# Norman Geisler's Systematic Theology



## bookslover (Mar 15, 2017)

Does anyone have an opinion, one way or another, on Norman L. Geisler's _Systematic Theology_? I've read that he considers himself to be a moderate Calvinist. I think he's basically a philosopher and comes at some theological topics from that standpoint.

What says the PB?


----------



## Moses Costigan (Mar 15, 2017)

By "moderate Calvinist" Geisler means actually not a Calvinist at all..... His theology is not Reformed, functionally he is a semi-Pelagian despite identifying himself as a "4 point Calvinist".

Geisler denies the doctrine of Limited Atonement very explicitly and implicitly denies the doctrine of unconditional election.

I have only read "chosen but free" which is his perspective on the doctrines of grace which is pretty bad but havent heard or read anything either way re his systematic theology which may be good aside from the points mentioned above.

Others may be able to comment further though

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk


----------



## johnny (Mar 15, 2017)

I have it in hardcover, the "all in one volume" version.

I really enjoyed briefing through it, if only for its philosophical approach.
I'll have another crack at it, its been ages since I picked it up.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 15, 2017)

bookslover said:


> Does anyone have an opinion, one way or another, on Norman L. Geisler's _Systematic Theology_? I've read that he considers himself to be a moderate Calvinist. I think he's basically a philosopher and comes at some theological topics from that standpoint.
> 
> What says the PB?


He claims to be a moderate Calvinist, but his position on salvation places him right into Arminian theology circles, as he really has a hard time accepting full sovereignty of God, as he thinks that only "hyper-Calvinist" hold to all 5 points of grace! But is good to use to read through varying position held in christian theology, but he really misunderstands Calvinism!


----------



## ZackF (Mar 15, 2017)

A bright man. Geisler is by all accounts a respectable scholar save his futile desire to identify as a kind of Calvinist. He would have served the Body much better than he notably has if would have never adopted that pretense.


----------



## arapahoepark (Mar 15, 2017)

He is also a massive fan of Aquinas and his philosophical theology...


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 15, 2017)

Moses Costigan said:


> I have only read "chosen but free" which is his perspective on the doctrines of grace which is pretty bad but havent heard or read anything either way re his systematic theology which may be good aside from the points mentioned above.



See James White response:
https://www.amazon.com/Potters-Freedom-Reformation-Rebuttal-Geislers-ebook/dp/B004YE7O3E

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 15, 2017)

ZackF said:


> A bright man. Geisler is by all accounts a respectable scholar save his futile desire to identify as a kind of Calvinist. He would have served the Body much better than he notably has if would have never adopted that pretense.


He has written very nice in regards to biblical inerrancy, as he does provide great support to that doctrine, but on he views regarding both Sotierology and Calvinism, not so much!


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 15, 2017)

Do you like natural theology? His section on God and Creation is interesting. His eschatology section is probably one of the last robust, old-school style dispensational defenses.


----------



## Moses Costigan (Mar 15, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> See James White response:
> https://www.amazon.com/Potters-Freedom-Reformation-Rebuttal-Geislers-ebook/dp/B004YE7O3E


Thank you for mentioning Dr White's rebuttal..... that was going to be my next comment.

The Potter's Freedom is a wonderfully articulate response to Dr Geisler's caricature of reformed theology.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 16, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> Do you like natural theology? His section on God and Creation is interesting. His eschatology section is probably one of the last robust, old-school style dispensational defenses.


His main problem to me was that he made a straw man up for what Calvinists really teach and believe, as what he considers to be Hyper version of it is actually one holding to all 5 points of Grace! His work apart from this area seemed to be well done, and he did show much effort in his viewpoint regarding end time events...


----------



## reaganmarsh (Mar 16, 2017)

Geisler is valuable on bibliology and natural theology, and he is philosophically robust. His views on soteriology, however, are quite misguided indeed. 

That being said, he does aim his work apologetically, and we may be thankful for his faithfulness to demonstrating and defending salvation as being found in Christ alone. 

A little beyond the scope of the OP, but still relevant as to his theological writings: I have to say that while I didn't take his every point, I enjoyed and was helped by his books _I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Who Made God?, _and_ Reasons for Faith._


----------



## Paul1976 (Mar 16, 2017)

Several years ago (before becoming reformed), I listened to some of sermons on Calvinism. Several aspects trouble me. He insists on calling standard, historic Calvinists "hypercalvinists" despite knowing better. He also (as mentioned above) confuses the issues between the two sides when he knows better. 

The most troubling thing I heard from him in mis-characterizing Calvinism was comparing humanities rebellion against God as "young boys trespassing into a farmer's pond." In his "analogy," the boys are about to drown and the mean old farmer elects to only save some of them and let the others drown. Anyone who compares humanities treasonous rebellion against a Holy creator to relatively innocent childhood mischief either completely misunderstands the Bible, or (worse) intentionally mis-characterizes it to fit their agenda.

There are more than enough quality scholars out there who may have imperfect theology, but are at least intellectually honest. Personally, I would not consult anyone as intellectually dishonest as Dr. Geisler.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 16, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> His main problem to me was that he made a straw man up for what Calvinists really teach and believe, as what he considers to be Hyper version of it is actually one holding to all 5 points of Grace! His work apart from this area seemed to be well done, and he did show much effort in his viewpoint regarding end time events...



I understand, but that's par for the course when you start reading non-Reformed texts.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Mar 16, 2017)

Paul1976 said:


> There are more than enough quality scholars out there who may have imperfect theology, but are at least intellectually honest. Personally, I would not consult anyone as intellectually dishonest as Dr. Geisler.



You took the words right out of my mouth. If he does not have the scholarship to see something so obvious as the difference between Calvinism and the heresy of hyper-Calvinism (which, if what has been said above is true, he offensively ascribes to all of us "five-pointers," thus labeling us heretics), then I question whether the rest of his scholarship if worth my time.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 17, 2017)

That is a g


ReformedReidian said:


> I understand, but that's par for the course when you start reading non-Reformed texts.


That is a good observation, but I have also read theology from non-Reformed/Calvinists who at least were able to properly state just what Calvinists do really believe, and able to show the difference between Calvinists and Hyper ones!


----------



## Silas22 (Mar 17, 2017)

His defense on scriptures inerrancy is commendable. I hate to hear about the strawmen and deliberate mischaracterizations.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 18, 2017)

YRRSBCGuy said:


> His defense on scriptures inerrancy is commendable. I hate to hear about the strawmen and deliberate mischaracterizations.


He has done a commendable work with defending biblical truths of inerrancy/inspiration, but just too bad that he misunderstands Calvinism so badly!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 27, 2017)

The typical Dallas Seminary redefinition of the "P" aside, Geisler is much closer to a 4 point Arminian than he is to any form of Calvinism. (And Roger Olson and others say that you can be an Arminian and hold to eternal security, the protests of Southern Baptist "traditionalists" notwithstanding.)

The following (which was published in 1980, long predating "Chosen but Free") isn't monergistic at all, which is why Lutzer wrote that Geisler was defending Arminianism:



> Norman Geisler, defending Arminianism, writes, "*Indeed, God would save all people if he could.... God will achieve the greatest number he possibly can .... God will save the greatest number actually achievable without violating their free choice.*"
> 
> Erwin Lutzer. The Doctrines That Divide: A Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines That Separate Christians (Kindle Locations 2066-2068). Kindle Edition.



Men associated with DTS who can more properly be called "Moderate Calvinists" include Chafer, Ryrie and Lightner.

The late Robert Duncan Culver was evidently well acquainted with Geisler. In a footnote in his Systematic Theology, (p. 702) Culver writes that "He asked me to review the manuscript [of "Chosen But Free"] before publication privately, which I did, seeking to dissuade the author from publishing it. Dr Geisler is not 'easily entreated' on this issue."

As for Geisler's Systematic Theology, I think the 4 volume edition is out of print but the one volume edition is still in print. Never having really looked at it, it might be worth picking up if you can get it at a good price. (Given the recent publication of the MacArthur/Mayhue ST volume, it wouldn't be accurate to say that Geisler's is the last (or more recent) defense of dispensationalism in a ST unless he goes into a lot of detail on the 7 (+/-) dispensations, which isn't a dispensational distinctive anyway.)

So as mentioned above, the value in Geisler's ST may be in the philosophical and apologetical portions of it.


----------



## Berean by Grace (Mar 28, 2017)

bookslover said:


> Does anyone have an opinion, one way or another, on Norman L. Geisler's _Systematic Theology_? I've read that he considers himself to be a moderate Calvinist. I think he's basically a philosopher and comes at some theological topics from that standpoint.
> 
> What says the PB?


I don't want to insult Norm Geisler (he is a very intelligent man), but if you read Dr. James R. White's book entitled "The Potter's Freedom" you will see that Dr. Geisler didn't do a very good job in writing his book "Chosen, but Free." Dr. Geisler basically redefined what it was to be a Calvinist. Dr. Geisler is a classic Arminian, not a Calvinist in any form of the definition.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 29, 2017)

Berean by Grace said:


> I don't want to insult Norm Geisler (he is a very intelligent man), but if you read Dr. James R. White's book entitled "The Potter's Freedom" you will see that Dr. Geisler didn't do a very good job in writing his book "Chosen, but Free." Dr. Geisler basically redefined what it was to be a Calvinist. Dr. Geisler is a classic Arminian, not a Calvinist in any form of the definition.


that is where the big concern is coming from, as he sets himself up as the being a moderate calvinist, but when I read his theology seems to be pretty much a classic Arminian!


----------

