What do you think?
Rate this book
Systematic Theology, Vol. 1: Introduction/Bible
This stand-alone, in-depth reference work is the culmination of the author's 30-plus years of study and research. In the introduction portion of this two-part book, Geisler examines the realities of the Christian faith, including the existence of God, the reality of truth, the nature of revelation, and guidelines for interpretation. Part two presents the origin of Scripture, its inspiration, inerrancy, and much more. (July)
627 pages, Hardcover
First published July 1, 2002
17 people are currently reading
264 people want to read
About the author
Norman L. Geisler
226 books319 followersNorman 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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
March 15, 2012
I had discussion with one of my professors this past week about Geisler. He made the comment, referring to Geisler, that not everyone who has an intellectual mind also possesses a subtle mind. It's a fascinating and important distinction that perfectly sums up everything that is right and wrong with this book. Geisler clearly knows his stuff. He's a logical thinker capable of building clear arguments in favor of his positions. But despite being able to put together a clear, logical argument, Geisler's approach lacks any of the subtle complexity that makes a systematic theology truly great.
There is no room for mystery in Geisler's world. Every t is crossed and every i is dotted. The problem is that that's not how theology works. Theology is complex and intricate. That doesn't mean that conclusions must be relativistic but it does mean that theologians must avoid brushing off complex counter arguments with brief five point responses - something Geisler does repeatedly in his book.
Reflecting on this first volume, I have to wonder if that sort of blunt, ultimately simplistic approach is indicative of an evidentialist approach to theology. It seems that evidentialism requires an airtight case, which allows little room for the complexity that comes with truly engaging with and internalizing conflicting views.
That doesn't mean the work is valueless. For better or worse Geisler is a good representative of evangelical theology and the way that most evangelicals go about theology. He makes the case for evangelical theology in a perfectly evangelical way. Unfortunately, it's a case that will only be accepted by those already on board with his views. Anyone opposing Geisler's positions can, for the most part, dismantle his arguments very quickly.
As an evangelical I find this very problematic and it's why I'm being so hard on the book. I do hold to many (though certainly not all!) of Geisler's positions, but the way he argues them makes those views unsustainable. For evangelicalism to survive we must stop accepting easy answers and be willing to engage in complex discussion that doesn't always end with everything as neatly tied down as we might like it to be. Through one volume Geisler appears unwilling or incapable of doing so. If I'm right about him be an indicator of evangelical thought, then evangelicalism is, sadly, not in good shape. Perhaps it's time for evangelicals to end their decades long polemic against Karl Barth and relearn how to defend conservative, orthodox theology in an intellectually defensible way that we can actually be proud of.
There is no room for mystery in Geisler's world. Every t is crossed and every i is dotted. The problem is that that's not how theology works. Theology is complex and intricate. That doesn't mean that conclusions must be relativistic but it does mean that theologians must avoid brushing off complex counter arguments with brief five point responses - something Geisler does repeatedly in his book.
Reflecting on this first volume, I have to wonder if that sort of blunt, ultimately simplistic approach is indicative of an evidentialist approach to theology. It seems that evidentialism requires an airtight case, which allows little room for the complexity that comes with truly engaging with and internalizing conflicting views.
That doesn't mean the work is valueless. For better or worse Geisler is a good representative of evangelical theology and the way that most evangelicals go about theology. He makes the case for evangelical theology in a perfectly evangelical way. Unfortunately, it's a case that will only be accepted by those already on board with his views. Anyone opposing Geisler's positions can, for the most part, dismantle his arguments very quickly.
As an evangelical I find this very problematic and it's why I'm being so hard on the book. I do hold to many (though certainly not all!) of Geisler's positions, but the way he argues them makes those views unsustainable. For evangelicalism to survive we must stop accepting easy answers and be willing to engage in complex discussion that doesn't always end with everything as neatly tied down as we might like it to be. Through one volume Geisler appears unwilling or incapable of doing so. If I'm right about him be an indicator of evangelical thought, then evangelicalism is, sadly, not in good shape. Perhaps it's time for evangelicals to end their decades long polemic against Karl Barth and relearn how to defend conservative, orthodox theology in an intellectually defensible way that we can actually be proud of.
August 28, 2021
Geisler, Norman. Systematic Theology: Introduction, Bible. Bethany House.
This book would be perfect if it were divided into two separate books. The first half would be a book on prolegomena, foundations, and apologetic method. Had I read such a book before I went to seminary, I would have been spared 8 years of wrong thinking (most of which would have been my fault). The second half is a survey of issues relating to inerrancy, bible survey and introduction, and the like.
There is quite a bit of repetition in this book. Numerous quotes by Albright, J. A. T. Robinson, and others appear over and over. Moreover, much of this book can be found in The Big Book of Apologetics/Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics. It’s still good material, though.
Preconditions of theology:
Mind capable of sending a message (encoder)
Mind capable of receiving message (decoder)
There is a common mode of communication shared by both persons.
God: The Metaphysical Precondition
Geisler defines metaphysics as the study of being.
Theism posits an Infinite, Personal God that exists both beyond and in the universe. After surveying various forms of dualism and monism, Geisler posits a form of Thomism, noting that all finite beings are composed of act and potency in their very being. Potentiality limits a finite being’s actuality, as opposed to God, who is Pure Act.
In a move somewhat rare among systematic theologies, Geisler actually defines being. It is that which is, either a mix of potency and act or a pure actuality. God is, other beings have. From here Geisler moves to his arguments for the existence of this Pure Act.
Cosmological
Horizontal argument.
(1) Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
(2) The universe had a beginning.
(3) Therefore, the universe had a Cause.
The second premise needs defending, which those from Bonaventure to William Lane Craig have done:
1) An infinite number of moments cannot be traversed.
(2) If there were an infinite number of moments before today, then today would never have come, since an infinite number of moments cannot be traversed.
3) But today has come.
(4) Hence, there were only a finite number of moments before today (i.e., a beginning of time). And everything with a beginning had a Beginner. Therefore, the temporal world had a Beginner (Cause).
Vertical Form of the argument:
This argument begins with “present contingent existence.” It argues from effect to Necessary Cause.
(1) If everything were contingent, then it would be possible that nothing existed.
(2) But something does exist (e.g., I do), and its existence is undeniable, for I have to exist in order to be able to affirm that I do not exist.
(3) Thus, if some contingent being now exists, a Necessary Being must now exist, otherwise there would be no ground for the existence of this contingent being.
But granting the arguments, would this even prove the Christian God? It will get closer than you think. Such a God would not be the one of finite godism, “since the cause of all finite things cannot be finite.” Nor can it be the god of polytheism, since there can’t be more than one unlimited being.
Miracles: The Supernatural Precondition
The problem of definition:
Weak sense: something that is not contrary to nature, only our knowledge of nature (Augustine). On this view an event doesn’t even have to be supernatural to be a miracle. This is obviously inadequate.
Strong sense: an event beyond nature’s power to produce (Aquinas, SCG 3).
A miracle doesn’t have to violate natural law. It is simply a new effect produced by a supernatural cause.
Answering objections
Spinoza: standard objection of “violating immutable natural laws.” Response: He begs the question on immutable laws. He also operates in a closed system.
Hume: Miracles are in-credible. Uniform experience is against miracles. Response: He begs the question in advance by claiming to know uniform experience. He can’t know all possible sense experiences. Moreover, as Geisler notes, “he never weighs the evidence on miracles. He simply adds evidence against them.” Even worse, Hume’s method of “adding evidence” eliminates any unique experience in history, even natural ones.
Revelation: The Revelational Precondition
The possibility of divine revelation depends on the reality of God. If God exists, which he does, then divine revelation is not only possible, but actual. The only real challenges today concern whether humans are capable of receiving this revelation (postmodernism) and whether the medium is reliable.
Geisler correctly notes that “In order for an infinite Mind to communicate with finite minds, certain things must be possible. To begin, there must be a common principle of reason that both possess.” Language and being are analogical.
Geisler’s charts are really good.
While some like to say that man’s thought sinfully distorts general revelation, and at one level that is true, general revelation is still essential to human thought. And while it is true that “Scripture determines what we believe on general revelation,” we still use general revelation (e.g., laws of logic) to make that statement.
That doesn’t fully answer the existential question: when our understanding of general revelation and our understanding of special revelation clash, who wins? Geisler says the interpretation with more certainty. Sometimes this is general revelation, sometimes special.
Logic: The Rational Precondition
Geisler summarizes here his other writings on logic. At their most basic they are:
1) Law of non-contradiction
2) Law of identity
3) Law of excluded middle.
In order to help us think better, Geisler has given a nice summary of categorical propositions:These should be written on the inside of all study bibles.
(1) There must be only three terms.
(2) The middle term must be distributed at least once.
(3)Terms Distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in the premises.
(4) The conclusion always follows the weaker premises(i.e., negative and particular ones).
(5) No conclusion follows from two negative premises.
(6) No conclusion follows from two particular premises.
(7) No negative conclusion follows from two affirmative premises.
Most evangelicals will go with him this far, but what is the relationship between Logic and God? According to Geisler, Logic is subject to God ontologically. “God is prior to logic in the order of being.” Nevertheless, God is rational by his very nature. On the other hand, logic is prior to God epistemologically. As Geisler notes, the statement “God is God’ makes no sense unless the law of identity holds (A is A).” The statement “God exists” isn’t true unless the law of noncontradiction is true.
Meaning: The Semantical Precondition
Thesis: all true statements must be meaningful. Geisler identifies three different types of schools: conventionalism (Wittgenstein), essentialism (Plato), and realism. Conventionalism is self-falsifying, for when it says all linguistic meaning is conventional, it, too, is relative.
Truth: The Epistemological Precondition
Thesis: Truth is that which corresponds to its object.
Exclusivism: The Oppositional Precondition
Thesis: Christianity’s truth claims entails that other religious oppositions are wrong (or at least cannot be correct at the same time as Christianity’s). Much of this is standard fare in evangelical apologetics, but Geisler hones in one of John Hick’s questionable presuppositions. Hick says an undifferentiated Real is known in all faiths. The problem is that an undifferentiated Real doesn’t have any definable characteristics, which means it can’t be identified. It can’t be known in any faith! Even worse, if it is undifferentiated, then no symbol can represent it.
Language: The Linguistic Precondition
Thesis: How do our concepts relate to God? They can’t be equivocal, for that would be self-defeating. They can’t be univocal, since God is infinite. Analogy makes the most sense. It allows for both similarity and differentiation. Similar to Parmenides’ dilemma, Geisler notes: “Either one’s principle of differentiation is inside of being or it is outside of being. If outside, then things do not differ in being; they are identical in being, and monism is true. The only way to maintain a pluralism essential to theism is to insist that things differ in their very being. Yet how can they differ by what they have in common? The answer is that they cannot, if being is univocal. But it isn’t.”
We’re not done yet, though. We can say that we have univocal concepts but analogical predication. The definition is the same between God and creatures, but the application is different.
Interpretation: The Hermeneutical Precondition
Contra Heidegger, Geisler asks how he can say Being is unintelligible. How could he know this about Being unless he understood it? Moreover, Heidegger’s denial of correspondence assumes that his denial corresponds to the way things are.
Heidegger correctly notes that man is a contingent being, yet he draws back from affirming the logical conclusion: there is a Necessary Being.
Contra Derrida, his statement that all meaning is limited by language tries to get outside those limits in order to establish them. (The rest of the criticisms flow from this critique).
Savage Burn: “it is fruitless to turn to poetry to avoid metaphysics. Metaphysical questions still exist, and they cannot be answered in anything but metaphysical language. Any so-called poetical protest is nothing more than an exercise in ventilating one’s tonsils.”
The Alternative
Can we know things objectively? Yes. The metaphysical precondition, God, has made it possible. Geisler: “The objective basis for meaning is found in the mind of God.” Much of this chapter is standard fare in grammatical-historical hermeneutics. The following is a long quote, for which I indulge the reader’s forgiveness, but it is worth noting:
Applying the six causes to meaning will help explain the point. Following Aristotle, scholastic philosophers distinguished six different causes:
(1) efficient cause—that by which something comes to be;
(2) final cause—that for which something comes to be;
(3) formal cause—that of which something comes to be;
(4) material cause—that out of which something comes to be;
(5) exemplar cause—that after which something comes to be;
(6) instrumental cause—that through which something comes to be.
Remember the example of the chair? A wooden chair has a carpenter as its efficient cause, to provide something to sit on as its final cause, its structure as a chair as its formal cause, wood as its material cause, the blueprint as its exemplar cause, and the carpenter’s tools as its instrumental cause. As we have seen, applying these six causes to meaning yields the following analysis:
(1) The writer is the efficient cause of the meaning of a text.
(2) The writer’s purpose is the final cause of its meaning.
(3) The writing is the formal cause of its meaning.
(4) The words are the material cause of its meaning.
(5) The writer’s ideas are the exemplar cause of its meaning.
(6) The laws of thought are the instrumental cause of its meaning.
In conclusion, we use the laws of logic in biblical hermeneutics. Anything else makes rational meaning impossible.
Historiography: The Historical Precondition
Method: The Methodological Precondition
The Evangelical method begins with an inductive basis in Scripture, which involves an abductive step. It will also deduce truths from Scripture and make use of analogies. He puts them all together into what he calls a Retroductive Method, worth quoting in full:
1. The Inductive Basis:
(a) God cannot err.
(b) The Bible is God’s Word.
2. The Deductive Conclusion:
(c) The Bible cannot err.
3. The Use of Analogies:
(d) Just as Christ was divine and human yet without sin, even so the Bible is divine and human yet without error.
(e) Just as nature (God’s general revelation) presents difficulties with possessing errors, so does the Bible (God’s special revelation).
4. The Use of General Revelation:
(f) The earth is not square.
(g) The sun does not move around the earth.
5. The Retroductive Method:
(h) The biblical teaching is fleshed out in view of facts known from general revelation and the data (phenomena) of Scripture.
(i) There are errors in the manuscript copies.
(j) The Bible uses figures of speech and other literary devices, round numbers, everyday (nontechnical) language, paraphrases, etc.
(k) The deductive conclusion (point c) is understood in the light of the retroductive enhancement. For example: (1) The Bible is without error only in the original text, not in all the copies. (2) Round numbers, observational language, figures of speech, and paraphrased citations are not errors.
The rest of the book is a summary and defense of inerrancy, inspiration, and the like. Some things to note, like Geisler’s chart between accommodation to error and adaption to finitude.
Note: To the everlasting embarrassment of Bible critics, at least those who claim to be followers of Christ, Jesus affirmed exactly the opposite of what much of negative “higher criticism” teaches.
This book would be perfect if it were divided into two separate books. The first half would be a book on prolegomena, foundations, and apologetic method. Had I read such a book before I went to seminary, I would have been spared 8 years of wrong thinking (most of which would have been my fault). The second half is a survey of issues relating to inerrancy, bible survey and introduction, and the like.
There is quite a bit of repetition in this book. Numerous quotes by Albright, J. A. T. Robinson, and others appear over and over. Moreover, much of this book can be found in The Big Book of Apologetics/Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics. It’s still good material, though.
Preconditions of theology:
Mind capable of sending a message (encoder)
Mind capable of receiving message (decoder)
There is a common mode of communication shared by both persons.
God: The Metaphysical Precondition
Geisler defines metaphysics as the study of being.
Theism posits an Infinite, Personal God that exists both beyond and in the universe. After surveying various forms of dualism and monism, Geisler posits a form of Thomism, noting that all finite beings are composed of act and potency in their very being. Potentiality limits a finite being’s actuality, as opposed to God, who is Pure Act.
In a move somewhat rare among systematic theologies, Geisler actually defines being. It is that which is, either a mix of potency and act or a pure actuality. God is, other beings have. From here Geisler moves to his arguments for the existence of this Pure Act.
Cosmological
Horizontal argument.
(1) Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
(2) The universe had a beginning.
(3) Therefore, the universe had a Cause.
The second premise needs defending, which those from Bonaventure to William Lane Craig have done:
1) An infinite number of moments cannot be traversed.
(2) If there were an infinite number of moments before today, then today would never have come, since an infinite number of moments cannot be traversed.
3) But today has come.
(4) Hence, there were only a finite number of moments before today (i.e., a beginning of time). And everything with a beginning had a Beginner. Therefore, the temporal world had a Beginner (Cause).
Vertical Form of the argument:
This argument begins with “present contingent existence.” It argues from effect to Necessary Cause.
(1) If everything were contingent, then it would be possible that nothing existed.
(2) But something does exist (e.g., I do), and its existence is undeniable, for I have to exist in order to be able to affirm that I do not exist.
(3) Thus, if some contingent being now exists, a Necessary Being must now exist, otherwise there would be no ground for the existence of this contingent being.
But granting the arguments, would this even prove the Christian God? It will get closer than you think. Such a God would not be the one of finite godism, “since the cause of all finite things cannot be finite.” Nor can it be the god of polytheism, since there can’t be more than one unlimited being.
Miracles: The Supernatural Precondition
The problem of definition:
Weak sense: something that is not contrary to nature, only our knowledge of nature (Augustine). On this view an event doesn’t even have to be supernatural to be a miracle. This is obviously inadequate.
Strong sense: an event beyond nature’s power to produce (Aquinas, SCG 3).
A miracle doesn’t have to violate natural law. It is simply a new effect produced by a supernatural cause.
Answering objections
Spinoza: standard objection of “violating immutable natural laws.” Response: He begs the question on immutable laws. He also operates in a closed system.
Hume: Miracles are in-credible. Uniform experience is against miracles. Response: He begs the question in advance by claiming to know uniform experience. He can’t know all possible sense experiences. Moreover, as Geisler notes, “he never weighs the evidence on miracles. He simply adds evidence against them.” Even worse, Hume’s method of “adding evidence” eliminates any unique experience in history, even natural ones.
Revelation: The Revelational Precondition
The possibility of divine revelation depends on the reality of God. If God exists, which he does, then divine revelation is not only possible, but actual. The only real challenges today concern whether humans are capable of receiving this revelation (postmodernism) and whether the medium is reliable.
Geisler correctly notes that “In order for an infinite Mind to communicate with finite minds, certain things must be possible. To begin, there must be a common principle of reason that both possess.” Language and being are analogical.
Geisler’s charts are really good.
While some like to say that man’s thought sinfully distorts general revelation, and at one level that is true, general revelation is still essential to human thought. And while it is true that “Scripture determines what we believe on general revelation,” we still use general revelation (e.g., laws of logic) to make that statement.
That doesn’t fully answer the existential question: when our understanding of general revelation and our understanding of special revelation clash, who wins? Geisler says the interpretation with more certainty. Sometimes this is general revelation, sometimes special.
Logic: The Rational Precondition
Geisler summarizes here his other writings on logic. At their most basic they are:
1) Law of non-contradiction
2) Law of identity
3) Law of excluded middle.
In order to help us think better, Geisler has given a nice summary of categorical propositions:These should be written on the inside of all study bibles.
(1) There must be only three terms.
(2) The middle term must be distributed at least once.
(3)Terms Distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in the premises.
(4) The conclusion always follows the weaker premises(i.e., negative and particular ones).
(5) No conclusion follows from two negative premises.
(6) No conclusion follows from two particular premises.
(7) No negative conclusion follows from two affirmative premises.
Most evangelicals will go with him this far, but what is the relationship between Logic and God? According to Geisler, Logic is subject to God ontologically. “God is prior to logic in the order of being.” Nevertheless, God is rational by his very nature. On the other hand, logic is prior to God epistemologically. As Geisler notes, the statement “God is God’ makes no sense unless the law of identity holds (A is A).” The statement “God exists” isn’t true unless the law of noncontradiction is true.
Meaning: The Semantical Precondition
Thesis: all true statements must be meaningful. Geisler identifies three different types of schools: conventionalism (Wittgenstein), essentialism (Plato), and realism. Conventionalism is self-falsifying, for when it says all linguistic meaning is conventional, it, too, is relative.
Truth: The Epistemological Precondition
Thesis: Truth is that which corresponds to its object.
Exclusivism: The Oppositional Precondition
Thesis: Christianity’s truth claims entails that other religious oppositions are wrong (or at least cannot be correct at the same time as Christianity’s). Much of this is standard fare in evangelical apologetics, but Geisler hones in one of John Hick’s questionable presuppositions. Hick says an undifferentiated Real is known in all faiths. The problem is that an undifferentiated Real doesn’t have any definable characteristics, which means it can’t be identified. It can’t be known in any faith! Even worse, if it is undifferentiated, then no symbol can represent it.
Language: The Linguistic Precondition
Thesis: How do our concepts relate to God? They can’t be equivocal, for that would be self-defeating. They can’t be univocal, since God is infinite. Analogy makes the most sense. It allows for both similarity and differentiation. Similar to Parmenides’ dilemma, Geisler notes: “Either one’s principle of differentiation is inside of being or it is outside of being. If outside, then things do not differ in being; they are identical in being, and monism is true. The only way to maintain a pluralism essential to theism is to insist that things differ in their very being. Yet how can they differ by what they have in common? The answer is that they cannot, if being is univocal. But it isn’t.”
We’re not done yet, though. We can say that we have univocal concepts but analogical predication. The definition is the same between God and creatures, but the application is different.
Interpretation: The Hermeneutical Precondition
Contra Heidegger, Geisler asks how he can say Being is unintelligible. How could he know this about Being unless he understood it? Moreover, Heidegger’s denial of correspondence assumes that his denial corresponds to the way things are.
Heidegger correctly notes that man is a contingent being, yet he draws back from affirming the logical conclusion: there is a Necessary Being.
Contra Derrida, his statement that all meaning is limited by language tries to get outside those limits in order to establish them. (The rest of the criticisms flow from this critique).
Savage Burn: “it is fruitless to turn to poetry to avoid metaphysics. Metaphysical questions still exist, and they cannot be answered in anything but metaphysical language. Any so-called poetical protest is nothing more than an exercise in ventilating one’s tonsils.”
The Alternative
Can we know things objectively? Yes. The metaphysical precondition, God, has made it possible. Geisler: “The objective basis for meaning is found in the mind of God.” Much of this chapter is standard fare in grammatical-historical hermeneutics. The following is a long quote, for which I indulge the reader’s forgiveness, but it is worth noting:
Applying the six causes to meaning will help explain the point. Following Aristotle, scholastic philosophers distinguished six different causes:
(1) efficient cause—that by which something comes to be;
(2) final cause—that for which something comes to be;
(3) formal cause—that of which something comes to be;
(4) material cause—that out of which something comes to be;
(5) exemplar cause—that after which something comes to be;
(6) instrumental cause—that through which something comes to be.
Remember the example of the chair? A wooden chair has a carpenter as its efficient cause, to provide something to sit on as its final cause, its structure as a chair as its formal cause, wood as its material cause, the blueprint as its exemplar cause, and the carpenter’s tools as its instrumental cause. As we have seen, applying these six causes to meaning yields the following analysis:
(1) The writer is the efficient cause of the meaning of a text.
(2) The writer’s purpose is the final cause of its meaning.
(3) The writing is the formal cause of its meaning.
(4) The words are the material cause of its meaning.
(5) The writer’s ideas are the exemplar cause of its meaning.
(6) The laws of thought are the instrumental cause of its meaning.
In conclusion, we use the laws of logic in biblical hermeneutics. Anything else makes rational meaning impossible.
Historiography: The Historical Precondition
Method: The Methodological Precondition
The Evangelical method begins with an inductive basis in Scripture, which involves an abductive step. It will also deduce truths from Scripture and make use of analogies. He puts them all together into what he calls a Retroductive Method, worth quoting in full:
1. The Inductive Basis:
(a) God cannot err.
(b) The Bible is God’s Word.
2. The Deductive Conclusion:
(c) The Bible cannot err.
3. The Use of Analogies:
(d) Just as Christ was divine and human yet without sin, even so the Bible is divine and human yet without error.
(e) Just as nature (God’s general revelation) presents difficulties with possessing errors, so does the Bible (God’s special revelation).
4. The Use of General Revelation:
(f) The earth is not square.
(g) The sun does not move around the earth.
5. The Retroductive Method:
(h) The biblical teaching is fleshed out in view of facts known from general revelation and the data (phenomena) of Scripture.
(i) There are errors in the manuscript copies.
(j) The Bible uses figures of speech and other literary devices, round numbers, everyday (nontechnical) language, paraphrases, etc.
(k) The deductive conclusion (point c) is understood in the light of the retroductive enhancement. For example: (1) The Bible is without error only in the original text, not in all the copies. (2) Round numbers, observational language, figures of speech, and paraphrased citations are not errors.
The rest of the book is a summary and defense of inerrancy, inspiration, and the like. Some things to note, like Geisler’s chart between accommodation to error and adaption to finitude.
Note: To the everlasting embarrassment of Bible critics, at least those who claim to be followers of Christ, Jesus affirmed exactly the opposite of what much of negative “higher criticism” teaches.
November 18, 2015
Very comprehensive, but would have benefited from more depth into specific topics/discussions.
July 26, 2024
THE FIRST OF FOUR VOLUMES BY THE FAMOUS APOLOGIST
Norman Geisler is a famed apologist and theologian. He endorses what he calls "Thomistic Theism" (i.e., based on Thomas Aquinas), noting, "Thomistic theism is also called classical theism, a view shared among Augustine, Anselm, the Reformers, and many modern thinkers, including C.S. Lewis." (Pg. 24)
He states, "...there are no mathematical errors in God's inerrant Word, but then again there is very little geometry or algebra and no calculus in it either... The same is true of most every area of the arts and science. Whenever the Bible speaks in these areas, it speaks authoritatively, but God has largely left the discoveries of His truths in these areas to a study of general revelation." (Pg. 71) But he cautions, "depraved human beings have found a way to deflect, divert, or distort God's commands; therefore, the teachings of God's Word have no more immunity from tortured contortion than does the reality of God's world." (Pg. 73) Finally, he adds, "we must be careful to distinguish between God's Word, which is infallible, and our interpretation of it, which is not." (Pg. 77)
Concerning the difficult question of free will and predeterminism, he argues, "God does not force (events) to happen against our free will; rather He predetermines that they will occur through our free will. Or, to put it minimally, God does not have to MAKE these events occur; He can SEE them occur---from His eternal vantage point." (Pg. 94) He explains, "God can know for sure (has determined) what we will freely do. So one and the same event is determined from the standpoint of God's knowledge and FREE from the vantage point of our choice. Again, this may be a mystery, but the great mystery of predestination and free will, whatever else it is, is not a logical contradiction." (Pg. 96)
Surprising to some, he opines, "For those most familiar with C.S. Lewis's strong and eloquent defense of ... historic Christianity, his view of Scripture comes as a great surprise. Indeed, his perspective ... combines seemingly contradictory elements of the orthodox, liberal, neo-orthodox, and neo-evangelical views." (Pg. 397) He laments, "...it comes as a great disappointment... in his otherwise excellent book on Miracles to hear him deny many Old Testament miracles." (Pg. 403)
Geisler's series is one of the most important recent contributions to evangelical systematic theology.
Norman Geisler is a famed apologist and theologian. He endorses what he calls "Thomistic Theism" (i.e., based on Thomas Aquinas), noting, "Thomistic theism is also called classical theism, a view shared among Augustine, Anselm, the Reformers, and many modern thinkers, including C.S. Lewis." (Pg. 24)
He states, "...there are no mathematical errors in God's inerrant Word, but then again there is very little geometry or algebra and no calculus in it either... The same is true of most every area of the arts and science. Whenever the Bible speaks in these areas, it speaks authoritatively, but God has largely left the discoveries of His truths in these areas to a study of general revelation." (Pg. 71) But he cautions, "depraved human beings have found a way to deflect, divert, or distort God's commands; therefore, the teachings of God's Word have no more immunity from tortured contortion than does the reality of God's world." (Pg. 73) Finally, he adds, "we must be careful to distinguish between God's Word, which is infallible, and our interpretation of it, which is not." (Pg. 77)
Concerning the difficult question of free will and predeterminism, he argues, "God does not force (events) to happen against our free will; rather He predetermines that they will occur through our free will. Or, to put it minimally, God does not have to MAKE these events occur; He can SEE them occur---from His eternal vantage point." (Pg. 94) He explains, "God can know for sure (has determined) what we will freely do. So one and the same event is determined from the standpoint of God's knowledge and FREE from the vantage point of our choice. Again, this may be a mystery, but the great mystery of predestination and free will, whatever else it is, is not a logical contradiction." (Pg. 96)
Surprising to some, he opines, "For those most familiar with C.S. Lewis's strong and eloquent defense of ... historic Christianity, his view of Scripture comes as a great surprise. Indeed, his perspective ... combines seemingly contradictory elements of the orthodox, liberal, neo-orthodox, and neo-evangelical views." (Pg. 397) He laments, "...it comes as a great disappointment... in his otherwise excellent book on Miracles to hear him deny many Old Testament miracles." (Pg. 403)
Geisler's series is one of the most important recent contributions to evangelical systematic theology.
December 30, 2024
This is a thorough volume which covers theological prolegomena and bibliology (the doctrine of the Bible). Some of the prolegomena material is rather challenging, but for the most part, quite valuable. I enjoyed Geisler's treatment on logic in particular. The author outlined the different types of logical syllogisms, and demonstrated aptly the proper use of logic when doing theology.
At times I disagreed with some of Geisler's conclusions (i.e. that macro-evolution is incompatible with biblical theology), but was constantly 'stretched' in my theological thinking.
The bibliology section deals ably with issues like inerrancy, canonicity, and Old Testament and New Testament historicity. Also, the whole gamut of historical bibliologies are presented from the treatment of the Patristic Fathers, to the Medieval thinkers, to Reformers and more modern movements. Geisler understandably pins his bibliology on two classical scriptural texts: II Tim. 3:16 and II Peter 1:20, 21.
Expect a great deal of apologetics in this work of Geisler; constantly he presents an objection to a particular doctrine and then responds, in kind, to the objection.
Although for many, this book will probably be a bit too conservative, I found that this work was, on the whole, quite stimulating.
At times I disagreed with some of Geisler's conclusions (i.e. that macro-evolution is incompatible with biblical theology), but was constantly 'stretched' in my theological thinking.
The bibliology section deals ably with issues like inerrancy, canonicity, and Old Testament and New Testament historicity. Also, the whole gamut of historical bibliologies are presented from the treatment of the Patristic Fathers, to the Medieval thinkers, to Reformers and more modern movements. Geisler understandably pins his bibliology on two classical scriptural texts: II Tim. 3:16 and II Peter 1:20, 21.
Expect a great deal of apologetics in this work of Geisler; constantly he presents an objection to a particular doctrine and then responds, in kind, to the objection.
Although for many, this book will probably be a bit too conservative, I found that this work was, on the whole, quite stimulating.
July 5, 2023
This was the first Systematic Theology I ever read. Geisler was the first Christian Apologist I ever read when I was really doubting the Christian faith. All the footnotes, references, worldviews, debates, and arguments impressed and overwhelmed me. Today, I recognize the quote-mining, apologetics-gone-bad approach to theology it represents. This volume is a little stronger than the other 3; which is why I give it 2 stars. Thankful for what it was and that I did not abandon the faith. Thankful for being able to eat the meat and spit out the bones. Could not recommend to others.
July 31, 2025
I prefer the layout of the four separate volumes. Geisler does a wonderful job of giving the reader scripture and also philosophy to support his positions.
I was fortunate enough to have him as my professor when I took this class in seminary.
I was fortunate enough to have him as my professor when I took this class in seminary.
February 8, 2018
A great alternative to people like Grudem without deviating one iota from the truth.
April 30, 2018
Very comprehensive. Disagree with his treatment of eschatology but that is a person understanding difference.
August 12, 2011
Thank God for theistic philosophers. Such an exhaustive precondition laid as a foundation to Dr. Geisler's magnum opus; and his prolegomena does well in supporting the weight of the first-story (an intimidating defense of the orthodox view of the Bible) of a seven-story construction.
I give ten stars because there was little to disagree with and much knowledge gained from his near-irrefutable rebuttal of classic and modern arguments against a theistic God and the divine-authority of Scripture.
I understand now why there is such an importance for today's theologian to be WELL-educated in philosophy. Dr. Geisler does immensely well in defending his theology from a philosophical stance.
He argues neatly, rather exhaustively, while remaining compact, and thoroughly, being careful to leave no room for error and careful to give no ground or opportunity to be rebutted.
Though your mind may well be fried after the closing of this giant, its completion is to your advantage.
I give ten stars because there was little to disagree with and much knowledge gained from his near-irrefutable rebuttal of classic and modern arguments against a theistic God and the divine-authority of Scripture.
I understand now why there is such an importance for today's theologian to be WELL-educated in philosophy. Dr. Geisler does immensely well in defending his theology from a philosophical stance.
He argues neatly, rather exhaustively, while remaining compact, and thoroughly, being careful to leave no room for error and careful to give no ground or opportunity to be rebutted.
Though your mind may well be fried after the closing of this giant, its completion is to your advantage.
Read
February 13, 2017Grad school read
May 8, 2009
Systematic, indeed... and thorough. Hardly ever three points and done, get used to reading "fifteenthly ..." The prolegomena is an excellent overview of the necessary philosophical presuppositions and refutation of the faulty ones involved in an approach to theology.
The Bibliology section is repetitive (!), but serves to establish exactly what the evangelical position toward the Scriptures is.
Written at a surprisingly readable level. Should be easily read by the layman. Will serve well as a bibliographic reference for reading more on the various topics discussed.
The Bibliology section is repetitive (!), but serves to establish exactly what the evangelical position toward the Scriptures is.
Written at a surprisingly readable level. Should be easily read by the layman. Will serve well as a bibliographic reference for reading more on the various topics discussed.
January 27, 2008
This is a great introduction to systematic theology and why it matters when we study the Word of God. If we carefully interpret God's Word with God's Word we cannot fall into heresy nor redundancy.
June 10, 2009
Good systematic theology for those of you who like Geisler.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews