The Battle for the Resurrection

Rating:
Summary: Correction
Review: Contrary to reviewer "begreadwon", Geisler is anything but a Calvinist. See his "Chosen but free".

Rating:
Summary: Good thesis, bad argument.
Review: Dr. Geisler believes in the bodily resurrection of Christ, and sets out to prove it in this book. His goal is noble; but his method is deplorable. He generally defends his position for the BODILY resurrection with Scriptures that deal with just the resurrection in general. For example, he uses I Cor 15 (If Christ be not raised, then our faith is in vain...) to argue that all who deny the BODILY resurrection of Christ deny the foundation of Christianity. In fact, this Scripture merely talks of the resurrection of Christ, bodily or otherwise. I am in agreement with Geisler's thesis; but his argument is contrived at best, and is not a reliable overall defense of bodily resurrection. To his credit, though, he does bring up some good points in favor of his thesis, but for the most part his argument manipulates Scripture to attack "unorthodoxy".

Rating:
Summary: Bad Book, Worse Author
Review: If you ever need a case of mean-spirited, ignorant, inquisitorial mentality of some Evangelical pseudo-intellectuals just take a gander at this screed.

New Testament Murray J. Harris wrote a stirring defense of the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus in his book EASTER IN DURHAM. For his trouble he was savage by this know-nothing in this book for not teaching a *physical* resurrection. Harris replied with FROM GRAVE TO GLORY, an exhaustive study of the doctrine of the resurrection which remains a standard of evangelical scholarship. Along the way he answered Geisler's repeated misrepresentations and falsehoods and showed his laughable ignorance of Greek. Not to be detered, Geisler mobilized his fellow Torquemadas (self-appointed "cult watchers") to secure a statement of condemnation from the Evangelical Free Church and badgered Harris into retirement.

Nice Work guys! Geisler is the worst representative of a resurgent Protestant scholasticism, he pretends to be a apologist (a "defender") but he's really a polemicist (a "war-monger") and a publicity hungry little parasite, seeking to build up his notoriety on the careers and reputations he attacks. Reading makes me *thankful* for the Enlightenment. With regard to this and the rest of his published corpus, I say with David Hume "commend them all to the flames."