| Full name | Norman Geisler |
|---|---|
| Era | 20th-century philosophy |
| Region | Western Philosophy |
| School | Moderate Calvinism, Christian philosophy |
| Main interests | Philosophy of religion, Christian Apologetics, Moderate Calvinism |
|
Influenced by
|
|
|
Influenced
|
|
Norman L. Geisler (born 1932) is a Christian apologist and the co-founder of Southern Evangelical Seminary outside Charlotte, North Carolina, where he formerly taught. He holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from Jesuit Loyola University. Geisler is well known for his scholarly contributions to the subjects of Christian apologetics, philosophy, and moderate Calvinism and is the author, coauthor, or editor of over 60 books and hundreds of articles.
Contents |
Geisler left the Evangelical Theological Society in 2003, after it did not expel Clark Pinnock, who advocates open theism.[1] He also testified in McLean v. Arkansas, defending creationism.[2]
On December 11, 1981 Norman Geisler testified in court in Little Rock, Arkansas, about how creation should be taught in public schools and said he believes UFOs exist and are the work of Satan. The states first witness in a case filed by the ACLU that challenged a new law that says creationism and evolution should be given equal time in Arkansas schools. He believes that UFOs are, "a satanic manifestation in the world for the purpose of deception."[3]
In the late 20th Century, Geisler entered the Mormon arena. In 1997 he co-authored When Cultists Ask: A Popular Handbook on Cultic Misinterpretation, with Ron Rhodes. Forty-seven of the articles listed in the index, regarded Mormonism. In 1998, he helped put together a book entitled The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism, published by Harvest House publishers in Eugene, Oregon. His chapter in this compilation regarded Mormon Scripture. Detailed reviews of this chapter by Mormons appeared in 2000. Danel W. Bachman has accused Geisler of plagiarism.[4]
In 2009, Geisler co-founded Veritas Evangelical Seminary in Murrieta California. The seminary offers masters degrees in Theology, Apologetics & Divinity. Geisler currently serves as Chair of Christian Apologetics at the school.[5]
Geisler claims to be a "moderate Calvinist".[6] Geisler rejects the traditional Calvinistic concepts of unconditional election (arguing that there is no condition only on God's part), irresistible grace (arguing instead that God persuades those who are "receptive to God's work") and limited atonement (arguing that the atonement is limited only in result). Yet critics reject the term "moderate Calvinism". James White calls it "merely a modified form of historic Arminianism."[7] Michael Horton notes that historically "moderate Calvinism" referred to Amyraldianism, but "Geisler’s position is much further from Calvinism than Amyraldianism."[8] While Geisler contrasts his position with what he calls "extreme" Calvinism, he does concede that "theologians we classify as extreme Calvinists consider themselves simply ‘Calvinists’ and would probably object to our categorizing them in this manner."[9] Geisler contributed to the book Four Views on Eternal Security (ISBN 0310234395) under the term "moderate Calvinism" but the general editor did not allow Geisler to use the term "extreme Calvinism", only "strong Calvinism".[10]
Geisler advocates the view called graded absolutism, which is a theory of moral absolutism which resolves the objection to absolutism that in moral conflicts we are obligated to opposites.[11] Moral absolutism is the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them. Graded absolutism is moral absolutism but clarifies that a moral absolute, like "Do not kill," can be greater or lesser than another moral absolute, like "Do not lie". According to graded absolutism, in moral conflicts, the dilemma is not that we are obligated to opposites, because greater absolutes are not opposites of lesser absolutes, and evil is not the opposite of good but is instead the privation of good. Since evil is the privation of good, only the privation of the greater good counts as evil, since whenever there is a moral conflict, we are only obligated to the greater good. The real dilemma is that we cannot perform both conflicting absolutes at the same time. 'Which' absolutes are in conflict depends on the context, but which conflicting absolute is ‘greater’ does not depend on the context. That is why graded absolutism is also called 'contextual absolutism' but is not to be confused with situational ethics. The conflict is resolved in acting according to the greater absolute. That is why graded absolutism is also called the 'greater good view', but is not to be confused with utilitarianism.