Tell the Truth by Will Metzger DISCUSSION

[JonC]

We neiew on soed to realise that both sides want to honor and glorify God by how they view salvation, but would also have to say that the viewpoints of calvinism in strictly the area of Sotierology seems to better fit the teacxhings of the scriptures...

Yes, I think both camps are trying to be faithful to Scripture and I think that, relatively, Calvinism can muster more passages to support it's position (which, of course, does not mean that Calvinism is correct).

Metzger is writing from a Calvinistic point of view to, it appears, appeal to like-minded believers. He is not defending Calvinism but instead is examining evangelism.

 

[evangelist6589]

Yes, I think both camps are trying to be faithful to Scripture and I think that, relatively, Calvinism can muster more passages to support it's position (which, of course, does not mean that Calvinism is correct).



Metzger is writing from a Calvinistic point of view to, it appears, appeal to like-minded believers. He is not defending Calvinism but instead is examining evangelism.

Bobby Conway Cal or ARMIN? He holds to LS no doubt but I wouldn't call him a Cal? What day you? I read evangelism books by both cal and Armin.

 

[JonC]

Bobby Conway Cal or ARMIN? He holds to LS no doubt but I wouldn't call him a Cal? What day you? I read evangelism books by both cal and Armin.

I would say neither (giving him the benefit until shown otherwise). He deals with evangelism practically, but doesn't really indicate whether or not he is a Calvinist, Arminian, or neither of the two.

 

[evangelist6589]

I would say neither (giving him the benefit until shown otherwise). He deals with evangelism practically, but doesn't really indicate whether or not he is a Calvinist, Arminian, or neither of the two.

His book endorses a very Arminian evangelism book in the back, but yes I am not sure as well, as I also have that book and although I disagree with Armianism that book is quite helpful for apologetics and what I am doing writing letters to churches and individuals.

 

[JonC]

His book endorses a very Arminian evangelism book in the back, but yes I am not sure as well, as I also have that book and although I disagree with Armianism that book is quite helpful for apologetics and what I am doing writing letters to churches and individuals.

Just curious...what book does he endorse in the back?

 

[Yeshua1]

His book endorses a very Arminian evangelism book in the back, but yes I am not sure as well, as I also have that book and although I disagree with Armianism that book is quite helpful for apologetics and what I am doing writing letters to churches and individuals.

What Arminian authors have you read, and how would the basic message of evangelism differ between them and calvinists?

 

[evangelist6589]

John C turn to pages 168-69. Do you agree with Metger on the use of apologetics in evangelism? Do you agree with his conclusions about the best method of apologetics? Explain what Metzger means on page 169 on approaching worldviews in the culture. Give me an example of how one would evangelize a humanist.

What is Gods chosen instrument in conversion?

 

[JonC]

John C turn to pages 168-69. Do you agree with Metger on the use of apologetics in evangelism? Do you agree with his conclusions about the best method of apologetics? Explain what Metzger means on page 169 on approaching worldviews in the culture. Give me an example of how one would evangelize a humanist.

What is Gods chosen instrument in conversion?

I'll check it out when I get back home. But what book did Conrad endorse? (I have the Metzger book in print, but the Conrad book as a Kindle so I don't have the back material/back cover).

 

[evangelist6589]

I'll check it out when I get back home. But what book did Conrad endorse? (I have the Metzger book in print, but the Conrad book as a Kindle so I don't have the back material/back cover).

It's Conway. A evangelism book by Norm and David Geisler.

 

[JonC]

It's Conway. A evangelism book by Norm and David Geisler.

Oops...you're right...and it's Metzger (not Metger...see #27 above :wavey: ). For some reason I was thinking Joseph Conrad this morning. Anyway, Geisler is not Arminian (he claims to be a moderate Calvinist...I'm not really sure where he "lines up," but from his works it doesn't appear to be Arminianism).

 

[Rippon]

Anyway, Geisler is not Arminian (he claims to be a moderate Calvinist...I'm not really sure where he "lines up," but from his works it doesn't appear to be Arminianism).

Geisler is a semi-Pelagain to Arminian. He thinks one who holds to the Canons of Dort is a hyper-Calvinist. He is in no way, shape or form a Calvinist of any stripe.

I am not saying he isn't a Christian. But he is dishonest in a number of ways.

 

[JonC]

Geisler is a semi-Pelagain to Arminian. He thinks one who holds to the Canons of Dort is a hyper-Calvinist. He is in no way, shape or form a Calvinist of any stripe.

I am not saying he isn't a Christian. But he is dishonest in a number of ways.

I agree that he is not a Calvinist. But reading his books (and listening to a couple of his lectures), it's hard for me to place him within the Arminian view. He allows more in terms of divine providence than Arminianism would allow....and I think he may allow less than Scripture indicates. But you are right that his reference to himself as a "moderate Calvinist" is at best an error...at worst, misleading to gain an audience.

 

[evangelist6589]

Oops...you're right...and it's Metzger (not Metger...see #27 above :wavey: ). For some reason I was thinking Joseph Conrad this morning. Anyway, Geisler is not Arminian (he claims to be a moderate Calvinist...I'm not really sure where he "lines up," but from his works it doesn't appear to be Arminianism).

Then who is an Arminian? Name a few. Free Will Baptists? Plymouth Brethren? Amish? Seventh Day Adventist? Yes compared to these groups Geisler is far more Calvinistic. But compared to Sproul and Mac he is no Calvinist.

 

[evangelist6589]

Geisler is a semi-Pelagain to Arminian. He thinks one who holds to the Canons of Dort is a hyper-Calvinist. He is in no way, shape or form a Calvinist of any stripe.

I am not saying he isn't a Christian. But he is dishonest in a number of ways.

Do you know what a 7th Day Adventist or a Free Will Baptist is? Geisler leans far more Calvinist than these groups, and believe me I spent an entire weekend at the school of one of these arminian groups and it was terrible!! A Calvinist in a 5 point Arminian school!!!! I went there by invite but hit the road after I fulfilled my stay.

 

[JonC]

Then who is an Arminian? Name a few. Free Will Baptists? Plymouth Brethren? Amish? Seventh Day Adventist? Yes compared to these groups Geisler is far more Calvinistic. But compared to Sproul and Mac he is no Calvinist.

Calvinism and Arminianism are not scales upon which to weigh theological views. I do not claim to be a Calvinist, but my position in the debate certainly excludes me from being an Arminian. The Amish, BTW, are not Arminian. I think he is not a Calvinist because his views do not align with the Canons of Dort (the five points of Calvinism).

 

[Rippon]

Then who is an Arminian? Name a few. Free Will Baptists? Plymouth Brethren? Amish? Seventh Day Adventist? Yes compared to these groups Geisler is far more Calvinistic.

I came from a Plymouth Brethren background. Many within "the assemblies" are Calvinistic. J.N. Darby certainly was. A.W.Pink quoted him favorably in his The Sovereignty Of God. Have you ever heard of George Muller and Benjamin Wells Newton? Both were strong Calvinists.

And in these contemporary times many within "The Brethren" would certainly be in forceful opposition to the Arminianism of Zane Hodges and his Absolutely Free.

 

[Yeshua1]

Then who is an Arminian? Name a few. Free Will Baptists? Plymouth Brethren? Amish? Seventh Day Adventist? Yes compared to these groups Geisler is far more Calvinistic. But compared to Sproul and Mac he is no Calvinist.

Norman Geisler would be an Arminian teacher and theologian....

 

[Yeshua1]

Calvinism and Arminianism are not scales upon which to weigh theological views. I do not claim to be a Calvinist, but my position in the debate certainly excludes me from being an Arminian. The Amish, BTW, are not Arminian. I think he is not a Calvinist because his views do not align with the Canons of Dort (the five points of Calvinism).

What makes him to be non calvinist is that he holds that Jesus died for all sinners, and that God based His Elections towards us not upon His Will to save us in Christ, but that our choice of Jesus caused God to place us into election into Christ..

He holds to God andMan co operating in the salvation process..

 

[JonC]

What makes him to be non calvinist is that he holds that Jesus died for all sinners, and that God based His Elections towards us not upon His Will to save us in Christ, but that our choice of Jesus caused God to place us into election into Christ..

He holds to God andMan co operating in the salvation process..

Holding that Christ died for all sinners in and of itself does not make one a “non-Calvinist” (Amyraldianism , for example, is a view within Calvinism). I think that his understanding of election (specifically his understanding of the mode of divine knowledge) would separate him from Calvinists. That said, this in no way means he is Arminian. You need to move on from the idea that a rejection of Calvinism is an acceptance of Arminianism. But the bottom line is I do not see how Geisler is a "moderate Calvinist" (which he claims to be).

 

[Yeshua1]

Holding that Christ died for all sinners in and of itself does not make one a “non-Calvinist” (Amyraldianism , for example, is a view within Calvinism). I think that his understanding of election (specifically his understanding of the mode of divine knowledge) would separate him from Calvinists. That said, this in no way means he is Arminian. You need to move on from the idea that a rejection of Calvinism is an acceptance of Arminianism. But the bottom line is I do not see how Geisler is a "moderate Calvinist" (which he claims to be).

He holds that Jesus died for all sinners, and that God has provided thru his death the means for any and all whosoever wants to come to Christ shall come to get saved...

How is that not classic Arminian theology?