I like most of Geisler’s work as it tends to be middle of the road theology for the most part. His Systematic theology 4 volume set tends to be good for apologetics as well as he says, “this is how the Baptists view this…” “This is how Catholics view this…” so that you know both sides of the argument. If I am not mistaken his book on Islam is very good too.
I like his systematic theology set as well, it seems well rounded and allows the reader to make their own mind up about a given subject. I think it is simplistically written so that it has appeal to more than just seminarians, he wants the layman to understand it as well.
I agree with you, however the topic at hand is that of Dr. Norman Geisler and his work. I have also found that just because an author is Roman Catholic that does not make them good. Take for instance Bob and Penny Lord. They have a GREAT show on EWTN on the saints. Their book on the saints I picked up because I wanted to learn about the Catholic saints was appalling. Over half of the book was an attack on “the wicked Martin Luther.” If I want to read a book on Catholic saints I do not want to read about somebody’s hatred for Martin Luther. I wrote the publisher, Tan Publishing, regarding this as well as Bob & Penny Lord as to why they took this approach and NO reply was ever received. I would suspect that is why the book never got an imprimatur from a Catholic bishop.
I know the book you speak of by Bob & Penny Lord and it is terribly written. If I were reading it it would almost make me want to not be Catholic because of its hatred towards Martin Luther. If I want to read a book on Catholic saints that is all I want to read about.
For this reason at least, Catholics who want to better understand their faith, to intelligently discuss it with Catholics or Protestants, and share or defend it, should confine themselves to Catholic theology. Geisler’s theology is ‘Reformed’ and therefore fundamentally at odds with Catholic theology. Moreover, if Pope Benedict’s 2006 Regensburg lecture was correct (Evangelical Christendom has not contested it), what seems “simplistic” in Geisler’s style probably reflects the Protestant reformers’ devaluation of reason itself. My point is this: the best Catholic theology is correct and rationally sound; the best Reformed theology remains false and rationally uncertain, since it presupposes the categorical priority of dogma over and routinely against reason. I study Reformed theology when discussion with Reformed believers demands it. Otherwise, our time is not ours, and we do not, as a wise friend observed, navigate by negative (or subtly misleading) reference points.
I don’t think anyone has proposed that all Catholic writers are good. Catholic writers do in fact all have a decisive advantage, even if not all fully avail themselves of it.
I appreciate your reasonable and fair-minded contribution, M’Lord.
Can you explain where you are getting that Geisler is “reformed”? He is Moderate Calvinist as he likes to tout and holds a PhD from the Jesuit Loyola University. Even to be “reformed” you must still hold to the 5 points of Calvin that he does not.
I can agree with you in part. Much of what Geisler writes is in opposition to Catholic teachings. I disagree with you over the “simplistic” part. If one wants to teach your kind of theology it should be on such a level that all would understand it. The reason that I have looked at his work is so that I can compare what we as the Catholic church uses for our apologetics and what he uses. Many times here on the CAF you will see adds for Beginning Apologetics for Catholics. These are also simplistically written so that a greater number of persons can understand them. With all due respect, Protestant reformers that I studied in seminary were not looked at as devaluaters of reason. They have their reason and we have ours. Granted we hold to what has been historically taught for centuries where they do not. The reason that I scan them is to know how to better counter their arguments, which by the way it seems that you do. When Geisler writes he compares and contrasts the beliefs of whatever he is writing about, this is especially true in his Systematic Theology. We do some of the same in the Beginning Apologetics that are advertised here on this forum. Now if I were compare and contrast the two, Geisler comes up with differing arguments than what we do when our apologetic course says “Protestants will say… and we say” If you know the arguments that Protestants are going to throw at you, you can better defend your own faith. That is the only reason that I would say that Geisler is worthy of reading.
Fr John
From everything I see Geisler is a Calvinist of sorts. I would not label him “reformed” other than that he does not stick to every jot and tiddle of Calvinism. I know that reformed is a word that has a broad meaning, and that may lead to confusion.
If you must answer Reformed or other Protestant assertions about faith, then surely you should know their beliefs. But if you allow that what you read might be valid counsel on fundamentals of the life of faith, St. Thomas Aquinas would advise caution (J.H. Newman also addressed this in “Fath & Private Judgment”). The one who acccepts some but not all of what the Church teaches, who assumes authority to accept or reject articles of faith individually, obviously not only is not Catholic, but does not have faith. He has “only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will” (Summa, II-II, q.5, a.3). How can we be instructed and edified in matters of faith by one who does not have it, and does not know that he is without it? Protestant ‘theology,’ per se, cannot be edifying.
The truth is that, like all Protestants, Calvinists are the ones who have been ‘deceived’. They rebelled and split from Christ’s One True Church, to follow their own twisted and factious opinions. John Calvin was a totalitarian dictator over Geneva (as a younger man, he sneaked around northern Italy in the guise of a French nobleman).
Enlighting JPelham…I hope I get to read you more in these Catholic Answers’ blogs. I am amazed at how many sharp people I have read on CA’s blogs in the last couple of months; count yourself in.
You’re very generous, thank you for the encouragement. Though I’m really quite ignorant.Enlighting JPelham…I hope I get to read you more in these Catholic Answers’ blogs. I am amazed at how many sharp people I have read on CA’s blogs in the last couple of months; count yourself in.
Ok, then you’re out
As you please.