The Big Book of Christian Apologetics: An A to Z Guide

by Norman L. Geisler

The Big Book of Christian Apologetics is a comprehensive resource designed to equip motivated believers with information to help defend and explain their faith. Examining nearly every key issue, person, and concept related to Christian apologetics, this book clarifies difficult biblical passages, clearly explains various philosophical systems and concepts, examines contemporary issues and challenges, and offers classic apologetic arguments, all with the aim of giving readers the background to intelligently and persuasively talk about their Christian faith with skeptics. An expertly abridged version of the Baker Encyclopedia on Christian Apologetics, this resource brings leading apologist Norman L. Geisler's seminal work to the masses.

Genres: Reference, Christianity, Christian, Religion, Theology, Nonfiction, Faith

674 pages, Kindle Edition

First published November 1, 2012

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

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

Geisler, Norman. The Big Book of Christian Apologetics.

I read the original “Baker Encyclopedia” in college. I’m partial to that one for nostalgic reasons. This one is good, too (and is the same thing, more or less).

When Geisler sticks to Evangelical Thomism, few can compete with him. His take on causality, analogy, and being is one of the few essential takeaways from this book.

Geisler’s “Twelve Points” is the outline of his apologetic thrust. They are helpfully outlined here.:

Truth about reality is knowable.
Opposites cannot both be true.
The theistic God exists.
If God exists, then miracles are possible.
Miracles can be used to confirm a message from God.
The New Testament is historically reliable.
The New Testament says that Jesus claimed to be God.
Jesus’ claim to be God is confirmed by miracles.
Therefore, Jesus is God.
Whatever Jesus (who is God) teaches is true.
Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God.
Therefore, it is true that the Bible is the Word of God (and anything opposed to it is false).
Analogy, Principle of. Analogy is based in causality. A cause communicates itself to the effect. Being communicates being. “The cause of being must be a Being. It cannot give what it don’t got.” Analogy between God and creation is based in efficient causality. We are like God because Actuality communicates actuality, but unlike God we have limiting potentiality.
Principality of Casuality
Every effect has a cause.
Every contingent being is caused by another.
Every limited being is caused by another.
Everything that comes to be is caused by another.
Nonbeing cannot cause being.
No potency for being can actualize itself, for it would have to have been in a previous state of actuality.
Edwards, Jonathan. Used a good cosmological argument. Some problems concerning panentheism and an overly rigid view of free choice. No one is moved to act unless God acts on him. We act according to our free desire. This self-destructs when applied to Satan and the angels, for it seems God would have to have given them their desire for sin.
First Principles
These are so good I am probably going to write them in the cover of my bible.
B means being;
Bn means Necessary Being;
Bc means contingent being;
-> means causes;
-/> cannot cause;
Act means actuality;
P means potentiality (or potency).
B is or exists (principle of existence)
B is B (principle of identity)
B is not non-B (principle of non-contradiction)
Either B or non-B (principle of excluded middle)
Non-B -/> B (principle of negative causality)
B-/Bc (principle of contingent causality)
Bn-/>Bn (principle of impossible causality)
Bn->Bc (principle of positive causality)
Bc is (exists) (principle of contingent existence)
Bn is (exists) principle of necessary existence)
Act is Act (with no potency) (principle of pure actuality)
Bc is act/potency (principle of potency)
Act ->act/potency (principle of analogy
Act is similar to act
Act is different from potency
Bn is not (principle of negative attributes)
finite (= is infinite)
changing (=is immutable)
temporal (=is eternal)
multiple (= is one)
divisible (=is simple)
Bn is (principle of positive attributes)
actual
intelligent
personal
good
truth
Beautiful
Geisler’s take on creation/flood is interesting. He holds to Old Earth (or rather, the strongest argument for YEC don’t obtain because there are gaps in the genealogies). On the other hand, he holds to a global flood.

Hardening of Pharaoh

This isn’t as against Calvinism as it might seem. Our scholastic fathers held to free choice and that God doesn’t work mechanically against our wills. If that is true, then we shouldn’t have to big a problem with Geisler’s conclusion that God doesn’t harden initially, but subsequently; not directly, but indirectly; not against free choice, but through free choice; not as to the cause, but as to the effect.

Hinduism. Some comments. The only way I could know that all is an illusion is by using my senses. These same monists tell us to use our senses to listen to their lectures or read their books.

If illusionism is true, how could I know it?

Gospel witnesses: The gospels couldn’t have been myths because not only do myths not develop in under a generation, but myths also do not develop while the eyewitnesses are still alive.

Bart Ehrman on the manuscripts’ having errors: if we apply the same reasoning to his own books, we note that his first edition had sixteen errors. One hundred thousand copies were pritten. This means he made 1.6 million errors, but that is silly.

First Law of Thermodynamics. The point isn’t that energy can’t be created or destroyed. It isn’t making a statement about the origin of the universe. Energy remains constant, albeit the usable energy decreases.

Van Til. We’ll end the review with his critique of Van Til. CVT says that for Aquinas God’s existence is only probable, whereas Aquinas said it was rationally necessary (ST 1a., 2, 3). Aquinas would believe with CVT that truth depends ontologically on God. Yet CVT never fully realized that finite man must ask how he could know. CVT confused the order of knowing with the order of being.

Even worse, if the unbeliever experiences everything with a “jaundiced eye,” how would he ever understand Van Til, since the rules of logic and grammar are being experienced differently? CVT seemed to see this tension (IST, 15). It gets worse, though. If the unbeliever with his jaundiced eye cannot account for creation, then he’s off the hook since there is no way for him to suppress a truth that he doesn’t even understand.

Criticisms

Unfortunately, Geisler holds to some form of the subordination of the Son. To be honest, I think he is just confused, for he first anchors the subordination in the economy. However, he does use the unstable category of “function.” There is no evidence, though, that he is using this model to drive a particular view of male-female relations. He might in other books, but not here. What makes it more frustrating is that his overall Trinitarianism and Doctrine of God is so good.

[Daniel Clemence · Rating 2 out of 5]

The Big Book of Christian Apologetics: A to Z Guide by Norman Geisler is an encyclopaedia in Christian apologetics which is written from the viewpoint of Evangelical Christianity. I first repurchased this book around 2013 when I was studying at university. Even then, I had disagreements with it. Now, I decided to read it again that I have deconstructed as an Evangelical, viewing myself as a Progressive-Liberal Christian (terms are not all-inclusive). I was reading it to convince myself of the Evangelical Christianity. After all, according to Christians, apologetics provides reasons for believing, as in the words of 1 Peter “always being ready to make a defence to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence”.

Is The Big Book of Christian Apologetics an effective apologetics tool? The book gives an A to Z of multiple subjects that refer to Christian apologetics. From subjects such as the Historicity of Acts and Adam to subjects such as Zen Buddhism, the book gives bitesize commentary on different topics. The book is designed to be a reference book, giving subjects in small commentaries to allow the reader to have a better way of defending their Evangelical Christian faith. Much of the discussion attempts to discuss these subjects from the viewpoint of Evangelicalism. His Evangelical position borders on Fundamentalism at times. The dividing line between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists has blurred over time; historically the main difference between Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christianity is that Fundamentalist Christianity did not engage with society and tried to create a parallel society. Evangelicals however sort to engage and convert people to society. Evangelicals are exceptionally wide in their doctrine and in some ways that was the original point of the development of the Neo-Evangelical movement of the 1950s.
There are some strong points in the book. For one there is a considerable amount of research, with a 37-page bibliography. That takes a level of scholarship, no matter how biased you are to achieve. The book also gives a reasonably fair critique of people and movements that it disagrees with. These vary though from a fair assessment to outright critical. The positions put forward also use a degree of argumentation, with arguments set out in a standard logical way, as taught in Analytic Philosophy with premises that align with a conclusion. Much of the book, I found hard to criticise but that was in a sense because I meant to give an overview for Goodreads. As a result, the criticisms of the book are the most egregious issues I have come across.

So, my assessment of this book is that whilst Geisler has put forward a well-researched book, much of the reasoning in the book is highly undesirable and flawed. I have found the book is at times incredibly well argued and at other points of the book arguments would be embarrassing for even a First-year undergraduate to make. For someone to write a comprehensive book on Apologetics, it would be important to provide a well-argued book on all fronts. Instead, there were points of the book that could be critiqued by even a 16-year-old with a basic level of education in the sciences.

Let’s start with my first criticism: lack of introduction or preface. This for me is problematic. There are no overall defining points laid out by Giesler as to what this book is for and what point of view Giesler is trying to make. Taking a cursory glance at the book does not give any indication as to which theological position Giesler makes. As a result, he lays out arguments that not every Evangelical would use in defending their position. Take for example his argument on the Historicity of Adam (this won’t be the last time that I will mention this). When I was an Evangelical, I believed in a historical Adam and Eve. However, I used an intellectual hermeneutical position that asserted that Adam could be real due to research into human genetics linking us to a common ancestor. The approach that Giesler takes is using the Bible to defend Biblical truth. I will come back to this later but suffice to say that this is why I viewed him as a Fundamentalist at times. It would have been so much better for him to lay out his position in an introduction.

My second criticism links to my first criticism in that the book uses intellectual slight of hands in terms throughout the book to modify Giesler’s argument. This wouldn’t be seen in a superficial look at the book, but a thorough reading shows that Giesler will change the terminology to get a point across. The most obvious of these is the term “orthodox Christian”, which Giesler will regularly assert and yet never defines. This is a problem because "orthodox Christiani" can have multiple meanings. It can mean those who follow the correct doctrine of Christianity (which is what I assume Giesler means). It can also mean a specific Christian who follows the teachings of any one of the Orthodox churches such as Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox church. Now this wouldn’t be so problematic if the “orthodox Christian” position was the only position that Giesler is defending. But it isn’t. Giesler also uses the term “Evangelical Christian” in parts of the book as the alternative position in apologetics he is trying to defend. This is noteworthy because, in the subheading on Existentialism, Giesler outlines why Existentialism is threatening to Evangelical Christianity because there were multiple Christian Existentialists. This argument strategy is dishonest because you are implying that your book is a representative of orthodox Christianity but in reality, it is Evangelical Christianity that upholds the sort of Biblical inerrancy that Giesler would believe in.

My third criticism is that the book is so wedded to upholding the position of Biblical inerrancy that it is at times highly fallacious. Going back to my previous point on the Historicity of Adam, the argument used to defend the existence of Adam was a begging-the-question fallacy or circular reasoning. In this fallacy, an assertion is the same as the conclusion. Giesler claims there is good evidence for the historical Adam and Eve whilst providing no such evidence. Instead, the evidence provided amounts to a series of Bible quotes. I was stunned when I read this. I had to reread to make sure that I hadn’t missed any points. The circular argument amounts to 1.) There are good arguments for the existence of a historical Adam. 2.) These arguments are found within the Bible. 3.) Therefore, because the Bible makes good arguments for the existence of Adam, Adam must be historically real. This is an exceptionally poor argument. Given the level of scholarship that this book has, I am surprised it is even one that Giesler puts forward. Alas though, this is the depths that this book has to defend.

Whilst the historicity of Adam is one of the weakest arguments that this book has made, there are several subsections which require assumptive arguments. Take for example Giesler’s view of the Bible. In the various subsections of the Bible, Giesler uses multiple assumptions. The first assumption is that the Bible is merely the word of God, using an equivalence between a prophet claiming to be speaking of God and a writer who is divinely inspired. These aren’t the same thing. The second assumption is the assumption that the Bible is inerrant or that there are no errors of content within the Bible. The Bible is essentially a perfect book that was inspired by God, and written by men. I do not have the time to write out why I think the Bible is not inerrant but let’s just say there are multiple problems with inerrancy not least the historical problems, the contradictions, the moral problems and so forth. I haven’t even got to the point on language yet. The other assumption is that he assumes Jesus upholds the Bible. But Jesus never upheld the Bible because it was centuries before it became canonised. There is an argument that could be made that Jesus quoted non-canonical books such as Enoch, meaning he gave authority to books that were never canonised by the majority of Christians.

One subsection I looked through and had serious problems with was the subheading Conventionalism. Conventionalism is the theory within the philosophy of language that all meaning is relative. Now, to define a position that is easy to attack, define it in a way that seems contradictory. Saying “all meaning is relative” would make the statement relative and therefore contradictory. Having read a large number of books on the nature of the philosophy of language, I can say the Conventionalist position is largely defined as language being a product of social interaction makes it relative. The key is social interaction because social interaction is relative. Meanings change over time. Words are not intrinsically defined by their characteristics of themselves. The word “sick” is an adjective that means ill, morally depraved and also by Gen Z as being excellent. The word “thing” is a noun for an object or event, but in Norse means a people’s assembly. In that way, the word has ceased to be defined by exactly one thing but transcends meaning depending on context. Saying that language is defined by social convention cannot be ignored. Giesler puts forward weak responses to Conventionalism in that he fails to demonstrate why semantics and hermeneutics have intrinsic meaning behind them. Giesler appeals to maths, universal statements, and requirements for meaning. To the Evangelical who wants basic validation of their position. However, anyone who has studied the philosophy of language or has read even a limited amount of the philosophy of language will see that Geisler is way out of his depth of understanding of linguistics. By ignoring the social element in language, Geisler puts forward a strawman of Conventionalism, rather than addressing the core of the problem that language is contingent on social conventions. By being unable to address that, he puts forward a weak strawman that might prop up the faith of Evangelicals but is laughable to the standards of academics.

The lack of an answer to Conventionalism has real-world implications for Christian Apologetics. I have seen multiple videos of Apologists trying to attack the Bible scholar Dan McClellan on the basis that language has inherent meaning. This is because conventionalism has significant problems for Evangelicals in holding to inherency need texts to mean things with absolute certainty. However, if language is a product of social convention, then language doesn’t have inherent meaning. And if language doesn’t have inherent meaning, the Bible doesn’t have inherent meaning. It would then follow that the Bible doesn’t have inherent meaning and would entail that Biblical inerrancy is false. The fact that the sources for Conventionalism are either 20th-century linguistics or a mix of philosophers centuries ago shows that Giesler is either fundamentally ill-equipped to take on the assertion that language is socially relative or has failed to demonstrate that language has inherent meaning. Indeed, one of the sources “Against Relativism” by J. Harris even states that it isn’t against all forms of relativism. Either way, the book fails to prepare Evangelicals for linguistic criticisms.

I could present other points but then it would turn this review into a book in its own right. There are points in the book that are reasonable. However, some points are laughable to anyone with a level of education or expertise. As certain academics have pointed out, apologetics is not meant to convert people to Christianity; apologetics is meant to provide a defence for Christians. This book is just that; a big book for Evangelicals to consult to make them feel that their position is right. The problem is that whilst the book gives a comprehensive subjects list, it does not allow enough in-depth knowledge which means someone with inside knowledge (like the philosophy of language) to easily refute an Evangelical who would leverage this resource.

In conclusion, this book is well-researched and gives fair criticism to some who disagree. It however fails to provide the necessary information for Evangelicals to defend their faith. It offers a disingenuous encyclopaedia of Evangelical apologetics which does not provide a satisfactory response to critiques. I think faith offers something different to reason and that it is okay for Christians not to have all the answers. Evangelicalism is firmly rooted in the Modernist Age that it tends to hate.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

AN “ENCYCLOPEDIC” REFERENCE FOR APOLOGETICS, PHILOSOPHY, ETC.

[This 2012 book is an adaptation of the 1998 book, 'Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics.']

Norman Geisler is a famed apologist and theologian. This book is Geisler’s “encyclopedic” series of articles on hundreds of topics relating to Christianity, apologetics, and philosophy. He fairly presents “both sides” of many issues (e.g., was the Flood “local,” or “universal”?).

To give you an idea of the book, he says about Deism: “Positive things may be learned from deism. Many have agreed with the deists’ insistence on the importance and use of reason in religious matters… The many claims made about miracles and supernatural revelation must be verified… Deists have been commended for their belief that the world reflects the existence of a God... Deists have also been credited with exposing much religious deception and superstition… Yet there is reason to criticize the deistic worldview. A being who could bring the universe into existence from nothing could certainly perform lesser miracles if he chose to do so… Assuming, then, that miracles are possible, one cannot reject out of hand every claim to supernatural revelation without first examining the evidence for its support… Finally, the deists’ case against Christianity and the Bible has been found wanting…” (Pg. 119-120)

Of the problem of evil, he argues, “It is impossible for God to do what is contradictory… Even an omnipotent being cannot do anything. It can only do what is possible. But it is not possible to force people to freely choose the good… Therefore, God cannot literally destroy all evil without annihilating free choice… But when there is no moral free choice, then there is no possibility of moral good… Therefore, if God were to destroy all evil, he would have to destroy all good too. However, theism holds that even though God could not DESTROY … all evil without destroying all good, nevertheless, he can and will DEFEAT (overcome) all evil without destroying free choice… The infinite power and perfection of God guarantee the eventual defeat of evil. The fact that it is not yet accomplished in no way diminishes the certainty that it will be defeated.” (Pg. 141)

About whether the biblical genealogies are “closed” or “open,” he points out, “The biblical evidence for an open genealogy with a n unknown number of missing generations is supported. First, there are those three missing generations in Matthew1:8… In another example, a comparison of 1 Chron 6:3-14 with Ezra reveals that Ezra omits six generations between Seraiah and Ezra. There is at least one generation missing even in the Genesis 5 and 11, which APPEARS to be closed. This demonstrates that whatever the text SEEMS to say, chronology must be interpreted through an open genealogy. If there are no gaps in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies, implausible examples emerge… First, Adam… would have been a contemporary of Noah’s father… But there is no indication that this is the case… If there are no gaps, then significant population improbabilities emerge… the grandfather of Moses had in the lifetime of Moses 8,600 male descendants alone… This would be a very prolific family indeed.” (Pg. 186-187)

Of the “days” of Genesis, he notes, “‘Day’ [yom] can mean a long period… the meaning in Genesis 1 is determined by context, not majority vote. Even in this passage of Genesis 1-2 ‘yom’ is used of the whole of creation Genesis 2:4 refers to ‘the day [yom]’ then they were created. The Hebrew word appears elsewhere for long periods, as in Psalm 90:4 (cited in 2 Peter 3:8)… Numbered days need not be solar. Neither is there a rule of the Hebrew language demanding that all numbered days refer to twenty-four-hour days… Hosea 6:1-2 reads, ‘… After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us…’ Clearly the prophet is not speaking of solar ‘days’ but of longer periods in the future. Yet he numbers the days in series.” (Pg. 189)

He argues, “The evidence is strong for a fifteenth-century BC date for the exodus. This is at odds with the generally accepted date for Egyptian kings. But it may be that the conventional wisdom for Bronze Age dating, and certainly the chronology of Egyptian rulers, may need to be drastically changed. More research and excavations will be needed to learn what theories come closest to describing the flow of events in Egypt and Canaan, but it appears that the Bible dating is more accurate than had been suspected, even more accurate than the knowledge collected in the field of study.” (Pg. 437)

This book is typically very thorough and detailed, and makes for an excellent reference work for Evangelical Christians. It isn’t “perfect” [e.g., the article on the Emergent Church is very skimpy, as even more so is the article on Natural Theology; the article of Thomas J.J. Altizer needs to be updated, as he has written a number of books since the 1960s ‘Death of God’ craze], but will be nearly a “must have” reference for many.

[Wesley · Rating 1 out of 5]

Do not go out into the world with this book to defend your faith. This is the kindergarten version and not honest at that. I was expecting this to provide academically defensible information and it fails.

[Robert Powell · Rating 5 out of 5]

This along with Systematic Theology (Grudem) has been helpful with my understanding of the Gospel and Christianity in general. Very well written and considered. All glory be to God.

[Brenda Bailey · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great book to add to your collection.

[Deborah B. Evans · Rating 1 out of 5]

???????!!!!!!!!!!????????

The overview stated this was going to be a useful tool to help a Christian explain their reasons for their faith. This book uses such lofty academic words, it is rough sledding for those or us without a college
degree. Less academic terms and more plain language would have made this a better tool for me.

[Virginia · Rating 4 out of 5]

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
I received an advance review copy for free, and I am leaving this review voluntarily.