Chosen But Free By Norman Geisler

I knew there would be these attacks. Doesn't bother me; I've read the book and agree with most of it. NG is not an "ardent Arminian." I hate these labels, which come from man.

 

It bothered me. I can call myself the President of the United States, but it doesn't make it so.

 

You insist that NG is not an ardent Arminian.( Actually I was being nice.) Do you then agree with him that he is a moderate Calvinist?

Whether you like labels or not -- does the historical use of a theological word have any bearing on your thinking?

 

"As to his religious sentiments, they were those we commonly distinguish by the name of moderate Calvinism." ---Rippon's Baptist Annual Register [1797], obituary of John Parker

 

When it comes to Geisler's book, there are two possible discussions: You can discuss Geisler's terminology or you can discuss his ideas. OK, we know what his opponents think of his terminology, what do you think of his ideas?

 

I'm not familar with John Parker.But just because John Rippon used the terminology of "moderate Calvinism" doesn't mean it lines up with Norm Geisler's "moderate Calvinism".I sincerely doubt that Mr.Parker would have viewed the Canons of Dort represented "extreme Calvinism" if not out-right hyper-Calvinism.But that is NG's view.

 

See J. Swaim's answer.

 

A Needed Refresher

Exactly right.

 

There is another thread currently on this subject. So I thought I would point people in the direction of this older thread.

Stefan is on the mark here.

 

Logic dictates that what Stefan says is true.

 

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

 

I'll have to agree with myself here.:laugh:

 

Think about it, then answer.

 

Ironic this post got no answers in 4 months.

 

Geisler's terminology and his ideas are interwoven. You can't separate them. He calls himself a "moderate Calvinist". By doing so he reinvents historic Calvinism. He is his own benchmark.

He calls those who agree with the Canons of Dort as "extreme Calvinists". How honest is that? So Spurgeon, Dr.D.M.L-Jones, Boice, Warfield and countless others were actually "extreme Calvinists"?! They were really mainstream Calvinists and represented many others with the same theology.

He's a synergist who somehow wants to hang onto the Calvinist nomenclature because he knows that Arminianism was historically condemned as heretical.

Dr. Geisler is semi-Pelagian to Arminian in his theology and yet pawns himself off as a moderate Calvinist. How can somone who rejects 4 of the 5 Canons of Dort still call himself a Calvinist of ANY stripe? How does he have the audacity to make a case for conditional election and yet say he's some kind of Calvinist?

These are some "ideas" which can be discussed.