Norman Geisler

“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.”..
(Norman Geisler – Chosen But Free – Page 35)

On Page 36 of his book – “chosen but free” Geisler uses the writings of another heretic – C.S Lewis to try and strengthn his heretical view of arminian theology.

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….
(Norman Geisler – Chosen But Free – Page 36)

“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.”
(Norman Geisler – Chosen But Free – Page 59)

“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…
(Norman Geisler – Chosen But Free – Page 69)

“His death on the Cross made salvation POSSIBLE for
all men but not ACTUAL–it is not actual until they receive it by
(Norman Geisler – Chosen But Free – Page 80)

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
(Norman Geisler – Chosen But Free – Page 196)

One Comment on “Norman Geisler

  1. Very interesting stuff. I’ve just started reading about Geisler based on a lecture by Sproul I listened to recently.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: