Geisler's Sytematic Theology

In looking to upgrade my systematic theology collection in Logos, I will definitely buy Grudem and Erickson. I have them both in print but want access to them in Logos. I also have Hodge and Berkhof in print, but do not believe I will purchase them in Logos because I believe that the aforementioned titles are better and come from the same theological background.

My question is how is Geisler's systematic compares to these I have mentioned. It is multi-volume, so I assume it is more in depth, etc. Just wondering if I should put it on my "get" list. What are some other good, solidly evangelical systematics?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Todd Phillips

In looking to upgrade my systematic theology collection in Logos, I will definitely buy Grudem and Erickson. I have them both in print but want access to them in Logos. I also have Hodge and Berkhof in print, but do not believe I will purchase them in Logos because I believe that the aforementioned titles are better and come from the same theological background.

Grudem and Erickson are Baptist. Hodge and Berkhof are Presbyterian/Reformed. Plus when you add in Grudem's views on Spiritual gifts, you will find a considerable difference among them. I recommend Berkhof. I recommend Bavinck even more, though. It's the most helpful ST I've read. I also like Robert Reymond's. (You can tell where I stand)

My question is how is Geisler's systematic compares to these I have mentioned. It is multi-volume, so I assume it is more in depth, etc. Just wondering if I should put it on my "get" list. What are some other good, solidly evangelical systematics?

I don't have Geisler, but it would be considered dispensational, I believe.

Grudem has a good list of STs listed by theological tradition in the appendix. I highlighted the ones in Logos for a previous post:

Scott S

Geisler's systematic has an apologetic character. He is very good
explaining points clearly and the work is very readable. He often uses
the format:

Proposition - Christian doctrine X

Objection one to X

Rebuttal to Objection one

Objection two to X

Rebuttal to Objection two

how is Geisler's systematic compares to these I have mentioned.

Erickson by contrast, is gentle with opposing views,
noting their strong points, sometimes so well, that you don't know his
preference until he shows his hand in the conclusion.

Geisler is 2 or 3 times as many pages as Erickson. The length is
sometimes used in responding to a greater number of alternative views, but mostly it is that
Geisler covers many more topics/issues. I've only read parts of Geisler and that's how it appears to me.

I consider Geisler's theology a valuable resource because of extensive amount of information that is well organized. Having Erickson in Logos is a big help for searching for coverage on various issues, compared to my old paper volumes.

Scott S

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/202160#Comment_202160

I recommend Bavinck even more, though. It's the most helpful ST I've read.

Todd,

Is Bavinck supralapsarian or is he in the infra/sub camp?

Thanks in advance,

Scott

NetworkGeek

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/202300#Comment_202300

Geisler's systematic has an apologetic character. He is very good explaining points clearly and the work is very readable. He often uses the format:

Proposition - Christian doctrine X

              Objection one to X

                              Rebuttal to Objection one

              Objection two to X

                              Rebuttal to Objection two

how is Geisler's systematic compares to these I have mentioned.

Erickson by contrast, is gentle with opposing views, noting their strong points, sometimes so well, that you don't know his preference until he shows his hand in the conclusion.

Geisler is 2 or 3 times as many pages as Erickson. The length is sometimes used in responding to a greater number of alternative views, but mostly it is that Geisler covers many more topics/issues. I've only read parts of Geisler and that's how it appears to me.

I consider Geisler's theology a valuable resource because of extensive amount of information that is well organized. Having Erickson in Logos is a big help for searching for coverage on various issues, compared to my old paper volumes.

If you like this approach, you should consider reading Summa Theologicae by Thomas Aquinas. I suspect that's where he got the format from. For example:

WHETHER IN GOD THE ESSENCE IS THE SAME AS THE PERSON?

We proceed thus to the First Article:—

Objection 1. It would seem that in God the essence is not the same as person. For whenever essence is the same as person or suppositum, there can be only one suppositum of one nature, as is clear in the case of all separate substances. For in those things which are really one and the same, one cannot be multiplied apart from the other. But in God there is one essence and three persons, as is clear from what is above expounded (Q. XXVIII., A. 3; Q. XXX., A. 2). Therefore essence is not the same as person.

Obj. 2. Further, simultaneous affirmation and negation of the same things in the same respect cannot be true. But affirmation and negation are true of essence and of person. For person is distinct, whereas essence is not. Therefore person and essence are not the same.

Obj. 3. Further, nothing can be subject to itself. But person is subject to essence; whence it is called suppositum or hypostasis. Therefore person is not the same as essence.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. vi. 7): When we say the person of the Father we mean nothing else but the substance of the Father.
I answer that, The truth of this question is quite clear if we consider the divine simplicity. For it was shown above (Q. III., A. 3) that the divine simplicity requires that in God essence is the same as suppositum, which in intellectual substances is nothing else than person. But a difficulty seems to arise from the fact that while the divine persons are multiplied, the essence nevertheless retains its unity. And because, as Boëthius says (De Trin. i.), relation multiplies the Trinity of persons, some have thought that in God essence and person differ, forasmuch as they held the relations to be adjacent; considering only in the relations the idea of reference to another, and not the relations as realities. But as it was shown above (Q. XXVIII., A. 2) in creatures relations are accidental, whereas in God they are the divine essence itself. Thence it follows that in God essence is not really distinck from person; and yet that the persons are really distinguished from each other. For person, as above stated (Q. XXIX., A. 4), signifies relation as subsisting in the divine nature. But relation as referred to the essence does not differ therefrom really, but only in our way of thinking; while as referred to an opposite relation, it has a real distinction by virtue of that opposition. Thus there are one essence and three persons.

Reply Obj. 1. There cannot be a distinction of suppositum in creatures by means of relations, but only by essential principles; because in creatures relations are not subsistent. But in God relations are subsistent, and so by reason of the opposition between them they distinguish the supposita; and yet the essence is not distinguished, because the relations themselves are not distinguished from each other so far as they are identified with the essence.

Reply Obj. 2. As essence and person in God differ in our way of thinking, it follows that something can be denied of the one and affirmed of the other; and therefore, when we suppose the one, we need not suppose the other.

Reply Obj. 3. Divine things are named by us after the way of created things, as above explained (Q. XIII., AA. 1, 3). And since created natures are individualized by matter which is the subject of the specific nature, it follows that individuals are called subjects, supposita, or hypostases. So the divine persons are named supposita or hypostases, but not as if there really existed any real supposition or subjection.

Blair Laird

I use Geisler systematic theology more then any systematic theology that I own. It just depends on your theological background on how much you will use it. Geisler is dispensational, pre-trib, believes in a baptist form of church structure, a moderate calvinist perspective on soteriology, traditional perspective on theology proper, and a classical apologetics perspective on prolegomena.

Volume 1

"Prolegomena (lit.: pro, “before,” and lego, “speak”) is the introduction to theology. It deals with the necessary preconditions for doing systematic theology.

Theology (lit.: theos, “God,” and logos, “reason” or “discourse”) is a rational discourse about God.

Evangelical theology is defined here as a discourse about God that maintains that there are certain essential Christian beliefs.1 These include, but are not necessarily limited to,2 the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible alone,3 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.4

Theology is divided into several categories:

(1) Biblical Theology is a study of the biblical basis for theology.

(2) Historical Theology is a discussion of the theology of the great theologians of the Christian church.

(3) Systematic Theology is an attempt to construct a comprehensive and consistent whole out of all revelation from God, whether special (biblical) or general (natural) revelation (see chapter 4).

Apologetics (Gk: apologia, “defense”) deals with the protection of Christian theology from external attacks. Polemics defends orthodox Christianity from internal doctrinal threats such as heresy and aberrant teachings."

Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume One: Introduction, Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2002). 15-16.

Volume 2

"WHAT IS AN ATTRIBUTE OF GOD?

By “attribute” is meant some characteristic that can be attributed to God’s nature—an essential trait of God. Other terms for attribute are “property,” “perfection,” or “name.” (“Names of God” is an older term; see Thomas Aquinas, ST, la.13.1.) “Attribute” will be used both because it is something attributable to God and because it is a customary term.

Few (if any) studies are more important than that of the attributes of God. There are many reasons for this, including the following.

All Basic Theological Truth Depends Upon God’s Attributes

Virtually every major doctrine of the faith is based on the doctrine of God. For instance, the claims that the Bible is the Word of God and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God are entirely dependent on what is meant by God, of whom the Bible is the Word and Christ the Son. Likewise, a miracle is defined as a special act of God (see Geisler, “M, D” in BECA), but there cannot be acts of God unless there is a God who can act, and only a theistic God can perform these special acts known as miracles (see Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume 1, chapter 3). Even doctrines like eschatology depend on a God who can infallibly predict the future and who has the omnipotent power to bring about what He desires to occur. The same is true of the doctrine of the Atonement: The meanings of reconciliation, propitiation, divine satisfaction (see Volume 3), and many other aspects of redemption depend on the kind of God whose acts they are.

If, for example, God is not absolutely just, then both the need for Christ’s atonement and the justification of hell (see Volume 4) are undermined. The fact is that every essential Christian teaching is dependent for its validity on the orthodox doctrine of God. Hence, a study of His attributes is key to the rest of evangelical theology."

Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Two: God, Creation (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2003). 17-18.

Volume 3

"The condition (or conditions) for salvation has long been hotly debated on several fronts. The Reformation was centered on whether the condition of salvation is faith alone or faith plus works. There is also the contemporary “lordship salvation vs. free grace” dispute over whether one must accept Christ only as Savior (free grace) or also as Lord (lordship salvation) in order to be saved.1 In addition, on the borders of evangelicalism,2 is the question of whether, besides faith and repentance, confession (verbal witness) and baptism are necessary to be saved.

IMPORTANT DISTINCTIONS REGARDING THE QUESTION AT HAND

Focusing the question will be of considerable help in answering it. To do so, some important distinctions must be made.

Between Conditions for Giving and Conditions for Receiving

The first and most basic differentiation is that between the condition(s) for God giving the gift of salvation vs. the condition(s) for humans receiving it. According to all forms of Calvinism and most forms of Arminianism, there are no conditions for God’s provision of salvation. It is a free gift—no strings attached. Eternal life is not conditioned on anything but God’s grace (cf. Eph. 2:8–9; Titus 3:5–7; Rom. 4:5; 11:29). Our gracious Creator does not offer salvation on the basis of any foreseen merit in us or in our deeds: “Salvation is of the LORD” (Jonah 2:9 NKJV).

Therefore, the question we’re asking does not affect God’s unconditional provision; the question is “Are there any conditions for our reception of everlasting life, and, if so, how many?” To this question there are several answers, even within evangelicalism.

Between Condition for Getting Salvation and Condition for Keeping It

Further, the question here is not whether we can (in any manner) lose salvation after having received it. That is the matter of eternal security,3 and it has already been discussed.4 This inquiry is for the purpose of discovering what conditions must be met in order for a person to receive eternal life in the first place."

Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Three: Sin, Salvation (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2004). 470-71.

Volume 4

"PART ONE: THE CHURCH (ECCLESIOLOGY)

Volume Four also has two major sections. Part One deals with ecclesiology, the doctrine of the church. We will first discuss the church’s origin (chapter 1), then the nature of the invisible (universal) church (chapter 2), followed by the nature of the visible (local) church (chapter 3). After this, we will treat the government (chapter 4), ordinances (chapter 5), and ministry (chapter 6) of the visible church, followed by the relation of church and state (chapter 7).

PART TWO: LAST THINGS (ESCHATOLOGY)

Part Two deals with eschatology, the study of the last things, and has two subsections: personal eschatology (chapters 8–12) and general eschatology (chapters 13–17). We begin with the intermediate state and the resurrection (chapter 8), the final state of the saved (heaven—chapter 9), and the final state of the lost (hell—chapter 10). Following these are examinations of the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory (chapter 11) and the theories of annihilationism (chapter 12).

The final section opens with a study of the interpretation of prophecy (chapter 13), followed by a treatment of God’s kingdom (chapter 14) and God’s covenants (chapter 15). Finally, we will cover Christ’s return (the Second Coming) and the Millennium (chapter 16), and then the Tribulation and the Rapture (chapter 17)."

Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Four: Church, Last Things (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2005). 13-14.

For me I would look at the authors perspective of soteriology. If you are more into reformed (calvinist) soteriology, I would go with reformed dogmatics, or something like a new systematic theology of the christian faith by Robert Reymond. For not being a multi volume it suprisingly has a-lot of substance.

Erickson was my first systematic theology, I found it to be very helpful, and would recommend it as a starting systematic theology. For a person who does not have a lot of theological background, it is a very simplistic presentation. Geisler is very much a philosopher, and that presents itself in his writings. I have found my head spinning on somethings I found in Geislers systematic theology. So I would say it also depends on your level of theological training.

Charlie

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/202160#Comment_202160

I recommend Berkhof. I recommend Bavinck even more, though. It's the most helpful ST I've read. I also like Robert Reymond's.

Todd, I have a question about Bavinck. Since I already own Berkhof and Reymond - and I'm just now starting to read through them as I have time - would you still recommend Bavinck? Would you recommend I skip the above two and start reading Bavinck? If so, why?

What is so good about Bavinck in relation to the others?

I don't want to spend the money on another systematic, but I definitely want the best resource to help guide me through Reformed theology.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Charlie

Scott S

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/202335#Comment_202335

you should consider reading Summa Theologicae by Thomas Aquinas. I suspect that's where he got the format from.

Thanks for the suggestion. I've got the Summa Theologicae in PBB, but have not spent much in it yet. I look forward to when L4 gets PBB, so it can be part of my regular searches. I think Geisler's style "fits" the Summa Theologicae format.

Scott

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/202379#Comment_202379

Is Bavinck supralapsarian or is he in the infra/sub camp?

He
considers both, and affirms both and rejects both concepts as being
insufficient to describe "The Divine Counsel" (a term he uses to
cover the decrees and will of God in all of its aspects). [:D]

"In short, the counsel of God and the cosmic history that
corresponds to it must not be pictured exclusively—as infra- and
supralapsarianism did—as a single straight line describing relations
only of before and after, cause and effect, means and end; instead, it
should also be viewed as a systemic whole in which things occur side by
side in coordinate relations and cooperate in the furthering of what
always was, is, and will be the deepest ground of all existence: the
glorification of God." Bavinck, H., Bolt, J., & Vriend, J.
(2004). Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2: God and Creation (392). Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

See the attachment below for the full context.

Todd, I have a question about Bavinck. Since I already own Berkhof and Reymond - and I'm just now starting to read through them as I have time - would you still recommend Bavinck? Would you recommend I skip the above two and start reading Bavinck? If so, why?

What is so good about Bavinck in relation to the others?

Mind you, I haven't read any of them cover to cover.

Berkhof is relatively short. Some have said that he can be considered a summary of Bavinck. For example, he has the same view as Bavinck on the order of the decrees:

"From what was said it would seem to follow that we cannot regard Supra- and Infralapsarianism as absolutely antithetical. They consider the same mystery from different points of view, the one fixing its attention on the ideal or teleological; the other, on the historical, order of the decrees. To a certain extent they can and must go hand in hand. Both find support in Scripture. Supralapsarianism in those passages which stress the sovereignty of God, and Infralapsarianism in those which emphasize the mercy and justice of God, in connection with election and reprobation." Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (124). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.

Reymond is a little more in depth than Berkhof, plus it's only a decade old, so he interacts with modern ideas, like open theism, and he has differing views than Bavinck/Berkhof (for example, he argues for supralapsarianism, and he has a long discussion on the understanding of "the eternal generation of the Son").

Bavinck's handling of historical theology is at a depth that I haven't seen in other systematics: it is a good source for learning the development of concept historically. The writing is clear and to the point (which means it's also a fantastic translation). If I could only read one, I'd read Bavinck. But I'd never read just one.

For your reading pleasure, here is chapter 7 of volume 2 of Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics, "The Divine Counsel", in Word format:

4431.ReformedDogmatics_v2ch7.zip

That is 50 pages on just the decrees of God. The section in italics at the beginning is a summary (four pages worth) of the concepts in the chapter.

Scott S

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/202403#Comment_202403

Todd,

Fantastic reply!

Bavinck's handling of historical theology is at a depth that I haven't seen in other systematics: it is a good source for learning the development of concept historically.

I appreciate you pointing this out as I'm very interested in historical theology.

Thanks also for the sample text to checkout.

Scott

Robert M. Warren

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/202348#Comment_202348

a moderate calvinist perspective on soteriology

Hmmm....[*-)]

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/203068#Comment_203068

a moderate calvinist perspective on soteriology

Hmmm....

That is Geisler's own description of his theological position from Chosen But Free, unfortunately not a Logos resource.

Blair Laird

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/203080#Comment_203080

That is Geisler's own description of his theological position from Chosen But Free, unfortunately not a Logos resource.

Logos has alot of his resources, that by far is a very popular one. I am not sure why it has not been added yet, it is probably on the back burner. You can also called it Amyraldianism if you don't like moderate calvinism, or modified calvinism. I guess you can call it reformed arminianism, since it is pretty close to the teaching of Arminius himself (except I don't believe Arminius made a stance on eternal security), rather then modern arminianism. I have heard it called alot of things but moderate or modified calvinism seems to paint the proper picture.