# Has anyone read Geisler's Systematic Theology?



## RamistThomist (Jan 5, 2013)

I haven't really been a fan of Geisler's work. I read _Chosen but Free_ back in the day and wasn't impressed. Still, I admit the man has done some good. I've found his systematics for cheap and was wondering if anyone has actually read it


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 5, 2013)

My wife did and was so-so.


----------



## Grimmson (Jan 6, 2013)

I have read his first two volumes of his systematic theology set. The first one was really good, but I was not as impressed with his second volume.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jan 6, 2013)

I found it to be extremely sub-par, and not just because of his anti-Calvinism. For a non-Reformed systematic theology, I would suggest Christian Theology: An Introduction by Alister McGrath (evangelical-ish Anglican; it's designed as a classroom textbook, though), Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology by Thomas Oden (ecumenical-patristic-Protestant), or Christian Theology by Millard Erickson (conservative evangelical baptist).


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 6, 2013)

I browse through it at Lifeway sometimes. Very uneven. The parts on methodology are thorough. The doctrine of God section was weak. Doctrine of the Church and Eschatology was surprisingly thorough. If I see it for pennies on the dollar, I will get it.

Erickson is good. First systematics text I read, actually.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 6, 2013)

Often overlooked is Culver's book. May not be everyone's cup of tea, with his traducianism and a wee bit of dispensationalism, but it is the largest systematic in one volume and ten-point font available.  I especially appreciate the conversational tone of the tome.

I have the 4-volume Geisler set and am underwhelmed by it, as others have already noted. His theology proper is a re-hash of Augustine's basics on the attributes of God. Geisler is also very fond of simplistic logical syllogisms for making his case.

BTW, if anyone get's MGrath's book, you might also get the Reader that is meant as a backdrop. It is an excellent item for whetting one's appetite for more on so many authors.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 7, 2013)

Culver and Erickson are definitely the pick of the evangelical lot, when it comes to ST's (and Erickson is better, in my opinion). Geisler I find irritatingly narrow, as well as non-self-aware.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 7, 2013)

greenbaggins said:


> Culver and Erickson are definitely the pick of the evangelical lot, when it comes to ST's (and Erickson is better, in my opinion).


Do you not put Grudem in the "evangelical lot?" 


Re the OP:

I have read articles and smaller books (Innerancy, From God to Us, and Christian Apologetics), but much as some here may say about me: In everything that I have read, his powers of cognition as evidenced by his arguments and propositions, his style and his apparent inability to accurately portray alternative views all combine to make me say "why would I want to read another thing written by him?"


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 7, 2013)

SolaScriptura said:


> ...... his style and his apparent inability to accurately portray alternative views all combine to make me say "why would I want to read another thing written by him?"



This has been my experience with my limited contact with his work. For one on his level, I would expect more carefulness and far less junior high like caricatures.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 7, 2013)

SolaScriptura said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > Culver and Erickson are definitely the pick of the evangelical lot, when it comes to ST's (and Erickson is better, in my opinion).
> ...



I thought about including him in the evangelical lot, and one could make a case for that. However, his roots are at WTS Philly, and even though he is a non-cessationist, his positions are more in the Reformed camp of things. That said, Grudem is certainly an excellent resource.


----------



## Supersillymanable (Jan 7, 2013)

Hasn't Geisler done some good work on the historicity of Jesus and his ressurection, or the New Testament canon? Or am I wrong there? Other than that, I have only heard bad (or sub par as some here have put it) about his writings.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 7, 2013)

Supersillymanable said:


> Hasn't Geisler done some good work on the historicity of Jesus and his ressurection, or the New Testament canon? Or am I wrong there? Other than that, I have only heard bad (or sub par as some here have put it) about his writings.



Geisler's work has been a bit inconsistent. In some areas, he is excellent, but in other areas his scholarship seems a bit lazy.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 7, 2013)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Supersillymanable said:
> 
> 
> > Hasn't Geisler done some good work on the historicity of Jesus and his ressurection, or the New Testament canon? Or am I wrong there? Other than that, I have only heard bad (or sub par as some here have put it) about his writings.
> ...



Agreed. He is great on naturalism, etc. But his defense of the Protestant Canon is woefully lazy. I've seen Romanists and EOdox actually use his defense as one of their arguments (of course, I am basing all of this from an article he wrote in the Apologetics Study Bible).


----------

