Norman Geisler's Second Edition of Chosen But Free, Part 1 of 3 - Misrepresentation?

And welcome to The Dividing Line, my name is James White and we are live today here on a very, very hot and very, very muggy

Saturday afternoon. It is August 11th of the year 2001 and well, it's happened.

I only heard this very week a friend of mine in Indianapolis took the time to drop me a line.

And let me know that Dr. Norman Geisler had finally responded to the

Potter's Freedom. And he had done so in the context of an appendix to the second edition, now a paperback edition, of Chosen But Free.

I had not been informed of this and so I obviously very quickly obtained the material, the book itself, and began to examine the appendix that is now attached to the second edition of Chosen But Free.

And what I'm going to begin for this week and will be continuing it at least in the next week and I don't know about after that, but going to be working on this for a while because I think it is important that we do this.

I'm going to be responding to what Dr. Geisler says in Chosen But Free.

And I do so for a number of reasons. First of all, I have spoken with many of Dr.

Geisler's supporters, many of whom I think honestly get to the point almost of imbuing someone with infallible authority in essence and questioning my wisdom and maybe even my sanity in daring to think that Dr.

Geisler could be wrong about anything. And I know that they are going to be referring to this appendix very quickly.

And so I want to have available in real audio this particular response so that we can refer people to that.

Yes, Calvary Press has already indicated that they would be interested in my writing an appendix for the

Potter's Freedom, responding to this, and I will certainly do that as the

Lord gives me the strength and the time to do so. But the next printing of that book is not to do for a little while, so I wanted to put this material in real audio and have it available for people to listen to.

But beyond that, I think there's a real necessity to respond for another reason, and that is that the appendix illustrates many things that I have said regarding the conflict between Reformed exegesis and Arminian philosophy.

The appendix does clearly demonstrate that the position presented by Dr.

Geisler is one that begins with philosophy, and its foundation is philosophical rather than exegetical.

And I said in the Potter's Freedom that my response to Chosen but Free would be an exegetical response, because exegesis is the heart and soul of Reformed theology.

I am a Calvinist because of the exegesis of the text of Scripture. I believe that it is the consistent interpretation of Scripture that drives a person to the position of the doctrines of grace.

And the Potter's Freedom, I am very, very blessed to say, has been used by the

Lord to bring many people to an understanding of the doctrines of grace and to confirm others in that.

And I'll be honest with you, I have not had a single person contact me who was a convinced

Calvinist who, upon reading Chosen but Free and the Potter's Freedom, converted to Arminianism or to quote -unquote modified

Calvinism. I have not heard of that at all, but I've heard of many people who had read Chosen but Free, and then someone either gave them the

Potter's Freedom, maybe some overly zealous Calvinist shoved the Potter's Freedom down their throat.

But however it happened, they were given the Potter's Freedom, and they were able to see that the argumentation was of a fundamentally different style.

When you look at the exegesis and when you look at the foundation, this comes out very clearly in Dr.

Geisser's attempted response. Quite simply, there is no exegesis in this response.

None. There is not the first attempt to rehabilitate the numerous instances where I demonstrated clear eisegesis and error on Dr.

Geisser's part. There is no attempt to rehabilitate himself on the level of exegesis.

There is, however, a very strong attempt, quite simply ad hominem, to attempt to basically say that I have engaged in a tremendous number of logical errors and philosophical errors and errors of argument and so on and so forth.

And we will be looking at those. Secondly, the review is simply grossly flawed.

Page reference after page reference to the Potter's Freedom is simply in error.

I have been working very hard since getting the book, given certain time constraints to track down every single reference that is given.

And so far, in at least a quarter of the references, there is nothing on the page that is even remotely connected to what

Dr. Geisser says it's talking about. Even when he uses quotation marks. And so it makes it very difficult to follow along when a number of the references you're trying to look up, they're not even there.

And while identifying me as overzealous, young, and arrogant, the article claims that I engage in ad hominem argumentation and name -calling.

And yet, every single reference given to substantiate the charge of ad hominem, to substantiate the charge of name -calling, is either in error or is not by any rational definition supportive of the assertion.

So all in all, it is a tremendously poor response that will not move the dialogue forward in any fashion, but it will, for those who have read both of the books, demonstrate beyond question that what was said in the

Potter's Freedom was not only accurate, but it was probably understated in regards to many, many issues.

Now, Dr. Geisser started and ended his review with nice words, just as I started my book with nice words in regards to Dr.

Geisser. And I appreciate that. He says that I do admirable work for Christ and his kingdom, that I'm a committed and conservative young scholar.

I don't know that I'm quite as young as Dr. Geisser would like to think that I am, but be that as it may, he goes from saying that directly into these words.

And I will be, over the course of this time reading pretty much the entirety of the appendix found in the new edition of Chosen But Free.

It's only about 11 pages long. And so it's going to take a little while to do it, but we want to add this information to the,

I believe, nine -tape series or nine -program series or whatever it is that we did a couple of years ago in response to Potter's Freedom and make this material available.

So, yes, we're going to be rather in -depth. And if you were hoping for something on Roman Catholicism or Mormonism or the

King James Only controversy or something, well, as you know, this is an unusual program.

As you know, it is one that focuses very much upon specific issues.

You're not going to hear this kind of discussion most other places. And therefore, we are going to be very focused this time.

And those of you who have a deep interest in this, and I know there are people who have a deep interest. I just got an email just last evening from a man in Florida who was telling me about how

Dr. Geisser had come down to Florida and had preached a sermon at a church where the

Doctrines of Grace were having an impact directly against the Doctrines of Grace and using all of the same kind of assertions that we find and, in fact, refuted from Chosen But Free that were refuted in the

Potter's Freedom. And so this is an ongoing issue, and there are people who have deep interest in it, and there's deep interest within the church concerning these things.

And that's why we have to address this topic and to address it in a very serious and thorough way.

So Dr. Geisser continues under the title Appreciation for White's Review.

In spite of the fact that the Potter's Freedom, hereafter PF, is a sharp critique of my moderate

Calvinism, strangely enough, I found myself agreeing with much of what it says. The reason for this will become apparent as I respond briefly to its contents.

PF raised many valid issues that occasioned minor revisions reflected in this edition of Chosen But Free, hereafter

CBF. These refinements have helped me to sharpen my position and present it more clearly.

For this, I am grateful to Mr. White. In addition, I appreciate his skill revealed in pointing out errata in the first edition.

These now have been corrected. Now let me stop there and say it was not my intention to point out errata in the first edition.

In fact, since Chosen But Free is published by my own publisher, Bethany House Publishers, it was not something that I took joy in, in any way, shape, or form.

However, when you're responding in depth to someone, as I did, as I was very careful to cite

Dr. Geisler over and over again to make sure that before I say, see, Dr.

Geisler's wrong about this, that I've accurately represented him. Well, when you go that in depth and respond to someone, errors will be more clearly seen than in other contexts.

And when I'm citing someone, I have to be very careful that when I cite an error, that I note that it's an error.

And so that's an important aspect. And so I'm not sure that Dr. Geisler was complaining that I had focused upon these things, but if he was, and I have a feeling given the rest of the context that he was, that was not my intention.

He continues, for example, P .F. correctly notes that God's electing, in spite of his foreknowledge, could better be rendered independent of,

Potter's Freedom, page 67, and that so dead, Potter's Freedom, 104, is redundant. By the way,

I would just note in passing that actually, one of the more important errors that I noted was not a typographical error, but was an error in regards to the assertion that certain

Greek words appeared in Romans 9 when they weren't there, the Greek preposition ek, for example, and that is not noted in this particular section of the review.

I continue reading, parenthetically, there are similar errors in P .F. Potter's Freedom.

For instance, world should be word on 261 and 262, and P .F.

misquotes my statement about unlimited atonement, CBF, page 199, calling it limited atonement,

Potter's Freedom, page 248. Now, as soon as I saw that, I took the time to look very, very carefully at what was said there, and I actually took the time to get in touch with Bethany House to find out what was going on here, because I remembered very clearly exactly what was going on when

I wrote the Potter's Freedom, and I hope those of you who have the Potter's Freedom, you might be looking some of these items up and looking at some of the pages so that we can sort of follow along together.

This was specifically what I had quoted. This is found on page 192, not 199.

The citation, even in Dr. Geisler's newest edition, when he says, chose a free page 199, it's not there.

It's currently on page 200 of the new edition, and on page 192 of the original, I don't know of any edition that has ever carried it on page 199.

But on page 192 of the original, here's what we read.

Not only are there no verses that, properly understood, support limited atonement, 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, as soon as I read that, I said, whoa, wait a minute, this is a whole section on unlimited atonement.

And so even in the Potter's Freedom, page 248, as soon as I quote that and give the reference,

I say, we assume the last phrase should read that support unlimited atonement.

And then I went on from there. So I graciously, I think, corrected what was seemingly an obvious error.

And, by the way, I informed Bethany House of the error. Well, unbeknownst seemingly to me or to Dr.

Geisler, there was a second printing of Chosen but Free, and that correction was made.

And as I said, I believe since I started looking at Chosen but Free very carefully, very early on,

I think, probably, I'm the one that pointed it out. So, be that as it may,

Dr. Geisler then, seemingly using either the galleys to the second edition or a second printing of the first edition, accuses me of misquoting him and messing up my quotation because Bethany changed and fixed the error without checking seemingly on Dr.

Geisler's part with the first edition, first printing, which did say unlimited, which to me doesn't make any sense, especially because I said right there on page 248, we assume the last phrase should read that support unlimited atonement.

Now, why would I say that if that's not what was exactly in the book itself? And so here we have, it seems to me, a little bit of a, oh, so you're going to talk about errors?

Well, we'll find one with you too. And in point of fact, it wasn't an error on my part. I quoted it exactly the way that it was and did not make any issue of it in any way, shape, or form.

I just said, I think this is supposed to be unlimited atonement and now let's comment on it. That's exactly what happened.

So anyways, as we will discover, and I think this will be one of the things that's most hard for Dr.

Geisler's fans to understand, there are many such errors like this throughout this appendix.

There are many times where the page numbers that are cited simply aren't there.

It's just not there. I don't know how that happened. There's no excuse for it.

There's no reasoning that I can possibly understand that would explain why it is that over and over again in the new edition of Chosen But Free, it would say,

James White says X, Y, and Z on page da -da -da -da. And you go to page da -da -da -da, and I'll show a number of them to you today.

And there's nothing there. There's nothing even slightly related to the issue at all.

And so that truly is a bit of a mystery. Now I continue on with Dr. Geisler.

The Potter's Freedom also raises additional issues that although they have been adequately addressed by others, we did not have occasion to discuss in our first edition.

These two have been briefly included in the above text. Also a response to Roger Nicole's arguments that Calvin held a limited atonement have been included.

Well, first of all, I'd be interested in knowing what these other issues are and where they have been adequately addressed.

I'd be interested in knowing if they were adequately addressed in the way that Dr. Geisler addresses them. Because one thing I do notice, there are still no endorsements on Chosen But Free.

There are still, I don't see any names, I don't see any individuals who are writing and saying, yes, this is, you know, here's excellent work on this subject.

I don't see that. And I think there's a reason for that, because I have asserted that Dr. Geisler's position is extremely unique and that those who are involved in doing biblical exegesis and historical theology know that Dr.

Geisler's position is in error. Even Arminians recognize that. I've had Arminians, for example, did a written debate with an

Arminian recently and he even said to me on the phone, he said, oh, by the way, you know, I read the

Potter's Freedom and one thing you're really right about is that Geisler is no Calvinist. And they're very, very clear about these things.

Secondly, it is interesting that, okay, response to Roger Nicole's arguments that Calvin held limited atonement have now been included.

Well, that does not change the fact that the definition of extreme Calvinist that Dr.

Geisler used based solely upon the assertion that Calvin was absolutely and without question one who held universal atonement remains untenable.

No effort is made in this response to rehabilitate this point. The sole basis upon which

Dr. Geisler bases his assertion that anyone who holds to particular redemption or limited atonement is an extreme

Calvinist is his assertion that Calvin himself had to absolutely without question believed in a universal atonement.

And there are entire books, not just the article by Roger Nicole, though that was an excellent summary, but there are entire books that I pointed out that Chosen but Free did not even mention existing.

And so the whole assertion on his part is easily argued. And if you make your entire definition, and remember,

Dr. Geisler redefines the entire historical argument based upon this redefinition of what it means to believe, what it means to be a

Calvinist, what Calvinism is. He redefines everything based upon coming up with new and unusual ways of defining such things as total depravity, unconditional election, irresistible grace.

We'll be looking at those things. This leads to a tremendous amount of confusion. But seemingly, from his perspective, he can also just dismiss the great controversies that existed over Calvin's view, come up with a position, and now redefine everything based upon that.

No effort is made to rehabilitate the refutation of that that has found the Potter's Freedom. Now the next section is titled

Misunderstandings and Misrepresentations. My main response to Potter's Freedom centers around an improper understanding of the moderate

Calvinistic view I express in Chosen but Free, seldom have I read a review that so thoroughly misunderstands the object of its criticism.

To begin, it misrepresents my view by claiming it has only two Calvinistic elements. That's on Potter's Freedom, page 20.

When in fact, I agree with all but one of Potter's Freedom's definitions of its six points of Calvinism, irresistible grace on the unwilling.

Potter's Freedom, pages 39 through 40. Now, what amazes me is I can just see a person not knowing about the

Potter's Freedom, not knowing about the earlier edition of Chosen but Free that has picked this book up, now that it's in paperbacks, it might be a little bit cheaper.

So, they pick this book up in the bookstore. And they read through and they've just now finished

Dr. Geisler's blasting away at Calvinism and blasting away in defense of free will and identifying irresistible grace as divine rape and all the rest of this stuff and they get to the end.

And all of a sudden, Dr. Geisler says, oh well, I agree with all but one of Potter's Freedom's definitions of its six points of Calvinism.

And they go, huh? What? What? Now, it left me absolutely amazed.

I mean, this is transparently untrue. Defining unconditional election as conditional on God's part but conditional on man's fate is not unconditional election.

I took the time in the book and no response has been offered by Dr.

Geisler to the demonstration of his error at this point. I argued and proved in the book what the phrase unconditional election has historically meant.

I quoted not only Reformed scholars but Reformed confessions of faith going back for hundreds of years and they all said the same thing.

That unconditional election is unconditional, period. And that the main element of it is that there is nothing in the man that draws

God's election. That it's an election of individuals, not just an election to save.

It's an election of individuals and that there is nothing in the individual including their act of faith that defines or causes the election to take place.

It is absolutely unconditional. That's what it means. And so for Dr.

Geisler to come along hundreds of years later and just decide why don't you redefine everything? I'm going to say that unconditional election is unconditional on God's part.

He can unconditionally elect to save everyone who believes but the belief is a free will act and so on and so forth.

That's not unconditional election. You can say it is but I could say that I'm the president of Southern Evangelical Seminary but I don't think they're going to give me the keys to his office.

Simply saying something doesn't make it that way. Saying man has a free will and accusing

Calvinists of making man a robot or a puppet and saying that Calvinists destroy the will of man shows that Dr.

Geisler does not believe in total depravity as it has been defined by Reformed writers from the beginning. And Geisler redefines and in the process denies basically every single point of the acrostic.

Hence this assertion is quite simply just mere obfuscation. And we're going to look at this a little bit more a little bit later on.

I continue on with his assertion. In spite of clear statements to the contrary The Potter's Freedom claims

I embrace the Molinist view that God is passive in his knowledge of man's free choices.

This mistake is repeated over and over again in Potter's Freedom and he gives a number of references. Now nowhere did

I ever once identify Geisler's position as Molinism. I noted Molinism in passing.

I talked about it in the sense of defining the various things that men have done down through the ages to get out of God's sovereignty.

But I clearly recognized the difference between a claim to middle knowledge which is what

Molinism is all about and Geisler's predeterminately foreknowing or foreknowingly predetermining position.

In the full chapter documenting his view and refuting his view where I quote from four or five or six of his books down through the years traced it from earliest on all the way through to books that came out even after Chosen but Free or right before Chosen but Free all the way through Geisler's writing career

I demonstrate that this is a consistent view that he has held all the way along. And in that chapter which receives a lot of criticism in this response but no refutation in this full chapter documenting his view refuting his view

I never once say this is Molinism. Not once. So I don't know how he could come up with this type of an assertion.

It's just simply errant. I continue. As I read the critique in Potter's Freedom much of which

I was in full agreement with I could not help but wonder what book it was criticizing. It appeared to me as to many others who read it that Potter's Freedom would often simply reduce my view to an

Arminian position and then use material readily at hand to critique that viewpoint. Well Dr.

Geisler will identify this as a straw man in name -calling later on.

Yet not once does he respond to the fact that his position is identical to the

Arminian position nor to the fact that when he criticized Arminianism and this I think is one of the most telling things and again goes unresponded to when

Dr. Geisler presents the chapters critiquing what he calls

Extreme Calvinism and Arminianism his chapters critiquing Extreme Calvinism is aimed directly at Historic Reform Theology but when he gets to Arminianism he doesn't critique

Arminianism. He critiques Process Theology. Now Process Theology isn't

Arminianism. It is I think one of the logical extensions and ends of Arminianism but it's not

Historical Arminianism. Well why wouldn't he criticize real Historic Arminianism?

There's a simple reason. It's his position. He can't criticize his own position and so he criticizes something else.

That tells us a whole lot about what is actually going on here. One more quote and then we will get ready to take our break.

Indeed, Potter's Freedom sometimes attributes a view to me that I explicitly repudiate. For example,

Potter's Freedom claims I affirm that God's election is based on man's free will. Potter's Freedom pages 55 and 64.

Amazingly, Potter's Freedom soon after offers a quote from CBF that clearly refutes this criticism.

Potter's Freedom page 66. Does that have a sound basis behind it?

Well, no it does not. But since it's going to take a little bit of reading from the Potter's Freedom to demonstrate that I would invite you to make sure you've got your copy of the

Potter's Freedom available and when we come back from this break we'll be taking a look at those pages. Pages 54 and 55, page 64 as we continue here on The Dividing Line.

And welcome back to The Dividing Line. A little John Tesh bumper music there. Oh, I gotta get back to work, don't

I? We are responding to the new appendix in the second edition of Chosen But Free.

I even made the back cover, by the way. Right back there on the back cover. This second edition includes a response to the

Potter's Freedom by James R. White. And they notice they put R in there because I am one of their authors.

And they always put it right there. It always says James R. White right there on the cover.

So I thought that was sweet. Now, we have the assertion here made by Dr.

Geisler that I am such a poor reader that I attribute a view to Dr.

Geisler. He explicitly repudiates. He says I say that God's election is based on man's free will.

And yet he says, no, no. There's a quote that explicitly repudiates that assertion.

Well, let's find out if that's the case. Page 54 is the first.

He said pages 55 and 64. But I think it would be good to get a little context here.

Because pages 54 and 55 contain a lengthy citation of Dr.

Geisler. And in fact, I'd like you to hear exactly what Dr. Geisler says.

And see if you don't get the idea that man's free will does in fact have a tremendous amount to do with whether a man is going to be saved or not in Dr.

Geisler's theology. Here is the quotation beginning on page 54. God will achieve the greatest number in heaven that he possibly can.

He does not love just some men. He loves all and will do everything within his loving power to save all he can.

When the statement is made that God will achieve the greatest good possible does not mean the greatest number of people will be saved that is logically possible.

That would be 100%. What is meant by that statement is that God will save the greatest number of people that is actually achievable without violating their free choice.

Now, I'm just going to stop for a moment. And remember that Dr. Geisler says that I attribute a position to him that he explicitly repudiates.

And I said that God's election is based upon man's free will in Dr. Geisler's position.

Let me repeat the sentence I just read and see if it doesn't sound a little bit to you like that's exactly what

Dr. Geisler is saying. What is meant by that statement is that God will save the greatest number of people that is actually achievable without violating their free choice.

Does that sound like what I said? Let me continue. A loving God will not force anyone against their will to love him or to worship him.

Forced love is not love. Forced worship is not worship. Heaven will not be composed of robots. God is not a kind of cosmic

BF Skinner who believes in manipulating people into certain behavior patterns that are pleasing to himself.

God does not, as Skinner wishes, go beyond freedom and dignity. In short, God will not save people at all cost.

Not if it is at the cost of their freedom and dignity. For that would mean at the cost of their humanity.

God will not dehumanize in order to save. To dehumanize is to decreate since that is what God created.

A human. God is love and love works persuasively but not coercively. Those whom

God can lovingly persuade have been foreordained to eternal life.

Those whom he cannot are destined in accordance with their own choice to eternal destruction."

Now here's what I said on page 55. Here in brief scope is a summary of what Dr. Geisler will say in full in Chosen but Free.

God will save as many as possible but he will not do so on the basis of a positive decree of personal election.

i .e. God elects a particular people but instead he will make salvation available but leave it to man's free will.

Geisler's concept of freedom insists that man to be man must be absolutely free. To violate man's freedom is to dehumanize or decreate man and this cost is too high.

It should be noted that these sentiments are not Calvinistic. No Calvinist believes God dehumanizes when he regenerates.

No Calvinist speaks of God as merely persuading the elect nor do they speak of God coercing the elect.

Neither term logically can be attached to the concept of regeneration which is being raised from spiritual death to spiritual life.

These are Arminian descriptions not Calvinistic ones. I think what

I said follows directly from what Dr. Geisler himself said and Dr.

Geisler doesn't note that I was quoting him when I specifically gave this material in The Potter's Freedom.

Well what about page 64? Maybe that was just not a really good citation. Maybe it's page 64.

Well, this is all in the section by the way where I'm attempting to explain his unique perspective on determinately knowing and predeterminately foreknowing and foreknowingly predetermining and all that fun stuff.

And I had given, starting on page 63, the following quotation from Dr.

Geisler. Even those who would eventually be saved were known by God before the foundation of the world.

By his limitless knowledge, God is able to predict the exact course of human history, including the names of persons generations before they were born.

I then comment, these words are carefully chosen. Those who would eventually be saved are known to God, no mention of God's ordination or sovereign choice, and God does not decree the course of human history, but rather predicts it flawlessly.

If you predict something, you do not control it. God does not need to predict what he has created.

For example, if God is the creator of time and all the events in time, then he knows what will take place because he decreed it, not because he predicts it.

Even when speaking of the term sovereignty, this element is seen. Then I give another quotation, again from Chosen but Free, that says, whatever else may be said,

God's sovereignty over the human will includes his initiating, pursuing, persuading, and saving grace without which no one would ever will to be saved.

For there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. Romans 3 .11 I then comment, again the words are specific.

God initiates, God pursues, God persuades, God gives saving grace, but despite it all, the final decision is man's quote, without which no one would ever will to be saved, end quote.

God wills to save man, but unless man wills to save himself, he will not be saved.

This is thoroughgoing Arminianism. And then I continue down from there to discuss the meaning of what it means to understand the term predetermination and so on and so forth.

So, how is it that any quotation that I give from page 66 repudiates this?

Well, specifically, what Dr. Geisser is referring to here is his assertion that predetermination and free actions in time, you cannot make one prior to the other.

And this is something that I not only referenced, but I refuted. But Dr. Geisser ignores my refutation and continues to use his own definition, which has been refuted, to get out of the problems that his position faces.

And that's the issue that comes up on page 66. So, the assertion that I have attributed a view to him that he explicitly repudiates is therefore refuted.

I did not do so. I quoted him. I let him speak for himself. The contradiction exists within his own system.

I simply pointed out the contradiction. I continue on from chosen but free.

Sometimes my view is so distorted by stereotype that it seems almost impossible to believe that Potter's Freedom had my book in mind.

For example, Potter's Freedom claims that I believe God is passive in his knowledge of our free choices, but that, quote,

God is enslaved to our free choices, Potter's Freedom, page 67. This, in spite of Potter's Freedom even quoting the passage where I say

God is totally sovereign in the sense of actually determining what occurs, Potter's Freedom, page 66.

This is the same issue as before. The word determining, as Dr. Geisser uses it, is based upon God's perfect knowledge of future events.

It is not a divine decree that gives form to the events in time. It is a passive determining, and I followed this very consistent belief all the way through his writings.

He may deny that one action precedes the other, that God's predetermining does not precede his knowledge of future events and vice versa.

He may deny that you cannot identify the relationship between the two, but we demonstrate and others have demonstrated in previous books that he is in error here, that there is a logical relationship.

It doesn't have to be a temporal relationship, but it's a logical relationship. It's obvious that in God's mind, for example, there is a logical relationship between the incarnation and the cross, but logically the incarnation has to come before the cross.

Not just in, I mean, obviously since in time it has to be that way, but there can be logical order in God's thoughts.

And so Dr. Geisser simply tried to basically have his cake and eat it too by saying, we don't have to worry about the great debates that have taken place down through history as to whether God's perfect knowledge determines what takes place in time, or what takes place in time determines

God's knowledge. We don't have to worry about things like that, but in reality, as I demonstrate in The Potter's Freedom, he does take a position on that.

And in fact, he criticizes Calvinists for not allowing for man's free choices to determine who it is who ends up as part of the elect.

That makes man's autonomous and free choices the final determining factor.

God may have perfect knowledge of the future and therefore know who's going to do that, but it is the autonomous choice of man that determines these things.

And so despite the fact that his decades old assertion regarding predeterminately foreknowing and foreknowingly predetermining and all these very unique and interesting ways of putting things, his response ignores the decades old criticism of his position.

And it makes it appear as if I didn't even touch his argumentation when in fact I spent an entire chapter, pages 53 to 73, 20 pages doing just that.

And Dr. Geisser does not even mention this fact in passing.

I can only hope that some of the people who read those final pages will take the time to go look at the book and find out for themselves.

Dr. Geisser goes on to say, likewise, Potter's Freedom claims I hold election to be conditional. Potter's Freedom page 72.

And that it depends on the will of man. Potter's Freedom page 87. When I repeatedly affirm that I believe election is unconditional for God, chosen but free, pages 119 and following.

Now please note, that's very carefully written. Dr. Geisser did repeatedly affirm that he believes election is unconditional for God.

But that's not all he said. Because what he said was that the element that is unconditional is

God's choosing to save. But what he says, even on that specific page 119, is that he does so based upon man's faith, and that it is conditional for the receiver, not for the giver.

That is therefore conditioned on man's faith, which is the Arminian viewpoint as well. And since this was discussed thoroughly in numerous places, how is it even honest to say

I'm misrepresenting him when he does not bother to respond to an entire chapter, chapter 5 of the

Potter's Freedom, where I documented that the historical view of unconditional election is not what

Geisser is talking about. Saying you believe in unconditional election, when you are actually teaching that God elects to save and leaves the condition of faith to be fulfilled by the free action of man is double talk.

Further, I note that there is nothing on page 87 as he cited it, that refers the phrase depends on the will of man.

This is one of the many such page miscitations in this appendix that seemingly whoever did the final editing on it didn't have my book around to check and see if the page numbers were even close to being correct.

And no, we have not put out multiple editions and changed all sorts of page numbers as you now have when you compare various editions of Chosen but Free.

Unfortunately, we may need to go back through the Potter's Freedom when we do another printing of it and double check all the page references because now the second edition is a number of pages longer than the original ones, not just because the addition of the appendix, but other stuff has been added as well.

And so the citations would now be inaccurate so we may have to do something about that in the future.

Now, Dr. Geisser goes on and says, Now, what is being referred to here?

Dr. Geisser seemingly is saying no, Fallen Man cannot will to please God. That seemingly is what he is saying his position is.

Here is the quotation that I gave from Dr. Geisser. Leave is everywhere implied in the

Gospel call. Now, that's the quotation. Now, here's my response.

It seems that being ignorant, depraved, and a slave still does not change the assertion a man has a free choice.

It does not explain how one can be a slave to sin and still have a free choice regarding sin, but it is certainly CBF's assertion that the

Fallen Man is free to will good, is free to will what is pleasing to God. We have already seen Paul taught the exact opposite in Romans 8 5 -9.

Now, what am I referring to there? Well, here's the quotation again. Fallen beings are free and the vertical ability to believe is everywhere implied in the

Gospel call. Here's one of the reasons I would really like to invite Dr.

Geisser to a debate. To do a debate. This is why we have invited Dr. Geisser to debate.

Because we could bring these issues out. And what is the issue? It's real simple. Is belief pleasing to God?

Is saving belief pleasing to God? Well, of course it is.

And so, if his own assertion says if his own assertion says that the vertical ability to believe is still there, then why am

I somehow misrepresenting him when I say that he is saying that man can will to do good.

Unless someone's going to say, oh no, saving faith, exercising faith in Christ is not willing to do good.

Obviously that is not the case. So, it is not a misrepresentation. It is not in any way, shape or form a misrepresentation of his position.

He's just simply refusing to respond to the argumentation that I've presented and that is if you say that man has the vertical ability in, even though he's dead in sin, slave to sin, and all the things that I demonstrate in the book which go ignored about man's incapacities.

If you say that man can repent and believe, do what is good and pleasing in God's sight before regeneration, then you need to explain

Romans 8, 7 -8. Dr. Geisler does not choose to answer that particular issue.

Potter's freedom misrepresentation, so far again, we haven't found any. That being dead in sin means only separation from God.

Page 101. Well, not sure what the problem there is.

Page 101 is talking about the will of man and here is the citation.

So how does Dr. Geisler respond to the clear assertion of Scripture that man is, indeed, dead in sin?

Here is his response to Ephesians 2 -1 and the Reformed interpretation of it. This extreme

Calvinistic interpretation of what is meant by spiritual death is questionable. First of all, spiritual death in the

Bible is a strong expression meaning that fallen beings are totally separated from God, not completely obliterated by him.

As Isaiah put it, your iniquities have separated you from God. Isaiah 59 -2. In brief, it does not mean a total destruction of all ability to hear and respond to God, but a complete separation of the whole person from God.

End quote. And then I commented. Each assertion in this response is flawed.

First, Geisler misrepresents the Reformed position by contrasting total separation from God with the strange idea of being completely obliterated by him.

Where do Reformed writers say spiritual death involves complete obliteration by God? Being dead in sin does refer to separation from godly life.

Such is a partial truth. But obviously, Paul intends something more than separation when he contrasts the horrific state of the spiritually dead with the glorious position of the person who is alive in Christ.

The very use of the imagery of resurrection shows us this, but no one asserts this means total obliteration.

What is obliterated is the ability of man to subject himself to the law of God, not the man himself.

And so, where did we get this, it means only separation from God? I only quoted him!

All I did was just, I just used his own language. So how can that be a misrepresentation when

I'm just quoting him? I I don't know.

I honestly I'm just, I'm reading it as it's there and many of those of you for example, we managed to get back in the chat room just now, many of those in the chat room who've read the book and who've read this appendix have had the same response

I have. What is he talking about? How is this related?

We don't understand. Honestly, the appendix is numerous levels below the level of Chosen but Free Itself.

As far as cogency, as coherence, connection to the actual context of the book it's allegedly responding to, it is absolutely positively amazing what

I've been reading in this particular response. Well, here's the next misrepresentation of the

Potter's Freedom again, we haven't found any. That the unsaved can come up with righteous desires, page 102.

Well, that's the same thing that we had before and here is the quotation after talking about Romans 3 .15

universal sinfulness of man, etc. etc. Page 102, I wrote this. Finally, if a person experiences complete separation from God does it not fall that one is separated from the only source of goodness, light, and truth?

Are we to believe that such a person who is totally separated from God can come up with righteous desires, love for truth, repentance toward God, etc.

simply from themselves? Well, here's the question that I ask and that's the question I would ask of Dr.

Geisler. Can the person who is spiritually dead come up with righteous desires? Seemingly, he's saying, well, you're saying that I can.

Well, is it a righteous desire to want to repent, Dr. Geisler? Is it a righteous desire to want to believe?

If those aren't righteous desires, what are they? That's what I said in my book and certainly you'd want to respond to what

I said in the book, right? Misrepresentation. The next one, that faith is the moving cause of our election.

Page 131 and here is the citation. What do all of these citations have in common?

And this is actually in my chapter under Unconditional Election, A Necessity.

What do all of these citations have in common? And these citations are not of Dr. Geisler. These are citations of Reformed writers defining

Unconditional Election in a way that Dr. Geisler does not. So, Dr.

Geisler seemingly believes himself in a position to be able to redefine this debate on the basis of his own epsidixit over against everyone who has written about it for many centuries.

Here's page 131. What do all of these citations have in common? They all define

Unconditional Election as being without conditions. Such is hardly surprising except that we are here dealing with Dr.

Geisler's insistence that Unconditional Election means that the choice to save someone is unconditional whereas it is very conditional on the part of the recipient of salvation it is conditioned upon the free choice of faith.

Is that not what he himself says in Chosen but Free? Does he not say that election is unconditional for the giver but conditioned on the faith of the receiver?

So where is the error? You see, this involves using terms in more than one way and I point this out in the book.

You see, you can use the term election as Dr. Geisler's God chooses to do what? To save.

The direct object of election there is to save or you can use it biblically where the biblical use of it is

God chooses to save and then you have a specific personal pronoun.

God's choice is to save his elect people. That's the difference. And so there's nothing here in any way, shape, or form that misrepresents exactly what it was he said.

Page 174 we're told that God doesn't elect individuals. God does elect individuals.

But on what basis? On what basis does he elect individuals?

That's the question. And that's again a very important issue that Dr.

Geisler does not address here. Is again how his own strange unusual definitions are being used to in essence cause some confusion here.

I specifically gave these citations, again was very very careful very very careful in how

I looked at what Dr. Geisler was saying. So we have let me see where I want to pick up here

Potter's Freedom. Page 172. Keeping in mind Dr. Geisler's definition of God's predetermination as a passive thing.

Perfect foreknowledge. We can understand what is being said in light of a comment made shortly thereafter in response to Romans 829.

If so, then God's foreknowledge would not have any reference to foreknowing how the elect would respond, but this is not the case as our response shows.

Now let me just stop there just for a moment and make a comment. Listen to what that says.

Listen to what Dr. Geisler says. If so, then God's foreknowledge would not have any reference to foreknowing how the elect would respond.

Not determining how the elect would respond. But foreknowing how the elect would respond, but this is not the case as our response shows.

This is followed by a quote. And if God does foreknow infallibly, then he would still foreknow what people would freely believe.

And he would still have to decide whether he would have to force them to believe in him, or else elect those he knew could be persuaded to freely accept his grace.

End quote. No matter, and I continued, here's my quotation, no matter how strongly

Dr. Geisler denies it, there is no logical way he can escape one simple fact.

His view differs from the Armenian election based on knowledge of future events viewpoint, solely in terminology, not in substance.

CBF attempts to avoid saying it, but it's there nonetheless, and I quote him again. But the question is not whether election is unconditional from the vantage point of the giver, but whether there are any conditions for the receiver.

Election is not based on or dependent on foreknowledge, rather it is merely in accord with it.

End quote. There is no real difference between saying God elects on the basis of foreknowledge or in accordance with it, if, in the final analysis, it is the free choice of man not the free choice of God that determines who the elect are.

CBF clearly says that God elects based upon his knowledge that those so elected, quote, could be persuaded to freely accept

His grace, end quote. The final, ultimate deciding factor in election is the free acceptance of the human being.

This is glaringly obvious, and it is fully Arminian. Another corollary that inevitably follows from this is that if the decree of election is not specific and based solely upon the will of God, it must become a decree to save, based upon what man does in time, nothing else.

That is, it becomes impersonal. It becomes a decree to save those who fulfill certain conditions no matter how many or how few those conditions might be.

Not a decree to save anyone in particular. This comes out in Geisler's work. Here is the quote.

Why, then, does one person go to heaven and another not? Because God willed that all who receive

His grace will be saved, and that all who reject it will be lost. And since God knew infallibly just who this would be, both the elect and non -elect were determined from all eternity, and this determination was not based on anything in man, including their free choice.

Rather, it was determined on God's choice to save all who would accept

His unconditional grace. That's the quotation. Then, I continue on with my assertion.

It is vital to understand what is said here, for the wording is very careful and yet very confusing. Nowhere in this quote, or in God's chosen but free, will you find the elect as individuals being chosen by God solely upon the basis of His will.

Look closely at what is said. God wills to do what? Save those who receive

His grace and reject all who do not. The will of God in this matter is impersonal. No particular individual is chosen in this fashion to be saved.

Instead, a plan of salvation is willed. Then we see again the centrality of the idea of God knowing infallibly who would, by free choice, accept or reject

Him. That's a very long quote here, but I just noticed

I'm running over time, but it doesn't really matter. Let me just go ahead and finish the quote.

But we must insist that such language does not differ in substance from the

Arminian assertion that God elects on the basis of foreknowledge, for the denial that there is any logical relationship between God's knowledge and God's determination has already been seen to be in error.

And there it is. Anyone reading this appendix would not know that I had already interacted with this.

Dr. Geisser continues to use a distinction that was refuted in the book to beat me over the head without ever dealing with what

I myself said. Well, there's much more to come.

In fact, what about ad hominem and name calling? Dr. Geisser says I engage in both, but do

I? That's what we'll be looking at when we come back from this break here on The Dividing Line. And welcome back to The Dividing Line.

Zeke, go away. Zeke does not want to go away. Zeke wants a laser.

That's what Zeke wants. Only a few people understand who Zeke is. Zeke is our is our

Jesuit infiltrator, our Jesuit spy who is slowly being dragged out of the office now. He's just a doggie.

He just wants his laser. He loves... Whatever you do, don't show a dog a laser.

Of course, don't shoot him in the eye with a laser. That's stupid, but they love... This dog is addicted to lasers, but that really has nothing to do whatsoever with our topic today in any way, shape, or form.

But hey, it's live webcasting. Well, semi -live, sort of comatose webcasting today, actually, because of the code

Redworm. Everyone who has a WinNT and Win2000 system, get rid of the virus, you people.

It's messing up the Internet. So, anyways. We are responding to Dr. Geisler today.

And so far, you may notice, you may notice we've been very thorough.

We've looked at every phrase so far, just about. We've looked at every citation given.

Some of the citations aren't there, but we've looked at every citation. You say, you can be that thorough?

We plan to be. I really need to be, because sadly, for many people, if I skip anything, that is taken as evidence of see, there's truth in that one, huh?

Well, not exactly. Next alleged error that I have, a misrepresentation, is that man's will is supreme over God's, pages 181 and 203.

Well, again, Dr. Geisler is consistently identifying points of conflict as if they are misrepresentations.

Page 181, for example. This is actually in a chapter where I am exegeting

Ephesians chapter 1. I'm not even dealing specifically with Dr.

Geisler at this point. And here's what I said. And upon what basis did

God predestine? Again, the idea that anything in man can function as the basis of God's predestination is thoroughly refuted.

Predestination is based upon the divine purpose, nothing else. That purpose flows from the sovereign of the universe who works all things after the counsel of his will.

This is the Christian confession. God is sovereign over all things. Nothing is accepted. And most importantly, in this context, it is beyond dispute that the matter of human salvation is firmly within the realm of the all things that God's will determines.

Nothing in the text tells us man's will is supreme over God's, nor that God's purpose is after the counsel of the will of man.

God works all things after the counsel of his will, including his predestining of men and women to salvation.

The result in verse 12 is the repetition of a vital truth. Salvation is all to the praise of his glory.

Any teaching that detracts in the slightest from the glory of God is not a biblical teaching. So, there's what

I said. I did not say Dr. Geisler says this, but since Dr. Geisler does deny what

Ephesians 1 says, what the exegesis of Ephesians 1 shows, and no attempt is made by Dr.

Geisler in this response to refute the exegesis of Ephesians 1, then I suppose that it would be true that I would be saying that he believes that man's will is supreme over God's.

Let me ask a simple question. Dr. Geisler is it God's will for all to be saved?

We know the interpretation of 2 Peter 3 .9 that Dr. Geisler uses. He doesn't respond to my exegesis of that passage other than just simply saying it's wrong, but what is the result?

Yes. Dr. Geisler would say yes, it is God's will. Will all men be saved? No. So whose will is supreme over whose?

There it is. There's the answer to that question. Another alleged misrepresentation.

Not there. Page 203 is a footnote. It is a footnote. It is also given as a citation.

It's footnote number six. As with all else we have seen, we must insist that it is not the mere opportunity of being saved or receiving an inheritance if we will do certain things, whether those be good works in a state of grace or the mere free choice act of faith that is in view here.

There is all the difference in the world between an actual work that brings glory to God and a potential work that can be said it not by the supreme will of the creature.

Now again that was in reference to the exegesis of Ephesians 1 and I stand by it and if Dr.

Geisler wants to say that's actually attributing something to him when in point of fact neither one of these citations had anything to do with him at all that's fine.

He can do so. That would mean that he is taking the opposite view of the exegesis of the text of scripture.

Why that was even included in this appendix I have no idea. Next was misrepresentation that God didn't ordain people but only a plan.

Well I just read page 196 and it's his own citations that say that God did elect to save those who freely believe.

So what is the direct object of elects to save? It's a plan and that was established so often that the text of the book that it's again a person who reads chosen but free and then reads this is going to go wait a minute you over and over again you yourself said this.

Let's look at page 196 of the power of freedom you'll see that. Next that God merely predicted the hardening of Pharaoh's heart but was not active in doing it.

Page 221. Well that was an interesting section and since a lot of folks ask about Romans chapter 9 and since this section of Dr.

Geisser's book gets repeated on the air a lot let's look specifically at what is here.

Beginning on page 220. Returning to Romans 9 we turn to the response offered to 915 where the extreme

Calvinist is said to allege that quote God moved on his Pharaoh's heart to accomplish his purpose

Pharaoh could not resist and quote of course immediately one would have to correct this representation of the reform position

Pharaoh could not and would not desire to resist Pharaoh was not a kind gentle godly man who was forced to act in a bad way by a mean nasty

God. No Pharaoh was a pagan idolater justly under the wrath of God whose every breath and heartbeat was his only as God extended mercy to him his blackened sin -filled heart was constantly being reigned in by God's common grace so that he was not nearly as bad as he could have been he did not have the first desire to submit to God or do right to say that Pharaoh could not resist is to assume he would ever want to.

CBF continues quote while it is true that God predicted in advance that it would happen Exodus 4 .21

nonetheless the fact is that Pharaoh hardened his own heart first and then God only hardened it later end quote

Piper going back to my quotation Piper completely refutes this single sentence assertion over the course of 12 pages of scholarly argumentation we simply point out one major mistake did

God merely predict that he would harden Pharaoh's heart to say that Pharaoh hardened his own heart first one ignores

Exodus 5 .1 -2 and assumes that this is not the fulfillment of Exodus 4 .21

and number 2 assumes that the hardening of his heart by God is somehow based upon or depend upon Pharaoh's actions we have now seen many times that CBF's most fundamental presupposition is the absolute freedom of man and his ability to exercise choice this is a wonderful example of how that kind of philosophical presupposition can result in errors in exegesis then it go on from there to talk about how he talks about how the

Hebrew word hardened can actually mean strengthened and so on and so forth so how is it an error to say that God merely predicted the hardening of Pharaoh's heart but was not active in doing it obviously in the context

Dr. Geisser is saying well yeah God predicted it and he was active in doing it later but not at first when reading the context you know that what

I'm saying is that God did not just merely predict it but he actually brought it about that it was part of his sovereign plan that's not a misrepresentation when you read it within the context of the discussion itself the next alleged misrepresentation and it's almost over yes

I know there's a whole long list here but I think you'll see why I'm hammering on these that the clay can force the potter's hand page 225 well this is in reference to the issue of the potter and the situation

Jeremiah chapter 18 where he attempts to say that in reality the lump of clay issue that what

God would do with it depended upon Israel's moral response to God and in response

I had said just as we had to express our amazement at the insertion of acts of free will into Romans 9 16 so too here we cannot help but point out that the main point of the entire passage is overthrown and literally contradicted all to maintain the supremacy of the free choices of men read

Jeremiah 18 and see if the point of the parable the potter and the clay is that there is something in the clay that determines what the potter will do the parable shows

God's complete sovereignty over the nation of Israel he can do with the nation as he wishes he is not limited by the free choices of people surely he calls the nation repent beginning in verse 7 but upon what principle of logic or hermeneutics are we to believe that the actual point of the parable is that the clay can force the potter's hand either by its sin or its repentance well there's the issue and so I asked the question where do we get that idea that is what we read in Dr.

Geisler's quotation so how is that somehow a misrepresentation well the last alleged misrepresentation that the atonement of Christ is only theoretical page 226 the problem is there is nothing on page 226 relevant to this topic so again

I don't know how with such consistency numbers can be inserted that have no relationship whatsoever to what's actually being said but that's what happened and I just checked again just double check page 254 chosen but free the brand new edition that the atonement of Christ is only theoretical 226 there is nothing on 226 in the potter's freedom that addresses that but somewhere

I did raise the issue that to take the position of universal atonement is to say that the atonement of Christ is a theoretical issue that is dependent upon the choice of man for accomplishment

I did say that I didn't take the time to search through my whole book to find it and honestly

I don't think that if an author is going to be careful enough to give you the right page number that I should have to search through my whole book to find it there is more than once that I read the page before the page after maybe instead of 226

I look at 326 or whatever it might be but I don't have the time to be looking all those things up when the person who is making the allegations against me isn't careful enough to get the right numbers there

I don't think that's my responsibility I don't think anybody would say that it is however I do make the assertion that universal atonement renders the atonement of Christ theoretical and again folks here it is that's not a misrepresentation that's an argument logically how would

Dr. Geisler in a scholarly way have to respond to that by demonstrating that I'm wrong about the assertion not merely that I made the assertion but you see that's what this appendix never does that is what has me absolutely boggled at why this has even been included in the book because as I said it's not even up to the level of the original book which had lots of errors in it now why did

I spend so much time on that listen to this in italics I this is

Dr. Geisler speaking I counted no less than 40 times my view was misrepresented well if the list we just got done going through means anything what that means is

I count no less than 40 times where James White disagrees with my view to disagree with a view is not to misrepresent a view not a single time in all we've seen was there a misrepresentation in any time when it was actually talking about him

I quoted him amazing I go on interestingly this is

Dr. Geisler again interestingly in one place listen carefully to this in one place

Potter's Freedom even admits finding it difficult to understand my view one might ask how something can be properly evaluated which is not properly understood nonetheless this failure to comprehend my position does not impede in the least the overly zealous pedantic and at times somewhat arrogant critique of it in Potter's Freedom did you hear that let me repeat it one more time because you see later on Dr.

Geisler is going to accuse me of ad hominem arguing against the person we will discover that he fails to give a single example but he is going to say that I do it and listen to this interestingly in one place

Potter's Freedom even admits finding it difficult to understand my view by the way it's page 58 if you want to be rushing there to see where I admitted that I have no comprehension whatsoever of his position one might ask how something can be properly evaluated which is not properly understood nonetheless this failure to comprehend my position does not impede in the least the overly zealous pedantic and at times somewhat arrogant critique of it in Potter's Freedom so we have here the assertions books over zealous I'm pedantic and somewhat arrogant all based upon page 58 well

I got to admit I turned there fairly quickly when I encountered this page 58 there is a quotation and guess what it's that same chapter determinately knowing and by the way

I just want to mention I have gotten a lot of emails and letters from folks who said you know

I've never really fully understood what Dr. Geisser was saying in fact his discussions of predeterminately foreknowing and foreknowingly predetermined that's tough stuff and here is what

Dr. Geisser said and I'm quoting from him here more properly we should speak of God as knowingly determining and determinately knowing from all eternity everything that happens including all free acts in other words all aspects of the eternal purpose of God are equally timeless for if God is an eternal and simple being then his thoughts must be coordinate and unified whatever he forechooses cannot be based on what he foreknows nor can what he foreknows be based on what he forechose both must be simultaneous and coordinate acts of God thus

God knowingly determined and determinately knew from all eternity everything that would come to pass including all free acts hence they are truly free actions and God determined that they would be such

God then is totally sovereign in the sense of actually determining what occurs and yet humans are completely free and responsible for what they choose and here is the commentary that I made now if the assertion of overly zealous pedantic and arrogant is going to have any meaning here the first sentence after that quotation should be man

I don't got no idea what any of that means but that's not what's in the book is it it is very difficult to understand these words given that they are based upon the assertion that there is no logical priority of foreordination to foreknowledge for they are one but given that in point of fact there is no reason to accept this assertion we are still left with the classical conundrum of how

God can be sovereign over all things on one hand and man completely free on the other using phrases like determinately knowing or knowingly determining does not in reality solve the problem it only confuses it at this point it is good to note that there is a real danger in misunderstanding the use of predetermined or just determined most people upon reading this term think of a positive volitional act on the part of God i .e.

in the sense of decreeing that something is going to happen such as the crucifixion of Christ Acts 4 .28 which took place we are told as God's power and will had decided beforehand most people understand these terms to speak to something active on the part of God but we will see that this is not

Geisler's meaning when he speaks of knowingly determining the active element is gone determined here refers to the passive recognition of the actions of free men not the sovereign decree that the action would take place through the instrumentality of creatures in other words what

Geisler means is that God determines what will take place through his perfect knowledge it would be like my saying that I determined the water in the pool was very cold by putting my toe in the water determined here is passive I did not make the water hot or cold

I put I just passively took in knowledge that it was in fact cold we could contrast this by my saying

I installed a heating system in my pool determined the temperature would stay at 76 degrees here determined is active because I am actually making the water particular temperature when

Geisler speaks of God determining things he is saying that since God has perfect complete and instantaneous knowledge of all events past present and future then he determines those actions but this is solely in the passive sense the grand issue of whether God actively decrees whatsoever comes to pass is in fact directly denied in this sense

Geisler's position despite all the theological terminology and discussion of sovereignty is very much the same as Yerminian who says that God merely looks into the future and elects on the basis of what he sees while Geisler repeats his assertion that one cannot logically determine the relationship between foreknowledge and predetermination his constant emphasis upon the absolute freedom of the creature betrays the reality of his system and then

I continue from there now you tell me did I say there that I did not understand the view so why does

Dr. Geisler say that I have difficulty understanding it and then use that to accuse me of being overly zealous pedantic and sometimes arrogant in my critique of it

I don't understand it that's obviously ad hominem on his part and it has nothing to do with the actual reading of the text now the next section and I'll be quick here

I see our time's running out the next section lists logical fallacies and notice what it says quote

Potter's freedom offers virtually unlimited opportunities for beginning theology students to identify logical fallacies you think if I put that in the

Potter's freedom that that would be listed as ad hominem I think it would 16 examples are given and that becomes the basis upon which the rest of the material is presented and so I'm not going to go through them because nothing is explained

I mean straw man verse page 94 diverting the issue page 94 false analogy page 24 how am

I supposed to even know what it's referring to however below this we start getting theologism ad hominem name calling and these are listed as logical fallacies and as we start going through these what you're going to discover is that not once Dr.

Geisler make his case not once and that's amazing that is amazing and what makes it worse of course is to give a listing of these alleged errors and offer the gratuitous ad hominem

Potter's freedom offers virtually unlimited opportunities for beginning theology students is that not pedantic

I think that's pedantic Potter's freedom offers virtually unlimited opportunities for beginning theology students to identify logical fallacies well you know if you're going to say it that way