Norman L. Geisler（洛约拉大学博士）在学院或研究生层面教授神学、哲学和护教学超过 50 年。他曾在三一福音神学院、达拉斯神学院和自由大学担任教授。他是Southern Evangelical Seminary 和Veritas Evangelical Seminary（现为Veritas 国际大学）的联合创始人。他曾任Veritas国际大学校长和护教学特聘教授，南方福音神学院名誉院长和神学和护教学特聘高级教授。
他是 100 多本书的作者/合著者，包括《我没有足够的信心成为无神论者》、《表明基督教是真实的十二点》、《护教学大书》、贝克的护教学百科全书、《当怀疑论者问》、《当批评家问》 , 从上帝到我们, 西方哲学史, 捍卫无误, 系统神学, 如果上帝为什么邪恶, 宗教哲学, 基督教护教学, 和圣经无误。
Four Views on Eternal Security pdf 诺曼 盖斯勒
The book brings some sanity to this important topic which, as we all know, too often is treated haphazardly.
The contributors lay out their argument, and then each has a turn at criticizing the others' arguments, and to offer rejoinders. This is a delightful and helpful feature.
The book is worth its price simply on the basis of the editor's (J. Matthew Pinson) historical/theological overview of the theological systems represented in the book. A part of this essay is a much needed discussion of Arminius' Arminianism which is much closer to Calvin than Wesley's Arminianism, but is much less known.
Horton, in good Covenantal fashion, ties eternal security to infant baptism. I'm not a Covenantalist, but obviously, I must not have enough theological or exegetical expertise to understand his argument. Perhaps, a Reformed Baptist might have better argumentation for a consistently Calvinistic view of eternal security.
The one point Calvinist, Geisler, gives the impression that he threw together a bunch of prooftexts on eternal security at the last minute, the exegesis of which is questionable. He really doesn't give a good sustained argument as to how this doctrine fits into any system of theology, nor does he show in good exegetical fashion how these prooftexts fit into the contexts of their authors' larger argument.
Ashby's article is welcome relief after the almost esoteric chapter by Horton and the superficial treatment by Geisler. Ashby briefly fits eternal security into the system of Reformation Arminianism, and provides good exegetical analysis of the texts, as well as a treatment of texts which might be difficult for his position.
Harper gives the impression that his urgency is to cite Wesley as much as possible. Unfortunately, this is done outside a framework of systematic theology, and one is left looking for a serious discussion of biblical texts.
There probably is no other book which will challenge your view of eternal security as much as this one.
Amazon needs to change its presentation of the book to give explicit credit to Pinson as its editor. The book is not "by" Horton, Geisler, Ashby, and Harper, as suggested in various places in Amazon's pages; rather, it should present the book as "edited" by Pinson in the first place.