anything doesn't matter what the content original context was the original context of potter's freedom is absolutely positively irrelevant.

To the author or authors of this of this appendix it just it does not matter at all. How could that have happened it would have happened if this was a class project? And so that's why throughout the throughout the Material I'm gonna be posting on the web today.

I use author Parentheses s so if it's one guy or it's a number of people whatever. That's what I'm talking about. So I'm talking about one of the saddest examples of the methodology of this review page 262 in the second edition of chosen but free and I continue it seems the authors of this review felt it would be best to include their worst examples of miscitation.

Misreading and simple error in the midst of personal attacks, so we have an entire subsection titled pride and exclusivism. Which begins and now I'm quoting from page 262 of the chosen but free Quote.

I am NOT alone in detecting a proud and exclusivistic undertone in potter's freedom. For example it calls its view the reformed view page 38 emphasis added. While summarily dismissing other reformed theologians CBF sites who do not agree with major points in its presentation for example William Shedden RT Kendall the author of potter's freedom immodestly announces Quote.

I will be demonstrating Endquote that Geisler's view quote is in error end quote page 30. Better to set forth one's case and let the reader decide that and that is the end of the quotation from Chosen but free.

Now I then comment. One has to wonder who these nameless faceless people are who join with the authors in detecting this pride. I Detected lots of feelings. I could have mentioned in regard to dr. Geisler's book.

But you do not present such things unless you can back up what you were saying. But the great irony is that in the midst of accusing me of being prideful the authors of this review Purposefully misrepresent me and give clear evidence of their desire to do so.

How. So note the second to last quoted line above which reads. And here's the line you need to hear the author of potter's freedom. Immodestly announce announces quote. I Will be demonstrating. And then there is a closed quote that Geisler's view quote is in error.

Quote close page 30. When I first read this I only noted that it is hardly immodest to say that one's view is in error unless of course that person does not believe you intelligent enough or old enough or Trained enough to even critique their position.

But as I was finishing up my notes on the response I looked up the actual context of the citation and again groaned in unbelief and what I found. Here is the context in the potter's freedom. So where where is this phrase coming from this this phrase that I will be demonstrating that Geisler's view is in error.

And that this is immodest and arrogant and so on and so forth. Where's where's this come from. Well? Here's the actual full quotation from the potter's freedom. The reformed tradition is rich in honest dialogue and debate.

Those who love truth will not be offended by honest direct Refutation and interaction. The politically correct culture we live in should not be allowed to silence meaningful theological debate. Dr.. Geisler himself has written quote third.

What about those who insist that drawing lines will divide Christians. In response it must be lovingly. But firmly maintained that it is better to be divided by truth than to be united by error. There is an unhealthy tendency in evangelical Christianity to hide under the banner of Christian charity while sacrificing Doctrinal purity.

That's the end of the quote from dr. Geisler and then I continued in the potter's freedom. In the spirit of these words I offer a rebuttal of dr. Geisler's work. This is not meant to be a presentation of the reformed view so ably accomplished by others.

My positive Presentation will be limited to establishing facts that are not in evidence from a reading of chosen, but free. Instead I will be demonstrating that the biblical argumentation provided by Norman Geisler is in error.

It is my hope that the reader will be edified by the consistent focus upon Biblical exegesis for this is truly the heart and soul of reformed theology. There is the quotation I continue in the web article that will be posted later this afternoon as I compare the citation to the original.

I could not help but be amazed at the use of the quotation marks in CBF. Here we cannot blame eyesight. We cannot blame a simple misreading of the text. This is purposeful and planned. I said I would demonstrate that the biblical Argumentation provided by Norman Geisler is in error.

I Continued on you may note in talking about biblical Exegesis, and that's exactly what I did in the book 28 scholars and pastors whose names are found on the potter's freedom and Hundreds of others who have contacted me since then agree that I did just that.

The fact that dr. Geisler does not even attempt a response on an exegetical level gives eloquent testimony. That I did exactly what I promised to do. But that is not what is quoted in the new appendix to chosen but free.

No through the purposeful and fascinating use of quotation marks the actual substance of my statement focused upon biblical argumentation is deleted and Geisler's entire view his entire theology is placed in its stead.

This then becomes the basis of the accusation of pride and arrogance on my part. How could a young overzealous arrogant prideful at times pedantic apologists like James White dare to say he will prove dr Norman Geisler's entire viewpoint in error.

How brash. But of course the original citation could not be used without deleting its substance. How strange would it look to accuse me of being prideful simply for saying and proving someone else's biblical?

Argumentation is in error. Can the biblical? Argumentation provided by two sides who contradict one another both be correct. Well of course not. And even dr. Geisler Well recognizes that fact and is it not the case that one of his greatest claims to fame is?

His books written against others who claim to be Christians Saying their views are in error. Hence it follows of necessity that the quotation to be useful to the appendix Had to be spun and changed so it was and such is simply disgraceful.

It's absolutely disgraceful. I ran across that right before the program started and Then I continued on. As it continues to beat me over the head for being prideful and Exclusivistic. It then says it claims my position is utterly without substantiation and that its own conclusion is true without question.

That's the assertion of Dr. Geisler and chose him at free it claims my position that's dr. Geisler's position is utterly without substantiation page 262 of the potter's freedom and that its own conclusion is true without question.

Now of course again It's presented as if this is some broad sweeping assertion that I'm saying that his entire position is utterly without substantiation. That there's no argument whatsoever That's put forward or something like that and that I'm saying of myself that my own conclusions are without question true.

That's what it sounds like it's saying. But as normal Throughout this text throughout this review Context is utterly ignored. So when you go to page 262 of the potter's freedom, what are we talking about here?

Well, we're dealing with the subject of particular redemption and in in in fact, we are talking here About John Calvin's view because if you're new to our program haven't heard this before. Geisler Takes the most unusual position that he identifies his inconsistent Arminian ism as moderate Calvinism by redefining the T and tulip the you Rejecting the L Rejecting the I and redefining it and embracing the P.

He calls this Arminian ism. That's inconsistent Arminian ism Moderate Calvinism and he calls historic Calvinism historic reform theology extreme Calvinism and it's extreme because according to him John Calvin Certainly, and he uses that term certainly Rejected limited atonement that he certainly believed in Universal atonement he doesn't make it a well, maybe he did maybe he didn't he says John Calvin certainly did therefore if you hold to limited atonement you are beyond Calvin and therefore You are an extreme Calvinist and So that's what's being discussed and what I did on page 260 starting all the way back page 259 I provide extensive quotations from John Calvin on this very issue and then I Noted something that a number of people especially those of you have interest in historical things already did note.

Let me just read this to you because this is somewhat interesting a lot of people have have a lot of interest in this. Starting on page 260 if this interpretation of all men is read into the passages cited from Calvin however it becomes plain that Calvin did not hold the unlimited view of the atonement that CBF claims as To the word world.

Calvin's view is exemplified by his comments on 1st. John 2 2 this passage is quoted by CBF yet for some reason It seems as this CBS and hey look at that. I found a typographical error. It is seems Hey someone else didn't find it.

I found myself someone circled that thing so we can get that fixed it seems as a CBS thinks this quotation affirms a Universal view of the atonement. It is highly educational to note that dr. Geisler insert a whole series of Italics into his rendition of Calvin's words.

Why is it educational? Because he Emphasizes the portions that seem to support his thesis but ignores the direct statements that contradict him. Hmm. I should have seen this coming. Huh go back to page 261.

Calvin scholars for centuries have cited this passage as evidence of Calvin's particular ism. But note how got Geisler cites the passage now. It's a little bit hard a little bit hard to do this because I Don't want to go italic start italics close.

But I guess it's the only way I can do it to try to communicate this to you. It's a lot easier to read this. He puts this in for amplification that believers might be convinced that Italics the expiation made by Christ extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.

Italics close. But here the question may be asked as to Italics how the sin of the whole world sins of the whole world have been expiated italics closed. I Passover the dreams of the fanatics who make this a reason to extend salvation to all the reprobate and even to Satan himself.

Such a monstrous idea is not worth refuting. Those who want to avoid this absurdity have said that italics Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but effectively only for the elect. Italics end this solution has commonly prevailed in the schools.

Although italics I allow for the truth of this italics closed I deny that it fits this passage that phrase is not italicized. For John's purpose was only to make this blessing common to the whole church.

Therefore under the word all as in first John 2 to he does not include the reprobate. But refers to all who would believe and those who were scattered through the various regions of the earth. For as is meet the grace of Christ is really made clear when it is declared to be the only Salvation of the world.

Commentary comments on first John 2 2. Dr. Geisel then provides this interpretation. Calvin clearly denies universalism and affirms the sufficiency of Christ's death of the whole world. Even though he denies that this particular passage can be used to teach this and I then comment on his assertion there is a clear error being committed here by dr. Geisler.

If he wished to italicize the important element of the quote he would have italicized this comment therefore under the word all. In first John 2 2 he does not include the reprobate. But refers to all who would believe and those who were scattered through various regions of the earth.

This is the key affirmation. Here Calvin completely contradicts, dr. Geisler's interpretation. In fact as we will see below CBF identifies the idea expressed by Calvin and earlier by Augustine as an obvious case of Eisegesis reading into the text that does not deserve an extensive treatment.

Further Geisler italicizes the assertions of others rather than Calvin yet then interprets these as being Calvin's view. Calvin believes John's assertion is meant to give confidence to all believers that Christ is their propitiation.

But that this does not mean that Christ's death is offered for the reprobate. If we interpret this in Calvin's concept Context his words are clear it is without question his assertion that when John says the whole world He is saying this does not include the reprobate this means he does not believe Christ died for every single human being.

Dr.. Geisler italicizes the statement of the schoolmen about the sacrifice being sufficient for the world, but efficient for the elect. Despite the fact that Calvin denies. This is the meaning of the passage.

In conclusion then we see that the assertion that Calvin Certainly denied limited atonement and that this means that those who hold this view are extreme Calvinist is utterly without Substantiation either in Calvin's words or in the readily available scholarly sources.

There is the end of my quotation now that last paragraph that I read to you is at the end of a section on Calvin's view of the atonement that begins on page 253 and That is found on page 262, so there's 10 pages 10 full pages of argumentation 10 full pages of citations 10 full pages of material from other scholars on this particular subject and the last Final concluding statement is in conclusion.

Then we see the assertion that Calvin certainly denied limited atonement certainly is in quotes by the way because that's exactly What he says and that this means that those who hold this view are extreme Calvinist is? utterly without Substantiation either in Calvin's words or in the readily available scholarly sources.

So I concluded that that was the assertion that I made now. When we look back at the appendix we have the sentence it claims my position. My position about what? Well in context he would have had to have said it claims that my assertion that Calvin certainly believed in Universal atonement is quote utterly without substantiation page 262.

That is the only scholarly way. That that phrase could be used if you take it out of its context if you apply it in a general context. You are misrepresenting the original source. It claims our position is utterly without substantiation and that its own conclusion is true without question.

And so I started looking for where did I say? That my conclusion on Calvin's view of the atonement Was true without question so I started looking through the page. And if you've got the book you might look through the page yourself, and I started looking through the page.

I finally found it. Do you know where the author the scholarly author of this review gets the statement and that its own conclusion is true without question. Well, it was the preceding paragraph. Let's find it again here further.

Geiser italicizes the assertions of others rather than Calvin yet then interprets these as being Calvin's view. Calvin believes John's assertion is meant to give confidence to all believers that Christ is their propitiation.

But that this does not mean that Christ's death is offered for the reprobate. If we interpret this in Calvin's context his words are clear it is without question. His assertion that when John says the whole world he is saying this does not include the reprobate.

There's the phrase Without question what am I talking about? I'm talking about the specifics of Calvin's interpretation of 1st John 2 2 and specifically that he's saying that it's not the sacrifice of Christ was not for the reprobate and.

Yet that it seems it's cut and paste time folks any any phrase. Any words whatsoever it does not matter where they occur it does not matter what I intended them to communicate. You can pull them out and put them together with other ones ago.

Oh look. He's a mean prideful little person. It's incredible. I Have honestly Gail rippling er could learn from this. She really could because she's not very good at it. I'm just absolutely positively Amazed just absolutely amazed at this kind of incredible misuse of the English language.

Just just unbelievable. Well Huh we're gonna take your phone calls today because I'm gonna. You've been listening for two weeks now. Maybe there's some of you who are. Maybe there's some of you who are big Norm Geisler fans, and you just you just think I have been terrible and horrible.

I Would like to invite. Anyone I'd like to invite Norm Geisler to call in. But anyone who would like to attempt to take up his defense, I've got a lot of questions for you. Maybe you just like to comment in this and and and vent your utter frustration as well.

866 8 5 4 67 63. 8 6 6 8 5 4 6 7 6 3. We'll be right back. And welcome back to dividing line. My name is James white waiting for the phone lines to start melting under the heat of all your calls at 8 6 6 8 5 4 67 63.

Looking for. Certainly I would like to give priority. To anyone who would like to say that well actually. No doctor dr. Geisler's right and Here's the excuse. Here's I'm sorry. Here's the explanation.

For why the original context of what you said is irrelevant. That you should be fair in Bending over backwards to make sure that when you quote dr. Geisler you need to quote him in context and exactly with what he's saying, but he Chosen but free does not have to worry at all about what you were saying.

You don't have to quote in context because you're too young. You'd you I can't possibly know enough to even disagree with dr. Geisler. You should kept your nose out of this in the first place, etc. Etc. Etc.

Maybe you just like to say no. I do have a an explanation for. Exactly. Why dr. Geisler is right. 8 6 6 8 5 4 67 63 is the number and. Maybe you would just like to comment on what you have heard over the past few weeks.

I think there's a lot of folks that just Simply sits that you just sit there and you go you've got to be kidding me. How how did this get into print? I don't know. I can't I Cannot explain how this got into print outside of the fact that when someone such as dr. Geisler who's written 40 or 50 books Submits something to his publisher.

The assumption is that he knows what he's talking about and That there's not going to be an examination of it on that level. And I do not in any way shape or form hold Bethany house accountable For this at all.

They're my publisher. They've been great to me the God who justifies it just came out from Bethany house. They did a great job. I do not believe there is any Any knowledge whatsoever on the part of the editorial staff or anybody else about how bad this was?

I do not think it is their job to sit there and go get my book and Sit there and look up these references and I would imagine that those who are if there is anyone doing that are sitting there Absolutely shaking their heads in the exact same way that I am going hot.

What is this? There is only one person ultimately accountable for this and that is dr. Norman Geisler. It's his book. It's got his name on it, and I don't care if he did farm it out to somebody else and I don't care if he is busy.

It's his responsibility it's his book and so fundamentally he's one has to answer the question. Why couldn't you get page numbers, right? Why can't you allow any context whatsoever to be even slightly relevant?

Why are there quotations where you used? Quotation marks to change the meaning. What's with all this ad hominem? What's going on here? Why did you do this? He's the only one that can answer that question and And So that question needs to be asked of him.

Eight six six eight five four sixty seven sixty three. If you would like to join with the discussion today, let me Read you another section of what's gonna be on the web page today. It is a section titled.

Where is the exegesis? I tried to come up with something to be the where's the beef but not only is that old now. But I really couldn't fit exegesis with anything that was really related to beef in any way shape or form.

The vast majority of this response should never have seen the light of day. Given the character of the Potter's freedom as an exegetical reply to chosen but free the logical response would involve exegetical rebuttal and argument.

But of course is exactly what is avoided by this reply. No exegesis of any Disputed passages offered no exegesis of the many passages the original book simply forgot were relevant is provided one brief section subtitled improper exegesis at least raises the issue of the interpretation of the text but it is tremendously surface level and simply says and I quote here's here's the entirety of the Exegetical element.

Here's improper exegesis. One paragraph as Readers of Potter's freedom can detect for themselves. The author is convinced of his exegetical skills and chides CBF for its alleged lack thereof. Yet Potter's freedom repeatedly reads some men into passages that clearly emphatically say all men.

Pages 140 and 142 it insists against the context that second Peter 3 9 where God desires that all men to be saved is Not speaking about salvation. It claims that John 1 12 through 13 does not say received when the very word is used by John in this text.

It overlooks the context that speaks of unrepentant people. Romans 9 22. Claiming Romans 9 affirms that the only difference between vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy is God's action. It distorts the word saves to saves himself.

Page 64 and so on. That's what it says that that's that's actually a part of the quote and so on. Which is another one of the reasons I sort of have to sit back and go man. This sounds like something somebody else put together.

It's just sort of jumbled together and so on. Unreal. Well, how do we respond to this? Well, the Potter's freedom contains literally hundreds of pages of positive positive exegetical presentation. And this is the extent of the response offered to it.

The Potter's freedom documents dozens of examples of isogesis on the part of dr. Geisler. This is all the response that can be given and Even in offering these few sentence sentences the appendix stumbles over itself in making clear errors.

Yet once again note the first allegation. Without responding to a single argument or point of exegesis this response simply asserts that I must be wrong in my understanding of the term all. But since I provide contextual and linguistic arguments that are completely ignored How can this be called a meaningful or scholarly response?

Not only that but just going back and leaving leaving the web page article. In fact, I may expand this part part I better stop expanding ours get too big. Specifically it says here That I insisted against the context the second Peter 3 9 is not speaking about salvation.

I Didn't say that. I said in second Peter 3 9 that it's talking about the elect of God and That the parousia has been delayed so that all of the elect of God can be gathered in. It doesn't even Accurately summarize in one sentence the argument that it's then completely closing its eyes to and ignoring Unbelievable.

Then it says it says again according to it claims that John 1 12 Through 13 does not say received when the very word is used by John in this text page 185. Well by now, you've probably started figuring out Exactly what's going on here, right?

When we go to page 185, we're probably we can probably start predicting That in reality. We're not gonna find anything on page 185 that substantiates Geisler's assertion, right? In fact, we're probably gonna find exegesis that would have to be responded to but has been ignored, right?

Well, you would be exactly right. That's exactly what's going on. Here's the quotation but the objection Does raise an interesting issue? Does the text itself indicate a relationship between believing and the new birth?

There are certainly some points that dr. Geisler would have to consider to make his assertion carry weight. Number one. John as is his custom refers to Christians as the believing ones toys piscu sin.

English translations normally miss this important element of John's gospel the contrast between true saving faith, which is Almost always expressed through the use of the present tense indicating an ongoing living faith versus false faith.

Which is almost always placed in the heiress tense making no statement about its consistency or vitality. It is literally even to those who are believing in his name or the believing ones who believe in his name.

The term believing is a present participle. The verb born is The aorist passive form in its context. It is plainly said to be an act of God all human agency is denied. Number three it follows then that verse 13 is a description of the believing ones of verse 12.

Nothing is said in the text that the new birth is received by an act of free will. In Fact the exact opposite is stated clearly the ones born not of the will of man. It is an amazing example of how Preconceived notions can be read into a text that chosen.

But free can say the text makes the new birth dependent upon an act of free will. When the text says the opposite. Now in case you got lost. For various reasons. Let me just repeat that last section because here's the basis of it in the new edition of chosen but free.

The assertion is made that I in my writings assert. The quote is it claims that John 1 12 through 13 does not say received. When the very word is used by John in this text, well, is that what I said? Did I say the word received does not appear in John chapter 1 verses 12 through 13?

No, I didn't did I? Point three was it follows then that verse 13 is a description of the believing ones of verse 12. Nothing is said in the text that the new birth is received by an act of free will.

In Fact the exact opposite is stated clearly the ones born not of the will of man. It is an amazing example of how preconceived notions can be read into a text that CBF can say the text makes the new birth Dependent upon an act of free will when the text says the opposite.

That's what I said. How can anyone read that and say you're saying the word received isn't in the text? No, the sentence is in fact. Nothing is said in the text that the new birth is received by an act of free will.

Now how can that be misread that way, I don't know. I've given. I've given up. I can't figure it out. I Cannot figure it out. But that's exactly what it is done. 866 8 5 4 67 63 I'm going to begin to sing.

If those of you who have been making comments concerning this issue, maybe I've just you know, maybe I have just absolutely Nailed it to the floor and Everybody goes well, you know that that's it. This is a bad review and you don't care.

Maybe that's why I don't know. But 866 8 5 4 67 63 anyone who would like to defend? Dr. Geisler in this appendix. You are more than welcome to call in. Everybody's going. Yeah, right. Sure, someone's gonna call in and talk to you about dr. Geisler's appendix and defend him.

Sure, they're gonna do that. Yeah, right. Uh-huh, and we're all voting for Gary Condit next time around right sure. But aside from that some of you may wish to call in and say hey, you know, this is incredible.

Maybe this is the reason or what? Maybe this illustrates this whatever it might be. 8 5 4 67 63 let me go ahead and tell you how I finish the web article. Here's here's what I say. The concluding section is called drop back 10 and punt.

Those who need point-by-point response can do so by clicking here obviously what that means is. Maybe James just gives us the phone numbers too fast. Okay, let me try this. Six six. Oh, by the way, it's on the title bar of the chat room there whoever just said that mm-hmm eight six six eight five four six seven six three, okay, I.

Just sometimes the comments made the chat room are just so utterly distracting anyways. There surely is no reason to drag. Oh what I'm saying is that when I put it up there there's going to be a hyperlink inserted that point and all my notes Are going to be able to you can just go right to the notes that I've been using and read those.

That's where it's gonna be like 37 pages worth of stuff here. There surely is no reason to drag this particularly painful experience out much further. All who have benefited from the work of Norman Geisler in the past cannot help but feel a true sense of Embarrassment at the publication of this response.

I am actually thankful that I am the object of this review for if it had been offered in response to enemies of the faith They would have known no bounds to their joyous Documentation of its every error and would have used this as an argument against everything good that dr. Geisler has written at the end of this review Dr. Geisler says he prays That I will channel my quote considerable talent and zeal Toward the more pressing need of defending Christianity again.

I the fundamentals of the faith not those who affirm them and quote. While this may sound like a noble sentiment I Have to wonder Why did dr. Geisler write chosen but free? Why did he choose to identify the faith of reformed Baptist churches conservative Presbyterian churches and many others as Irrational and unbiblical.