Title: A rose by any other name...
Product review: Four point Calvinism (yes, I know that's an oxymoron), better known as Amyraldianism, has been ably refuted over and over. Anytime any one makes a fuss about the five points, why is limited atonement always the target? Geisler's book doesn't break any new ground in this old debate. He makes the same tired arguments that fall, limp as yesterday's fish, to the dirt. For a man who wrote an introduction to informal fallacies, Geisler does a top-notch job of committing just about every one in this book: ad hominem, post hoc, equivocation, and on and on. If you can read this without your blood pressure going through the roof, you are a) not a Calvinist or b) not following Geisler's argument as closely as you should be. This is just another example of the inability of anyone to make a good case against limited atonement. Anyone want to tangle with John Owen?
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
