Thanks for those quotes, Mark. Geisler is of Satan.

> p35--"Irresistible grace" on the unwilling is a violation of free
> choice. For God is love, and true love is persuasive but never coercive.
> There can be no shotgun weddings in heaven. God is not a cosmic B.F.
> Skinner who behaviorally modifies men against their will. C. S. Lewis
> has two of the finest passages in print against the idea of
> 'irresistible force' used on unwilling believers. In Screwtape Letters
> Lewis concludes that 'the Irresistible and the Indisputable are the two
> weapons which the very nature of God's scheme forbids Him to use.
> Merely to override a human will...would be for Him useless. He cannot
> ravish, He can only woo."..


So he uses the writings of another God-hater to bolster his position.

> p36--But if God is all-loving, then how can He love only some so as to
> give them and only them the desire to be saved? If He really loves all
> men, then why does He not give to all men the desire to be saved? It
> only follows then that, in the final analysis, the reason why some go to
> hell is that God does not love them and give them the desire
> to be saved...Suppose a farmer discovers tree boys drowning in his pond
> where he had placed signs clearly forbidding swimming....Suppose by some
> inexplicable whim he should declare: 'Even though the boys are
> drowning as a consequence of their own disobedience, nonetheless, out of
> the goodness of my heart I will save one of them and let the other two
> drown. In such a case we would surely consider his love to be partial
> and imperfect....


And I would shock Geisler even more by saying that God CAUSES them to drown, not merely LETS them drown. Geisler's little idol of a god certainly wouldn't do that!

> p59--"although prompted-not coerced-by grace, the act of faith is an act
> of the believer, not a gift from God only to the elect."
>
> p69--" There is strong evidence to show that 'foreknow' does not mean
> 'choose' or 'elect' in the Bible. Many verses use the same root word for
> knowledge of persons where there is no personal
> relationship...Furthermore, even if one could demonstrate that sometimes
> 'foreknowledge' means to 'forechoose' (Romans 11:2), this does not
> demonstrate the extreme Calvinist's view of unconditional election. For
> the question still remains as to whether God ordained an act of free
> choice as a means of receiving his unconditional grace...


To foreknow means to forelove. And in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he never KNEW the reprobate.

> p80--"His death on the Cross made salvation POSSIBLE (italics his) for
> all men but not ACTUAL--it is not actual until they receive it by
> faith...
--CUT--
> p196--it is not only the elect that were ungodly and enemies of God,but
> also the non-elect. Therefore, Christ must have died for the non-elect
> as well as for the elect. Otherwise, He would not have died for all the
> ungodly...


This is classic salvation conditioned on the sinner. If Christ's death was a blanket amnesty for all, then salvation is not conditioned on Christ. All who believe in universal atonement are unregenerate.

Yet there are some on this list who would have the audacity to say that Geisler is saved. Or some would say, "well, he's speaking as an unbeliever would speak, but we cannot judge him lost." It shows an evil heart of unbelief.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Marc


Home

E-mails, Forums, and Letters