Are you still defending Joel Osteen and Andy Stanley?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Norm Geisler teaches Pelagianism?
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
Are you still defending Joel Osteen and Andy Stanley?
:laugh: Thats actually a pretty good question.... pretty, pretty good! :thumbs:
quantumfaith
Active Member
Not a "fan" of Joel Osteen, but I will stand for Andy Stanley ANY day of the week.
preacher4truth
Active Member
:wavey: :thumbs:
Actually the opposite of Cal exists in both camps, which are actually one in the same since these camps today cannot defend against their own belief systems, distinguish them, nor describe them.
Even if he does, holding that DOES NOT make one semipelegian.
Is serious theological research so difficult for you? Can you not go to a reputable library and do some serious research, not listening to any Harry or Mary on the internet, to develop and informed opinion on a position? Because that seems to be your primary source education and theological reflection...and its a pretty bad source.
The AO 'ministries' site hawks a rebuttal book to that mentioned in the OP:
http://www.aomin.org/TPF.html
Endorsing the critique are the president of Puritan Reformed Seminary warning that Geisler is promoting "Semi-pelagianism as 'moderate Calvinism,'" and the editor of 'Banner of Truth' magazine declaring that "in a manner reminiscent of Luther demolishing Erasmus, James White grinds the Semi-Pelagianism of Dr. Geisler to fine powder".
http://www.aomin.org/TPF.html
Endorsing the critique are the president of Puritan Reformed Seminary warning that Geisler is promoting "Semi-pelagianism as 'moderate Calvinism,'" and the editor of 'Banner of Truth' magazine declaring that "in a manner reminiscent of Luther demolishing Erasmus, James White grinds the Semi-Pelagianism of Dr. Geisler to fine powder".
Yea but who cares really...who really takes this guy Geisler seriously anyway. Just fodder for Whites click to sell useless books to. Much to do about nutin. :BangHead:
Yes he does...good link Jerome! Everyone should read all the reviews.
You believe you play a part, too, you just believe you are one of the fortunate ones given this part to use. Does that make you a semiP also?
quantumfaith
Active Member
:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
EVERYONE is a synergist in one degree or another. At least that is how I parse it.
Speak for yourself.....Im a Hard Shell Baptist :godisgood:
QF,
By this statement I think you are speaking of the idea that we have a faith that works once we have life??? This is not in dispute,Everyone who professes Christ as Lord works in the Kingdom....
If you are speaking primarily about regeneration... what are you saying that in your understanding demonstrates how everyone is a synergist? are you able to identify the ingredient that you believe makes this so....
1]natural ability
2] inherent faith
3] mans goodness
4] an ability that is God given that we must exercise
Why would there be an idea of monergism,,,,if everyone was a synergist?
Last edited by a moderator:
I think Quantum was being ironic, but that's just my interpretation of his use of smilies and punctuation. 
One of the problems with these systematic labels cals just love to use and cannot seem to function outside of is they are made so selectively narrow as to be able to label anyone they want with them when it is most convenient.
Sometimes thats a good survival tactic. Let me ask you Rev, do you ask people questions regarding what they believe to get a feel if they are off the charts or not.
for example, i want to be a member of the church you pastor & here is my theological position:
1. the sin of Adam affected no one but himself.
2. those born since Adam have been born into the same condition Adam was in before his fall, that is, into a position of neutrality so far as sin is concerned &...
3, todays human beings are able to live free from sin, if they want to.
Would you label them? Would it be OK to be members?
No I don't have labels for anyone. If they want to live by one then that is on them. But these labels you see on boards like this are never thought of or even known in the average church.
If I want to know what someone believes about a particular doctrine then I will ask them specifically about it. What I do not have a need to do is to ask them about their label so I can pigeon hole everything they believe into one nice neat little package. That is just laziness and then "cals" do it is is often for the purposes of a pejorative.
The labels are helpful, quick , and needful in a forum. They say much in a short time.Everyone has nuanced views.It is expected that the forum allows for you to express and expand those views.
When you hold a view that gets labeled for the sake of saving time...and then that view gets roughed up....I think you and others resist the label because the arrows are hitting the target and zeroing in on the bullseye,so you would have to modify your view or abandon it.
You saying it is only a device for a cal is pointless.it sounds more like an excuse for you not to be accountable for your views...
Winman or Van state their errors and yet proudly stand by them. No one who posts on here thinks they are posting error myself included.
When someone mis -applies a label that is a chance to clarify a view.:thumbs:
really....you do not seem to have a problem attempting to disparage what you refer to as
CALS...seems like a label that you use in every other post...so how do you now claim you do not use labels...You use the term JW....looks like a label to me...and a good one.
Last edited by a moderator:
I hope that by using the term "cals" you are aware you are playing the same game. Listen I dont give a darn what anyone personally believes....they can worship their navel for all I could care, but we do use terminology to measure (consciously or unconsciously). I have reviewed enough scripture to have strong leanings one way & not toward the other. Yesterday Im talking to a guy who a year ago identified the church he pastors in as Baptist. Today its Charismatic & his selling tool was the churches music. Yea well I'm a Hard Shell & our music in A Capella & we are definitely not charismatic.....and as a matter of fact (only in my mind now, not to the pastor) I dont like that you changed your name from Baptist to Community Bible Church.....but they are all doing it up here.....they want to attract other faiths .... especially Catholics. After a while, he knew I didnt want to talk to him, I'm not moving in that direction soooo......yea, had he said Charismatic to begin with, I would never have reached out to him in the first place. His web-page was equally ambiguous....personally I view that as deceptive.
Actually I am not. If they want that term they can have it. The problem comes when you assert labels on others who do not identify with them based on your own personal conception of theology. It is disrespectful and inflammatory.
Again if you want to know what someone believes then ask them directly. We do not have to know the whole boat load of what someone believes to have a conversation with them.
All right then, you dont label, but how would you address this doctrine if a I came to you & layed it out & I also want to be a member of the church you pastor .... so here is my theological position:
1. the sin of Adam affected no one but himself.
2. those born since Adam have been born into the same condition Adam was in before his fall, that is, into a position of neutrality so far as sin is concerned &...
3, todays human beings are able to live free from sin, if they want to.
Would it be OK to be a member?