Chosen But Free

by Norman L. Geisler

Is God in Control, or Do We have a Choice? The seemingly endless debate between Calvinism and Arminianism continues to make its rounds throughout the Christian community. Polarized beliefs have dominated and divided the theological landscape of the twentieth century, while many observers wonder, "Does it really make a difference?" Chosen But Free answers with a resounding yes. But rather than pitting one strong perspective against another, this brilliant work presents a cogent and sensible moderate view, providing readers with one of the first books that convincingly affirms both the sovereignty and foreknowledge of God and the human responsibility to either receive or reject Him.

Includes a response to The Potter's Freedom by James R. White. The Definitive Work on the Relationship Between Divine Election and Human Choice.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Nonfiction, Christianity, Religion, Christian Non Fiction, Faith

285 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 1999

About the author

Norman L. Geisler (PhD, Loyola University of Chicago) taught at top evangelical colleges and seminaries for over fifty years and was a distinguished professor of apologetics and theology at Veritas Evangelical Seminary in Murrieta, California. He was the author of nearly eighty books, including the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics and Christian Ethics. He and his wife lived in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Reviews

[Josh · Rating 1 out of 5]

Due to the fact that people I know and respect have spoken highly of Norman Geisler's book, Chosen But Free, and people I know and respect have also spoken quite critically of this book, I decided to grab the Kindle version and give it a read. There is praise to be offered and well-deserved criticism to be voiced as well.

Chapter 1 is a great introduction to the topic of God's sovereignty. Geisler spends an extended amount of time affirming God as sovereign over all, even the choices of men. On the surface and divorced from the rest of the text, chapter 1 is a tremendous defense of God being God over all, even the hearts of men. Geisler spends the rest of the book, however, undermining the firm foundation that Scripture laid for him in the first few pages.


Geisler's entire thesis centers around his argument that love can only be love if it is totally free (that is, free of any influence whether external or internal). Coupled with that is the strong insinuation that the moral free choice is either the totality or the majority of what it means to be created in God's image. Geisler never offers any consistent Scriptural basis for his position. As far as I can see, He roots this assumption in his own opinion and the fact that his entire soteriological framework would come crashing down upon itself if this were not the case.

One of the great flaws of this text is the reduction of Calvinism (Reformed Theology) to TULIP. Reformed Theology is not TULIP. Reformed Theology, Calvinism, is a garden filled with beautiful theological flowers, including a TULIP. Due to the subject Geisler undertakes and the fact that so many have perpetuated this reductionist attitude from within the ranks of professing Calvinists, I can understand why Geisler sees it this way and portrays it as such. Yet, since so much of Reformed Soteriology(TULIP) is based in the greater framework of Reformed/Covenant Theology, it would be quite beneficial to understand Reformed Soteriology within this broader context.

Beyond that, Geisler consistently misrepresents the points of TULIP, proceeding then to claim that any who would offer correction are “embarrassed” by their belief in that specific point. Going further, Geisler even accuses the dissenter of dishonesty, saying that he tries to hide what his doctrine actually teaches. This begins a hundreds of pages of rhetoric based on Geisler's army of straw men. Geisler does a brilliant job, throughout the text, of dismantling the “Extreme Calvinism” that he presents. The main problem, however, remains that the view he presents is not, for the most part, the consensus view of those that he labels with the position.

One of the flaws of Geisler's system is seen when Geisler posits his understanding of the P of TULIP, perseverance of the saints. Geisler addresses the fact that once someone is a born again believer then they cannot choose to reject God, ultimately falling away from his/her salvation. Yet, somehow Geisler says they are still free in relation to his/her salvation. His reasoning is simple although not stated. If he were to admit that this lack of viable choice has limited their free will, thus making their love of God after conversion null due to the lack of libertarian freedom, then his entire premise falls. Rather than address this, Geisler chooses to make a couple of points.

First, Geisler points out that this reasoning(that is, the idea that to be free you have to have the option to make a choice without any external or internal constraints or influence) “is speculative and should be treated as such”, because it is “not biblically based”. This seems like an odd point to make, a point with which I agree, because it is the basis for his entire premise. I am glad he admits it is not biblically based, I just wish he would have felt free not to propagate such an unbiblical and speculative position in the first place.

He follows with the argument that some decisions are once for all, but his argument is really a red herring because the point is about continuing freedom. If Adam's decision to rebel did not “erase the image of God”(that is, remove libertarian freedom) in himself or his progeny, then why would a decision to follow Christ in faith “erase the image of God”(that is, remove libertarian freedom).

Finally, he addresses the “extreme Arminian”(usually when Geisler attaches the word “extreme” to something we can feel free to replace it with “historical” or “classical” or “orthodox”, because this is how he uses the word. However, he chooses to limit the term “extreme” in regards to arminianism to reference open theists, “neotheists”) He urges them to consider the logical outcome of this line of thought. If we have to have the option to reject God after salvation to be free, then we could not be “free” in heaven because no orthodox believer holds to the view that you can reject salvation in the eternal state. But since Geisler equates “image of God” with libertarian freedom, then we have to be free in this sense, even in heaven...and even when we are completely incapable of exercising this freedom.

This would be a good point for Geisler to acknowledge and submit to the view of creaturely freedom espoused by Johnathan Edwards(a view repeatedly mocked and misrepresented by Geisler in the book) because it would be helpful to see why we are free. Edwards argues that freedom is the ability to do what we want, to follow our desires. It is not a libertarian/tabula rasa freedom that pretends like there are no influences that affect, motivate or even compel our decisions. Rather, we freely do what we want to do. Sinners freely sin because, by nature, they are sinners. God even limits His own freedom in this sense, consistently in Scripture indicating that He will never do anything contrary to His nature. Indeed, that He cannot(that is, He is not free to) do anything that is contrary to His nature, His ultimate desires. This is why, for us to believe in God, we must be gifted a new nature. Regeneration must precede faith, because left in our sin nature we will never choose God.

Geisler also attacks the reformed presentation of God as unloving for a number of reasons. Geisler argues that for God to be all-loving, He must make a way and offer of salvation unto all, without violating their libertarian free will. Geisler says “any diminution of God's love(see offer of salvation without violation of free will) will sooner or later eat away at one's confidence in God's benevolence.” Since “extreme Calvinists” argue from Scripture that God made atonement for the elect, loving the elect with a special love then God is not all-loving. Beyond that, He is not truly loving even to the elect because in raising them with an irresistible (effectual) grace from spiritual sickness(death), he violated their free (temporal and sin-bound) will.

I would pose a couple of questions. Who would argue that it would be unloving for a father to pull a toddler out of the way of a speeding car simply because it was done against their immediate (see momentary, ignorant, deadly desires) will and that any affection shown after would be coerced and not true appreciation and love? This Father's love was irresistible, because if He allowed ultimate resistance, the child he loved would have perished. Our court system recognizes that for a parent to not offer irresistible love in this manner is criminal, why should the God of the universe be held to a lower standard than any citizen of this country?

My second question would be, if God does not offer the post-fall Satan a chance at redemption, then is He unloving? At the very least we should be able to agree that God does not love Satan, but Geisler argues that any diminution of God's love, which has to be expressed as an offer of salvation without the violation of free will, undermines our “trust in the love of God”. To prove this point Geisler even seems to indicate in his footnote reference of Charles Darwin and Bertrand Russel that for us to believe in a God who damns sinners eternally is undermining the love of God. (See footnote 168 and please correct me if I have misread this.)

From the outset of Chosen but Free, Norman Geisler sets off on a polemical cruise of invective, caricature, and straw men, attacking and misrepresenting not only “Extreme Calvinism”(anyone who affirms 5 points of Reformed Soteriology) but traditional Arminianism and Open Theism. Geisler makes such a habit in the book of misrepresenting the opposing view and then dismantling this creation he has ascribed to his opponents that it is difficult to believe it is all without intent. The tone throughout the book was not one of genuine discourse in a spirit of communal edification, but rather that of someone who cherishes a view of freedom beyond the Scriptures, the community of faith and even God Himself. This book could have been good, but it crumbled under the weight of its flawed premise and the presuppositions of its author. For a good understanding of the Calvinism debate, see For Calvinism(Horton) and Against Calvinism(Olson). For a one-stop source of differing understandings of the doctrine of election, see Perspective on Election edited by Chad Brand. For an extended critique of Chosen But Free, see The Potter's Freedom by James White.

[Paige Cuthbertson| Turning_Every_Paige · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent resource. While it is definitely a slower, more academic work, Geisler does an excellent job of breaking down Extreme Calvinism, moderate Calvinism, and Arminianism. He uses proper hermeneutics to make biblical points, as well as logic to defend them. And while it does get a bit repetitive or overly wordy now and again, I appreciate the author’s thoroughness. Not a fast read! But very valuable if you take your time and work through it slowly and with prayer.

[Philip Brown · Rating 1 out of 5]

I often see overly negative reviews on various books and think to myself, "Sheesh, imagine being that guy. Surely he's being dramatic." The last thing I want is to be that guy. In my mind, 'that guy' is usually not credible. I'd like to think I can generally avoid giving explosive and partial reviews. As I write this I can think of numerous books I've read that I both disagreed with and didn't hate. So with all that in mind...

This book was not good. It made sweeping statements. It failed to make basic distinctions that anyone who's listening to both sides would make. It was poorly explained and self contradictory at many points (I still don't think I can tell you what Geisler actually thought on this topic). It was structured terribly and as a result was tediously repetitive. It consistently asserts propositions without proving them. It did not exegete passages, but dealt with singular verses in isolation from their context (he never walks through any passages verse by verse to give the thrust of what a passage is saying). The book is riddled with simple errors (I'm not talking differences in interpretation, I'm talking surface level saying things are in the text that aren't and vice versa). Many of the arguments were honestly infantile in their sophistication. He seems almost unaware of the various historic labels used for the positions on this topic within the last 500 years of Protestant theology, and thus uses labels that are confusing and revisionist (ie. He classes himself is a 'moderate Calvinist' and consistently labels the historic reformed faith 'extreme Calvinism,' but then he's not even consistent with that in terms of who he puts in which box, labelling Sproul as extreme, but the Westminster Confession of all things as moderate). It barely interacted with historical sources from within Protestantism. Its responses to critiques of past editions were condescending and empty. On top of that, the writing was really poor. I struggle to believe someone over the age of 18 wrote it, let alone a Ph.D in philosophy. I'd almost bet money it was a ghost writer. I teach 10-11 year olds, and if they handed in pieces of fictional writing this convoluted, I'd send them away to refine and edit their work. How this book made it through the final stages of publishing in this state is beyond me.

I've known of this book for a long time and have heard various things about it, so I'm glad I finally got to it. My copy is now heavily annotated, and the thought crossed my mind multiple times that a response needs to be written to this. Thankfully, I don't have to write it. Check out James White's excellent book 'The Potter's Freedom.' It's good in its own right, but in comparison to this its another thing altogether. lhttps://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...

[Bryant Rudisill · Rating 2 out of 5]

Has the great apologist of the Christian faith; a modern-day Thomas Aquinas; today's philosophical genius prepared a truly "definitive" work in finding a middle ground between historic Calvinsim and historic Arminianism? With the scholastic notoriety of this philosopher-theologian one would think so. However, what we have here presented by Dr. Norman Geisler is nothing more than post-modern philosophical humanism read into the texts of our beloved Scripture. Dr. Geisler's "exegesis" of Holy Text presupposes his philosophical bias, and in doing so completely contorts and distorts Scripture from its true context and meaning. In an attempt to not to appear like a new wave of Arminianism attempting to rise up from the seed of its late father, Pelagius, Dr. Geisler has made every attempt to redefine the points of historic Calvinism to suit his whim. Friends, this is not the work of our beloved scholar, Dr. Norman Geisler. As I approached the end of this treatment on God's sovereignty and man's will, all I could hope was that it was either a big joke he would clarify or that a fraud had stolen our fellow brother in faith's pen.

No sound exegesis of God's Word is offered. It is treated in a flippant and simple manner. Historic Calvinism and even John Calvin himself is taken out of it's original context and misrepresented. Dr. Geisler brandishes his sword against the straw men caricatures he's created of the "5 points," YET even then he is unable to overthrow the Reformed faith we so hold to as pure gospel. In allowing his own reasoning to interpret Scripture, rather than looking to Reason Himself found IN the Scripture, we have yet again another attempt to raise the dead corpses of the followers of Pelagius and Arminius.

In response to Dr. Geisler's response of James White's rebuttal in The Potter's Freedom, Dr. Geisler offers no exegesis against the questioned text; no defense against the argument's that White has used to reveal the "king without his clothes," so to speak. Instead, Dr. Geisler affirms he agrees (!) with most of what White says, then proceeds to show the logical fallacies presented in The Potter's Freedom. Dr. Geisler is a philosophical genius and nothing can be said of his ability to take an opponent of his and find flows in their argument; however, in doing so, Dr. Geisler falls into his own "red herring" fallacy by diverting the issue.

Soli Deo gloria!

[David Kemp · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have been looking for this book since November 5, 1990. That was the day I completed reading the book: Chosen by God (By R.C. Sproul).

Sproul introduced me in a whole new way to the depth and richness of the doctrine of the sovereignty of God—like water to a drowning man. From that day forward there has been a deep settled peace in my heart concerning life in general, my life in particular and my salvation specifically. I will forever be grateful (and indebted) to R.C. Sproul for this.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that Sproul also introduced me to what Geisler would term “extreme Calvinism”.

Most of what Sproul wrote I was comfortable with, but there was one alarming concept introduced to me which has troubled me ever since I first read Chosen by God back in 1990.

What troubled me was the concept of “Limited Atonement”.

Limited Atonement is the belief that Jesus didn’t really die for everyone—just those few special people who God decided for reasons we do not know to “elect”.

The rest of the poor blokes out there could not be saved even if they wanted to. Actually, according to extreme Calvinism even those that are saved did not “want” to be saved (how can a dead man want anything?). Instead, God simply forces a few whom He elects to be saved and they’re dragged into Heaven kicking and screaming whether they want to go or not.

Of course that is not how it is presented but for all practical purposes that is how it goes.

That concept started me on a journey that has been troubling. Here I was, preaching a gospel that declared that God loved the whole world and that God had graciously endowed everyone with the ability to hear the Gospel and believe so that “whosoever” could be saved (John 3:16). Yet people who I admired and respected told me that this was not really the case (R.C. Sproul, John Piper, and Robert L. Reymond for example).

How could that be? Enter Norman Geisler and his book “Chosen But Free.” Broadly, Geisler addresses extreme elements of both Arminianism and Calvinism weaving in sound reasoning and clear exposition from Holy Scripture. I consider Chosen But Free one of the most important books I’ve ever read and recommend it highly—for me it has been a game-breaker.

Thank God for Norman Geisler and R. C. Sproul; in the end they have both helped me tremendously.

[Todd Miles · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a very frustrating book. Geisler calls himself a "moderate Calvinist," centering himself between extreme Calvinism and extreme Arminianism. He resents being called an Arminian because he affirms the eternal security of the believer, and opts for forms of irresistible grace and unconditional election that look for all the world like resistible grace and conditional election. Fundamental to his position is his absolute commitment to libertarian free will which he refers to as "true freedom" throughout. Yet despite this he fancies himself a moderate or centrist. He is able to do this with a straight face by establishing "extreme Arminianism" as Open Theism, while "extreme Calvinism" is stock Calvinism, held by virtually every Calvinist I have ever met (including myself). How is this legitimate? Rather than rehearse all my frustrations with the book, I will simply state that he would have benefited by having a Calvinist read the manuscript and point out all the areas where Calvinists would consider his caricatures unfair. This book will encourage all those committed to libertarian freedom in their position, while not changing the minds of any Calvinists.

[Tuese Ahkiong · Rating 1 out of 5]

Geisler is so confusing. He's trying to redefine Calvinistic/Reformed theology and come out as Reformed when he is not.

[J. Rutherford · Rating 1 out of 5]

I found this book deeply unsatisfying and thoroughly unpersuasive. There are lots of reasons for this; his exegesis is the most concerning.
Geisler argues for what he calls "Moderate Calvinism," but it is hard to see what his position has in common with traditional Calvinism. By rejecting God's initiative in human salvation and denying human depravity, he affirms semi-Pelagianism, which is strongly opposed to Calvinism (and Arminianism). His view of predestination is more Arminian than Calvinist, for it is based on human decisions not God's initiative. He rejects particular redemption/limited atonement and affirms once-saved-always-saved, which is significantly different from perseverance of the saints. So, on all of the 5 points, he disagrees. I fail to see how this is "Calvinist" in any sense of the word.
For a thorough treatment of Geisler's argument and exegesis, see White's book-length critique.

[Jason · Rating 1 out of 5]

After reading this book the impression I have of the author is that he wants to be in the club, but does not want to pay the dues. What I mean by this is Norman Geisler wants to be a Calvinist, but rejects TULIP. So, to get around this obvious contradiction, he invents new categories of Calvinism. Those he opposes are called "extreme" Calvinists. Those that agree with him are moderate Calvinist. Through this book, Geisler over emphasizes the love of God at the expense of God's other attributes such as justice and wrath. As a 5 point Calvinist, I was really looking forward to reading this book and with a open mind seeing the other side. This book did nothing to convince me the 5 points are error, but instead strengthened my conviction that they are Biblical.

[Felipe Sabino · Rating 1 out of 5]

Geisler usa definições enganosas (chamando verdadeiros calvinistas de hiper-calvinistas), representa maliciosamente seus oponentes teológicos, comete várias falácias e apresenta exegeses pífias de diversos textos.

Cadê a opção de zero estrelas? Este livro é um lixo. Gastar papel para publicar uma porcaria dessa é quase um sacrilégio.

[Justin Wilson · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was a painful read. Geisler's humanistic reasoning and horrible exegesis are truly a headache.

[Charis · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's hard to rate a book based on its quality, rather than its view. So my rating has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with the view Geisler espouses.

First of all, of all the books I'd read on the subject so far, this one used Scripture more than any other, so I commend Geisler for that.

His argumentation, however, was often faulty, and quotations, whether from Scripture or other authors were often used out of context. Exegesis was shaky.

In his reply to The Potter's Freedom, Geisler claims that White sounds arrogant. While this was true of White at times, I would like to note that Geisler himself took on an arrogant tone throughout his reply. In addition, after cross-referencing some of his replies to PF, it was obvious that Geisler continued using things out of context and did not understand what White was saying.

[A · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 stars. I've wrestled with the issues (extreme) Calvinism raises, and Geisler does a fantastic job of addressing each one in turn. I agree with his "moderate Calvinist" views, holding free will and predestination in tension. He did seem to be more critical of those who hold extreme Calvinism views than I was comfortable with, and I found myself skimming the latter portions (though I'm likely just not the target audience for a critique of extreme Arminianism). But overall it was a great read and one I'll likely refer to many times going forward.

[Naomi Ferenczy]

DNF. Maybe in another life, Norm. No time to spare in this one.

[Frank Peters · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book sat for a long time on my shelf, partially due to the large range of reviews and ratings. It is evident that many love the book, and equally as many hate it. In spite of the emotions this book evidently generates, I am fully in agreement with what Geisler is trying to do. Like Geisler, I remain concerned about both extremes, but unlike Geisler, I am much more concerned about the extremes of Calvinism, which in my limited experience result in excess pride (which is rather ironic, given the Calvinist perspective) and too often a lack of fruit. On the other hand, my many Open Theist friends are people I am happy to count as brothers in Christ. For anyone reading this, I attempt to stay in the somewhat agnostic in the middle, where my Open Theist friends consider me a Calvinist, my Calvinist friends consider me an Arminian, and my mildly Calvinist, reformed friends consider me one of them. In other words, I am fairly close to Geisler and as a result could be expected to give this book a high rating. But I will not.

Even while I agree with most of his arguments, I don’t like the book. It is too dry, and reads like an encyclopaedia. As many other reviewers have pointed out, he only presents his own case well, but poorly represents everyone else. Thus, most negative comments are from Calvinists (who Geisler and I would call extreme), who are offended by his labelling their views as extreme and bothered by his misrepresenting them. Similarly, any Open Theist of Arminian would be irritated by his treatment of their views. I do however think this book could be useful by providing a platform for the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism; if there was a debate. But unfortunately, I rarely see or read any discussion and debate as each side “knows” it is correct and enjoys making a straw man of the other. Instead, I will keep trying to follow John 13:34 regardless of anyone’s viewpoint on this issue. I believe my salvation is based on what Jesus has done, not on my theological interpretation of an issue that has caused dissension and division for too many hundreds of years.

[Christian Huls · Rating 3 out of 5]

Norman Geisler claims to be a “moderate Calvinist,” referring to traditional Calvinism as “Hyper Calvinism.” However, he essentially redefines and refutes virtually every point of Calvinism (TULIP) in line with Classical Arminianism:

(1) Total Depravity
(2) Conditional Election
(3) Unlimited Atonement
(4) Universal Resistible Grace
(5) Eternal Security

Although Giesler affirms Total Depravity, he argues against the Calvinist understanding of being dead in transgressions, saying that it doesn’t render man totally unable to repent with the enabling grace of the Holy Spirit.

Similarly, Geisler claims to affirm unconditional election, saying that it’s only unconditional on the part of God, but also says that it’s conditional on the part of man, in that faith is required.

Geisler affirms that the atonement is limited in the result of salvation for those who have faith but affirms that it was unlimited in the sense that Christ clearly died for all men.

Geisler denies that God’s grace is irresistible and limited to a select few. Rather, he makes the case that God’s grace is persuasive, is given to all, and also resistible.

Finally, Geisler argues against the standard understanding of Perseverance of the Saints, which is the belief that a true, born again believer will not die in a backslidden state (in sin). However, he does affirm eternal security of the believer, or “Once Saved, Always Saved (OSAS).”

Giesler does make a strong case that love is not real if it’s not freely given. He also makes a strong case for the responsibility of man in Scripture.

Geisler argues in favor Monergism over synergism.

The Appendices are informative, as are some of his arguments. It's just unfortunate that he appears to be afraid of the Arminian or Provisionalist label.

[Daniel · Rating 1 out of 5]

Geisler has written so many useful works, but this does not even begin to make it on that list. After redefining historical positions and terms and "finally solving" the paradox of God's Sovereignty and Man's Responsibility (a claim he made on the radio) we get to hear 3 verses repeated over and over again against any argument he may come up against (never-mind that these verses are taken out of context and even misquoted). There is a reason so many have claimed that this book converted them to Calvinism.

This book reflects both Arminianism and Calvinism poorly. Also, the Calvinistic (as understood by their own confessions - such as Westminster) view of divine sovereignty and human freedom falls under the rubric of compatibilism. So, a title like "Chosen AND Free" could be affirmed by so called "extreme-Calvinist". Calvinist's deny the ability for an individual to do that which is contrary to their nature, not the freedom for self-produced motives that are consistent with their desires.

[Tom Brennan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Three stars is probably too low but four is probably too high. Geisler's work is helpful, certainly. I appreciate the balance of it most of all. The fact that he cites patristic testimony is a plus. The real strength of the work is that he doesn't shy away from any verses, difficult or not. He addresses them all. But the book's weaknesses are several. First, reading as a KJV only Christian, I found it frustrating to no end. So much of the debate about Calvinism hinges over specific words used in Scripture and what those words mean. I reject the modern renderings Geisler uses and that made much of what he had to say not applicable for me. (Yes, I realize that is just me, but this is my review, after all.) Second, he was too attached to philosophy and lists. For as much Scripture as he used - and he did use a lot - he still relied too much in my opinion on philosophical arguments. Those are tiresome. And the lists... the never ending lists...

Anyway, it is worth reading but certainly not the best articulated work I have seen on the subject.

[David Cowpar · Rating 5 out of 5]

Giesler has a great mind. He argues biblically and clearly against Calvinism’s TULIPs and the Arminian equivalent as well as universalism and other mistaken notions regarding salvation, free will, election and predestination, grace and perseverance and the characteristics of God.
Instead, Geisler posits a biblical balanced view. That is very on the nose.

This has really helped me to think through what I believe about salvation and predestination. It has immensely helpful.

The book itself is pretty short even though the subject matter is some of the deepest in theology. However, Geisler has filled over half the pages of this volume with appendices to further showcase the Bible verses used to argue Arminian and Calvinist viewpoints as well as to highlight the balanced view he, and all the early church fathers bar later Augustine, believed and preached and lived by.

[Vance · Rating 5 out of 5]

Calvinist? Arminian? Tired of the constant tug of war between the two? People usually fall into one of the two camps with some degree of intensity. The Good news is Dr. Norman Geisler carefully plots a middle road where the Sovereignty of God and the free will of man are no longer mutually exclusive (they are not logically exclusive nor should they be) If you are hard core Calvinist you will probably hate this book and if you are a hard core Arminian (as opposed to a hard core Armenian)then you will probably hate it as well. However, if you realized that there are strong arguments for both with nothing really resolving itself then this is the book for you. Dr. Geisler lays out a balanced, biblical case for this refreshing perspective.

[Matt · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is deceptive in the use of its labels "moderate calvinism" and "moderate arminianism". What is presented is none of those. There is no calvinism whatsoever without a God given faith through the spirit (total depravity). Remove that (like Geisler did) and you end up with something (Thomism), but certainly not a form of calvinism. There a better books presenting an alternative to calvinism.

[NG · Rating 1 out of 5]

Chosen But Free by Norman Geisler did not fully meet my expectations, but was an interesting book in some aspects.
1) The author misrepresented both arminians and calvinists (particularly by referring the “regular” calvinists (e.g. RC Sproul, Piper) as “extreme”).
2) He fails to comprehend compatibilism (see Johnathan Edwards, Sproul, Piper, James White...etc) and attempts to create his own version of compatibilism whereby men are “chosen but free”.
3) He denies a logical succession in the (fore)knowledge and (fore)ordination/eternal decree of God. He would state that truth is found in neither the simple foreknowledge viewpoint of many arminians (God foresees the free act of man from eternity past and then elects conditionally) nor the viewpoint of calvinists (all events flow from God’s eternal decree, including the unconditional election of a people until Himself based on His good pleasure and NOT according to the foreseen actions of men who “choose God”). Geisler proposes that election is unconditional from God’s perspective and conditional from man’s perspective: neither free will nor God’s sovereignty are violated because God’s foreknowledge and decree occur simultaneously as God exists outside of time (he determinately knows and knowingly determines). While this sounds like a fancy way out of being labeled either a Calvinist or an Arminian, I think ultimately he proves to be inconsistent throughout the book to maintain his “balanced view” while caricaturing the opposing systems. If God knowingly determines anything, then it is knowingly determined (end of story, RIP to the imagined “libertarian” free will and all suggestions of proposed contrary choice). Furthermore there is a difference in “foreknow” a verb and “foreknowledge”. Foreknow is an action (God chooses to do this) not a noun as is foreknowledge.
Romans 8:29-30
[29] For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. [30] Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Matthew 7:23
[23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
4) Any book that requires 14 appendices clearly failed to make its point in the 200 pages on non-appendix text.
5) He drastically downplays the sinfulness of sin. Most people who properly understand sin, understand “total depravity”. Geisler presents an allegorical story of a farmer who posts a “no swimming” sign next to a pond on his property. When the neighborhood kids are found by the farmer to be drowning in his pond, he then either saves only one of the boys or tries to save all 3 of the kids. James White provides a great refutation to this example. It fails in multiple respects to accurately represent God or man. The farmer is not “creator” of the boys, his law (no swimming) relates nothing to actual sin (murder, rape...etc.), the transgression was action against an arbitrary sign (not a personal sin against the farmer), the farmer is not acting from eternity with any eternal characteristics of God (he just happens to find the boys drowning)...etc. These kind of examples do little to provide one an accurate picture of the nature of God, the nature of man, and the nature of sin.
6) His attempt to prove Calvin was not a Calvinist I think had the opposite effect. Although he pulls very selective quotes from Calvin, the careful reader will see that Calvin defines his terms and uses them consistently throughout his writings. It is only when we assign presupposed meanings to his words (such as our ideas of “all” or “world”) we find supposed contradictions in his teachings. Far from infallible, Calvin was nevertheless clear in the quotes provided by Geisler to be in fact, a Calvinist.

[Gabriel Magill · Rating 1 out of 5]

I first read this book years ago when I was fairly new to Reformed (Calvinistic) theology and remember thinking it was unpersuasive for me but I thought it was one of the best defensive a of the anti-Calvinist position. After having read more of the Reformed authors he is critiquing in this book, I wanted to reread this book to see how he handled the foundational works on Calvinistic thought. I was sorely disappointed to realize Geisler does not critique them well at all, and the numerous logical fallacies he makes in his arguments stood out to me this time.

My critiques of his specific arguments became so numerous I gave up noting them all halfway through the book, so I will only give my biggest issue with his position. Geisler never explains how he believes man’s will works. He never explains why some men chose God and some men, who have all the same knowledge as the first, reject him. He disagrees with Jonathan Edward’s that our will is determined by the influence of our desires, saying the cause of man’s choices is not determined but self-generated like God’s will. But why do men choose one action over another? What determines how their will chooses? Geisler never answers this question.

Geisler also insists that God has determined he will never coerce man, he will only woo them, and that this is a self-imposed limitation of God based on his nature. Yet the only evidence he gives for this view is a quote by C.S. Lewis; no Scriptural defense of this claim at all. He further claims that Calvinism teaches that God coerces men to salvation against their will (which it does not teach) and that God only “persuades” men, but never to the extreme that he interferes with their will. This is such an absurd position. The point of persuasion is to so convince someone of a truth they cannot deny it or to stir up such a strong desire the person feels it. The idea that God has to stop persuading someone at some point before they make a decision so their will is not overridden is to both misunderstand the human will and the purpose of persuasion. Further, he contradicts his own position later on the book when he criticizes Calvinism and the doctrine of limited atonement of making prayer for the lost unnecessary because they are already destined for heaven or hell. He claims his balanced view is the only view that makes sense of praying for lost sinners because his view is the only one that teaches “While prayer cannot change God’s nature, he can use it to implement his will to change people or things.” Hold up! God can use his will to change people? That sounds like God used his persuasion to influence a man to act contrary to his sinful will, something he claims God does not do. Geisler, through this argument, accidentally makes a stronger case for Calvinism by showing prayer for the lost only makes sense if God can actually effectually act to change a person’s heart and sovereignly bring them to repentance.

This book badly misrepresents basic Reformed doctrines, labels reformed teachers like R.C. Sproul, John Piper, and Jonathan Edward’s as “extreme,” and regularly makes logical fallacies in his arguments. I would not recommend this book.

[Brian Pate · Rating 1 out of 5]

Read for the internship at Stanley Heights Baptist Church.

There was some good in this book, like the first chapter, which I agreed with entirely. “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” (18).

He states, “Ought implies can” (30). Since we are commanded to believe, he assumes that we are able to respond (35). However, throughout the Bible, people have been commanded to do things they cannot do, like circumcise their hearts or for dry bones to live.

Geisler relied heavily on “good reason” (e.g., 33), philosophy, and logic. It is hard to blame him because he is, first and foremost, an apologist. I would have liked it if he dealt with more Scripture. “The logic is flawless” (43). He often says, “as is clear from the Bible and good reason” (e.g., 33, 44, 48). I feel like he is trying to squeeze God into the box of “logic.”

He attempts to force Calvinists into a logical trilemma of choosing between God’s (1) omnipotence, (2) omnibenevolence, and (3) sovereign election (e.g., 179). This is not the Calvinist’s problem. This is God’s problem! It is his mystery, and he has chosen not to reveal it to us.

His labels are very confusing: “Extreme Calvinism” and “Moderate Calvinism.” Within MC, he includes Ryrie, Walvoord, and Chafer, even stating that they were 4-point Calvinists. Throughout chapter 2, he favorably quotes W. G. T. Shedd, a “moderate Calvinist.” Geisler calls himself a moderate Calvinist (99) when he is nothing close to a Calvinist (he attempts to undermine and then redefine 4 of the points!). At times, I agreed with both EC and MC. At times, MC was not Calvinism at all! In his explanation of EC, he lumped together some truly extreme opinions (hyper-Calvinism) with normal Calvinism. This is very misleading. It is also misleading to call your position “moderate Calvinism” when it is not anything close to traditional Calvinism. He does not call Calvin an EC because he was only 4-point, even though he was “extreme” on those four points (160). Misleading.

He is concerned with two extremes: traditional Calvinism and Open Theism. If you fall between these “extremes,” then apparently you are okay.

The position espoused by Geisler is actually “moderate Arminianism.” It is traditional Arminianism, modified on two points: he believes in the substitutionary atonement and eternal security. Therefore, it is dishonest to call himself a “moderate Calvinist.” (If he is so opposed to Calvinism, why would he want to be anything akin to it?)

[Christopher Humphrey · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of God’s Sovereignty and Free Will” by Norman Geisler is a book that frames the debate on the role of the sovereignty of God in salvation. Professor Geisler sets forth the Reformed view, which he pejoratively labels “Extreme Calvinism.” He contracts this view with Arminian theology and the extreme form of Arminianism know as “Open Theism.” Dr. Geisler then sets forth his view on sovereignty by arguing for his personal view, which he labels the “Balanced View.” Yes, Dr. Geisler knows how to frame a debate indeed.

I found Geisler’s taxonomy of positions helpful. However, I do not think that Dr. Geisler always fully reflected the competing views. Instead, Dr. Geisler set up a series of straw men that were easily defeated. This book would have been more academically impressive and theologically helpful if Geisler would have opened this book to allow scholars with competing views to present their position in a debate-style format. This approach would have produced a much more rigorous handling of this important area of theology.

While I vigorously disagree with Dr. Geisler’s conclusions on the ordo salutis (ie., the order of salvation—regeneration preceding faith in a monergistic act of a sovereign God), I appreciate Dr. Geisler’s desire to know and to communicate the truth of Scripture. And even though Dr. Geisler and I would set forth a different timeline on the ordo salutis, we both agree that faith in the work of Christ on our behalf on the cross in concert with repentance of sin is a necessary requirement for salvation. In short, Dr. Geisler is not advocating for another Gospel; rather, Geisler is simply setting forth what he believes to be the biblical (ahem, the “balanced view”) on the work of God in salvation.

I certainly did appreciate Dr. Geisler’s exhaustive approach. Indeed, the references to Scripture are abundant and daunting. However, this abundance in citation led to an under-treatment in exegesis. There was, no doubt, quite a wrestling match between Dr. Geisler and his editor! Yet to his credit, Professor Geisler provided an extremely helpful overview of the subject. He certainly raised arguments with which I will now need to wrestle—and that is what a good professor does: he causes his students to think. So,thank you Dr. Geisler for your scholarship and for making me think. Happy reading!

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

FAMED APOLOGIST ASKS---AND ANSWERS---MANY DIFFICULT QUESTIONS

Norman L. Geisler (b. 1932) is a well-known Christian apologist and co-founder of Southern Evangelical Seminary, where he formerly taught. He has written many books, such as 'Philosophy of Religion,' 'Christian Apologetics,' 'Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective,' 'Creating God in the Image of Man?', etc.

Geisler describes himself as a "moderate Calvinist" (Pg. 96, 117). He wrote in the first chapter of this 1999 book, "If God is sovereign, how then can we be free? Does not divine sovereignty make a sham of human responsibility? Is not a sovereign God a Giant Puppet Master, pulling the strings of human 'puppets' at His will? If God is in complete control of everything, including human choice, then how can we be truly free? Are not sovereignty and significant free will mutually exclusive? These questions are the subject of the rest of this book."

He asks where Lucifer got the desire to sin: "If it did not come from God, then it must have come from himself... which is exactly the view of human free will that the strong Calvinist rejects." (Pg. 21) He suggests instead that if God made free creatures and it is good to be free, "the origin of evil is in the misuse of freedom." (Pg. 22) He adds that the God of Calvin and Jonathan Edwards "must take the rap for giving Lucifer and Adam the desire to sin. For if the original perfect creature's will is in neutral... until God moves on it... then there is only one person left in the universe to do it---God!" (Pg. 24)

He rejects determinism, but adds, "this not to deny that all free acts are determined by God in the sense that He foreknew---for sure---that we would freely perform them." (Pg. 31) He cites many Bible passages (e.g., Jn 3:16; Rom 5:5; 2 Cor 5:19) which he believes declare that "Jesus died for more than the elect." (Pg. 77) Yet he also rejects Arminianism, because "It is my conviction that the Bible favors the Calvinist's position of eternal security---that a truly saved person can never lose his/her salvation." (Pg. 117)

While it may not convince every reader, Geisler's tightly-argued book is a fine contribution to this discussion.

[Tung · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’ve read several books/excerpts of books by Geisler and my past experience with his stuff has been that – while he is super smart about theology – his writing has been too dry for my tastes; his writing is primarily for doctoral candidate seminary students. But I was given this book by Geisler to read, so I read it. The cover notes that this book is focused on presenting a balanced view of divine election, but I found it to be less a book about divine election and more a book about moderate Calvinism (typical evangelical theological position). Geisler critiques the extreme Calvinist and Arminian positions on unconditional election and then expands and critiques both positions’ overall theological beliefs around the five points of Calvinism. As is the case when presenting a written argument against another position, Geisler often argues against caricatures of extreme Calvinists and Arminians rather than fully accurate representations of their beliefs. He also debates both sides’ interpretations of individual Bible verses rather than debating the coherency and consistency of their logic and framework. So depending where you fall theologically, you will either agree or wildly disagree with this book; there is no middle ground, really. I found Geisler’s prose in this more readable than the other Geisler books I’ve read (less technical, more analogies). While this book did not change my theological position, it did make me pause and consider his arguments carefully. I think this book would be useful as a resource when debating extreme positions, especially in sections where Geisler notes all of the key Bible verses presents how one side interprets that verse, and then provides counter arguments against those interpretations. Decent read for those interested in theology; probably a pass for the rest.

[Daniel Rowland · Rating 2 out of 5]

It pains me to offer this critical review of Geisler because I respect him very much, philosophically and personally. I initially gave this three stars, but I had to change it because I seriously don’t think this book is a positive contribution to the discussion. I’ll try to offer some unique points of critique so I’m not simply echoing other people here. Firstly, Geisler’s task is a noble one. He is seeking to provide a balanced synthesis of predestination and free will. I can’t fault him for putting in the effort. However, I think he tries balancing the two so finely that he falls over into horrid contradictions. Honestly, I still am not completely sure what his view is, because he seems to vacillate every other page.

He condemns the Calvinist (extreme Calvinism in his words) because they hold to theistic determinism which violates free will. Yet, he turns around and claims that God foreordains everything, including the free acts of men. If this isn’t divine determinism, what is? The question becomes: if this is the case how is man morally responsible? Geisler’s answer is that although God foreordains free acts, he is not the efficient cause of them; to which the traditional Calvinist says amen! For example, Greg Bahnsen, who is by no means a “moderate Calvinist”, held this view almost identically—that God has the power to foreordain free actions without coercion. Geisler is creating a disagreement where there need not be one.

Geisler also repeatedly claims that the Calvinist teaches that God forces people to believe against their will. Again, this is a mischaracterization. Most Calvinists teach that God elects people to believe according to their will, not against it. He changes their will, he doesn’t override it. Based on these charges, you might think that Geisler would consider himself an Arminian. This is not the case though. He offers a critique of Arminianism, albeit not quite as harsh as his critique of Calvinists. It seems to me that his only substantial critique of “moderate Arminianism” is their belief that God’s foreordination is based upon his foreknowledge. He argues against this, and in this sense, he sounds like a Calvinist. However, Geisler uses an analogy of a man choosing a wife, and in this analogy the man’s decision is based upon his foreknowledge of future outcomes. If this is analogous to God (which Geisler claims it to be) I don’t understand how Geisler can claim God’s choice is not based on foreknowledge.

Furthermore, Geisler says that neither is election based on foreknowledge, nor is foreknowledge based on election. Instead, the two occur simultaneously in the mind of God. This is easy enough to say, but of course, as soon as you admit that God’s election is logically primary, how could you possibly maintain that it is based upon his foreknowledge in any meaningful sense? My point is: to say God’s election is based on his foreknowledge AND ALSO his foreknowledge is based on his election is contradictory. Either one is the primary or the other is. It sounds like a balanced doctrine, but in reality Geisler has fallen into the immense void of contradiction that is between the two views.

When it comes to Biblical exegesis, Geisler’s work is extremely lacking. I can’t count the number of times he quoted John 3:16 out of context as if it somehow was a demonstrative proof against limited atonement. Geisler does mention Romans 9 in passing a couple times, but only waved at it as it went by. His treatment of it was embarrassingly sparse. Overall, it seems like Geisler was more concerned with upholding presupposition of libertarian freedom than he was with giving a serious look at the passages.

One last point: Geisler claims to be on the side of Thomas Aquinas when it comes to free will, and it might be the case during one phase of Geisler’s vacillation. But I don't understand how Geisler could still ally himself with Thomas if he read Aquinas’ commentaries on Romans 9, John 6, and his “On Predestination” in the Summa Theologicae. You would think it was coming from the pen of Jonathan Edwards.

Speaking of Edwards, in the appendix Geisler offers an answer to Jonathan Edwards’ “Freedom of the Will”, arguing that libertarian freedom is possible because a free agent can be self-caused. Geisler’s two-page response doesn’t even touch Edwards for the mere reason that Edwards preemptively responded to this claim many times over in Freedom of the Will.

In summary, I expected better from Geisler. I really wanted to hear a cogent challenge to the reformed position and I thought of all people Norman Geisler could deliver it; but it certainly isn’t to be found in this book. I give him two stars for a valiant effort, recognizing that he is in heaven now, possibly discussing this subject with Edwards, Calvin, and Aquinas themselves.

[Dennis Henn · Rating 2 out of 5]

Full disclosure--I chose to stop on page 140. God ordained this decision, I suspect.
What was good--Lots of Scripture pertaining to predestination and people making decisions
What was weak--Geisler's logic. He contends that we must accept some form of predestination because Scripture references it. We just shouldn't take it to an extreme because that makes us a puppet and such hyper-Calvinism is fatalistic. Therefore we must accept some degree of free choice and to do so, Geisler cites Scripture where people are called to decide, "Repent and be baptized." This doesn't prove free choice, though. None of his references compelled me. His dismissal of passages like Ephesians 2 and Romans 9 as predestination strongholds were for no other reason than they couldn't be advocating predestination because then we wouldn't have a choice and that wouldn't be fair because God wants all people to be saved and if God does want all to be saved and they aren't, why aren't they?
Appendix One, Great Church Fathers on Free Will is a helpful resource

[Stephen Walls · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book. After reading a couple of books written by Calvinists, it was nice to read something a little more balanced. I thought Mr. Geisler did a good job with this. I know he has been critiqued for this book, but usually I only hear it from the Calvinitic churches. After reading this myself and having spent years in the Reformed Church, i thought this did a good job trying to draw a line between Extreme (consistent) Calvinists and moderate Calvinists. This book tries to give a brief walkthrough of various topics from the moderate and extreme Calvinistic vantage point as well as the moderate and extreme Arminian perspective as well. The book brings in a lot of scripture to build the various cases. All in all, I enjoyed this book and think it was fairly accurate on most accounts.