A Review of Norman Geisler's Prolegomena

INTRODUCTION

Norman Geisler has written more than eighty books.

During the years of 2000-2005, he released a four-volume

set entitled Systematic Theology. In Volume One, Geisler

reveals his Prolegomena to include eleven different

presuppositions required to conduct the theology.

Prolegomena comes from two Greek roots, pro, meaning before

or toward, and legomena, meaning to speak. Simply put,

Prolegomena is the before section prior to an author’s

detailing the different aspects of the scholar’s theology.

Geisler lists the eleven presuppositions needed prior

to beginning the details of his theology. Rudolf Bultman

determined, “There can be no exegesis without

presupposition.”1 Therefore, before one starts to describe

the different elements of one’s theology, it is important

to determine the presuppositions upon which those items

rest. Geisler’s presuppositions include metaphysical, 1 Rudolf Bultman, “Is Exegesis without Presuppositions

Possible?” in Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultman (trans. Schubert Ogden; New York: Meridan, 1960), pp. 342-352.

1

supernatural, revelational, rational, semantical,

epistemological, oppositional, linguistical,

hermeneutical, historical, and methodological.2

This author has chosen to review Norman Geisler’s

Prolegomena found in Volume One of his Systematic Theology. The

critique will include the purpose of Prolegomena, his

metaphysics, his epistemology, and his preferred

methodology.

PURPOSE FOR PROLEGOMENA

Prior to looking at Geisler’s presuppositions,

examination of one aspect of his methodology is helpful.

Geisler uses syllogisms as a primary tool in many of his

discussions. Anyone seeking to read and understand Geisler

needs to know what syllogisms are and how this method

functions. A syllogism is a deductive scheme of a formal

2

? Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume One: Introduction, Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers,2002), p. 10.

2

argument consisting of a major and a minor premise and a

conclusion.3 A sample syllogism used by Geisler is:

(1) Everything that had a beginning had a cause.(2) The universe had a beginning.(3) Therefore, the universe had a Cause.4

Geisler uses the same format as defined in Merriam-

Webster. He starts with a major premise and a minor

premise followed by a conclusion. Remembering this format

and methodology will assist in understanding how Geisler

constructs his arguments.

The Prolegomena is not only where Geisler details his

theological views, but it also limits the necessity of

defeating all the metaphysical viewpoints currently

available in twenty-first century culture. Thomas A.

Provenzola states:

The purpose of prolegomena, however, is to establish a starting point. It sets forth the basic principles necessary before one attempts a detailed study of a given discipline. In this case it is the study of

3 Merriam-Webster, Inc., Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003), p. 1190.

4 Geisler, p. 27.3

metaphysics, but not all the possibilities in metaphysics, or even all the fundamental principles involved in the exploration of the study. In dealing with the function of prolegomena, Winfried Corduan clarified of the subject that its main objective is “notto reach final conclusions, but by its very nature it may delimit the extent and kinds of conclusions that canbe reached.5

Geisler’s starting points fall within his definition

of evangelical theology and theistic metaphysics. Geisler

defines evangelical theology thusly:

Evangelical theology is defined here as a discourse about God that maintains that there are certain essential Christian beliefs. These include, but are not necessarily limited to, the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible alone, the tri-unity of God, the virgin birth of Christ, the deity of Christ, the all-sufficiency of Christ’s atoning sacrifice for sin, the physical and miraculous resurrection of Christ, the necessity of salvation by faith alone through God’s grace alone based on the work of Christ alone, the physical bodily return of Christ to earth, the eternal conscious bliss of the saved, and the eternal conscious punishment of the unsaved.6

From this first premise Geisler moves on to define his

5 Thomas A. Provenzola, “A Prolegomena to Metaphysics:A Christian View,” Michigan Theological Journal 1 (1990): p. 155, cities Winfried Corduan, Handmaid to Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), p. 13.

6 Geisler, p. 15.

4

metaphysics. He believes of all the presuppositions the

metaphysical is the most important. Geisler dictates,

“Theism is the metaphysical precondition for evangelical

theology. It is fundamental to all else, being the

framework within which everything else has meaning.”7 If

there is no God, then there is no need to base one’s

theology on such a foundation. Therefore, the first and

most important of Geisler’s goals in his Prolegomena is the

use of several methodologies to prove the existent of a

transcendent and immanent God.

METAPHYSICS

Geisler proposes the following definition of

metaphysics: “Metaphysics (lit.: meta, ‘beyond’; physics,

‘the physical’) is the study of being or reality. It is

the study of being as being, as opposed to studying being

as physical (physics) or being as mathematical

(mathematics). ‘Metaphysics’ is often used interchangeably

with ‘ontology’ (lit.: ontos, ‘being’; logos, ‘study of’)”.8

7 Ibid., p. 18.

8 Geisler, p. 18.5

Geisler uses the discussion of metaphysics as a launching

pad to discuss why he considers metaphysics a foundation

for theistic points of view.

Geisler limits his discussion to the reason for and

justification of theistic metaphysics. There are many

disciplines within metaphysics that include both theistic

and secular. The starting point for Geisler must be the

acceptance of the existence of a transcendent and immanent

God.

Geisler does not depend on just one method for his

theistic arguments. He uses the cosmological,

teleological, moral, and ontological arguments to prove

his foundations for a theistic metaphysics. Before he

delves into his theology, he lists the other world views:

atheism (there is no god), pantheism (God is the

universe), panentheism (God is in the universe, also known

as process theology), deism (God is beyond the universe,

not in it), finite godism (a finite god exists beyond and

6

in the universe), and polytheism (there are many gods).9

Geisler defines theism as an infinite and personal

God, who is both beyond the universe (transcendent) and in

the universe (immanent).10 Geisler spends significant

effort proving that this world view is the only one

accepted within evangelical theology. Before he can defend

his belief in theistic metaphysics, he must first defend

pluralism against monism.

Geisler states, “Monism sees all as ‘one.’ God and

the universe are one thing. Christianity is committed to

the ‘many’ of pluralism, holding that God differs from the

creation.”11 An example of monism is pantheism. Pantheists

see God and the universe as one.

Geisler starts with the Greek philosopher Parmenides,

who was the first person to assert a monistic view.

Geisler further reviews the positions of Leucippus,

9 Ibid., pp. 19-21.

10 Ibid., p. 19.11 Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian

Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), p. 495.

7

Democritus, Plato, and Aristotle. He considers these

positions to be noncompliant with his views. He finally

states he supports Thomas Aquinas’ position on pluralism:

God is the only simple entity, and man is a complex

entity. Geisler sees Thomistic theism as the only answer

to the tenets of monism and the foundation for the

difference between God and his creation.12

At this point, Geisler proposes his four rational

reasons for his theistic metaphysics. Here one sees

Geisler using his syllogistic tools for developing his

arguments. His first reason is cosmological, and he uses

both horizontal and vertical reasoning methodology. His

horizontal reasoning looks at the past and leads to an

uncaused cause for the cosmos; his vertical reasoning

leads to a Necessary God. If God exists as the Uncaused

Cause, then he must also be a Necessary God for the state

of the cosmos as we find it today.

Richard Purdy gives Geisler high scores for the

12 Geisler, Systematic Theology Volume 1, p. 25.

8

development of his cosmological arguments but in the end

does not agree with the success of his case. Purdy

states, “It is the conclusion of this study that Geisler

has not adequately defended the independence of ontology

from logic, the cosmological argument, or freedom.”13

Neither Douglas Groothuis nor Bertrand Russell agrees with

Geisler’s premise that all things that exist must have a

cause.14

Geisler’s second argument for his theistic

metaphysics is teleological. He starts with a syllogistic

foundation:

(1) All designs imply a designer.(2) There is a great design in the universe.(3) Therefore, there must have been a Great Designer

of the universe.15

13 Richard A. Purdy, “Norman Geisler’s Neo-Thomistic Apologetics,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25 (1982):p. 358.

14 Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011), p. 173, citied C. F. Copleston, “A Debate on the Existence of God: Bertrand Russell and F. C. Copleston." In The Existence of God, edited by John Hick (New York: Macmillan, 1964).

15 Geisler, p. 31.

9

An individual looking at the universe must admit there is

a complex nature of our universe. Today this theistic

support is Intelligent Design. There must be intelligence

behind such an intricate universe.

Geisler continues his discussion of theistic

metaphysics with ontological supports. This argument is

divided into two parts, the perfect being and the

necessary being. The first proposition is refuted by

numerous scholars, including Immanuel Kant: “Since the

time of Immanuel Kant it has been widely accepted that

this form of the ontological argument is invalid because

existence is not a perfection.”16

The second part of the ontological argument does not

face the same type of disagreement. If God does exist,

then he must be a necessity, attributed first to Anselm

and later to Descartes.17 Geisler once again uses a

16 Ibid., p. 35.

17 Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL:InterVarsity Press, 1999), p. 86.

10

syllogism to illustrate this position:

(1) If God exists, we must conceive of Him as a Necessary Being;

(2) but by definition, a Necessary Being cannot not exist;

(3) Therefore, if a Necessary Being can exist, then it must exist.18

If God indeed exists (which he does), then he must be a

necessary God. God as a necessary being is the central

insistence of the ontological support for theistic

metaphysics.

Geisler concludes his support for theistic

metaphysics with the moral argument for the existence of

God. Unlike other positions that exist in the reasoning of

various scholars, the foundation for the moral argument

comes directly from Paul’s writing in Romans 2:12-15.

Geisler starts from this argument with another syllogism:

(1) Moral law implies a Moral Lawgiver.(2) There is an objective moral law.(3) Therefore, there is an objective Moral

Lawgiver.19

18 Geisler, p. 35.

19 Ibid., p. 36.

11

Paul states, “. . . the work of the law is written on

their hearts” (Romans 2:15).20 Geisler uses this passage as

a beginning of his reasoning. How can we determine what is

fair and just without a standard of morality? It is this

standard that God wrote on man’s heart.

Geisler makes a concluding statement:

Most theists do not rest their whole case for God on anyone argument. Indeed, each argument seems to demonstratea different attribute of God along with His existence. For example, the cosmological argument shows that an infinitely powerful Being exists; the teleological argument reveals that this Being is also super-intelligent; the moral argument establishes that He is morally perfect. And, granted that Something exists, theontological argument demonstrates that He is a NecessaryBeing.21

In summary, Geisler states, he relies on all these

arguments. Closely related to metaphysics is epistemology.

The existence of reality must first be established before

the task to determine the truthfulness of that reality is

20 Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture is from the English Standard Version Bible (Crossway Bibles, Copyright © 2001, 2007, 2008).

21 Geisler, p. 38.

12

undertaken. After the establishment of reality by Geisler,

the next step is to examine his epistemology, particularly

how he defines truth.

EPISTEMOLOGY

Geisler quotes Webster to begin his discussion of his

epistemology, “Epistemology is ‘the study of the methods

and the grounds of knowledge, especially with reference to

its limits and validity; broadly, [epistemology is] the

theory of knowledge.’”22 Within this section, Geisler seeks

to define what truth is and what it is not. There are many

different viewpoints on how to define truth.

In asking, “What is truth?” (John 18:38), Pontius

Pilate expressed a view many still hold. The

establishment of reality being the essential first step,

epistemology follows closely behind. Dan Story supports

this presupposition, “Truth, then, must correspond to

22 Geisler, p. 109; also refer to Merriam-Webster, Inc., Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1996), p. 390.

13

reality.”23 Geisler reviews the four main theories of

truth: pragmatism, coherence, existentialism, and

correspondence.24

Charles Peirce is the father of the philosophical

system known as pragmatism. Craig G. Bartholomew asserts,

“Peirce is the originator of one of the most influential

schools of American philosophy: pragmatism.”25 William

James was a student of Peirce. James clearly stated the

central tenet of pragmatism, “What is true is what

works.”26 Talking to any used car salesman will quickly

reveal that what works is not necessarily true. Donald G.

Bloesch states, “. . . the test of truth is neither

23 Dan Story, Christianity on the Offense: Responding to the Beliefs and Assumptions of Spiritual Seekers (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998), p. 232.

24 Norman L. Geisler, Paul D. Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980), p. 250.

25 Craig G. Bartholomew and Michael W. Goheen, Christian Philosophy: A Systematic and Narrative Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI:Baker Academic, 2013), p. 168.

26 William James, Pragmatism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975), p. 143.

14

rational clarity nor pragmatic efficacy but fidelity to

the promises and commandments in Holy Scripture.”27 Geisler

places the theory of pragmatism as a test for truth in his

discussion of what truth is not. He states, “But something

that works does not make it true. Lies often work, but

their effectiveness does not make them true; they remain

false, regardless of their result.”28

Geisler next focuses on the theory of coherence as a

definition of truth. He also places this in his discussion

of what truth is not, though some theologians would

disagree with him on putting this theory in the category

of what truth is not. Walter A. Elwell states, “Schaeffer

unashamedly viewed truth as a system coherently expressed

in the reliable words of Scripture.”29 Geisler expresses

two problems with this theory. First, to express

27 Donald G. Bloesch, A Theology of Word & Spirit: Authority & Method in Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), p. 75.

28 Geisler, Systematic Theology, p. 110.

29 Walter A. Elwell, ed., Handbook of Evangelical Theologians(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998), p. 290.

15

coherence, one must depend on the correspondence theory to

represent what is coherent. Second, empty statements can

cohere and yet express no discernable answers to the

question of truth.30

Next, Geisler reviews his position on existential

theory of truth. Principal in considering existential

theology are Karl Barth, Martin Buber, and Soren

Kierkegaard. All three of these men are existentialists,

as they did not believe God said anything propositional.

Geisler states concerning Martin Buber, “He denies that

God has revealed himself in any propositional

statements.”31 The most recent of the three is Karl Barth,

who thought it was impossible for God to express himself

in the propositional way that mankind could understand.

One might say, “Barth’s God is Kierkegaard’s.”32

Geisler finds several problems with the existential


31 Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 108.

32 Ibid., p. 71.

16

definition of truth, summarizing these issues as follows:

First, the very statement “Truth is not found in propositions” is itself a propositional truth claim. In other words, it is self-defeating. Second, the existentialist confuses the nature of truth and the application of truth. Of course, all applicable truth should be applied to one’s life; that is, all objective truth should be appropriated subjectively where possible. But this does not mean that truth itself is subjective. Third, existentialism presents too narrow a definition of all truth. Even if truth is existential insome sense, not all truth fits into this category—there are many other kinds of truth, including physical, mathematical, historical, and theoretical truths. If truth by its very nature were found only in existential relevance, then none of these could be true. Existential relevance fails as a complete definition of truth. Fourth, what is true will always be relevant, but not everything that is relevant is true. A pen is relevant to an atheistic writer, and a gun is relevant to a murderer. But relevance makes neither the former true nor the latter good. A truth about life will be relevant to one’s life,but not everything relevant to one’s life will be true. Fifth, many existentialists make a false dichotomy betweenfact and value, relegating religious truth to the nonfactual domain. This, however, is not possible because one cannot separate the spiritual significance of Christ’s death and resurrection from the objective facts of His literal death, empty tomb, and physical appearances (1 Cor. 15:1–19).33

Geisler completes the section on what is not truth. First,

pragmatism is not truth; something is not necessarily true

just because it works. The coherence theory is not truth

33 Geisler, Systematic Theology, pp. 112–113.17

because it depends on correspondence. Existentialism is

not truth because, by stating there is no truth in

propositions, it indicates propositions are making it

self-defeating. Geisler saves the final theory of truth

for what he believes is the only theory of truth that does

meet all the tests.

He believes the correspondence theory of truth is the

only theory that can stand up to the scrutiny of

examination. He states, “Truth is found in correspondence. Truth

is what corresponds to its object (referent), whether this

object is abstract or concrete. As applied to the world,

truth is the way things really are. Truth is ‘telling it

like it is.’”34 Cornelius Van Til believes this is the most

important of all theories of truth. Van Til states, “True

human knowledge corresponds to the knowledge which God has

of himself and his world.”35 According to Geisler, the

34 Geisler, Systematic Theology, 114.

35 Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, NJ, 1969), p. 10.

18

antithesis of that defines what falsehood is, “By

contrast, falsehood is that which does not correspond to

its referent (object). Falsehood does not tell it like it

is, but like it is not; it is a misrepresentation of the

way things are.”36

Geisler provides several reasons for supporting the

correspondence theory of truth. Non-correspondence of

truth is self-defeating. As stated in the examination of

both coherence and existential theories of truth, both

rely on correspondence to state their case. Falsehoods

would not be detectable without correspondence. If

something were not known the way it is, how would it be

known the way it is not? Finally, without correspondence

all factual communication would break down.37

Geisler also provides several biblical reasons for

the correspondence theory of truth. The foundation of the

ninth commandment stands on the correspondence theory of

truth. “You shall not bear false witness against your


37 Ibid.19

neighbor” (Exodus 20:16). How would a person know what is

false witness against his neighbor unless he first knew

what was a true statement concerning reality? C. S. Lewis

states, “My argument against God was that the universe

seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of

just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless

he has some idea of a straight line.”38

The use of the word “lie” corresponds to telling what

is not true. Satan is called a liar (John 8:44); Satan

lied to Eve when he told her, “You will not die” (Genesis

3:4), because it was not what God had told Adam and her

(Genesis 2:17). Ananias and Sapphira lied to the apostles

concerning their finances (Acts 5:1-4). All these examples

rest on the correspondence theory of truth.

Many examples of correspondence exist. Joseph said to

his brothers, “Send one of your number to get your

brother; the rest of you will be kept in prison, so that

your words may be tested to see if you are telling the

38 C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (San Francisco: Harper Books, Revised and Enlarged Edition, 2009), p. 38.

20

truth” (Genesis 42:16). Moses commanded false prophets

proved false because “If what a prophet proclaims does not

take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not

spoken” (Deuteronomy 18:22). Solomon prayed at the

dedication of the temple, “And now, O God of Israel, let

your word that you promised your servant David my father

come true” (1 Kings 8:26). The concept of truth rests on

the correspondence theory of truth.

If an act or statement did not correspond to God’s

Law, it was false. Proverbs states, “A truthful witness

saves lives, but a false witness is deceitful” (Proverbs

14:25). Here is the inference that a truth is factually

correct. Nebuchadnezzar demanded his Chaldeans know the

facts because anything else was a falsehood (Daniel 2:9).

Jesus’ statement entails the correspondence of truth, “You

sent to John, and he has bared witness to the truth” (John

5:33). Acts 24 is an example of the Jews trying to use

correspondence to convince the king of Paul’s guilt.

Geisler points to Paul as one using the correspondence

21

theory of truth, “Paul clearly implied a correspondence

view of truth when he wrote, ‘Each of you must put off

falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor’” (Eph.

4:25).39

To summarize Geisler’s epistemological points, the

correspondence theory of truth is the only theory that

stands up under examination. The Bible usage clearly

supports the correspondence theory of truth. If a man is

to embrace God’s Word for the inerrant, infallible, and

truthful document it is, the correspondence theory of

truth is what will tell it like it is.

METHODOLOGY

Geisler’s final area relates to the methodology used

to construct a systematic theology. Not all methodologies

are useful in all disciplines. Methodologies can be viewed

as tools in a tool box. One would not try to loosen a bolt

with a hammer, nor try to drive a nail with a wrench.

Geisler proposes this same position, “Since theological


22

methods have been borrowed from other disciplines, it will

be helpful to survey the major methods of discovering

truth from the earliest times to the present. While not

all these methods will make a positive contribution to the

theological enterprise, still they are illuminating.”40

Geisler then looks at several different

methodologies, following with a nine-step program for

using different methodologies in the search for one’s

theology.

He lists several methodologies to include inductive,

deductive, abductive, retroductive, systematic, and

pragmatic. The first is Reductio ad Absurdum, a method used

by Zeno the Greek, in which a statement is reduced to the

point of absurdity to prove a point. For instance, Zeno

believed in monism. He would reduce the argument for the

existent of more than one to an infinite number of points

between any two objects. He concluded this was so absurd

that it proved his belief in monism.

More familiar is the Socratic Method, which is really

40 Ibid., p. 206.23

a means of communication. Named after Socrates, who was

known for its use, it consists of asking questions to

provoke conversation on a subject.

The most acknowledged and probably the oldest is the

deductive method. Geisler uses a syllogism to illustrate

this method:

A categorical (unconditional) deduction (syllogism) is as follows:

(1) If the whole Bible is true, then so is John 14:6.

(2) The whole Bible is true.(3) Consequently, John 14:6 is true—Jesus is the

only way to God.41

The deductive method moves from the general to the

specific. Aristotle first defined this method. Bartholomew

states, “He distinguished between inductive logic, which

draws general conclusions from a collection of specific

observations, and deductive logic, which demonstrates a

conclusion with a compelling argument.”42 Geisler believes

that without the deductive categories of categorical,

41 Ibid., p. 207.

42 Bartholomew, p. 51.

24

hypothetical, and disjunctive, theology would not be

possible. “These three types of logical thinking—

categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive—are used

constantly in theology. Without them theology would not be

possible, since they are the rules of rational thought,

and systematic theology is a form of rational thinking.”43

Phil Fernandes points to how deductive reasoning was also

a part of Blaise Pascal’s methodology, “By the heart,

Pascal meant what we intuitively know as opposed to what

we know through deductive reasoning.”44

The abductive method is neither deductive nor

inductive. This method relates more to an insight or

intuitive flash. Geisler illustrates, “The scientist

Nikola Tesla (1856–1943) got his idea for the internal

workings of an alternating current motor from a vision he

had while reading the poet Goethe.”45 Many times someone


44 Phil Fernandes, “The Apologetic Methodology of Blaise Pascal,” Christian Apologetics Journal 6 (2007): p. 23.


25

will be working on a problem, only to suddenly receive an

intuition that leads to a solution. This is the abductive

method.

Geisler continues his discussion with a review of the

reductive method, “The retroductive method is the method

of enrichment. As a snowball gathers more snow on each

turn downhill, so a retroduction in theology is where

additional insight is gained from further knowledge.”46 It

is from this method that Osbourne most likely came up with

his concept of hermeneutical spiral, “The major premise of

this book is that biblical interpretation entails a

‘spiral’ from text to context.”47 This method is about

gaining knowledge and intuition by continuing to go back

to the text and studying the context.

If for no other reason than the individuals who have

used it, the dialectical method is significant. Geisler

46 Ibid., p. 210.

47 Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Rev. and expanded, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), p. 22.

26

defines it: “The dialectical method consists in opposing

a thesis with an antithesis and making a synthesis of

them.”48 Karl Barth and Karl Marx used this method, as well

as evangelical scholars such as F. C. Baur.

As one decides on a methodology, caution should be

exercised against using those that would lead a scholar

awry. An example is the anti-supernatural or natural

method. Geisler points out one pitfall of such a

methodology:

Clearly, any method that necessitates a naturalistic conclusion should not be used in evangelical theology. Benedict Spinoza is a classic example. His form of deductive rationalism entailed naturalism, but evangelical theology is based on theism, and it goes without saying that if natural law is defined as unbreakable, and a miracle as what breaks a natural law,then miracles are impossible. However, since theism entails supernaturalism, and since the theistic belief in the creation of the universe from nothing is the biggest supernatural event of all, then miracles are automatically possible.49

Whether one is examining Benedict Spinoza, Ernst

Troeltsch, or David Hume, the idea that history, even


49 Ibid., p. 216.27

theology, needs to be viewed without the supernatural

warrants careful scrutiny.

Geisler now offers a nine-step process for using the

different methodologies to conduct theology. Two of the

more prominent steps are the inductive methodology

concerning Scripture and systematic correlation. Geisler

is a firm and outspoken proponent of the idea that the

Scriptures are inerrant and infallible. He states,

“Evangelical theology is based on a belief that the Bible

and the Bible alone is the only written, infallible and

inerrant revelation from God (general revelation is not

written); as a result, any adequate methodology must be

based on a sound exposition of Scripture.”50 He continues,

“Broadly speaking, an inductive approach to understanding

the text must be taken; that is, all the particular parts

of the text of Scripture must be examined carefully in

context before one can safely assume he has the proper

interpretation.”51

50 Ibid., p. 218.

51 Ibid.28

Geisler adds to his firm belief in inerrancy and

inductive reasoning the need to make sure any

interpretations are part of a thorough correlation of all

data. Systematic correlation is understanding the need to

consider all data available. The doctrine produced should

not contradict any established doctrine. One area to

understand is the different genre of the Scriptures and

how it contributes to the overall goal of understanding

God’s Word. The method used with the Torah may not be

appropriate when considering poetry. The wrong use of

established methodology may not only be inappropriate but

may also lead to interpretations never intended by God. As

one seeks to understand Geisler, he believes inductive

reasoning is the preferable methodology.

CONCLUSION

This has been a review of Geisler’s Prolegomena as

found in his Systematic Theology Volume 1. Prolegomena is to

develop a starting point and limit what will be addressed

as part of a scholar’s project. In this case, the starting

29

point is prior to Geisler’s statement of his Systematic

Theology. The three areas selected to review were Geisler’s

metaphysics, epistemology, and methodology.

Geisler’s metaphysics is clearly theistic. He sees no

reason to move forward unless God’s existence is

established. Geisler used the cosmological, teleological,

ontological, and moral arguments for the existence of God.

He believes everything that exists must have a cause. He

presents both horizontal reasoning (God is the uncaused

cause of all things) and vertical reasoning (if God does

exist then he must be a Necessary Being).

The next area reviewed was his epistemology. This

review focused on how Geisler defined truth and the

importance of that definition. Geisler examined the many

methods people use to define truths. These included

pragmatism, coherence, existentialism, and correspondence.

Geisler believed the theory of correspondence was the only

one that stood up to close investigation. He further

pointed out several examples of how the Scriptures also

30

support the use of correspondence to define truth.

Geisler is a strong defender of inerrancy of the

Scriptures. He saw the need to be sure of truth’s

definition if man is to grasp the importance and message

of the Scriptures.

Finally is a review of Geisler’s preferred

methodology: he examined the many different methodologies

available. He believed the most preferable to be the

inductive method combined with a thorough understanding of

all the data available. He believed in the importance of

not only using the most correct methodology but also using

the most appropriate methodology. The method for working

with the Torah is not necessarily the method to be used

when studying the poetical passages of the Scripture.

Geisler’s Prolegomena establishes the starting points

for where he wants his Systematic Theology to focus. He has

established a theistic metaphysics, a correspondence

definition of truth, and the need for an inductive and

thorough methodology. To study and understand Geisler’s

31

argumentation, one must have a thorough understanding of

the syllogism.

32

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ashford, Bruce R. “Wittgenstein’s Theologians? A Survey ofLudwig Wittgenstein’s Impact on Theology.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50 (2007): pp. 355-375.

Bartholomew, Craig G., and Michael W. Goheen. Christian Philosophy: A Systematic and Narrative Introduction. Grand Rapids,MI: Baker Academic, 2013.

Bloesch, Donald G. A Theology of Word & Spirit: Authority & Method in Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005.

_______. God, the Almighty: Power, Wisdom, Holiness, Love. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006.

Bultman, Rudolf. “Is Exegesis without Presuppositions Possible?” in Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultman. trans. Schubert Ogden. New York, NY: Meridan, 1960.

Copleston, F. C. "A Debate on the Existence of God: Bertrand Russell and F. C. Copleston." In The Existence of God, edited by John Hick. New York: Macmillan, 1964.

Detzler, Wayne A. “Evangelism and the Peril of Pluralism.”Christian Apologetics Journal 4 (2005): pp. 42-60.

Elwell, Walter A., ed. Handbook of Evangelical Theologians. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998.

Fernandes, Phil. “The Apologetic Methodology of Blaise Pascal.” Christian Apologetics Journal 6 (2007): pp. 20-36.

33

Frame, John M. “Biblical Errancy: An Analysis of its Philosophical Roots, a Book Review.” Westminster Theological Journal 45 (1983): pp. 433-441.

Geisler, Norman L. Biblical Errancy: An Analysis of Its Philosophical Roots. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1981.

_______. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Baker ReferenceLibrary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999.

_______. Systematic Theology, Volume One: Introduction, Bible. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2002.

_______. Systematic Theology, Volume Two: God, Creation.

Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2003.

_______. “Orthodoxy and Divine Simplicity.” Christian Apologetics Journal 3 (2004): pp. 9-26.

_______. “Religious Pluralism: A Christian Response.” Christian Apologetics Journal 4 (2005): pp. 2-24.

Geisler, Norman L., and Paul D. Feinberg. Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980.

Geisler, Norman L. and William D. Watkins. “Process Theology: a Survey and an Appraisal.” Themelios: Volume 12 (1986): pp. 15-25.

Geisler, Norman L. and Ronald M. Brooks. When Skeptics Ask. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001.

Grenz, Stanley, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling. Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999.

34

Groothuis, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011.

Hines, Tony. “The Universe: @ God.” Conservative Theological Journal, 7 (2003): pp. 140-153.

Holes, A. F. “A Reply to Norman Geisler.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 11 (1968): pp. 193-195.

Howe, Thomas A. “Heaven by Randy Alcorn: Some Observations.” Christian Apologetics Journal 6 (2007): pp. 65-82.

James, Williams. Pragmatism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975.

LaRock, Eric F. “God: The Necessary Ingredient in the Edifice of Life.” Christian Apologetics Journal 1 (1998): pp.20-35.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. San Francisco, CA: Harper Books, Expanded and Enlarged Edition, 2009.

Linneman, Eta. “Evangelical and Historical-Critical Theology.” Faith and Mission 14 (1996): pp. 4-27.

Merriam-Webster, Inc. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1996.

Newton, Aaron K. “A Study and Critique of Various Theodicies.” Faith and Mission 20 (2002): pp. 21-43.

Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Rev. and expanded, 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006.

35

Powell, Doug. Holman Quick Source Guide to Christian Apologetics. Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2006.

Provenzola, Thomas A. “A Prolegomena to Metaphysics: A Christian View.” Michigan Theological Journal 1 (1990): pp. 152-172.

Purdy, Richard A. “Norman Geisler’s Neo-Thomistic Apologetics.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25 (1982): pp. 349-358.

Story, Dan. Christianity on the Offense: Responding to the Beliefs and Assumptions of Spiritual Seekers. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998.

Van Til, Cornelius. A Survey of Christian Epistemology. The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, NJ, 1969.

Wagner, Brian H. “Survey of Approaches for Biblical Ethics.” Journal of Dispensational Theology Volume 13 (2009): pp. 61-71.

36

A Review of Norman Geisler's Prolegomena

Documents