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.

Why This Appendix Matters and Why It Fails

And what I'm going to begin for this week and will be continuing it at least in the 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 want 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. Geisler'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. Geisler's part.

There is no attempt to rehabilitate himself on the level of exegesis. There is, however, a very strong attempt quite simply at 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. Geisler 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 that's 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. Geisler started and ended his review with nice words just as I started my book with nice words in regards to Dr. Geisler 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. Geisler 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 9 tape series or 9 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. Geisler 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.

Geisler’s Opening Praise and White’s Response to the First Corrections

So Dr. Geisler continues under the title Appreciation for White's Review. In spite of the fact that the Potter's Freedom hereafter P .F. 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. P .F. 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. 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 PF 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 PF Potter's Freedom. For instance world should be word on 261 and 262 and PF 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 chosen but free page 199 so 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 interpretation interpretations of these texts that support limited atonement. Now as soon as I read that I said well 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 how would I say that if that's what not what was exactly in the book itself. And so here we have it seems to me a little bit of a now so you're gonna 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 what happened. So anyways as we will discover and I think this would 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. They're. They're just it's just not there. I don't know how that happened. There's no excuse for it. There's no 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 XY and Z on page da da da and you go to page 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. But 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 limit omen 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 any names.

I don't see any individuals who are writing and saying yes this is you know here's 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 an error.

Even Armenians recognize that I've had Armenians for example did a written debate with an Armenian recently and he even said to me on the phone he said oh by the way you know and I read the potter's freedom.

And one thing you're really right about is this 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 limits 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 to 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 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 arguments 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 tremendous amount of confusion.

But seemingly from his perspective he can also just dismiss the great controversies 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.

Misunderstandings of Calvinism, Arminianism, and Election

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 expressed and 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 freedoms 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 some paperbacks 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 an irresistible grace is divine rape and all the rest of 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 freedoms definitions of its six points of Calvinism. And there you go. Huh. Wait what. Why. Now it left me absolutely amazed.

I mean it is 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 in 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 gonna say that unconditional election is unconditional on God's part. He's he can unconditionally elect to save everyone who believes but the belief is a freewill act and so on 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 there you give me the keys to his office. Simply saying something doesn't make it that way.

Saying man has a free will and accusing Calvinist of making man a robot or a puppet and saying that Calvinist 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 is quite simply just just mere mere obfuscation. And we're gonna look at this a little bit more a 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. 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 to 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 predetermined for knowing or for knowingly 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 from earliest on all the way through to two 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 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 the 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 and name-calling later on. Yet not once does he respond to the fact that his position is identical to the Arminian position. Nor the fact that when he criticized Arminianism and this is 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. 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 affirms 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. Well does that have a sound basis behind it. Well no it does not. But since it's gonna 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 little John Tesh bumper music there to do.

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 always put right there. You know it's always says James R. White right there on the cover so I thought that was so.

That was sweet. Now we have the assertion here made by dr. Geisler that that's I. 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. I thought there's a quote that explicitly repudiates repudiates that assertion. Well let's um let's find out if that's the case. Page 54 is the first he said pages 55 and 64. But I think it'd 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 began 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 it 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 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 and 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 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 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.

And quote. Now here's what I said on page 55. Here in brief scope is a summary of what dr. Geisler will say in full and 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 ie 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 insist 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 is 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 the 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 maybe that was just a not a really good citation. Maybe it's 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 for knowingly pre determining 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 is 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 311. 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.

And quote God wills to save men but unless man wills to save himself he will not be saved. This is thoroughgoing Arminianism. And then I continued on from there to discuss the 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. Geisler 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 I not only referenced but I refuted. But dr. Geisler 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 issues before the word determining as dr. Geisler 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. Geisler has 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 Calvinist 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 gonna 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 predetermined Lee foreknowing and for knowingly predetermining and predetermining 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. Geisler does not even mention this fact in passing.

I can only hope 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. Geisler 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 affirmed that I believe election is unconditional for God chosen but free pages 119 and following now please note that's very carefully written dr. Geisler 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 Armenian 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 Geisler 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 know 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 miss citations 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. And 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 number of pages longer than the original ones.

Not just because the addition of the appendix but other stuff's 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. Geisler goes on and says.

Space only permits brief mention of other Potter's freedom misrepresentations. Notice by the way we haven't found any yet namely that I hold. And then there's a colon. And then here's here's some of the assertions are made that fallen man can will to please God.

Page 96 of the Potter's freedom. Now what is being referred to here dr. Geisler 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. Geisler.

Both scripture and good reason inform us that depraved human beings have the power of free choice. The Bible says fallen man is ignorant depraved and a slave of sin. But all these conditions involve a choice.

Even our enslavement to sin as a result of free choice even spiritual blindness as a result of the choice not to believe fallen beings are free and the vertical ability to believe 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 is not explained 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 through 9. Now what am I referring to there.