Product Description: The standard for Christian apologetics, this systematic approach presents both the methods and reasons for defending Christianity.
Lacking on Scripture and thus depth and persuasion Norman Geisler, author of the best-selling and all but adequate Chosen but Free (hereafter CBF), has not always been a theology expert. Before stepping into his modern day niche of the common-man's theologian, he was a philosophy and apologetics expert. It is clear that the foundation for the careless theological work presented in his magnum opus, Christian Apologetics, was laid long ago. In the entire chapter that is his summary of the proof for God's existence he forgot to use the Bible (there are some flippant references to the nature of the "God of the Bible" isolated- as if they were leprous- in one paragraph, but there is never any interaction with a text).
His argument, which in outline form is quite straight-forward, is something like this: 1) I exist. 2) My existence is contingent. 3) Any contingent existence is contingent upon an uncaused being. 4) An uncaused being must be infinite. 5) There can only be one infinite being. 6) There is one uncaused and infinite being, and it is God.
Imagine laying that out to the Roman executor, before the ax falls or the nails are driven through when he asks you for the reason for the hope that lies with in you. When confronted with martyrdom I want the certainty of God's word echoing in my conscience; not the well-diagramed and logically impenetrable veneer of modern scholasticism. I want to be reminded of the Great Shepherd, the logos of God, the great I am. Phrases like "God is that which has ultimate intrinsic value" (249) or that "I am the actualization of a potential" (242) will provide little assurance.
"But these accusations are not fair!" some might say. If I wanted certainty in the face of martyrdom I should not have consulted an apologetics text book. Rather I should have gone to the Bible itself. But that is exactly the issue I have with Geisler's apologetic. We live in an effeminate age where the academician's hands are washed free from the blood of reality. As the argument for the existence of God has been hijacked by dead Germans, theologians such as Geisler have elevated the concept of assurance to the scholarly realm of the class room. It is almost as if to say, "The Bible is fine for those who already believe it and who don't demand any other proof." But for those who know the lingo (the shibboleth is `counter-factual') true certainty can be found on the playing field Geisler's maddening logic. Rather than quoting Hebrews 3:4, which seems to capture the entirety of Geisler's argument, he cloaks a classic cosmological argument in the dress of new philosophy.
What is most frustrating with Geisler is the fact that his argument is not even convincing on a purely logical level. Phrases such as "Something cannot come to be from nothing" (243) are used with little support. Why can't something come from nothing? If we are going to suspend the reason of the Bible just long enough to prove its existence, why not have a universe that does exist from nothing? Why would the creator have to be supremely good, instead of supremely bad? Why does the creator have to be the God of the Bible? Certainly, if reason and logic are suspended, the God of the Koran is just as good of a candidate. Geisler seems to assemble all of the world's gods up as if in a police line-up and pick out the Bible's god as the one who comes closest to meeting all of the probable characteristics of the creator he just finished proving exists.
It is at this point of the argument where his main weakness is revealed (again: assuming we are playing by the rules Geisler set, and suspending the power of scripture). Why must the God whom Geisler proved must exist be the God of the Bible? Geisler gives us scripture (for the only time in the chapter) that proclaim the attributes of God. But, these attributes are not necessarily those of the creator proved by Geisler. After building a house out of the flimsy walls of logic and reason, he lowers the weight of the rock of ages on top of it, as if it were the cap stone. The only problem is that the foundation cannot support anything of weight; it is crushed under the load of Scripture. In other words, after appealing to logic throughout, when the time comes to introduce scripture the argument is no longer coherent and has lost its ability to be --persuasive.
Geiseler does make one good point- one that Bahnsen would agree with- when he comments on the folly of atheism. He seems to be trying to say that in order to say there is no God, one must know fully everything there is to know about the universe and about God (257). However, he writes his point in such convoluted language that it is missing the authority that should necessarily accompany it. Thus, not surprisingly, the strongest point of the theistic argument is lost among an absence of scripture and an abundance of logic. A perfect preamble to Chosen But Free.
A Must for Shelves of all Christian Thinkers Terrific book. I borrowed this from the library, but I definitely need my own copy now. A great reference for comparing philosophies and competing worldviews. I have yet to find the Christian faith laid out so thoroughly.
Well written falsehoods This book simply fails. It misrepresents several of the worldviews it attempts to undermine, and for most of them it doesn't adequately logically refute them (though it claims to). But if you read this without a critical eye, it's easy enough to get past that. The real disappointment will hit you if you're a Christian hoping to find a solid adequate defense of Christianity. You want find it. It's more or less the same old arguments reworked that have already been adequately rebutted. He asserts that everything except God is a contingent being by nature. Whereas God is a necessary being. What about matter/energy? How can he say that's not necessary? Even logically prior to the big bang, matter/energy still existed. There is no known or accepted realm in cosmology at any time when there was "nothing" from which God could create something. Matter/energy is eternal, not contingent. His other arguments are equally unconvincing and weak.
A brilliant book. Geisler defends the Christian faith. He starts with methodology and tries to find a criterion for truth. Then he goes on to theistic apologetics, and defends a theistic worldview. The last part deals with Christian apologetics. He deals with the deity and authority of Jesus Christ. And he also deals with the inspiration and authority of the Bible.
Utter Failure in it's Objective Geisler stresses that we must have an objective test for the truth of a world-view. He posits the test of undeniability and unaffirmability. Namely, whatever is undeniable is true, and whatever is unaffirmable is false.
He then says that he'll show that every world-view except Theism is unaffirmable, and that Theism is the only affirmable and undeniable world-view.
Then Geisler discards the test in the very next chapter when he deals with Deism! He never shows how Deism is unaffirmable, but only that it's "inadequate" (p 171).
He criticizes Deism as inconsistent for believing that God doesn't intervene in the world by saying that once the Deist accepts Creation he must also accept the possibility of other miracles. Even if this is granted, this doesn't automatically mean that miracles happen! The possible does not equal the actual Mr. Geisler!
He also claims that "if God was concerned enough about man to create him, it would seem to follow that he would be concerned enough to intervene on his behalf." Thank you for your opinion Mr. Geisler, but why don't you show instead how the position is "unaffirmable" as you promised?
The first section of the book is worth the read but I give it 1 star because it completely failed to meet it's objective of showing all non-theisms unaffirmable and theism as undeniable.
Anything Goes Trivia
Last Kiss
Megaton Man
Trevor
