Norman Geisler

[Marcus417]

I have been reading a lot of him lately because I read Potter's Freedom by James White, and honestly I have come to the opinion that he has gotten way to much respect in the evangelical community. He is considered by many people I know to be one of the greatest Christian thinkers in the last 50 years.

The books I have read by Geisler or that he contributed too over the last 3 weeks are Chosen But Free, Four Views on Eternal Security, Legislating Morality (with Frank Turek), and I have skimmed his systematic theology books.

His contribution to the Eternal Security book was rightly criticized by both Michael Horton (the 5 point Calvinist) and Stephen Ashby (The "Reformed" Arminian*) as what it is as semi-Pelagianism. He believes that man takes the first step toward God unassisted by grace but God's graces assists them the rest of the way, doesn't hold to the traditional view of original sin, and badly misrepresents Classical Calvinism and Classical Arminianism.

In Chosen But Free he misrepresents John Calvin and makes the claim that Calvin would have more closely identified with himself.

He argues that drinking any alcohol except for medicinal purposes is sinful, and that the wine in Jesus' day was purified water. This worries me because he believes that alcohol is sinful so he twists scripture and history to make it so. It is basically saying that scripture provides an insufficient morality so Geisler feels he must add more moral obligations to scripture. I don't even drink alcohol anymore, but I recognize that Christians are allowed too as long as they do it in a responsible way.

In his book on legislating morality he and Turek take the stance that The Purpose of Our Life is not to Glorify God and Enjoy Him Forever, but to Know God and Make Him Known through how well we reform the moral lives of others. Here is a video where Turek discusses this purpose.

That last one is without a doubt the scariest thing that this man teaches, but yet we allow him to trod along with very little push back because he is such a "great Apologist."

Am I way off on Geisler? Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

By the way Ashby calls himself a reformed Arminian because he believes in Calvin's understanding of Total Depravity and the Penal Substitutionary View of the Atonement.

 

[A5pointer]

I think you are right on target. "Chosen But Free" is intellectually dishonest at best.

 

[DMcFadden]

Like many philosophically trained evangelicals, Geisler is a mix of some odd views, curiously juxtaposed. Trying to combine evangelical fundamentalism with too much water from the Aquinas fountain will make anyone theologically bloated.

 

[arapahoepark]

I posteda thread not to long about believing he was sounding a siren on Michael Licona. Turns out I was wrong and he's sounding a siren over basically nothing.

 

[Pilgrim Pastor]

I have been reading a lot of him lately because I read Potter's Freedom by James White, and honestly I have come to the opinion that he has gotten way to much respect in the evangelical community. He is considered by many people I know to be one of the greatest Christian thinkers in the last 50 years.

I know there are folks who just revere anything he writes. I have had the exact same thoughts when reading Geisler. I also find D.A. Carson, while occasionally very helpful to be a bit convoluted, meandering, and so unquotable due to his longwindedness in writing so what do I know...

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I also find D.A. Carson, while occasionally very helpful to be a bit convoluted, meandering, and so unquotable due to his longwindedness in writing so what do I know...

You are not the only one, brother. I find his commentary on John almost useless because it is so obtuse. I much prefer Hendriksen or Ryle when it comes to John.

 

[Pilgrim Pastor]

Bill,

I bought his commentary on John after hearing Piper say on a webcast that he was using it as he preached through John's gospel. I've tried so hard to use it but alas... I would sell it on Amazon but I keep it, I guess, because of a false conviction it is a book I am "supposed" to have ...

 

[A5pointer]

I have been reading a lot of him lately because I read Potter's Freedom by James White, and honestly I have come to the opinion that he has gotten way to much respect in the evangelical community. He is considered by many people I know to be one of the greatest Christian thinkers in the last 50 years.

I know there are folks who just revere anything he writes. I have had the exact same thoughts when reading Geisler. I also find D.A. Carson, while occasionally very helpful to be a bit convoluted, meandering, and so unquotable due to his longwindedness in writing so what do I know...

Chris and Bill, I do not get this. I am shocked to see these two mentioned in the same sentence let alone a comparison of their works. An elephant and a flea? Not much to compare.

 

[jwithnell]

Funny this came up -- we talked about him a bit in Sunday school last week (we are studying ethics). His approach was considered weak because it made God, in practice, unnecessary.

And wow, I can't believe DA Carson came up in this context either. He is, at least, theologically right on.

 

[Paul1976]

Not long ago I was researching Calvinism and Arminianism and was advised to listen to him. Not only did I find him a poor speaker, but he had very little to say. He calls himself a moderate Calvinist. I believe a fairminded definition of what he actually endorses would be an odd (and logically inconsistent) mix of semi-Pelagianism in how we come to God, something resembling classical Arminianism on most of the 5 points, and the Free Grace version of Eternal Security. It surprises me very much he would be considered a deep thinker on any front as this mix really only makes sense if one doesn't think about it too deeply.

I haven't (and wont) waste any more time on him, especially his books, but it sounds like he takes rather extreme or unconventional quotes to prove his points, which is the mark of a bad academic.

 

[Pilgrim Pastor]

Funny this came up -- we talked about him a bit in Sunday school last week (we are studying ethics). His approach was considered weak because it made God, in practice, unnecessary.

And wow, I can't believe DA Carson came up in this context either. He is, at least, theologically right on.

I'm not comparing the two... it was a footnote to a footnote to an arbitrary comment...

 

[Pilgrim Pastor]

I have been reading a lot of him lately because I read Potter's Freedom by James White, and honestly I have come to the opinion that he has gotten way to much respect in the evangelical community. He is considered by many people I know to be one of the greatest Christian thinkers in the last 50 years.

I know there are folks who just revere anything he writes. I have had the exact same thoughts when reading Geisler. I also find D.A. Carson, while occasionally very helpful to be a bit convoluted, meandering, and so unquotable due to his longwindedness in writing so what do I know...

Chris and Bill, I do not get this. I am shocked to see these two mentioned in the same sentence let alone a comparison of their works. An elephant and a flea? Not much to compare.

Maybe more like an aardvark and an ant...

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I have been reading a lot of him lately because I read Potter's Freedom by James White, and honestly I have come to the opinion that he has gotten way to much respect in the evangelical community. He is considered by many people I know to be one of the greatest Christian thinkers in the last 50 years.

I know there are folks who just revere anything he writes. I have had the exact same thoughts when reading Geisler. I also find D.A. Carson, while occasionally very helpful to be a bit convoluted, meandering, and so unquotable due to his longwindedness in writing so what do I know...

Chris and Bill, I do not get this. I am shocked to see these two mentioned in the same sentence let alone a comparison of their works. An elephant and a flea? Not much to compare.

Of course we are not comparing the two theologically. D.A. Carson is certainly a brilliant man with solid theology. We were simply agreeing that both of us find his work to be a bit hard to decipher at times. Of course all of this is completely anyway.

 

[A5pointer]

I have been reading a lot of him lately because I read Potter's Freedom by James White, and honestly I have come to the opinion that he has gotten way to much respect in the evangelical community. He is considered by many people I know to be one of the greatest Christian thinkers in the last 50 years.

I know there are folks who just revere anything he writes. I have had the exact same thoughts when reading Geisler. I also find D.A. Carson, while occasionally very helpful to be a bit convoluted, meandering, and so unquotable due to his longwindedness in writing so what do I know...

Chris and Bill, I do not get this. I am shocked to see these two mentioned in the same sentence let alone a comparison of their works. An elephant and a flea? Not much to compare.

Of course we are not comparing the two theologically. D.A. Carson is certainly a brilliant man with solid theology. We were simply agreeing that both of us find his work to be a bit hard to decipher at times. Of course all of this is completely anyway.

Sorry but you guys brought it up, Carson is in my view a genius. If you are having trouble understanding the 2 of them it is for very different reasons. I am aware that Carson's view on covenant is not what we would like but he is in a much different category than Geisler. If you have not read "exegetical falasies" do get it. Wonderful short primer on interpretation that Norman would not understand himself.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I have been reading a lot of him lately because I read Potter's Freedom by James White, and honestly I have come to the opinion that he has gotten way to much respect in the evangelical community. He is considered by many people I know to be one of the greatest Christian thinkers in the last 50 years.

I know there are folks who just revere anything he writes. I have had the exact same thoughts when reading Geisler. I also find D.A. Carson, while occasionally very helpful to be a bit convoluted, meandering, and so unquotable due to his longwindedness in writing so what do I know...

Chris and Bill, I do not get this. I am shocked to see these two mentioned in the same sentence let alone a comparison of their works. An elephant and a flea? Not much to compare.

Of course we are not comparing the two theologically. D.A. Carson is certainly a brilliant man with solid theology. We were simply agreeing that both of us find his work to be a bit hard to decipher at times. Of course all of this is completely anyway.

Sorry but you guys brought it up, Carson is in my view a genius. If you are having trouble understanding the 2 of them it is for very different reasons. I am aware that Carson's view on covenant is not what we would like but he is in a much different category than Geisler. If you have not read "exegetical falasies" do get it. Wonderful short primer on interpretation that Norman would not understand himself.

I have read Exegetical Fallacies and I thought it was good overall, but I found much to disagree with. For one, he argues for the NIV rendering of monogenes as "one and only" by appealing to its usage in Hebrews to refer to Isaac. His argument is that since Isaac was clearly not Abraham's only begotten son, the same can also not be true of Jesus. Maybe I am missing something, but I am pretty sure that Isaac was also not Abraham's "one and only" son, so I fail to see how this rendering is superior. I could go on, but my point is that while he is certainly brilliant and has many great things to say, he is also sometimes a bit off.

 

[Pilgrim Pastor]

Carson is in my view a genius. If you are having trouble understanding the 2 of them it is for very different reasons. I am aware that Carson's view on covenant is not what we would like but he is in a much different category than Geisler. If you have not read "exegetical falasies" do get it. Wonderful short primer on interpretation that Norman would not understand himself.

The only reason I mentioned Carson in the first place is a sort of qausi-comparison in that in some circles its paramount to heresy to implying anything critical about either men. See your post above about Carson for example. :d ... We were not comparing them theologically... And, one question with regard to genius: Is it not more evident of theological genius to build a bridge of understanding well for those average folks in the pew to be able to tread understandably across unto deep truths than to communicate in such a fashion so as to be only accessible to academics? Granted, a guy like Carson is often writing for an academic audience and the man is plainly intelligent.

Consider a puritan like John Flavel for example, or Thomas Manton, both of whom I study at some length. For both men their brilliance is in relaying deep truths of Scripture in a deeply pastoral way that connected with everyday people. I'm not sure Geisler couldn't understand Carson. I'm also not sure that Carson is the litmus test for logic or theological purity.

That wasn't my point... I regret ever bringing Carson into the discussion!

Further, I pray that you'll find it in your heart to forgive me for insinuating anything impure or unholy about the Most Reverend D.A. Carson...

 

[MW]

Am I way off on Geisler? Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

We disagree with him on the doctrines of grace and even part ways with him because these are of great importance to us. But that is no reason to deny his Christianity, his intellectual ability, nor his hard work which he has invested in defending the Christian faith. Let's keep a sense of proportion.

 

[MW]

You are not the only one, brother. I find his commentary on John almost useless because it is so obtuse. I much prefer Hendriksen or Ryle when it comes to John.

Bill, could you clarify that "obtuse" was in fact intended to be "abstruse." We might grant that Carson sometimes writes for an intellectual world which is above the level of the common man, but it would certainly be false and slanderous to call one of his works "stupid."

 

[A5pointer]

You are not the only one, brother. I find his commentary on John almost useless because it is so obtuse. I much prefer Hendriksen or Ryle when it comes to John.

Bill, could you clarify that "obtuse" was in fact intended to be "abstruse." We might grant that Carson sometimes writes for an intellectual world which is above the level of the common man, but it would certainly be false and slanderous to call one of his works "stupid."

Thank You

 

[Bill The Baptist]

You are not the only one, brother. I find his commentary on John almost useless because it is so obtuse. I much prefer Hendriksen or Ryle when it comes to John.

Bill, could you clarify that "obtuse" was in fact intended to be "abstruse." We might grant that Carson sometimes writes for an intellectual world which is above the level of the common man, but it would certainly be false and slanderous to call one of his works "stupid."

You are correct, he is certainly not stupid and that is not what I intended to convey. Obtuse can certainly mean stupid, but Webster's also defines it as "difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression." and that is what I meant.

 

[A5pointer]

You are not the only one, brother. I find his commentary on John almost useless because it is so obtuse. I much prefer Hendriksen or Ryle when it comes to John.

Bill, could you clarify that "obtuse" was in fact intended to be "abstruse." We might grant that Carson sometimes writes for an intellectual world which is above the level of the common man, but it would certainly be false and slanderous to call one of his works "stupid."

Thank You

 

[A5pointer]

To the OP, Norman Geisler
My opinion of his work was formed in one day. My exposure to his work is very limited however what I am familiar with causes me to mistrust all of it. I am only keenly aware of “Chosen But Free” and “Catholics and Evangelicals Together”, which seemed helpful at the time. However after CBF I cannot trust his work. That is the point. Therefore relevant to the post’s question.
My anecdotal experience:
I attended a seminar/book promotion hosted by Mr. Geisler out of curiosity and recognizing his name in a town near my home. I had not heard of CBF. Upon arriving I met Mr. Geisler. I found him to be a gentleman and a brother. Still not knowing anything about his book I eagerly positioned myself right under his podium in the front row. The venue was a small Methodist church with about 30 people in attendance. It was early on a Saturday morning with the seminar scheduled to last till late in the afternoon comprising 3 sessions and a break for lunch.
He proceeded to lecture on his book. I sat 2 feet from him. I was astonished. He proceeded in the course of the day to quote Calvin out of context to lead the wholly uninformed audience to believe Calvin himself did not hold to what we would call the 5 points. Introduced the term hyper-calvinism(bad) defined as holding to the 5 points. Set up typical straw men Dave Hunt style and flamed them good. He was subtly setting up the audience to leave thinking they were Calvinists just not Hyper-Calvinists(bad 5 pointers) who see God as denying salvation to those who want it. And the exegesis of Romans 9 was priceless. And of course the usual litany of free will and unlimited atonement texts was rolled out. This is not an exhaustive list but I think it will suffice.
During the course of the day I was able to interact with Mr. Geisler. He allowed me to object directly much of the above mentioned. Let me be clear. I found him to be a gentlemen and a brother in fielding my questions and objections. At my suggestion he admitted that he was in fact defining the term hyper-calvinism with disregard to it’s accepted historical meaning. As to the straw men, I suggested that no Calvinist believed thoughts he was ascribing to them. He shrugged that off. We exchanged comments about 5 times and chatted at the break. We parted smiling and shaking hands.
What am I to think of Mr. Geisler in context of this work and by extension other works. Given Mr. Geisler’s academic training and years of service and considering my empirical observation am I to think him incompetent or dishonest in his presentation CBF? Or quite possibly blinded in some way by a deeply held paradigm? This goes beyond inferior hermeneutic given the misrepresentation of historical Calvinism and accompanying concepts. I was most disturbed by the result of this. By redefining historic Calvinism he leaves uninformed audiences ignorantly believing they are Calvinist while holding to free will doctrines.(almost ingenious if intended).
Back to the OP. I decided that day that I could not trust any of Mr. Geisler’s work. This does not mean that he has not done any academically able work. Yes Marcus I think you should exercise caution.
Chris and Bill, Please take this as intended. Reread the thread and ask yourselves how I wound up defending Carson and how you wound up picking apart his theology? It was you who injected the comparison. I did not say anything about his theology, his balance of audience, Monogenes(don’t even know what it means, muscles noticed), or Abraham etc. I merely suggested that he and Mr. Geisler are not academic peers. I doubt I am alone here in this thought. If you have an ax for Carson another thread might be appropriate. We can avoid this by exegeting threads more carefully.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Is it not more evident of theological genius to build a bridge of understanding well for those average folks in the pew to be able to tread understandably across unto deep truths than to communicate in such a fashion so as to be only accessible to academics?

I would quibble a wee bit with this, but I get what you are trying to say. Intellectual genius in anything cannot be singularly weighed by how well one transfers that intellect to the hoi polloi. I once read a study that a thirty point IQ difference between persons means that meaningful communication will be a difficult task.

 

[Supersillymanable]

In reply to the OP,

I generally put the likes of Geisler with those such as N. T. Wright. Brilliantly clever and given way too much time within the reformed community. They both have some awesome apologetics material, as well as having some doctrinally dubious works at best. Because they are so good at arguing their case, people who are uniformed are led, as pointed out here in this thread, to believe things that are just way off base.

Now, I also would not question the fact he loves God and is saved (I do not know his heart, only God does), but I would say he is really unhelpful on many points. I most certainly wouldn't recommend him to non-christian friends, or Christian's I thought weren't firmly grounded in their theology.

Off topic: I like Carson quite a bit, I don't hold him up like the Pope of evangelicalism, but I do quite like him. I honestly don't understand the comments about his commentary on John, I didn't find it in any way hard to understand, I thought he communicated himself well and made his points clearly... Are we reading the same commentary? I would say he's an excellent communicator to lay people and intellectuals alike. I haven't read any of his works that I've felt were overly academic. Maybe it's just me...

 

[Pilgrim Pastor]

Is it not more evident of theological genius to build a bridge of understanding well for those average folks in the pew to be able to tread understandably across unto deep truths than to communicate in such a fashion so as to be only accessible to academics?

I would quibble a wee bit with this, but I get what you are trying to say. Intellectual genius in anything cannot be singularly weighed by how well one transfers that intellect to the hoi polloi. I once read a study that a thirty point IQ difference between persons means that meaningful communication will be a difficult task.

That's funny... I'm reminded of the church member who told me that in business he often said that an expert is anyone more than 50 miles from home with a brief case... Bill, wow... I'll choose words more carefully in the future. I didn't intend to hijack the thread and was merely making a sarcastic quip at myself in bringing in Carson. You're right , there is little comparison between the two. I wasn't making any...

 

[Supersillymanable]

In reply to the OP,

I generally put the likes of Geisler with those such as N. T. Wright. Brilliantly clever and given way too much time within the reformed community. They both have some awesome apologetics material, as well as having some doctrinally dubious works at best. Because they are so good at arguing their case, people who are uniformed are led, as pointed out here in this thread, to believe things that are just way off base.

Now, I also would not question the fact he loves God and is saved (I do not know his heart, only God does), but I would say he is really unhelpful on many points. I most certainly wouldn't recommend him to non-christian friends, or Christian's I thought weren't firmly grounded in their theology.

Off topic: I like Carson quite a bit, I don't hold him up like the Pope of evangelicalism, but I do quite like him. I honestly don't understand the comments about his commentary on John, I didn't find it in any way hard to understand, I thought he communicated himself well and made his points clearly... Are we reading the same commentary? I would say he's an excellent communicator to lay people and intellectuals alike. I haven't read any of his works that I've felt were overly academic. Maybe it's just me...

I'm not sure I've read enough of Geisler to compare him to an N.T. Wright. I read some of his apologetic material in the past and found it helpful as part of a broad course of study. My only point about Carson's commentary on John is not that its terribly difficult to understand but that Carson tends to be so exhaustive so as to bring in material that while potentially interesting and very useful if I had the time to research all that he mentions very helpful, that as with much of his writing its so exhaustive and meandering so as to consume more time than it is worth in sermon preparation or lesson preparation - usually anyway. I consulted that while preaching through John a few years ago but I found Ryle (As Bill mentioned) and a couple of other sources more immediately helpful.

Now, I'm not saying one should head immediately to something like the NIV Application Commentary and then that's it. Not at all. I even prefer the Expositor's Commentary for in-depth commentary over Carson because of its focus on textual issues. I recently read "the difficult doctrine of the love of God" and it was very helpful for what I was researching and preparing. Now, some of my gripe with Carson is bordering on silly, I wish he more quotable. He's almost never pithy. That's not a valid criticism so I usually keep it to myself...

I can understand how you didn't entirely find his commentary helpful for preaching. I enjoyed it because I like it when they're exhaustive and I get to read all the different articles, papers and snippets of commentaries that hold lots of interesting historically related etc. and you're right about him not being pithy. He's most pithy when quoting someone else . But that's cool as far as I'm concerned. I'll happily quote others as long as he keeps on the high quality scholarship .