The Battle for the Resurrection

by Norman L. Geisler

Since the belief in a purely spiritual resurrection of Christ is prevalent in many cults, those involved in countering the rise and growth of cults would benefit greatly from reading this book. Dr. Walter Martin, author of 'The Kingdom of the Cults' Dr. Geisler's book is effectively designed as [an] antidote to the misery of turning Christ's factual resurrection into an event outside the bounds of ordinary history. Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, author of 'History and Christianity' Geisler demonstrates not only the danger in the theology of various cults but also the tendency to discount the bodily resurrection of the Lord, even among evangelicals. It is essential reading for every pastor and student. Dr. Paige Patterson, author of 'Song of Solomon' The proclamation that Jesus was raised in the same physical body in which he died is just as important today as it was in the first century. The book signals such a call to the importance of this doctrine. Dr. Gary Habermas, Distinguished Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy, Liberty University

Genres: Theology

256 pages, Paperback

First published August 1, 1992

About the author

Norman L. Geisler (PhD, Loyola University of Chicago) taught at top evangelical colleges and seminaries for over fifty years and was a distinguished professor of apologetics and theology at Veritas Evangelical Seminary in Murrieta, California. He was the author of nearly eighty books, including the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics and Christian Ethics. He and his wife lived in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Reviews

[Randy Corn · Rating 4 out of 5]

I pulled this book off the shelf to read in preparation for the Easter Sunrise Service I had been called upon to preach. It didn’t really apply to that sermon, but was still worth reading. Geisler is very logical in his presentation, revealing the fact that he has spent much of his life in a class room. He often enumerates his reasons for a general point and so is easy to grasp.

The main point of this book is that there is a growing view that Jesus did not rise bodily from the grave. You might expect that this would be true of classic liberals, but Geisler documents cases where evangelicals are trying to open the door to this idea as well. They are saying that the resurrection body of Jesus is not the same body that He had prior to coming out of the tomb. Now, I would agree that the body was changed, but I think it is dangerous to say it was not the same body. It is just a half step away from saying it was not a body at all but something of an apparition. What’s more, this is something which more than one school is not willing to deal with in terms of their faculty. The example that comes up over and over again is Trinity. If I am remembering correctly, that fact may have had something to do with Geisler leaving TEDS.

This is a book on an important subject that I was not really aware of. I knew that liberals denied the resurrection, but I had no idea that some evangelicals were soft on the subject. I will have to follow up to see if this controversy ever escalated or was resolved.

[Simon Kunz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book with great evidence.

[Scott Gregory · Rating 2 out of 5]

Could've been a hundred or so pages less. Or just an essay. Some non sequiturs and quotes out of context. But the strong formulations will challenge.

[Nathan Battey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really good read, though it is a bit repetitive.

[Rodney Harvill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Norman Geisler wrote this book in response to a disturbing trend he had noticed within evangelical churches. In the early church, there had been a heresy known as Docetism, which accepted that Jesus was God but denied His humanity by arguing that He only appeared to be human. Some evangelicals are showing neo-docetic tendencies by accepting that Jesus' pre-resurrection body was flesh and blood but arguing that the resurrection body was non-physical.

An immediate cause for Dr. Geisler writing this book was the determination by an ad hoc committee at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School that the views of Dr. Murray Harris were orthodox in spite of neo-docetic teachings in his books Raised Immortal and From Grave to Glory. Dr. Geisler, who had raised the question of Dr. Harris' orthodoxy in the first place, strongly disagreed with this verdict and critiqued it in an appendix of the book.

Dr. Geisler takes a two-pronged approach to his examination of neo-docetic teachings. First, he compares it to the plumb-line of the Bible. Second, he looks at various church writings and documents throughout church history to demonstrate that the historical position of the church on the resurrection has always been that it is physical and bodily.

In his review of the biblical text, Dr. Geisler makes a strong case that neo-docetic teachings undermine the doctrine of the resurrection by challenging its historicity. This is important because 1 Cor. 15 makes it clear that without the resurrection there is no hope and no basis for the church. If Jesus was not raised from the dead bodily, what is the basis for the hope of our own bodily resurrection? The neo-docetics argue that the resurrection of the dead involves a spirit body, but that does not make a lot of sense. In Acts 17, when Paul in his sermon at the Areopagus mentioned Jesus' resurrection, many of the listeners mocked. Why would they do this if a spirit body not unlike those in the Greek underworld was involved?

Neo-docetic teachings also unintentionally portray Jesus as a liar. When He appeared to the apostles, He let them examine His crucifixion wounds and ate with them to demonstrate to them that He was flesh and bones and not spirit. For me, this was one of Dr. Geisler's stronger arguments.

On the surface, some of the more technical linguistic arguments used by Dr. Geisler to defend the doctrine of the bodily resurrection seem hair splitting, but closer examination reveals this to be necessary. Some of the neo-docetism proponents argue that the meaning of certain Greek words used to describe the resurrection body require it to be non-physical. Dr. Geisler takes pains to point out that this interpretation is unnecessary because the range of meaning and usage within the Bible permit these same words to be interpreted as supporting a physical, bodily resurrection. In other words, the neo-docetists are already splitting hairs to support their position, and some hair splitting is necessary to refute them.

In his review of historical church teachings, Dr. Geisler quotes from:
- Early church fathers Irenaeus, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Rufinus, Epiphanius and Cyril of Jerusalem.
- Medieval church fathers Augustine, Anselm and Thomas Aquinus
- Formula of Concord (A.D. 1576)
- Saxon Visitation Articles (A.D. 1592)
- The French Confession of Faith (A.D. 1559)
- Belgic Confession (A.D. 1561)
- Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (A.D. 1562)
- Westminster Confession (A.D. 1647)
- Declaration of the Congregational Union (1833)

In this review of church teachings, Dr. Geisler showed about as much defense in depth as Admiral Oldendorf did in his near overboard preparations for the Battle of Surigao Strait.

While some parts of the book can get technical, it is well laid out and its arguments very logical and thorough. I enjoyed it and recommend it.

[Annie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read an earlier edition in 1989.

[Jeff · Rating 1 out of 5]

http://thatjeffcarterwashere.blogspot...