Theologian and apologist Norman Geisler’s written works span
an enormous breadth of Christian thought, yet his conclusions sometimes
originate from faulty reasoning and pure speculation. Geisler relies as much on
his ability to reason as he does on actual scripture. He often ignores
scripture because his reason gives him the conclusion he wants. While obviously
sound doctrine requires using human reason, we must always base our conclusions
on the truths simply and clearly declared by scripture and separate our selfish
human desires from our endeavors.
In his Systematic Theology, Geisler devotes an entire
chapter to Logic. In this, he defines and discusses the application of
logic to theology. “Logic deals with the methods of valid thinking,” he says.[1] All
thinking requires logic, says Geisler.[2] He
diligently lays out the laws of logic, including syllogisms, deductive and
inductive logic, along with various fallacies and propositions, etc., etc.
If logic is the basis of all thinking, and theology is thinking about God, then it follows that logic is the basis of all thinking about God.[3]
Logic allows us to form arguments, to think about our world,
about ideas, and to arrive at conclusions. Patrick Hurley, author of the
standard collegiate textbook on the subject, says that logic gives us “the
skill needed to construct sound arguments and to evaluate the arguments of
others.”[4]
Hurley tells us that logic instills the necessary awareness needed for “clear,
effective, and meaningful communication.”[5]
Hurley does not grant the universal ability to logic that Geisler does. Logic
does not form the basis for thinking, but it allows us to evaluate our
thinking, at least from a secular reference point. From a spiritual reference,
logic can help us avoid errors, but it does not teach us anything. Theology is
the study of God, not thinking about him. Finney had thoughts of
God, as well as Pelagius, Aristotle, and Plato. Every atheist has thoughts of
God. “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God,’” says the psalmist (Psalm
14.1). In order to study God, he must draw us to him and reveal himself. Christ
said, “No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John
6.44). In the book of Jeremiah, God said, “I will put my law within them and on
their heart I will write it” (Jeremiah 31.33). we do not learn about God by our
sinful, irrational minds. God has given logic as a tool, yet we are unable to
use it to its full advantage without his grace.
Theologians have traditionally relegated the nature of the
Trinity to mystery; they do the same with the incarnation of Christ. Logic
cannot abide with mystery, and trusting in mystery does not satisfy Geisler. He
feels a need to logically confine this mystery in a logical cage. He attempts
to explain these divine, incomprehensible, glorious truths and fit them into
his ridiculous human vocabulary.
In the Godhead there is one What and three Whos; in Christ, the second person of the Godhead, there is one Who and two Whats. In the Incarnation, one Who in God assumed another What, so that there were two Whats in one Who.[6]
We do not glorify God by attempting to reduce him to
colloquialisms of bizarre pronouns and meaningless equations. He is beyond us
necessarily and forever so.
Geisler fails to apply his own stated rules in applying
logic. He describes deductive logic through syllogisms and propositions. In a
syllogism, we define terms, apply a property to the general term, and then
single out one example. If the example meets the definition of the term, then
the property applies. In Geisler’s example
All human beings are sinful.
John is a human being.
Therefore, John is sinful.[7]
Syllogisms use propositions. A proposition declares a
property of a term.
All human beings are sinful.
Though Geisler states the importance of using propositions
in forming theological conclusions, he ignores the propositions he disagrees
with. He agrees that human beings are sinful, and that “spiritual death is
spiritual separation from God,”[8] yet
he denies Paul’s direct statement that the spiritually dead cannot please God.
Geisler believes that spiritual death does not mean that humans are so depraved
that “they have no capacity to understand and respond to God’s message.”[9]
Geisler ignores the statement of Christ, who said that we do not bear spiritual
fruit apart from him (John 15.5). He ignores Paul, who said that the
spiritually dead mind “is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to
the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the
flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8.6-8). Paul repeats this to emphasize that
men cannot believe in God, as God is only pleased by our faith in him (Hebrews
11.6).[10]
Geisler also illogically uses analogies to prove his point, but analogies do not
prove anything. He isolates verses that describe sinners as polluted, sick, and
in darkness, and then says, “A sick person is able to receive a cure, just as a
dirty person can embrace cleansing and a person in the dark can accept light.”[11] Analogies
do not give us information. They do not strengthen arguments or create
counterpoints. Analogies merely serve to illustrate proven points. If we found
our doctrine entirely on scripture, analogies prove nothing. Scripture uses
many metaphors to describe our unredeemed state, and Geisler focuses on only
those that validate his position, even though he says in his Logic chapter that inductive logic
requires examination of the broadest possible sample of evidence.[12] May I
add another logical rule: direct statements are stronger than metaphors. Scripture
uses metaphors to clarify and exposit theological concepts, but we speculate
dangerously when we extend these metaphors beyond the text.
When Geisler says that sinners are polluted and in need of
cleansing,[13] he cites Titus 2.14, which
says
[Christ] gave himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for himself a people for his own possession, zealous for good deeds.
Notice Paul does not say that we are not clean. He implies
this. Direct statements are also stronger than implications. We can look
elsewhere and find that sinners are unclean (Isaiah 6.5), but we cannot conclude
this from this passage alone.
Geisler fails to discuss the interplay between language
and logic. Unfortunately, scripture does not neatly state its propositions in
proper, logical form, always using categorical syllogisms, propositions, or
excluded middles. We must do much of this work ourselves. While Geisler
pretends to give homage to clear, rational thought, he makes broad doctrinal statements
without clearly laying out the evidence for them. In discussing predestination
and free will, he says that “the Bible affirms that human beings are free to
accept or reject God’s gift of salvation (John 1.12; Romans 6.23; Matthew
23.37; 2 Peter 3.9).”[14] None
of these verses contain a proposition about free will. The concept of free will
can only be read into the verses if one assumes a priori that free will
is true. We expect a proposition declaring that man is free to accept or reject
God to read like this:
Men can freely accept or reject God’s gift of salvation.
John 1.12 says, “As many as received him, to them he gave
the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in his name.” We
can rephrase this as a conditional statement:
If a man believes in his name and receives him, he gives them the right to become children of God.
Does this declare man’s freedom? Pair it with John 1.13,
which says that these who receive Christ “were born, not of blood, nor of the
will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” If we combine the two
verses together and rephrase them as a conditional statement, they in fact deny
free will.
If a man believes in Christ’s name and receives him, then Christ gives him the right to become a child of God, and this only because of God’s will, not a man’s will, by his blood, or by his father.
If we state this categorically rather than conditionally, as
the text is presented, we have this.
By God’s will alone, we are his children, and God gives his children the right to become his children because they believe in Christ and receive Christ.
Logically, this is nonsense. This can only be revealed to
us. We are always his children because he has decided this to be, because we
believe in Christ, and we believe because we are his children.
None of these verses declare free will. Romans 6.23 tells us
that the wages of sin is death. This tells us nothing about man’s will, but
only of the consequences of sin. In Matthew 23.37, Christ laments over the
unwillingness of Israel to repent. Unwillingness does not indicate free will if
Christ said, “Everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin” (John 8.34); it
actually confirms the slavery of the will. Christ gives us the direct statement
that we need to begin to logically form theology—Man is a slave—but not
the statement that Geisler wants. Peter does not make a statement about free
will in 2 Peter 3.9, but instead a statement of God’s desire for all of his
children to believe in him. Geisler adds to these passages what he wants to be
true. Instead of applying his strict rules of logic, he falls victim to his
self-centered desire to be free from God’s sovereignty.
Every Arminian fails in this respect. Instead of asking,
“What does scripture teach?”, he says to himself, “This is what I want
scripture to teach.” Not a one of them realizes that he is a proud,
self-centered human being, and that this is the first and foremost admission he
must make before he attempts to know God.
[1]
Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, (Bloomington: Bethany House, 2011),
page 61.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid,
68.
[4]
Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, (Belmont: Wadsworth,
2000), vii.
[5] Ibid.
[6] We
find this tragic intersection of comedy and theology in Geisler, Theology,
71.
[7]
Geisler, Theology, 61.
[8] Ibid,
771.
[9] Ibid.
[10] And
subsequent obedience, obviously, as James points out—true faith always obeys
(James 2.26).
[11] Ibid,
772.
[12] Ibid,
66.
[13] Ibid,
772.
[14]
Ibid, 71.
