Norm Geisler teaches Pelagianism?

[evangelist6589]

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

Thanks for the clarification. I stand corrected.

 

[evangelist6589]

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.

Actually even MacArthur has been rejected in Reformed churches. I once went to a strong reformed church and they did not like MacArthur for some reason. And no I do not agree with everything he teaches for I compare him to the Bible as that is my gold standard. For example in some ways I think MacArthur gets too dogmatic and why I will tune into Charles Stanley whom is more light and perhaps has more grace.

For example MacArthur will refer to those in disobedience as "false converts" and this may be true, but it may be the person is in disobedience, or immature in the faith. This does not make them a false convert. Lordship salvation is not always correct and may not be correct. I notice that Erwin Lutzer and Charles Stanley teach differently in this manor.

 

[evangelist6589]

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

Thats what I thought by reading CBF. He clearly says that man can redeem himself and faith has not been given only to the elect.

 

[evangelist6589]

Claims about what Geisler teaches without quotes are worthless.

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



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

What book did you get these quotes from?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

Yes election can be humbling, but God tells us that he has chosen some by Grace entirely apart from merit or even ability to receive grace, so pride will be eliminated.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (King James Version)

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What book did you get these quotes from?

Say what :laugh:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Thats what I thought by reading CBF. He clearly says that man can redeem himself and faith has not been given only to the elect.

Who else has it been given to pray tell?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Actually even MacArthur has been rejected in Reformed churches. I once went to a strong reformed church and they did not like MacArthur for some reason. And no I do not agree with everything he teaches for I compare him to the Bible as that is my gold standard. For example in some ways I think MacArthur gets too dogmatic and why I will tune into Charles Stanley whom is more light and perhaps has more grace.

For example MacArthur will refer to those in disobedience as "false converts" and this may be true, but it may be the person is in disobedience, or immature in the faith. This does not make them a false convert. Lordship salvation is not always correct and may not be correct. I notice that Erwin Lutzer and Charles Stanley teach differently in this manor.

I find him a stick in the mud to....and sneaky. He was invited to a conference that the Presbyterian RC Sproll was having & unbenonced to Sproll, he got on the podium and started preaching Credo Baptism (knowing full well that most of the audience was Pedo/infant baptism believers.

 

[evangelist6589]

I find him a stick in the mud to....and sneaky. He was invited to a conference that the Presbyterian RC Sproll was having & unbenonced to Sproll, he got on the podium and started preaching Credo Baptism (knowing full well that most of the audience was Pedo/infant baptism believers.

He has a strong passion to preach the truth and preach against error. Its a shame he did not preach Dispensationalist theology at that conference and endorse his end times books. I am sure that would have made everyone mad! Regardless Mac is not God and is a man. He is far from perfect.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

He has a strong passion to preach the truth and preach against error. Its a shame he did not preach Dispensationalist theology at that conference and endorse his end times books. I am sure that would have made everyone mad! Regardless Mac is not God and is a man. He is far from perfect.

But he is devious.

 

[Van]

What book did you get these quotes from?

http://www.normangeisler.net/KnowGod/09-RighteousnessFromGod.html

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

http://www.normgeisler.com/articles/theology/2010-EpigeneticsSolvesTheologicalProblems.htm

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.

 

[preachinjesus]

For what its worth, and not that this will make sense to some who love polarizing positions, but those who don't hold to Reformed theology are not, automatically semipelagians. Though the moniker gets cast on too many who disagree with Reformed theology, the truth of the matter is that almost no one believes in semipelagianism and no one (with a few notable exceptions) believes in Pelagianism.

These are all misinformed ad hominem attacks that seek to discredit someone without actually engaging with them.

To be a semipelagian, one must hold to a view of salvation that is still beyond syngerism and focuses on man's will contravening God's will.

For more information and an adequate Baptist understanding of semipleganism please read: http://sbctoday.com/2012/06/07/semi-pelagianism-a-plea-for-clarity-and-charity/

 

[Van]

"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.)"

From CBF, Appendix 12, page 294.

 

[Van]

He basically says in the book that man can redeem himself and faith is not a gift given to the elect.

Please provide the quote of Dr. Geisler which says man can redeem himself, and faith is not a gift given to the elect.

 

[Revmitchell]

For what its worth, and not that this will make sense to some who love polarizing positions, but those who don't hold to Reformed theology are not, automatically semipelagians. Though the moniker gets cast on too many who disagree with Reformed theology, the truth of the matter is that almost no one believes in semipelagianism and no one (with a few notable exceptions) believes in Pelagianism.

These are all misinformed ad hominem attacks that seek to discredit someone without actually engaging with them.

To be a semipelagian, one must hold to a view of salvation that is still beyond syngerism and focuses on man's will contravening God's will.

For more information and an adequate Baptist understanding of semipleganism please read: http://sbctoday.com/2012/06/07/semi-pelagianism-a-plea-for-clarity-and-charity/

Thanks for posting this.

 

[Herald]

Is anyone going to provide proof that Norman Geisler is a semi-Pelagianist? Short of proof all that is left is gossip.

 

[Van]

Is anyone going to provide proof that Norman Geisler is a semi-Pelagianist? Short of proof all that is left is gossip.

If we define semi-Pelagianist as: To be a semipelagian, one must hold to a view of salvation that is still beyond synergism and focuses on man's will contravening God's will.

Using that definition, the quotes I provided "prove" Dr. Geisler is not semipelagian.

Since Norm believes in the doctrine of "illumination" he puts the horse before the cart, i.e. God provides the needed help from the get/go, unlike semi-Pelagian doctrine.

 

[Revmitchell]

According to The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd edn), the semi-Pelagianism of the 4th and 5th centuries “maintained that the first steps toward the Christian life were ordinarily taken by the human will and that Grace supervened only later.”

 

[Van]

According to The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd edn), the semi-Pelagianism of the 4th and 5th centuries “maintained that the first steps toward the Christian life were ordinarily taken by the human will and that Grace supervened only later.”

That is right, and so since Geisler believes in the doctrine of illumination, where God is involved prior to any step by man, the charge of semi-Pelagianism is shown to be false and slanderous.

 

[Jerome]

Semipelagianism was declared heresy by the Second Council of Orange (529).