Norman L. GeislerRezensionen

A Bíblia e Como Chegou Até Nós (Ed. Vida)

Wow! There's a lot to chew on in this book. It offers logical steps on a faith journey - even if that seems oxymoronic. From Einstein to Jesus, it's a remarkable read.

Hoje a verdade é um conceito impopular. A cultura deste século a têm trocado pelos escorregadios caminhos do relativismo e do pluralismo, nos quais a opinião pessoal e os sentimentos contam mais que a verdade universal. Entretanto, a verdade é muito mais que um modismo – ela é imutável. Em Fundamentos Inabaláveis, Norman Geisler e Peter Bocchino mostram como é importante distinguir entre o que é uma questão de preferência e o que é um princípio absoluto. De forma clara e acessível, eles ensinam o povo de Deus a responder às inevitáveis controvérsias que surgem dessa discussão.
A Cultura secular declarou guerra ao cristianismo. Para fornecer respostas convincentes, os cristãos precisam desenvolver uma visão de mundo mais apurada – uma maneira de compreender o que está se passando ao nosso redor de uma perspectiva menos superficial. Este livro não proporciona apenas respostas convincentes sobre assuntos polêmicos, mas também a oportunidade de transformar vidas quando se enxergar o mundo através das lentes de verdade. Fundamentos Inabaláveis é repleto de ilustrações e analogias que explicam de forma objetiva temas como: questões de biomedicina e genética: clonagem – macroevolução… ética: bioética – eutanásia – aborto… questões de fé: ciência e fé – o problema do mal – céu – inferno…

Jesus Christ is the center of the Bible and the key to both the inspiration and the interpretation of all sixty-six books in it. That is Geisler's view. Written to help the lay person's biblical theology. Here is a sample from the chapter on Leviticus: "Exodus is a book of deliverance; Leviticus is a book of purification. Exodus tells of the redemption of the Jewish people; Leviticus relates their sanctification. It has been said that it took God only one night to get Israel out of Egypt but it took forty years to get Egypt out of them..."

Carol Stream, ILL

51198

55367

56896

Challenges to Christianity come from a variety of people and belief systems, and Christians are continually searching for the appropriate responses to critics of their faith. The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics is a definitive one-volume resource designed to equip believers for Christian defense against the full range of opposing arguments.

This comprehensive reference volume examines every key issue, person, and concept related to Christian apologetics. Written entirely by leading apologist Norman Geisler, it stands as the culmination of the author’s lifelong career and ministry.

The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics offers valuable information and advice to a wide audience. The author provides extensive coverage of key individuals, philosophical systems and concepts, contemporary issues, difficult biblical passages, classic apologetic arguments, and specific challenges.

In the Logos edition, all Scripture passages in Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics are tagged and appear on mouse-over, and all Scripture passages link to your favorite Bible translation in your library. With Logos’ advanced features, you can perform powerful searches by topic or Scripture reference.

My professor recommended this book and a few months later it happened to be temporarily free for the Kindle, so I jumped on it! I am so glad I did. The author tackles some very tough, yet very common questions about God, good and evil, yet he does it in a straightforward and easy-to-understand way. Highly, HIGHLY recommended for anyone who is questioning God, or anyone who just wants a to be able to more thoroughly address those deep questions.

This book has four parts: inspiration, canonicity, transmission, and translation.

The general conclusion of the book sums it up well:

The general purpose of this book has been twofold: historical and theological. Historically and critically, it has been an attempt to answer the question as to whether the Bible of the twentieth century, based as it is on the critical Hebrew and Greek texts, is a faithful reproduction of the books produced by its original authors. The answer is by now obvious, and it is this: No book from antiquity comes to the modern world with greater evidence for its authenticity than does the Bible. Both the kind and the amount of evidence that supports the fidelity of the present critical text are greater than for any other book from the ancient world.

Directly related to this historical conclusion is a theological one. For if there is overwhelming evidence that the biblical documents are genuine and authentic -- that they stem from alleged periods and authors -- then one must face seriously their persistent claim to divine inspiration. When these claims are thoroughly examined and honestly faced, one can but conclude that the Bible as a whole claims to be the Word of God, and the evidence confirms this claim.

Along with the question as to whether the books of the Bible are divinely inspired, it has been necessary to address the kindred question as to which books of the Bible are inspired, that is, the question of canonicity. One statement will suffice as a summary for both this and the foregoing question. The sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible known today are the entire and complete canon of inspired Scripture, handed down through the centuries without substantial change or any doctrinal variation.

Now, that is what they think. Predictably, as an atheist, I disagree that their arguments are as conclusive as they think they are. Their arguments tend to be rather one sided. When they agree with a point, they only consider the evidence that agrees with that position. When they disagree with a point, they dwell nearly exclusively on anything negative which can be said of this view. Now, this may not be an invalid method of arguing in the social sciences, but when one is making the claims these authors make about the Bible, I expect a higher standard than one would use to argue, for example, deeper meanings behind Oliver Twist. The authors even explicitly spell out their bias on page 156:

Any results of higher criticism that are contrary to [the orthodox view of the Bible] are incompatible with the traditional doctrine of the inspiration and authority of Scripture... such contrary views of Scripture are actually unorthodox.

This does not seem like honest evaluation of the evidence to me. Later the authors claim that any criticisms contrary to their belief must be based in various "isms" (and obviously all "isms" are evil).

Overall, the authors have a very conservative Protestant point of view, and they do not work so much to justify it as to show how taking that point of view as a starting point, the opinions of the Bible implied by that point of view follow.

This is the evidence that the authors claim prove the Bible is the Word of God and, parenthetically, my opinion of these "proofs":

1. The nature of the Bible itself is evidence for its inspiration (a false dichotomy that the authors of the Bible were either telling the truth or consciously lying).

2. The witness of the Spirit to the heart of the believer (sure, if you're only trying to convince people who believe the Bible is inspired that it is inspired).

3. The ability of the Bible to transform people's lives (lots of religions and non-religious belief systems make that claim).

4. Some of the events in the Bible are confirmed by historic evidence (wow, people tried to explain real events in terms of the supernatural? Shocking!).

5. The testimony of Christ that the Bible is the Word of God (i.e., you should believe the Bible is true because the Bible says that someone the Bible claims is important said the Bible is true).

6. Fulfilled prophecies (every time I have looked up a prophecy on the internet, whether or not it has been fulfilled is quite sketchy. For example, a prophecy saying Egypt will fall from power and be barren forever is not really fulfilled by the fact that Egypt is no longer a dominant power unless you start allowing massive hyperbole in prophecies and then it seems that you can find some event that seems to fulfill nearly any prophecy).

7. The influence of the Bible (I would say the the U.S. Constitution is pretty influential too, but I am guessing the authors would not claim that its influence implies it should be taken as divinely inspired).

8. The apparent indestructibility of the Bible as another sign that it is from God (I don't even know how the fact that the Bible has not been destroyed implies that it is divinely inspired...).

9. The integrity of the human authors (again, this is the false dichotomy mentioned above)

10. The miracles of the Bible confirm its divine origin (you know, those miracles that are documented in the Bible...).

11. The claim that the Bible could not have come from good or evil creatures because good creatures would not have lied and claimed it came from God and evil creatures would not have written something that caused so much good ((a) I am not so sure that evil creatures can't cause good -- whether or not they intend it, (b) how many ways can you express the same false dichotomy?, (c) the Bible has caused bad as well as good)

The authors admit that none of these alone is overwhelming evidence, but claim that in sum they are overwhelming. I am not quite sure how, and they fail to enlighten me on that point.

They authors make some points that do not undermine any of their core claim points, but which do undermine points commonly made by conservative Christians. In particular, conservative Christians often claim that our moral law is based on the Bible. However, as the authors of this book point out

To the biblical student familiar with the phraseology of the New Testament, it will be no surprise to find among the inscriptions [from pagan writers] the well-known "I have fought a good fight," "Love your husband," and "Rebuke not an elder." The list of sins (excepting idolatry and covetousness) are also similar. It seems that both Christian and pagan writers shared a common core of culture and terminology

Another amusing point was when the authors pointed out that some translations have translated Matthew 19:24 as "It is easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle..." rather than the more traditional camel. I find that interesting because the alternate translation makes so much more sense and appears to be equally valid since the Aramaic words for rope and camel are the same. Overall, the translation and transmission sections were disappointing because they were mostly lists of different source texts and translations ("then there was this translation made in this year by this person based on these manuscripts" over and over again for 50 pages). I would have been much more interested in more "camel" discussions of why translation is hard and some of the specific ambiguities claimed.

Reading this book was educational and probably worthwhile (although I should have skimmed more). However, when the authors move away from straight facts or descriptions of the various academic disciplines involved they tend to fall into a mode where they are not convincingly justifying their claims. This made a work that I was initially quite interested in reading disappointing and frustrating in the end.

Part 1 answers questions about the Christian Faith & God, and Part 2 about other Faiths

Em 1984 o livro Ética Cristã foi lançado no Brasil pela primeira vez. Agora chega com sua 2ª edição revisada e ampliada abordando questões recentes. No mundo de hoje os cristãos são diariamente bombardeados por uma série de dilemas éticos que nos indicam que os caminhos apontados pela sociedade atual ou pela cultura vigente são bem diferentes daqueles apontados pela ética cristã. Fica então a dúvida: Como devemos lidar com questões como aborto eutanásia biomedicina pena de morte guerra desobediência civil homossexualismo casamento divórcio controle de natalidade ecologia direito dos animais drogas pornografia entre tantos outras? O propósito deste livro é justamente fornecer aos cristãos os fundamentos bíblicos para responder a essas questões tão frequentes e complexas. Geisler analisa profundamente cada questão tanto do ponto de vista filosófico como bíblico e nos mostra de forma clara e precisa como vencer cada um desses dilemas com argumentos sólidos e bastante coerentes.

Uma perspectiva equilibrada entre a eleição divina e o livre-arbítrio. - Deus escolheu uns para a salvação e outros para a condenação eterna? - O homem tem a liberdade de aceitar ou recusar a graça divina? O debate teológico acirrado em torno da salvação do ser humano não é novo. Para alguns, Deus em sua sabedoria escolhe salvar ou condenar a espécie humana, sem que ela possa interferir nessa decisão. Para outros, o homem é quem decide aceitar ou rejeitar a oferta da graça divina. Além disso, discute-se ainda a crença comum de que a soberania de Deus e a liberdade humana são mutuamente excludentes. Nesta obra fundamental, Norman Geisler adverte contra o perigo em render-se a visões extremadas desses aspectos da salvação. O escritor defende uma posição equilibrada sobre essa questão teológica: aceitar a soberania e a presciência de Deus ao lado da responsabilidade humana de escolher ou rejeitar a oferta de salvação.

Traz informações coerentes e essencias para combater os ataques violentos das ideologias seculares que afirmam ser a ciência, a filosofia e os estudos bíblicos inimigos da fé.

This seems to be a very thoroughgoing book exhaustively detailing agreements and differences in theology and practice between Evangelicals and Catholics. The appendixes are invaluable going through the history of the Catholic and Protestant divide, the teaching on baptismal regeneration, and the Colson-Neuhaus Declaration.

Since this book was published in 1995, here's hoping there will soon be an updated version.

Geisler and Saleeb provide a basic yet thorough introduction to the theology of orthodox Islam and its challenge it presents to orthodox Christianity.

As explained in the introduction, part one examines the Islam's fundamental beliefs, part two offers challenges to the claims of Islam; and part three provides evidence for the Christian claims against Islam. At the end of the third part, we are given five appendixes from covering Muslim sects and practices, the Gospel of Barnabas often cited by Muslims, common Muslim objections to the New Testament, violence taught in Islamic theology, and, finally and in particular, the Nation of Islam movement in America. Afterwards, is a glossary of Islamic terms and their meanings.

This is an informative read for those interested in understanding Islam, especially it's relation with the Christian faith. As we read in the introduction: "Since both orthodox Islam and Christianity claim to be the true religion, it is incumbent upon thinking persons to examine carefully the evidence offered by both and to make their own decision in view of the evidence" (p.12).

A few recent books reignited the charismatic sign gift debate after it had been dormant for a while. I saw this dated book at a used book store and picked it up not knowing which side of the debate the author was on as the title and preamble don't make it clear.

There were two useful things in this book. The first was that the author doesn't just discuss the sign gifts but also talks about miracles and the miraculous in general. He begins by commenting that we are living in a kind-of Alice in Wonderland world where odd things are happening in the name of God. He documents many of these phenomena and explains why they cannot be from God according to the Bible. He makes the clear distinction between tricks and illusions (magic) and actual miracles.

He discusses healing and whether the healings that occur today in any way represent the organic healings seen in the New Testament. He mentions the case of a young girl who was healed of paralysis in answer to prayer. But contrasts this with the case of Joni Eareckson Tada

There are many of us for whom the role model is Joni Eareckson rather than John Wimber. We see the power of the kingdom operating, but mainly in regeneration, sanctification, the Spirit as a comforter, the transformation of the inner life, rather than in physical miracles which just by happening prevent much of that other kingdom activity whereby people learn to live with their difficulties and glorify God (J.I. Packer quoted in Stafford 1986)

He also touches on prophesy and reminds us that if even one prophesy fails to come true that person has spoken presumptuously and is a false prophet. Also that the punishment in the OT was death! He mentions the late David Wilkerson's prophecy about one third of America supposedly being wiped out in an earthquake by the 1970's.....

He also deals with tongues and the casting out of demons explaining what is and what isn't biblical. I found this book helpful as the author summarises each chapter with a list of what would be miraculous according to the Bible and what isn't.

Concluding he points out that the biggest miracles occurred both in the creation of the world and in the regeneration of millions of people around the world. He then refers to a book that I have been searching for for years after reading it a decade ago and forgetting the title; A Search for Charismatic Reality by Neil Babcox....that was the second useful thing!

While I didn't learn anything new from this book, apart from some of the case studies which were interesting, it did re-affirm my cessationist leanings. It is less complicated than works by John MacArthur (Charismatic Chaos) and less dogmatic than Peter Masters (The Charismatic Phenomenon/Illusion) I will be keeping hold of it for future reference and I recommend it for those with an interest in the subject.

This is an excellent look into the transmission of God's Word. Instead of starting out with material proofs or by appealing to ones feelings regarding the inspiration of the Bible, Geisler and Nix hold the Holy Scriptures as the ultimate authority and use the Bible as the main and first proof of its own inspiration and authenticity. Their method reminds me of a quote I read once that went something along these lines: "The Scriptures revolve on their own axis. They do not disdain indirect assistance, from secular investigations; but they mainly depend on their own inexhaustible resources and treasures."(E. W. Grinfield) The authors of this examination use the prophets and apostles own references and quotations of each others God given Scriptures as evidence. And in regards to the Old and New Testaments they use Christ's quoting and referencing it as special proof. They first emphasize belief in the God of the Bible and in Jesus' divinity, and then demonstrate that Christ's usage of Scripture as God's Word leads to a logical imperative conclusion that the Scriptures are therefore the Word of God. "Jesus said, 'Scripture cannot be broken' (John 10:35). On numerous occasions our Lord appealed to the written Word of God as final arbitrator for faith and practice. He claimed Scripture as His authority for cleansing the temple(Mark 11:17), for rebuking the tradition of Pharisees(Matt. 15:3, 4);.. for settling doctrinal disputes(Matt. 22:29).."

After letting the God's Word be its own proof, the authors then move on to secondary matters, other logical reasons as to the Bible being the truth. I like that with these secondary proofs, such as Archaeological evidence supporting the Bibles claims, the authors make sure to point out that this evidence is merely supporting evidence, this evidence does not make the Bible true, the Bible is true regardless. This is the same way they treat the development of the Canon, "Canonicity is determined by God and discovered by man." The Words of God are inspired whether or not man has come to the conclusion that they are inspired. I like those points.

Moving on to the development of the Canon, the collection of books that we hold as God's Word, they then look into its transmission and translations down through the centuries. This is not a high level overview of the Bible, it is an intricate look at how God has chosen to preserve and compile His Word by means of human beings copying, translating, and collecting it, examining older copies of it and collating its manuscripts. It gets quite detailed about the various old manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments we have to work from. But I found those details very interesting. Also, Geisler and Nix keep repeating what various manuscript symbols mean, they don't just assume you'll remember them after merely seeing them one time. And having short-term memory I appreciate that.

Now as I say(or at least think) with regards to any book I have read besides the Bible, there are things that I do not agree with in this book, but overall it was very informative. Speaking of not completely agreeing with any other book, the quote I want to end with from this one fits very well:

"No article of faith may be based on any noncanonical work, regardless of its religious value.
The divinely inspired and authoritative books are the sole basis for doctrine and practice. Whatever complimentary support canonical truth derives from other books, it in no way lends canonical value to those books. The support is purely historical and has no authoritative theological value. The truth of inspired Scripture alone is the canon or foundation of the truths of faith."

I received a copy of this book from the publisher for the purpose of this
review. Thanks Moody Publishers!

"Every truth claim is narrow. Why? Because truth itself is narrow. If you jump off a tall building with no ability to remain aloft, you will fall to the ground, yet no one would say belief in the law of gravity is being narrow-minded." The authors of this book are very good at demonstrating the exclusiveness of truth, and our need to know the 'true-truth'. Answering 10 questions about Christianity, the authors build their argument, 'closing in' on the truth as the book moves on. Starting very basic, they demonstrate the logic of there being truth and that truth must be exclusive. Then, after pointing out the obviousness of the existence of a god, they narrow down to what god that is and if there is only one. The rest of the book demonstrates that the God who exists is the God of the Old and New Testaments and upholds those Scriptures as the truth by answering questions about their composition and content.

This book includes several charts comparing the beliefs of world religions to Christianity, and critiques several of the major religions. Here are some of the authors' statements on Pantheism: "The Designer is not the design anymore than painter is the painting", "...pantheists believe we can become God. But we had a beginning; God did not. How can people who had a beginning become the One who never began? Pantheists believe that they can (by enlightenment) become God. But God has always known he is God. Anyone who suddenly realizes "I am God," isn't God." The content of the Bible is used as the ultimate proof of God being God and I love that much attention is paid to whether or not Jesus is God. Lots of Scriptures are used to demonstrate that Jesus was God, and that you can't reject that reality without contradicting Him. They show that belief in a god is not enough, belief in The God of the Bible and belief of what God says in His word is shown to be crucial for all people.

I only gave this book four stars because I have found that the authors are apparently 'Old-earth Creationists'. Using statements like, "If the universe had expanded faster than it did, no planets could have formed. If no planets could form, there would be no earth." Its not too explicit, they don't go into how much time the word 'day' is describing is in Genesis one, but it is implied that a day is a LOT longer than a day. Later on, when they are talking about the existence of miracles, they state that "A genuine miracle happens instantly - not over a period of time." So when God said, "Let there be light", was there light? Or when God spoke the sun and the moon and the stars into existence, was it so? Or did it take a long period of time, longer than an evening and a morning, one day(Genesis 1: 19)? This is why I don't know that I would recommend the book to non-Christians, as this might encourage them to not take the Beginning literally and so they may not take other narrative accounts in the Bible literally.

Thanks to Bethany House Publishers for giving me a free copy of this book in exchange for my review(which does not have to be favorable)

Excelente livro. Nos dá informações sobre a crítica textual, origens e história dos manuscritos....

Só não concordo muito com os argumentos em defesa da inerrancia bíblica.

Vale a pena a leitura!

While I appreciate some of the comments, please for information sake do not refer to biased writing without some form or hint of reference. the title suggest a general introduction, that's the first clue, furthermore I do not think anyone writes a book with the title "Introduction" hoping to be a main of source of reference.
In ones attempt to use any book, it is always a good idea to use various sources then draw conclusions, furthermore the book also was written considering the Bible, rubbishing the writers does not help anyone then this site simply becomes another Trip Advisor website.

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.

A good starting textbook if you are interested in defense of the Christian faith. Clear, concise definitions of various worldviews and explanations of why their truth-tests fail. It also provides an explanation of a truth-test that works and why.
This is not an easy book to read, primarily because of the deep thought required by the subject matter.

I've read these types of books before, and I glean a little bit more each time about the debates.
I like the science arguments.