Norm Geisler teaches Pelagianism?

[evangelist6589]

Pelagianism teaches that man and his free will has the capability of redeeming himself and doing good apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. Man's nature is good. I am not sure exactly if Geisler teaches this, but based on some comments in CBF it would appear he may teach that or he may teach semi-Pelagianism. He basically says in the book that man can redeem himself and faith is not a gift given to the elect. These commets are very different than what John MacArthur teaches, and even what David Jeremiah teaches.

In Jeremiah's book God in You he says "The new birth has to happen to you from a force outside of you." He also makes other comments in his Born of the Spirit Chapter to indicate he believes that man cannot choose salvation apart from Divine aide. Also John MacArthur in Ashamed of the Gospel clearly saith faith is given to the elect. Very very different than what Geisler teaches.

So what say you?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Pelagianism teaches that man and his free will has the capability of redeeming himself and doing good apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. Man's nature is good. I am not sure exactly if Geisler teaches this, but based on some comments in CBF it would appear he may teach that or he may teach semi-Pelagianism. He basically says in the book that man can redeem himself and faith is not a gift given to the elect. These commets are very different than what John MacArthur teaches, and even what David Jeremiah teaches.

In Jeremiah's book God in You he says "The new birth has to happen to you from a force outside of you." He also makes other comments in his Born of the Spirit Chapter to indicate he believes that man cannot choose salvation apart from Divine aide. Also John MacArthur in Ashamed of the Gospel clearly saith faith is given to the elect. Very very different than what Geisler teaches.

So what say you?

I say "Jesus Saves":thumbs:

 

[preachinjesus]

No he doesn't. He doesn't teach anything remotely close to Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Acts 3:1-6

1 Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour. 2 And a certain man lame from his mother's womb was carried , whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple; 3 Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms. 4 And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with John, said , Look on us. 5 And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them. 6 Then Peter said , Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk .

It appears that the lame of the world will come to Christ. so let that be part of your street mission.

while your in the field try saying : "may I talk to you about Jesus?" and "Let me pray for you" and "How is the Lord working in your life" and the ultimate "Come follow Jesus."

 

[quantumfaith]

No he doesn't. He doesn't teach anything remotely close to Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism.

I second that notion.
Some, I think just like to spout off on some talking point that they heard somewhere.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Brother.... what Geisler teaches or whatever man teaches should not be of concern to you. In Acts 5:29 Peter says:

"We ought to obey God rather than men."

I see Jesus ignoring these guys & setting himself forward to do The Fathers work. Right? :jesus:

 

[Van]

Calvinism teaches mistaken doctrine

Pelagianism teaches that man and his free will has the capability of redeeming himself and doing good apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. Man's nature is good. I am not sure exactly if Geisler teaches this, but based on some comments in CBF it would appear he may teach that or he may teach semi-Pelagianism. He basically says in the book that man can redeem himself and faith is not a gift given to the elect. These commets are very different than what John MacArthur teaches, and even what David Jeremiah teaches.

In Jeremiah's book God in You he says "The new birth has to happen to you from a force outside of you." He also makes other comments in his Born of the Spirit Chapter to indicate he believes that man cannot choose salvation apart from Divine aide. Also John MacArthur in Ashamed of the Gospel clearly saith faith is given to the elect. Very very different than what Geisler teaches.

So what say you?

This thread asks whether Calvinism's total spiritual inability is true. But the question is framed in a very pro-Calvinism manner.

1) Calvinism teaches man has no capacity to "redeem" himself. True, and so does the bible.

2) Calvinism teaches man cannot do any good work apart from being born again. True, and so does the Bible.

3) Calvinism teaches man by his very nature is a child of wrath, separated from God and corrupted. True, and so does the Bible.

However, comma,

1) Calvinism teaches man has no capacity to seek God and receive the gospel. False. The second, third and fourth soils of Matthew 13 were seeking God and received the gospel.

2) Calvinism teaches natural men cannot even understand the milk of the gospel. False, 1 Corinthian 3:1-3. Men of flesh can understand milk.

3) Calvinism teaches spiritually dead men cannot cannot seek God. False, Matthew 23:13 teaches spiritually dead men of flesh were actually "entering heaven" before they were blocked by false teaching.

The issue is not whether natural men can redeem themselves, they cannot. The issue is can they choose to seek God and trust to a degree in Christ. The answer from scripture is yes. When we put our trust in Christ, that does not "automatically" save us. But if God credits that worthless filthy rag faith as righteousness, then God redeems us by setting us apart in Christ.

Now when we choose to trust in Christ, is that without the "divine aid" of God's revelation, His revelatory grace? Of course not. But if by "divine aid" you are using it as code for "irresistible grace" then the assertion is wrong. We are not compelled to trust in Christ, but God begs us to choose life.

 

[InTheLight]

Brother.... what Geisler teaches or whatever man teaches should not be of concern to you. In Acts 5:29 Peter says:

"We ought to obey God rather than men."

I see Jesus ignoring these guys & setting himself forward to do The Fathers work. Right? :jesus:

Does the same advice apply to John Piper, John MacArthur, RC Sproul, et al?

 

[Revmitchell]

This thread asks whether Calvinism's total spiritual inability is true. But the question is framed in a very pro-Calvinism manner.

NO it doesn't. It asks

"Norm Geisler teaches Pelagianism?"

 

[go2church]

Pelagianism teaches that man and his free will has the capability of redeeming himself and doing good apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. Man's nature is good. I am not sure exactly if Geisler teaches this, but based on some comments in CBF it would appear he may teach that or he may teach semi-Pelagianism. He basically says in the book that man can redeem himself and faith is not a gift given to the elect. These commets are very different than what John MacArthur teaches, and even what David Jeremiah teaches.

In Jeremiah's book God in You he says "The new birth has to happen to you from a force outside of you." He also makes other comments in his Born of the Spirit Chapter to indicate he believes that man cannot choose salvation apart from Divine aide. Also John MacArthur in Ashamed of the Gospel clearly saith faith is given to the elect. Very very different than what Geisler teaches.

So what say you?

For you it seems as if, John MacArthur is the gold standard. That's all well and good. Not the standard I would choose, but fine. Understand that comparing anyone to MacArthur is going to make them at some point look wrong, silly or immature because MacArthur is so very rigid and dogmatic in his interpretations and opinions.

Instead of reading stuff about other authors or preachers, go and actually read or listen to them yourself and make up your own mind. Chew up the meat and spit out the bones. This constant comparing of one to another will get you nowhere and stunt your growth.

Something to remember, sometimes, in spite of what MacArthur or anyone else says, there is no "right" answer, just our informed opinion.

 

[InTheLight]

NO it doesn't. It asks

"Norm Geisler teaches Pelagianism?"

Thank you Rev. Clarity is good.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

For you it seems as if, John MacArthur is the gold standard. That's all well and good. Not the standard I would choose, but fine. Understand that comparing anyone to MacArthur is going to make them at some point look wrong, silly or immature because MacArthur is so very rigid and dogmatic in his interpretations and opinions.

Instead of reading stuff about other authors or preachers, go and actually read or listen to them yourself and make up your own mind. Chew up the meat and spit out the bones. This constant comparing of one to another will get you nowhere and stunt your growth.

Something to remember, sometimes, in spite of what MacArthur or anyone else says, there is no "right" answer, just our informed opinion.

Or misinformed opinion! Then where are ya?

 

[Rippon]

He doesn't teach anything remotely close to Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism.

Though a professing Calvinist, Norm Geisler actually holds to semi-Pelagianism.

 

[Van]

Claims about what Geisler teaches without quotes are worthless.

We cannot make ourselves righteous. But God offers us Christ’s righteousness as a free gift.

Thus the claim that Geisler might teach we were not corrupted by the fall is false.

Following St. Augustine and the Reformers, evangelical theologians have long held that human beings since Adam inherit a sin nature. David said, we “are born in sin” and “in sin did our mother conceive us” (Psa. 51:5). Paul added, we are “by nature children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3). This is because somehow we “all sinned” in Adam (Rom. 5:12). Hence, as Augustine put it, “We are born with the propensity to sin and the necessity to die.” Just how this occurred has long been considered a “mystery” by biblical theologians. There is no evidence that depravity is transmitted in the genes. Nor, in the light of the biblical data, is the Pelagian view acceptable which claims that we have no inherited propensity to sin but everyone simply sins of their own free will. But this does not accord with the biblical data, nor does it explain the universal tendency to sin.

So to continue with clarity, why do the Calvinists bludgeon non-Calvinists with slanderous and false charges carefully hidden is not so innocent questions!

 

[Van]

This thread asks whether Calvinism's total spiritual inability is true. But the question is framed in a very pro-Calvinism manner.

1) Calvinism teaches man has no capacity to "redeem" himself. True, and so does the bible.

2) Calvinism teaches man cannot do any good work apart from being born again. True, and so does the Bible.

3) Calvinism teaches man by his very nature is a child of wrath, separated from God and corrupted. True, and so does the Bible.

However, comma,

1) Calvinism teaches man has no capacity to seek God and receive the gospel. False. The second, third and fourth soils of Matthew 13 were seeking God and received the gospel.

2) Calvinism teaches natural men cannot even understand the milk of the gospel. False, 1 Corinthian 3:1-3. Men of flesh can understand milk.

3) Calvinism teaches spiritually dead men cannot cannot seek God. False, Matthew 23:13 teaches spiritually dead men of flesh were actually "entering heaven" before they were blocked by false teaching.

The issue is not whether natural men can redeem themselves, they cannot. The issue is can they choose to seek God and trust to a degree in Christ. The answer from scripture is yes. When we put our trust in Christ, that does not "automatically" save us. But if God credits that worthless filthy rag faith as righteousness, then God redeems us by setting us apart in Christ.

Now when we choose to trust in Christ, is that without the "divine aid" of God's revelation, His revelatory grace? Of course not. But if by "divine aid" you are using it as code for "irresistible grace" then the assertion is wrong. We are not compelled to trust in Christ, but God begs us to choose life.

 

[Revmitchell]

This thread asks whether Calvinism's total spiritual inability is true. But the question is framed in a very pro-Calvinism manner.

Not it doesn't it asks:


"Norm Geisler teaches Pelagianism?"

 

[Van]

So to continue with clarity, why do the Calvinists bludgeon non-Calvinists with slanderous and false charges carefully hidden is not so innocent questions!

Do you find the question, "Does Norm Geisler teach Pelagianism?" in the OP? Nope. But I provided the answer, No, and supported it with quotes.

So the real question, apparently hidden too well for some to grasp, is does Geisler teach total spiritual inability, and the answer is no.

"All the Scriptures used by extreme Calvinists are accepted by moderate Calvinists; the only difference is that moderates insist that being "dead" in sin does not mean that unsaved people cannot understand and receive the truth of the gospel as the Spirit of God works on their hearts. That is, it does not in effect erase the image of God (but only effaces it.)"

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Though a professing Calvinist, Norm Geisler actually holds to semi-Pelagianism.

Now how can that be

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Does the same advice apply to John Piper, John MacArthur, RC Sproul, et al?

All men...yes

 

[Van]

Now how can that be

Just as Calvinism redefines the meanings of words to alter scripture, Geisler, in CBF, redefines many of the redefined words, such that dead does not mean unable to respond in faith with the help of God.

Calvinists seem to think they are the only men willing and able to redefine terms in accord with their theology.

Moderate Calvinists are defined as Calvinists, and Calvinists are defined as extreme Calvinists, and the merry-go-round of liberalism spins out of control.