Dr. Geisler's Response to The Potter's Freedom

Response to the Appendix in *Chosen but Free*

The second edition of Norman Geisler's book, Chosen but Free, it says second edition, has an appendix in the back that responds to the potter's freedom. It begins on page 252 of this edition, copyright 2001.

I have responded to this appendix on our website for a very long period of time. Anyone who is interested in the documentation of the incredible number of errors crammed into these pages can access that information.

I have been convinced from the time this came out that Dr. Geisler did not write it. I am convinced it was a class project that he gave to undergraduates the assignment of finding logical errors. In fact, I think it was to a logic class, an undergraduate logic class, that he gave this assignment.

Then he took their papers, forgot to check their references because many of the page numbers aren't even correct, and compiled this together very briefly. I honestly believe that if someone else had written the potter's freedom, if R .C. Sproul had written the potter's freedom, or someone on that level, Dr. Geisler would not have done this.

But he did, and the resultant mishmash of errors is without question the most embarrassing thing that Dr. Geisler has ever put out under his own name. Now, like I said, I don't believe he wrote it, but he is responsible for it because he put it into his own book.

It could not have gotten there without his approval. Now, what do I mean about errors? Well, it would take forever. I would direct you to our website. If you'll go to the articles section, and at the time of this recording, that will take you to an older portion of the website that hasn't yet been updated to the new format.

But you go to the reformed theology section, and I believe the article is called A Most Disappointing Response. I believe it's cbfrep2 .html. CBFR is all capitalized. EP is small and 2 .html. That should get you to the full response, which, as I printed it out just a few moments ago in very small print, that never shows up on a camera anyways, does it?

Anyways, in very small print was about 10 pages long. So it's actually longer than the appendix itself because, of course, I'm quoting both from the potter's freedom and from the chosen but free. It is an amazing thing to read what Dr. Geisler says.

I'm going to start off with what I think is a humorous example of the many errors in this appendix in response to the potter's freedom. At one point in the appendix, it's in first person, so Dr. Geisler is speaking as if it's him, but I think that was just cobbled together, as I said, from other papers.

It mentions these words. Parenthetically, there are similar words in PF, which is potter's freedom. For instance, world should be word on 261 and 262, and PF misquotes my statement about unlimited atonement, CBF 199, calling it limited atonement, potter's freedom, page 248.

Now, he's correct. World should be word. I was using a scanned edition of Calvin at that point, and that did not actually get caught. It's also interesting that he actually has the wrong page. The page number thing, I've not been able to figure that out.

It truly is amazing to me. It's not page 199 of the book. It's actually found on page 192. On page 192, this is, for those interested, this is the edition, the actual book, Chosen but Free, that I used to write the potter's freedom.

You can tell that by a couple things. There's a listing of verses in the front. When you look at this particular, the very first printing of Chosen but Free, here is the scripture index. It's exactly one page, both sides of one page.

I talked with the editor at Bethany House because, interestingly enough, the editor for The God Who Justifies is the same editor for Chosen but Free. I asked about that. He said, look, we just ran out of pages.

We would have had to have done a complete, a whole other signature to do that. The decision was made to sort of squish it. The result was that I could not rely on the scripture index because it was extremely brief.

It did not give you all the references to a particular text, so I had to pay people. I bought people gift certificates on Amazon who had this book across the United States. I would say, give me all references to John 637.

Somebody would sit there, and they'd just go through every single page, every single page. Then they would send me a listing of all the references to a particular verse. I'd send them a gift certificate.

That's how I did it. Here's some of the listings of the various ones. This was the first printing of the first edition. Now, what you need to know is there was a second printing of the first edition. You can tell, first of all, the scripture index has all of a sudden become much larger, and I think it's pretty much complete.

You can also tell by looking up at the front, if you want to know which edition you have, there's a difference between the first edition and the second edition. In the section where it says, I'm sorry, first printing and second printing, where it says printed in the United States of America, the first printing had an extended description printed by Bethany House.

The second printing took that off for some reason. I'm not sure why. But that's how you can tell which one you have, if what you have is the first edition of Chosen but Free, which was put out in hardback.

Now, when I was reading this edition, this first printing, I came across page 192. And on page 192, we read, Not only are there no verses that, properly understood, support limited atonement, see chapter 5, but there are numerous verses that teach unlimited atonement.

That is, that Christ died for the sins of all mankind. Extreme Calvinists have not offered any satisfactory interpretations of these texts that support limited atonement. Now, that's what it says. And you can see from this graphic that not only did I outline it, but there's a question mark in yellow next to that support limited atonement.

And so what I did is, as I was, you know, I got on this project fairly quickly. I knew the book was coming out. And so I contacted the editor at Bethany House, who was my editor for numerous other books that I was either writing or had written.

And I asked him, could we look at a particular text here? And I read him the text and I said, I can't read this in any other way than that this is a typographical error. And that what should be here is that it should say that these teach unlimited atonement, especially given the subtitle right above it.

And it started to get quiet on the phone. You're right, it's a typographical error. Thanks for pointing that out. We'll get that taken care of. So between the first printing and the second printing of Chosen but Free, I'm the one who found the typographical error.

Now, when I wrote The Potter's Freedom, I could only respond to the book that I had in my hand, which was the first printing of the first edition of Chosen but Free. And so when I cited it in my own work, I did not make any big deal out of it.

I cited it the only way that I could. I quoted that exact paragraph and then I said, this is on page 248, at least I got the page right this time, we assume the last phrase should read that support unlimited atonement.

We know the first assertion is untrue as the preceding discussion proves, but what about the rest? Do Reformed theologians have no satisfactory explanations for the text that are cited in support of universal atonement?

Let's find out. That's all I said is I didn't want my readers to be confused by the typographical error. So I noted it in passing and said we assume that what was meant was unlimited atonement. And so here we go back to the appendix.

The appendix lists as me misciting Geisler my accurate citation of the first printing, because obviously whoever was writing the appendix had access to the second printing of the book and either didn't realize it or didn't care, didn't check with Bethany, whatever it might be, but whoever it was didn't realize that a typographical error had been fixed and that I was the one who actually pointed out the typographical error.

And yet I then get blamed for misrepresentation of Dr. Geisler in the appendix, along with a lot of other personal allegations about being prideful, so on and so forth, when I was the one who actually pointed out the error and had never made any big deal out of it.

I just didn't want there to be confusion. Now, it is likewise interesting to me to then look at, I don't know how to describe the phenomenon. I really do not know how to describe this phenomenon. When you take a group of people and especially, shall we say, non-professional logic students and give them assignments to go find logical errors, it's pretty amazing what they can come up with.

And unfortunately, 99 .9 of every allegation in the appendix is simply laughable from any kind of scholarly, rational, contextual context. It's amazing. Honestly, it's hard for me to communicate in words how bad this section is.

And it's not until you actually sit down with both books and start comparing them that you discover what in the world is going on here. Let me give you an example. I don't have a graphic for this, so you just have to, and again, if you have the book, I would very strongly suggest that you take a look at it.

Misreading a Paragraph on God's Sovereignty and Sola Scriptura

On page 29, as I'm just getting into presenting the material in The Potter's Freedom, I was explaining why I needed to respond to Dr. Geisler's book. And I wrote the following paragraph. Now, listen carefully to what it says.

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, Chosen but Free, 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. There's the paragraph. I don't even mention Dr. Geisler. I mentioned CBF once. I talk about the process people have gone through in working through the doctrines of grace.

And then I say, I am confident that the Word... I'm here expressing my confidence in Sola Scriptura and in the perspicuity of Scripture for the child of God. That's what I'm doing. And 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.

Is that a difficult thing to understand? Is that overly controversial? I suppose if you're a Roman Catholic it's controversial. A cultist would find it controversial. But how could a Christian find that to be a controversial statement?

Well, evidently the paragraph caused the undergrad logic students no end of difficulty. Because twice the single phrase, mere presentation, in that one line, mere presentation, is cited in the appendix of Dr. Geisler's book as evidence of logical errors on my part.

Now, of course, you'd have to actually be presenting an argument to make a logical error. And I was actually saying, I am very confident the Word of God is sufficient for the child of God. The mere presentation of its truths, the child of God hears the voice of Christ.

This is enough for the child of God. So somehow the appendix finds two logical errors in the phrase mere presentation. And amazingly, they're two different logical errors. Seriously. On page 255 of the appendix, as it came out in paperback, this is a 2001 copyright.

So if it's been changed since then, I'm unaware of it. No one has certainly informed me of that. I wasn't even informed the appendix was going to be in this. Someone had to write to me and tell me about it.

But under the subtitle ad hominem, now if you know what ad hominem is, this is an argumentation that, this is a form of argumentation where you make your point by attacking the individual himself. Dr. Geisler's wrong because his nose is big.

That would be ad hominem argumentation. James White is wrong because he wears silly caps. That would be ad hominem argumentation. It has nothing to do with the logical form of your argument or any of the facts you're presenting.

And if you remember the paragraph, how you can get ad hominem out of this, don't know. Whoever, whatever young student wrote this should fail the logic class. But anyway, here's what, read it for yourself, page 255.

This fallacy literally means a response to the man rather than to the argument. And may I just stop for a moment? This also sort of gives me a good reason for thinking this was being done by undergraduate logic students.

Because they tend to be the ones that want to demonstrate how much they know by defining such things like that. Throughout Potter's Freedom, the author takes great pride in his exegetical skills. While any exegesis of the text contrary to his is labeled not consistent, page 19, not meaningful, page 20, not in depth, page 136, a mere presentation, page 29, or not based on definitive works, page 254.

I wasn't talking about Dr. Geisler's presentations. Remember, ad hominem, first of all, these wouldn't even fit as ad hominem. That's not even the form of it. This person doesn't even know what ad hominem is.

But then notice, any exegesis of the text contrary to his is labeled a mere presentation, page 29. Now let me read it again. Here's what I actually said. 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.

Did this person even read what he's citing? You're truly left wondering, how can anyone in college read so poorly? Because there's no connection between whoever this person is, what they think I'm saying, and what I actually said.

There's nothing confusing about what I said. But it gets better. And this, again, is one of the real reasons I think this was a class project, where you're putting stuff together. Somebody didn't check the page numbers.

We know they didn't check the page numbers because they almost so often got them wrong, but after identifying that as ad hominem, which of course it wasn't, and taking it completely out of context, then later on, there is a further accusation on page 258.

Three pages later, so somebody forgot what they had written on 255, or class project, cobbled it all together. Here we read, it contends, referring to me again, that a mere presentation of my view is not sufficient, page 29, yet it sometimes does the same for its view, and at times even no presentation at all, such as an explanation of one of the most difficult verses for extreme Calvinist 2 Peter 2 .1.

Aside from the fact that I referred people to a book-length discussion of 2 Peter 2 .1, once again we are left going, what is the writer talking about? I said that the mere presentation of the truths of the word of God is sufficient for the child of God, and here, put into the very lips and mouth of Norman Geisler, it contends that a, quote, mere presentation, unquote, of my view is not sufficient, page 29.

How do you respond to this level of total disconnectedness between what is on the written page and what is being said by a classroom full of undergraduate logic students, who evidently aren't being taught very well because they don't really know the subject.

How do you respond to something like this? How can anyone put something like this in print? That's why when I posted that article, and I'll put the URL up on the screen so you can pull it up yourself, when I posted that article, at the end I said the only right thing for Dr. Geisler to do is to retract this appendix and apologize.

It's that bad. This isn't just a matter of opinion, this is gross misrepresentation. And anyone, anyone who has taken Chosen but Free and taken this book, I challenge anyone, if you already haven't done it, sit down with both of them.

Examine the accuracy of my representation of Geisler's position. When I talked about his predeterminedly foreknowing, foreknowingly predetermined, he has an entire chapter on it. I had to order out-of-print books just to make sure that I could trace an accurate line in Geisler's development of his thought over decades.

You will never find Chosen but Free being taken out of context. You will never find that I even once misrepresented Geisler. And yet, what you have to look for is a single proper representation of me in the appendix found in Chosen but Free.

Why is that? What does that tell you? I think it tells you a lot. And so, it's been amazing for me. There's so much more in that appendix. It's really bad. Like I said, check out the URL. Look them up for yourself.

Make sure you've got the same printing of the book. But check it out for yourself, and you will be amazed at the utter lack of accuracy and truthfulness in that appendix. It is simply reprehensible. And even after this amount of time, still should be removed with apologies because it is truly that bad.

Again, this is not how Christian theology should be dealt with. And let me close with this. Some people might say, well, I can't believe that people would have an attitude of such disrespect towards someone else to handle their writing in this way, especially when I believe I demonstrated, beyond all question, a respect for Dr. Geisler by accurately representing his position.

Even when I'm saying he's completely wrong, even when I'm documenting errors he made and saying that the Greek preposition ek is in this verse, there's nowhere near that verse, and so on and so forth, I still did so respectfully for the man.

Some people might say, I just can't believe that someone would have this kind of attitude. At one point, about six months or so after the Potter's Freedom came out, actually, I don't think it was that long ago, I think it was even less than that, Dr. Geisler had a conversation with a radio talk show personality about being on his program.

I won't go into all the details right now. Maybe sometime I will in the future. But one of the things in a 20-minute long diatribe that Dr. Geisler went into about me personally was he made the statement, and I'll never forget this because I remember writing down, I took notes, this was the talk show host telling me about this within, I don't know, just a few hours after it happened.

He said, White has stuck his nose into something that was none of his business. This is between R .C. Sproul and myself. This is between R .C. Sproul and myself. I cannot begin to understand the mindset that would think that something as weighty, transcendent as the freedom of God and salvation and the perfection of his work in Jesus Christ is an issue between R .C. Sproul and Norman Geisler.

I had, call me naive, I don't like politics, but when I saw the title, Chosen but Free, the thought crossed my mind, I wonder if that's in reference to Chosen by God. R .C. Sproul's wonderful work presenting the Reformed faith.

I said, nah, nobody would ever do that. I have been disabused of many of my thoughts over the years. So that does explain why Dr. Geisler would be willing to let a room full of undergrads cobble together alleged logical errors.

Because once you are absolutely wedded to autonomous libertarian free will as the center of your philosophy, which then determines the center of your theology, then anyone who doesn't get that, you don't really have to respect him much.

That's been my experience. That's been my experience. It shouldn't be that way, but that has been my experience. Thanks for watching.