# The Potters Freedom and Norman Geislers response



## Croghanite (Apr 3, 2008)

Has Norman Geisler responded in anyway to _The Potters Freedom_ by James White?


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 3, 2008)

I believe the second edition of Geisler's book is his attempt at a response, which he placed in an appendix. Ergun Caner, for example, says that Geisler adequately answsered White and there is nothing else to say to White or his argument. He uses Geisler's appendix as dismissing the need to engage White in personal debate (why bother when Geisler has already dismantled the man?). As in the case of the first edition, Geisler tends to use sources selectively and unfairly, to rely upon secondary sources rather than interacting with the principals, and to be rather light on the scriptural proof of his position.

Geisler has always been a bit of a paradox to me. I have almost all of his stuff and have used it with great appreciation. However, the man seems to have a mean streak in him when it comes to his opponents. I can remember a lecture in 1982 where I was utterly taken aback by unfair tactics and disingenuous comments. In fact, he made a factual mistatement about a professor I knew personally. In the Q&A, we were asked to turn in questions, comments, etc. My only piece of scrap paper was an odd color, so when Geisler picked it up and read it to himself, I knew that he had my question/comment challenging his untruthful comment. He quickly put it down, announced that it had been a question prevously dealt with, and dismissed the group in prayer. 

Numerous reviewers, particularly of a Calvinist or Reformed stripe have complained about the misuse of sources in CBF. From what I gather, the second edition has not been an improvement in that respect.


----------



## Croghanite (Apr 3, 2008)

I dont want to get the book. Is there any writing online where Mr. Geisler gives a response?


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 3, 2008)

LAYMAN JOE said:


> I dont want to get the book. Is there any writing online where Mr. Geisler gives a response?



Try vintage.aomin.org/CBFRep2.html. Here is a point-by-point refutation: vintage.aomin.org/CBF2RepNts.html.
Here is Geisler's audio lecture: "Why I Am Not a 5 Pt. Calvinist" Media Desk.


----------



## A5pointer (Apr 3, 2008)

Geisler can have no cogent response. I attended a 1 day seminar he gave on his book. I sat right under his podium. He was always nice and gracious in defense. As the only calvinist in attendance I was alone in confronting him on several issues. Let me say that intentional or not his scholarship(lightly used term) was not honest. In no particular order:

1. He suggested that those who hold to the traditional 5 points, like we do are referred to as hyper-Calvinists while suggesting that his view was to be properly called calvinism. When I suggested to him in front of all in attendance that he was redefining historically agreed terms he something like this. "Oh call it wahtever you want it does not matter"

2. Strawmen, He rolled out the typical one's including the portrayal of God as shutting out men who desire salvation and forcing others to believe. I suggested to him that he knew very well that no Calvinist would ever make those claims and that he knew better. No reply to that.

3. His book quotes Calvin himself out of context to make it seem as Calvin himself did not agree with the system named after him. Amazing.

4. While explaining Romans 9 he went with typical class deal and pointed to the OT text for proof that Paul was referring Nations of Edom and Israel and not individuals. Again I raised my hand and asked him why he would ignore clear mention of individuals in the Romans text and allow it to be overidden by the OT text. Again he had no answer and there was a quiet bizz in the room.

I can't remember if he played the ServetusI card but itt just went on and on. I have always heard of him to be an able scholar and was amazed that his opposition to the doctrines of grace could completely overide any sense of responsible scholarship. I am convinced that he knows better unlike David Hunt. What saddend me the most was that several who came there with no knowledge of the issues left thinking themselves to be Calvinist and seeing folks like us as the nasty crazy Hyper-Calvinist. Pure dis-information. Again I must say that he is a nice man. We parted on very friendly terms. 

You do know that White's book was a response to Geisler and not the other way around.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Apr 3, 2008)

I have White's book. It was a gift from a friend and I have recommened it to many as well as lent out my copy a few times. Geisler dismantle White? Not likely. White's book absolutely decimates Geisler's argument to the point that frankly, makes Geisler look foolish.

A friend of mine read Geisler's book a few years back and stated that it was a horrible misrepresentation of Calvin.


----------



## Zenas (Apr 3, 2008)

From all reports I have gotten, Geisler is a liar. I doubt it's worth entertaining whatever semblance of a response he had.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Apr 3, 2008)

In all fairness, Geisler has put out some very good material when it comes to certain things. I found "Answering Islam" to be very helpful when it first appeared years ago.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 3, 2008)

Zenas said:


> From all reports I have gotten, Geisler is a liar. I doubt it's worth entertaining whatever semblance of a response he had.



I was attempting to parse my words a little less baldly, but my experience with him in '82 (and in print since) makes me wonder at how fairly he treats his opponents. His book on the bodily resurrection is a masterful refutation of sub-biblical views. However, he rather unfairly claims that the TEDS scholar he was attempting to dismantle held the views he attacked so masterfully.

As indicated, his material has always been helpful to me. However, it does make one wonder how accurately he treats people and positions you don't know when you see how inaccurately he handles the ones you do have specific knowledge about.

And, yes, I realize that Geisler wrote CBF, then White responded with PF, and finally Geisler added an appendix dealing with White to CBF in the second edition.


----------

