Featured Norm Geisler teaches Pelagianism?

I say "Jesus Saves":thumbs:

 

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

 

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."

 

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

 

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:

 

Calvinism teaches mistaken doctrine

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.

 

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

 

NO it doesn't. It asks

"Norm Geisler teaches Pelagianism?"

 

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.

 

Thank you Rev. Clarity is good.

 

Or misinformed opinion! Then where are ya?

 

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

 

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!

 

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.

 

Not it doesn't it asks:


"Norm Geisler teaches Pelagianism?"

 

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.

 

Now how can that be

 

All men...yes

 

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.