have read and studied MANY different authors and sytsemsof theology, and have read many reformed, arms/non cals etc over the years, and not mean to be a 'slam" agaunst Dr Geisler, but his views inthis area are Not calvinistic, but more like evangelical Arminian!
-
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
have read and studied MANY different authors and sytsemsof theology, and have read many reformed, arms/non cals etc over the years, and not mean to be a 'slam" agaunst Dr Geisler, but his views inthis area are Not calvinistic, but more like evangelical Arminian!
Yes but I will not raise my children or grandchildren around them. Im the man of the house & I school my family per a certain given interpretation of the bible that I feel is truth. Now a certain professing Christian starts telling my family that the will, rather than being bound by sin, is actually neutral...Blah Blah Blah, that person is now undermining my strong belief & teaching (to my family) about Romans 3:23.
You get it. I want my family around people I feel are teaching correct doctrine not incorrect doctrine. Your taking that outa the equation & creating a mish mosh.
Self-prefessed Arminian Roger Olson (who teaches theology at George Truett Theological Seminary) says that most Christians are semi-Pelagian.'American Christianity is by-and-large Semi-Pelagian. he regards it as the folkd religion of modern America.
So there you have it. A man who proudly says he is Arminian claims that most American Christians are actually Semi-Pelagian. This is not a case of a Calvinist using the term as a pejorative --as you often insist.
Of course the differences between an Arminian and a Semi-Pelagian are superficial. Both systems believe in libertarian free-will. The distinctions are negligible.
You don't want your children around who? I haven't created anything. Labels are not the authority scripture is.
Naturally, he's the authority on what everybody else believes so I'll take his word for it.
Thank you Dr. Rippon.
Is your referenced individual a theological scholar ....what I'm saying is, I don't know his standing among other scholars
Last edited by a moderator:
A lot of people are highly regarded. So what? By whom? Since to resident liberals mention him as reliable and the fact that he finds truth about God in the book "The Shack" I would not find him credible and would avoid him at all costs.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0830837086/?tag=baptis04-20
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0830837086/?tag=baptis04-20
Is not all truth, God's truth? He doesn't accept everything and is critical when need be, but he sees The Shack as a way to begin the discussion about some of the larger questions of evil, forgiveness and the character of God.
It is called nuance, I know in your little and confining black and white world it may look like compromise or even (God forbid!) liberalism, but finding the sacred in and amongst the secular is exactly what Jesus did.
But hey, you found an Amazon review so that should be plenty of information to make hard and fast judgments about Dr. Olson's abilities as a scholar.
The world you live in must be so small, I really do feel sorry for you sometimes.
It is called nuance, I know in your little and confining black and white world it may look like compromise or even (God forbid!) liberalism, but finding the sacred in and amongst the secular is exactly what Jesus did.
But hey, you found an Amazon review so that should be plenty of information to make hard and fast judgments about Dr. Olson's abilities as a scholar.
The world you live in must be so small, I really do feel sorry for you sometimes.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Humblesmith
Member
Regarding the questions in the OP.........
"The effects of sin on fallen human beings are so great that without God's common grace (i.e., His nonsaving grace that is available to all persons), society would be unlivable and salvation unattainable." (Geisler, Systematic Theology, 3.130)
"Even though faith is possible for the unsaved, nonetheless, no one can believe unto salvation without the aid of God's special grace."(Geisler, Systematic Theology, 3.136)
"The human will cannot, unmoved by divine grace, seek God. Paul said, 'There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God' (Rom. 3:11). Further, human will cannot initiate salvation. John declared emphatically that believers are 'children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God' (John 1:13). Also, by the human will one cannot attain his own salvation: 'It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy' (Rom. 9:16)" (Geisler, Systematic Theology, 3.147-148)
"One is free in the choice to receive or reject the gift of salvation. . . Of course, our act of faith is prompted and aided by God . . . While God, though, prompts our act of faith, He does not perform it -- it is, after all, our act." (Geisler, Systematic Theology, 3.148)
"Having a fallen nature means we are incapable of saving ourselves." (Ibid., 3.149)
In addition, under the title of "The Names Used of God's Saving Acts" are salvation, redemption, regeneration, and justification, among others. (Ibid., 3.222 ff.)
So Norman Geisler does not believe a person can redeem himself.
"The effects of sin on fallen human beings are so great that without God's common grace (i.e., His nonsaving grace that is available to all persons), society would be unlivable and salvation unattainable." (Geisler, Systematic Theology, 3.130)
"Even though faith is possible for the unsaved, nonetheless, no one can believe unto salvation without the aid of God's special grace."(Geisler, Systematic Theology, 3.136)
"The human will cannot, unmoved by divine grace, seek God. Paul said, 'There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God' (Rom. 3:11). Further, human will cannot initiate salvation. John declared emphatically that believers are 'children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God' (John 1:13). Also, by the human will one cannot attain his own salvation: 'It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy' (Rom. 9:16)" (Geisler, Systematic Theology, 3.147-148)
"One is free in the choice to receive or reject the gift of salvation. . . Of course, our act of faith is prompted and aided by God . . . While God, though, prompts our act of faith, He does not perform it -- it is, after all, our act." (Geisler, Systematic Theology, 3.148)
"Having a fallen nature means we are incapable of saving ourselves." (Ibid., 3.149)
In addition, under the title of "The Names Used of God's Saving Acts" are salvation, redemption, regeneration, and justification, among others. (Ibid., 3.222 ff.)
So Norman Geisler does not believe a person can redeem himself.
Excellent Post!
Thanks for the carefully documented and logically presented on topic post.
Sometimes I think we suffer from fuzzy thinking. Seeking God and trusting in Christ are actions we choose to take. And without God's revelatory grace, which reveals God to us through both general and special revelation, we would not seek the true God, but we might very well seek one of the many false gods. The key is to understand, salvation does not depend upon the man that wills to be saved, so our seeking and trusting does not accomplish salvation. All our works of righteousness are as filthy rags. But we are commanded to seek God and trust in Christ, and so our striving to do so is in accordance with the will of God.
Salvation occurs monergistically - God does it all - when (and if) God credits our worthless wretched faith as righteousness and places us spiritually in Christ. This is our individual election for salvation, 2 Thessalonians 2:13.
Paul's quote of the OT (Psalm 14) concerning "no one seeks God" is making the point that we are all under sin. So the actual contextual idea is "no one seeks God when they are sinning" so the text that says no one seeks God demonstrates and supports the idea that we all sin some of the time.
Thanks for the carefully documented and logically presented on topic post.
Sometimes I think we suffer from fuzzy thinking. Seeking God and trusting in Christ are actions we choose to take. And without God's revelatory grace, which reveals God to us through both general and special revelation, we would not seek the true God, but we might very well seek one of the many false gods. The key is to understand, salvation does not depend upon the man that wills to be saved, so our seeking and trusting does not accomplish salvation. All our works of righteousness are as filthy rags. But we are commanded to seek God and trust in Christ, and so our striving to do so is in accordance with the will of God.
Salvation occurs monergistically - God does it all - when (and if) God credits our worthless wretched faith as righteousness and places us spiritually in Christ. This is our individual election for salvation, 2 Thessalonians 2:13.
Paul's quote of the OT (Psalm 14) concerning "no one seeks God" is making the point that we are all under sin. So the actual contextual idea is "no one seeks God when they are sinning" so the text that says no one seeks God demonstrates and supports the idea that we all sin some of the time.
No, but he does teach that a sinner can freely reject jesus even after being graced by God, so the Lord allows the ultimate basis for salvation to be the sinners choice!
You are correct in your discernment.
There is a reason, though.
Most schooled in theology are also taught "prevenient (or preceding) grace" as a forgone conclusion. They rarely question if such is in fact foundational to the Scriptures.
The Scriptures do not EVER show such "grace" is in force or even found, however, there are those who scramble some verses together in attempt to show such as Scriptural.
Therefore, for a short time, a person (in their view) is awakened to the need and made capable of accepting or rejecting.
Because I do not find such grace being part of the Scripture, I reject that thinking.
In my opinion, the "prevenient / preceding grace" thinking is an attempt to bring some act of human involvement into salvation.
Btw, in case some consider such as held by only one group, the prevenient/preceding grace thinking is spread just about equally among all groups. Just ask any theologian of Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian ... persuasion. Few reject or even question the thinking. Most assume it is correct, because they are taught it is correct.
Think that the very extent and intent of God in the Cross as regarding atonement plays into this, for IF Jesus died as a penal substitution , as I hold, then His death secure real salvation, not potential, so would be Grace applied to JUST Those he died in place of! If one holds to some other view, then general grace to all, and God allowing for human free will to decide the issue!
Stating the opposite
Anyone who read this quote would agree when taken straight up. But a Calvinist made the statement and yet another Calvinist agreed with it. "Freely reject" as defined by Calvinism means a person chooses the only possible choice, i.e. to reject Christ. OTOH, when a sinner is compelled by irresistible grace to "willingly" come to Christ in faith, why that is also a "free choice."
Thus Calvinists say one thing but mean the opposite. Hard to see the fruit of the Spirit in that behavior. According to the Spirit, our yes should mean yes and our no should mean no.
Anyone who read this quote would agree when taken straight up. But a Calvinist made the statement and yet another Calvinist agreed with it. "Freely reject" as defined by Calvinism means a person chooses the only possible choice, i.e. to reject Christ. OTOH, when a sinner is compelled by irresistible grace to "willingly" come to Christ in faith, why that is also a "free choice."
Thus Calvinists say one thing but mean the opposite. Hard to see the fruit of the Spirit in that behavior. According to the Spirit, our yes should mean yes and our no should mean no.