1

I still find Geisler enormously simplistic despite the abundance of items with his name on it.

But then again, Benedict XVI also doesn't impress me either.

2

For whatever it's worth, technically, I believe Geisler would classify himself as a classical apologist as opposed to an evidentialist. Though there is much overlap, they're considered to be two distinct approaches.

Classical apologetics employs a two-step argument, necessarily beginning with establishing theism first, and then moving on to specifically Christian truth claims, whereas evidentialism tends to rely more on evidences (historical, archaeological, etc.) as a starting point.

Generally my view of Geisler is that he's an interesting apologist but a horrible theologian.

3

Whoa, mumon with a negative comment what a shock. It doesn't take long for you to show up and pee in everyone's Wheaties these days.

4

bfinlay:

Sorry that it affects you; but there's many thinkers who are substantially deeper than Geisler.

5

Geisler also wrote a pretty good book called "Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal," that came out in 1991. To his credit, he's one of the few non-Catholic Christians who drives through the sparkling edifice of Thomist thought rather than around it.

That there are thinkers deeper than Geisler is a given, but it's also irrelevant.

6

Well, I don't have the credentials for my critique of Geisler's work to be anything more than personal pique, but I must say that as a layman I have found his writings very helpful. Of particular importance to me is his insight that science has a different epistemological basis depending on whether it is studying ongoing processes or singular past events (e.g. origins), and that these differing epistemologies will yield differing levels of confidence in the conclusions. (And BTW, that's not young earth creationist obscurantism, because Geisler is not a YEC.)

A friend who studied under him indicated to me that Geisler's level of thinking goes well beyond that which he chooses to say of write. He shows his greatness as a teacher by explaining the weighty issues in a manner that many can understand, rather than strutting his stuff in the ozone. He could easily have been included in Time's list of most influential evangelicals, if they weren't thinking in a such a short-sighted and political manner. I say this because he has had much greater influence on evangelical leaders than the Dobsons and Falwells ever will.

7

You need to fix your HTML.

Geisler is not now and never has been the President of Wheaton College. He is President of Southern Evangelical Seminary. He did attend and receive a degree from Wheaton.

It looks like you missed a closing tag somewhere.

8

I have studied with Dr. Geisler and it is correct to say that he writes many popular level works yet is an erudite thinker...especially in Thomistic philosophy. Personally, I have found the Baker Encyclopedia, his book on Islam, Evangelicals and Catholics - Agreements and Differences, and Christian Ethics to be very helpful. I will say that his theological positions on free-will and sovereignty have been a bit puzzling to me...

Theologically, he is very good in prolegemena, doctrine of the Bible, and the attributes of classical theism...He is also a very gracious man who has helped many of his students get published by "co-publishing" books with them.

Some may disagree with theological dispensationalism (of the Dallas Old Guard variety), or his view of contra-causal freedom, but Geisler is an excellent philosopher who never forgot the mandate to also proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ. He has been a great gift to Christ's church, his hands were involved in the training of many of the fine apologists of our day (Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig-who is a great philosopher) Also, not many can "retire" and then start a completely new seminary - which is now in a brand new, debt free facility in Charlotte, NC. May Dr. Geisler finish well and hand off a legacy to others who will carry on well.

9

In my “Know Your Heretics List”, Norman Geisler gets a Heresy Index Value (HIV) of -28.7. Therefore, I guess he barely makes it to the so-so level.

On the other hand, Rick Warren’s HIV is a whopping -9097.3 which is definitely Not So Good.

10

Notice Mumon making a sarcastic remark about PhD Geisler yet not giving us one example. I think he has been watching too many of his friends in the Senate slander John Bolton. Mumon and the Democrats use the same tactics. Try that in English 101, 102 and you will end up with a C- or worse (trite, cleche, no substance). I wonder what degree Mumon could possibly hold if he can't get past English 101.

11

I've met him a couple of times, read a lot of his work, and been influenced by people who studied under him. His depth of thinking is quite good and clear. An excellent apologist and theologian. Definitely a "meaty" man.