As the title would imply, Norman Geisler’s book Chosen But Free deals predominantly with the age-old theological debate surrounding Calvinism and Arminianism. From the onset of the text, Geisler is very deliberate in his delineation of the two viewpoints, and establishes their respective approaches to faith more than amicably; even going so far as providing appendices that lay out the different scriptural passages and historical examples that would appear to support each.

However, my qualms with Geisler begin when he labels the arguments “Extreme” Calvinism and Arminianism. Identifying as a “Moderate Calvinist” himself, he subtly hints throughout the text at the dangers of extremism. For example, what Geisler terms “Extreme” Calvinism is, in actuality, run-of-the-mill Calvinism. To Gesiler, and “Extreme” Calvinist adheres to the Five Points of Calvinism (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints). Logic would seem to indicate that assenting to the foundational tenets or belief structure of any given system would simply make you an adherent (In this case, a Calvinist) not a fanatical zealot.The even more frustrating point here is that he goes on to mention Hyper-Calvinism and its ramifications, but holds to the inflammatory terminology that he utilized prior, labeling adherence disingenuously as an “Extreme” viewpoint. Geisler attempts to occupy the ambiguous no mans land between the two concepts, terming himself a “Three Point Calvinist” in an attempt to placate both sides and demonstrate some shred of objectivity.

Another concern that I have while reading Geisler’s text is how he seems to categorically misrepresent both viewpoints to render them more amenable to his arguments. Chapter two contains a particularly egregious example of this tendency towards Straw Man Argumentation where he “answers” the causality of sin by simply ignoring God’s Sovereignty. He states rather flatly, “Neither the devil nor God made me do it, then who did? The biblical answer is that I did. That is, “I” or “self” is the cause of evil.” This argument in itself is self defeating in the context of Calvinism. By saying that there is an act that can have causal origin apart from God, you have removed God’s divine intervention in the world , effectively neutering Calvinist Theology. Likewise, in his response to the Arminian idea of foreknowledge, Geisler devalues the Calvinist belief in predestination, as God is not actively directing the course of human history, he is only aware of it.

Though the error in titular descriptions and the plethora of logical fallacies are admittedly frustrating, it is not the most disturbing point present in the text. My most significant reservation where this text is concerned is the overarching idea of the text. Rather than defend one viewpoint or the other, Geisler has simply muddied the waters. Though I do believe that Calvinism and Arminianism are not mutually exclusive concepts and can be equally represented in a sound theological stance; Geisler does not. Geisler holds to the title of Calvinism, but offers no conclusive leanings or proofs exclusively for Calvinism. Divisive to church congregations enough as concepts, neither Calvinism nor Arminianism are done any credit by superfluous discussion such as the content in Chosen But Free.

I believe that one of the most divisive issues in the church today is whether or not the use of tongues in worship is permissible; or even biblical at all. In my opinion, the question of whether or not “tongues are for today” is deeply presumptuous on our part. As finite, created beings, we have no rights or authority to give God mandates, or to attempt to limit his power. I do believe tongues are for today, simply because I believe that God can move however he wants in anyone’s life at anytime. That being said, I have never been in a situation where tongues were utilized biblically to worship. Now, at the onset of this, let me first point out that I am referencing joyous utterances, not evangelistic tongues (as I have never witnessed anyone spontaneously speak a new language of which they had no previous knowledge). Tongues in the bible are something that was encountered in the early church, a way to praise God beyond the limits of human speech, but there were very strict rules about how it was to be properly used. One of the most basic rules is that whenever someone was speaking in tongues in the early church, they were required to have a translator present that could identify what the speaker was saying, and if no interpreter was to be named among them, then that speaker should hold his peace. Anyone who has visited a congregation that encourages tongues has probably encountered an auditorium full of unchecked utterances, that cause discord in the body and are not edifying to anyone else’s worship. Another prominent issue in the tongues debate is that of productivity. In their purest form, tongues are meant to edify the body in worship, but unless they follow the rules set forth in the bible, they only cause discord.

Church is a concept that a good majority of Americas are familiar with. Especially for a “Good ‘Ol Boy” like me who grew up in the South, the church is not just something that is woven into my personal moral fabric, but the fabric of the local community at large. In the South church is a Verb, not a Noun, church is something you do; for the majority of my childhood, I understood church as a social club composed of competing members rather than a house of worship comprised of a body of believers. My childhood was punctuated by altar calls and fire and brimstone preaching; growing up, I prayed a prayer that I was told would save my soul from eternal torture, and after that, I lived my life as if nothing new or strange had occurred. It wasn’t until I got to the age of sixteen that I realized that I was different than many of my Christian peers. They projected a singularity of purpose that I was separated from, and was desperate to understand. It was only after extensive contemplation and searching that I realized that the concept that I had bungled, had been that prayer that I said to myself. I came to realize that an intellectual knowledge surrounding the life and works of Jesus Christ was simply inadequate to ascend to the level of my christian peers, and that an active lifestyle change was what was required of me. After realizing this, I made the decision to dedicate my life to Jesus Christ and all that he teaches, and to live my life as closely as I possibly can to the way he set forth for his followers.