Featured Tell the Truth by Will Metzger DISCUSSION

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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).

 

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).

 

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.

 

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).

 

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).