Hi Shawn, I appreciate your review of the book. I have read it myself and find myself agreeing to much of what Geisler writes. On your point of God controlling all things, I believe you may have misunderstood the idea that Geisler is making. It is not that God does absolutely control every little thing, but that He can control every little thing. Just as the Psalmist says that God causes the sun to shine on the evil and the good, that He sends the rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. God is sovereign which, among other things, means that He has control over all nature. However, this does not mean that God interferes with man's free will. Geisler makes that very clear throughout the book, starting with the cover itself, "Chosen, but free". Just because God is in control, and has absolute authority over all things, does not mean that He takes away our free will, decides for us and then sits back and says, "nope, your fault". Geisler also has "The Big Book of Christian Apologetics" where he re-iterates his opinion on the matter there. In fact, humorously I think, if you look up "Predestination" in that book, it says, "See Free Will".
I don't know if anyone else uses this term, but they are, what I would call, reluctant Calvinists. They were taught theology from a Calvinist' viewpoint, and told that the doctrine of election (Calvinist view) is one of those doctrines we can't understand. We just accept it. Although it doesn't fit in their biblical, theological view, they stumble over it, rationalizing and making excuses, trying to force it into focus. The results could go either deeper into Calvinism or rejecting biblical teaching altogether. That is, if someone doesn't give up searching the Scriptures. Thanks again for your channel. I would comment more on Geisler, but other commentators said enough.
@@Nathannnnnnnnnn “ moderate Calvinist” - Arminian. You should read the book “The Potters Freedom “ by James White ,that refutes the book Chosen but Free. If you don’t read it ,at least look at the reviews.
@chrismachin2166 that book is next on my list. I'm going through chosen but free right now. I have thoroughly enjoyed it so far, I'll be interested to see White's views. But Geislers views are not full on Calvinist and they surely are not full on Arminian. Have you read chosen but free? In the second edition of chosen but free, there is a response to the potters freedom in the back of the book. And then there is a response from White to Geislers response on White's website. Quite the back and forth lol
@@Nathannnnnnnnnn Hi Nathan..n, No I haven’t read Chosen But Free,hopefully when you get to The Potters Freedom ,you will understand why. Your post shouts out that you are open to reasoned discussions and certainly when you’ve read both books , it will give you a great deal of thought. Thanks for your post.
@@chrismachin2166 you wont read the book potters freedom responds to? Someone sounds very objective, open and critical minded...What in the Potters Freedom convinces you of calvinism as being true? How can you claim you value reasoned discussion if you are making claims and judgments about a book you never read?? Lol. Is this a joke??
I haven't read Spurgeon in a few years. I'd need to go back and read him again to see how much he aligned with Geisler. I could sense from the book that Geisler saw himself as the same type of Calvinist as Spurgeon.
So, being dead in our sins before conversion, you're saying that our faith is not tainted with sin ? Didn't it say: " Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, ( by grace ye are saved; ) " quickened means. " made alive," and it's synonymous with regeneration. And here it shows he quickened while still in sin. When we are dead, no one can respond. That's why he makes us alive first that we can respond. He has to give us a heart of flesh. We can't respond with a tainted faith. That's why He gives us what is called saving faith. James 2:14-26: Didn't it say "... God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith." Speaking of believers. Also, Philippians 1:29:
Election is not unto salvation, rather it's to purposes in the affairs of God's elect nation. Paul's _musterion_ 'The Body of Christ' is not a nation nor is it bound to covenants with God in this wonderful period of amnesty to all who believe.
What is this rubbish about free will? Only Adam and Eve had free will...we are sinners and would never come to Christ except the Father draws us by the operations of the Holy Spirit! So what is this verse i read which totally blows the false claim that man has free will completely out of the water. Genesis 6:5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually... Tell me then how can man, whose thoughts are ONLY EVIL...and that continually, without cessation, ever incline his heart to turn to God? As it is written... John 6:44 Jesus said... No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. Here not only in this verse do we have Gods sovereignty in salvation, but also His preservation of every single Christian that is truly born again unto the end.
Yes, Noah's generation was full of continual evil. This does not in any way argue against free will. Because one can not chose from all options, it does not mean that one cannot have free will to determine from many options. Since you take Noah's generation as always being able to only do evil, are you intellectually consistent to view Noah as only able to do righteousness? Or might the more logical and biblically consistent answer be that Noah's actions were predominately good while his generation's were predominately evil. John 6:44 teaches that no one CAN come without the Father's drawing. Jesus did not tell us that those who are drawn must come or that the drawing is limited to some special group called the elect. We will never come to faith without hearing the Gospel, but once the Gospel is given, one can believe or reject it. That's what John 6:44 is teaching. And don't get me started on your deceptive use of sovereignty, it is in the top 10 of the most terrible views of Calvinism.
_markie6477 can anyone undo or destroy what God establishes? What does Genesis 6 describing nephilim who arent made in Gods image have to do with your claim about the extent that the fall affected mankind? About John 6 does it say no one can come to God apart from Gods pull or that God only pulls certain people and they will in fact come to Him?
@@Dominick7 Pretty obvious isn't it really. Only those that God the Father has given to His Son shall come to Him. 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. No one else CAN come because they don't want to come, because by nature we are unwilling and would rather live in our sins, doing what we want, rather than what God wants.
@@markie6477 Obvious to who? A 1st through 4th or 5th century Christian? I fail to see how since Calvinists say what Augustine taught was never taught prior to him. To a 21st century western narcissistic individualist? Maybe. What leads you to believe that all there is an individual or group of individual if all ancient cultures were collectivists, not western individualists? The text says no one can come to God apart from Gods pull, which no one disagrees with. If the very text says ALL are taught by God, which is an active participatory thing, why would you assume its saying and meaning that God only pulls certain individuals and they will in fact come to Him when they were collectivists and this individualism doesnt exist through all church history except with Augustines later reversion to Manichean gnosticism and the reformation?
Hi Shawn, I appreciate your review of the book. I have read it myself and find myself agreeing to much of what Geisler writes. On your point of God controlling all things, I believe you may have misunderstood the idea that Geisler is making. It is not that God does absolutely control every little thing, but that He can control every little thing.
Just as the Psalmist says that God causes the sun to shine on the evil and the good, that He sends the rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. God is sovereign which, among other things, means that He has control over all nature. However, this does not mean that God interferes with man's free will.
Geisler makes that very clear throughout the book, starting with the cover itself, "Chosen, but free".
Just because God is in control, and has absolute authority over all things, does not mean that He takes away our free will, decides for us and then sits back and says, "nope, your fault". Geisler also has "The Big Book of Christian Apologetics" where he re-iterates his opinion on the matter there. In fact, humorously I think, if you look up "Predestination" in that book, it says, "See Free Will".
Excellent review. Thank you.
I don't know if anyone else uses this term, but they are, what I would call, reluctant Calvinists. They were taught theology from a Calvinist' viewpoint, and told that the doctrine of election (Calvinist view) is one of those doctrines we can't understand. We just accept it. Although it doesn't fit in their biblical, theological view, they stumble over it, rationalizing and making excuses, trying to force it into focus. The results could go either deeper into Calvinism or rejecting biblical teaching altogether. That is, if someone doesn't give up searching the Scriptures. Thanks again for your channel. I would comment more on Geisler, but other commentators said enough.
I like that term. I might use it from time to time.
Thank you for posting this. I have this book, but I have not read it yet.
Dude, if you think that Geisler was a “standard” Calvinist you have never read Calvin.
Ha! I read that book like over a decade ago. Geisler was so awesome, but… yeah.
Do you think Geisler’s Calvinism is like the Calvinism of Charles Spurgeon (who Calvinist proudly claim said “Calvinism is the Gospel.”)
Spurgeon was a real Calvinist, Geisler was a confused Arminian.
@@coreyelkins6062 what a stupid and ignorant claim, can you prove this?
Great review, brother. I am with you and wish Geisler would have received more support from Calvinists over White.
Hey sir, you give reasons when you refute Geisler. Don't just air your opinions. The subject you have chosen is a heavy and complex one.
Norman Geisler was not a 5 point Calvinist- he was an Arminian ,claiming he was a Calvinist.
Not at all. You should read the book. Geisler is a "moderate Calvinist" which is certainly not Arminian
@@Nathannnnnnnnnn “ moderate Calvinist” - Arminian. You should read the book “The Potters Freedom “ by James White ,that refutes the book Chosen but Free. If you don’t read it ,at least look at the reviews.
@chrismachin2166 that book is next on my list. I'm going through chosen but free right now. I have thoroughly enjoyed it so far, I'll be interested to see White's views.
But Geislers views are not full on Calvinist and they surely are not full on Arminian. Have you read chosen but free? In the second edition of chosen but free, there is a response to the potters freedom in the back of the book. And then there is a response from White to Geislers response on White's website. Quite the back and forth lol
@@Nathannnnnnnnnn Hi Nathan..n, No I haven’t read Chosen But Free,hopefully when you get to The Potters Freedom ,you will understand why. Your post shouts out that you are open to reasoned discussions and certainly when you’ve read both books , it will give you a great deal of thought. Thanks for your post.
@@chrismachin2166 you wont read the book potters freedom responds to? Someone sounds very objective, open and critical minded...What in the Potters Freedom convinces you of calvinism as being true? How can you claim you value reasoned discussion if you are making claims and judgments about a book you never read?? Lol. Is this a joke??
Do you think Geisler’s expression of Calvinism is close to Charles Spurgeon’s (who is proudly claimed to have taught that “Calvinism is the Gospel)?
I haven't read Spurgeon in a few years. I'd need to go back and read him again to see how much he aligned with Geisler. I could sense from the book that Geisler saw himself as the same type of Calvinist as Spurgeon.
@@RevReads Do you believe in the imputed righteousness of Christ?
So, being dead in our sins before conversion, you're saying that our faith is not tainted with sin ? Didn't it say: " Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, ( by grace ye are saved; ) " quickened means. " made alive," and it's synonymous with regeneration. And here it shows he quickened while still in sin. When we are dead, no one can respond. That's why he makes us alive first that we can respond. He has to give us a heart of flesh. We can't respond with a tainted faith. That's why He gives us what is called saving faith. James 2:14-26: Didn't it say "... God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith." Speaking of believers. Also, Philippians 1:29:
Election is not unto salvation, rather it's to purposes in the affairs of God's elect nation. Paul's _musterion_ 'The Body of Christ' is not a nation nor is it bound to covenants with God in this wonderful period of amnesty to all who believe.
Geisler was not a Calvinist….
And according to many who have their views of who is and is not a Calvinist, John Calvin wouldn't be a Calvinist.
What is this rubbish about free will?
Only Adam and Eve had free will...we are sinners and would never come to Christ except the Father draws us by the operations of the Holy Spirit!
So what is this verse i read which totally blows the false claim that man has free will completely out of the water.
Genesis 6:5
The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually...
Tell me then how can man, whose thoughts are ONLY EVIL...and that continually, without cessation, ever incline his heart to turn to God?
As it is written...
John 6:44 Jesus said...
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Here not only in this verse do we have Gods sovereignty in salvation, but also His preservation of every single Christian that is truly born again unto the end.
Yes, Noah's generation was full of continual evil. This does not in any way argue against free will. Because one can not chose from all options, it does not mean that one cannot have free will to determine from many options. Since you take Noah's generation as always being able to only do evil, are you intellectually consistent to view Noah as only able to do righteousness? Or might the more logical and biblically consistent answer be that Noah's actions were predominately good while his generation's were predominately evil. John 6:44 teaches that no one CAN come without the Father's drawing. Jesus did not tell us that those who are drawn must come or that the drawing is limited to some special group called the elect. We will never come to faith without hearing the Gospel, but once the Gospel is given, one can believe or reject it. That's what John 6:44 is teaching. And don't get me started on your deceptive use of sovereignty, it is in the top 10 of the most terrible views of Calvinism.
_markie6477 can anyone undo or destroy what God establishes? What does Genesis 6 describing nephilim who arent made in Gods image have to do with your claim about the extent that the fall affected mankind? About John 6 does it say no one can come to God apart from Gods pull or that God only pulls certain people and they will in fact come to Him?
@@Dominick7 Pretty obvious isn't it really.
Only those that God the Father has given to His Son shall come to Him.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
No one else CAN come because they don't want to come, because by nature we are unwilling and would rather live in our sins, doing what we want, rather than what God wants.
@@RevReads Utter rubbish
@@markie6477 Obvious to who? A 1st through 4th or 5th century Christian? I fail to see how since Calvinists say what Augustine taught was never taught prior to him. To a 21st century western narcissistic individualist? Maybe. What leads you to believe that all there is an individual or group of individual if all ancient cultures were collectivists, not western individualists? The text says no one can come to God apart from Gods pull, which no one disagrees with. If the very text says ALL are taught by God, which is an active participatory thing, why would you assume its saying and meaning that God only pulls certain individuals and they will in fact come to Him when they were collectivists and this individualism doesnt exist through all church history except with Augustines later reversion to Manichean gnosticism and the reformation?