Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of God's Sovereignty and Free Will

Norman Geisler's `Chosen but Free' is a popular level discussion of the relationship between divine sovereignty and free will. Geisler is a prolific writer and well know contemporary evangelical scholar. The following comments pertain to the 2010 edition of the text.A self-identified moderate Calvinist Geisler's objective in the book is to argue for what he refers to as a balanced view of sovereignty and free will. He situates his position between two positions which he refers to as the Extreme Arminianism (Open Theism) and Extreme Calvinism. Geisler contends that both of these views are biblically and philosophically flawed, the former because it scarifies God's sovereignty and later because it compromises God's love. While Geisler spends some time interacting with Open Theism, the vast majority of book is aimed at refuting Extreme Calvinism. While Geisler interacts with a range of classic and contemporary commentators such as Augustine, Calvin, Spurgeon and Piper his primary interlocutor is R.C Sproul a leading contemporary Calvinist. Indeed, for readers seeking a balanced introduction to this topic I recommend reading both Sproul (esp. Chosen by God) and Geisler, they are a good match, senior churchmen speaking to a similar popular audience.While the text has much strength, I offer a couple thoughts with regard to potential drawbacks. First, it is important to realize that this is very much an introductory text and as such it moves quickly through a wide range of material that readers may want to consider in more depth. Second, notwithstanding some important comments about reading the Bible holistically, the analysis is largely conducted on a verse-by-verse (proof texting) basis. And while specific texts need exegesis, an overly decontextualised approach lends itself reading theological presuppositions into text through esoteric translation and interpretation. That said, Geisler's exegesis struck me as generally solid (some readers will undoubtedly disagree).As an aside, It increasingly strikes me that the position one takes on the relationship between divine sovereignty and free will is largely contingent on certain key presuppositions; e.g. does human free will detract from the God of majesty, implying a limited God who is dependant on creatures to achieve his objectives, or is God capable of achieving his goals through the free acts of human agents, and, second, is the acceptance of God's free gift of grace a meritorious act?Overall, I highly recommend reading this book in conjunction with Sproul's Chosen by God. Readers interested in this issue may also enjoy some radio/podcast debates between Michael Brown and James White available through the archives of their respective programs.

“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!

I really wanted to stay out of this debate. But it's something that keeps coming up. I've found that Calvinists are very aggressive in propounding their ideology, and so I've finally succumb to researching it beyond what the Bible itself says.I still think no book is necessary to understand this topic other than the Bible, and the moment someone starts recommending me a book that I have to read to understand their doctrine I proceed with caution. There is a severe lack of independent critical thinking amongst people these days, Christians included. We are all too prone to simply make a conclusory statement and refer someone to some book as the proof.We need to get away from that and be able to explain, in our own words, what the Bible says.But, a book like this one can be helpful in coming to that place in our walk. So far I've found this one to be well thought out and persuasive. I will update my review when I've finished it with pros and cons.In the mean time, don't forget to consult your Bible and God Himself in prayer on all this.

'Geisler the confused' is the only comment for this book. A man of such a calibre should not write things that are unbiblical (this is not to say that he should become a Calvinistic). The way he presents his arguments are very poor and not worth reading.

Why did I spend this much

Very good