What do you think?
Rate this book
Christian Apologetics
The standard for Christian apologetics, this systematic approach presents both the methods and reasons for defending Christianity.
393 pages, Hardcover
First published November 30, 1975
118 people are currently reading
1376 people want to read
About the author
Norman L. Geisler
226 books319 followersNorman L. Geisler (PhD, Loyola University of Chicago) taught at top evangelical colleges and seminaries for over fifty years and was a distinguished professor of apologetics and theology at Veritas Evangelical Seminary in Murrieta, California. He was the author of nearly eighty books, including the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics and Christian Ethics. He and his wife lived in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
February 2, 2023
Geisler, Norman. Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
When I sat down to write this review, I debated on how I would classify it among apologetics textbooks. It is certainly more useful than Sproul’s Classical Apologetics, but it is not as good as his more popular Defending Your Faith. Parts of it are quite technical, and there is much repetition from his earlier works. On some sections, though, Geisler reigns supreme.
Part 1: Methodology
Skepticism: Hume said all meaningful propositions are reducible to two kinds: definitional (think mathematical) or empirical. Moreover, for Hume causality is based on custom, which comes from sense experience. From here God-talk moved to Kant’s practical agnosticism to logical positivism and to the literal dead end of Wittgenstein’s silence.
A new update to this volume is the section on Postmodernism.
Evaluation of agnosticism. It is self-defeating. It says one can know enough about God (or reality) to know that we can’t know God (or reality). Geisler points out that if someone grants the premise that we can know reality, but not an infinite God, the conversation moves to a different field. It’s no longer complete agnosticism. Now the question focuses around whether God is finite or infinite, personal or impersonal.
Pace Hume, if everything were separate and disconnected as his atomism said, then he couldn’t make that statement for the affirmation of that statement since it implies some unity of meaning. Furthermore, his attack on analogy doesn’t work. The Law of Analogy will always hold. To reiterate what Geisler said: an effect is similar to its cause (B → b). “The cause cannot give what it doesn’t have.” If someone were to deny this, he would have to deny all similarity. This cannot work because “unless there were some knowledge of the cause, there would be no basis for denying any similarity.”
Pace Kant, his statement comes down to we can’t know ultimate reality except that one facet of ultimate reality. He must already have knowledge of ultimate reality to say we can’t know it.
Pace Wittgenstein, it is self-defeating to express that the inexpressible can’t be expressed.
Criticisms of Religious Fideism
1) Confuses belief *in* God with belief *that* God exists. There is a difference between belief in God and supports for that belief in God.
Polytheism
Polytheism can be anything from Hinduism to Mormonism to Wicca. Of interest is the Mormon claim that each God was begotten by another God. If this is in fact what they teach, then it is open to the same attacks made on finite godism.
Plotinus, himself probably not a monotheist, has an argument that works well against the idea of many gods. All plurality presupposes a prior unity. “Thus many gods are not self-explanatory. What is the basis of their unity?” Pace Mormonism, there cannot be an endless series of many gods begetting other gods. We can’t say we were always here, for that violates the law of causality. If the universe isn’t eternal, then these lesser gods aren’t eternal. If they came into existence, they are just creatures.
Panentheism
Atheism
The only interesting criticism atheism has is whether the ontological argument backfires. Are existence statements necessary? Atheists say no. We can turn it around: is the statement “no existence statements are necessary” a necessary truth or not?
Another problem that comes up here and also with pantheism (and also to some criticisms of divine simplicity) is whether God’s being a necessary being makes creation necessary. Geisler responds: the only thing a necessary being must will is the necessity of his own nature.
Theism
Geisler has an extended, almost overwhelming, point-by-point case for theism. There is no way I can cover it here. Here are some links.
It is worth noting some Christian conclusions from his case on being. If God is a necessary being, then:
He is changeless. What has potentiality can change.
He is non-temporal. Space and time measure positions of change.
There is only one necessary existence. If there were two Pure Acts, then they would have to have some real potentiality for change, otherwise they would be identical. If they were identical, then they would be the same thing. Yet, a necessary being cannot have potential; therefore, there is only one.
Such an existence is simple. Something that has parts would have to have a greater something to put those parts together.
Similar arguments can be used to prove the infinite and uncaused nature.
We are not at Christian theism yet. We are getting close. Such a God above is ultimate. Failure to worship this God at the very least is idolatry, since you are not giving ultimate commitment to the ultimate.
The final section of the book is a series of test cases on Christian theism. Of most importance is the defense of miracles. Pace Hume, past regularity does not rule out a future singularity.
Moreover, miracles do not attack science. Not all science is empirical science. Forensic science, for example, involves proleptic leaps to the unknown. Forensic science cannot test things in a lab.
Miracles occur in the natural world, but they are not of the natural world. The phrase “all events that are natural occur in the natural world” cannot be converted into “all events that occur in the natural world are natural.”
Conclusion
This is not the first apologetics book I would recommend. It is not even the first book by Geisler I would recommend. The careful student is urged to study his Introduction to Philosophy before diving into this work.
When I sat down to write this review, I debated on how I would classify it among apologetics textbooks. It is certainly more useful than Sproul’s Classical Apologetics, but it is not as good as his more popular Defending Your Faith. Parts of it are quite technical, and there is much repetition from his earlier works. On some sections, though, Geisler reigns supreme.
Part 1: Methodology
Skepticism: Hume said all meaningful propositions are reducible to two kinds: definitional (think mathematical) or empirical. Moreover, for Hume causality is based on custom, which comes from sense experience. From here God-talk moved to Kant’s practical agnosticism to logical positivism and to the literal dead end of Wittgenstein’s silence.
A new update to this volume is the section on Postmodernism.
Evaluation of agnosticism. It is self-defeating. It says one can know enough about God (or reality) to know that we can’t know God (or reality). Geisler points out that if someone grants the premise that we can know reality, but not an infinite God, the conversation moves to a different field. It’s no longer complete agnosticism. Now the question focuses around whether God is finite or infinite, personal or impersonal.
Pace Hume, if everything were separate and disconnected as his atomism said, then he couldn’t make that statement for the affirmation of that statement since it implies some unity of meaning. Furthermore, his attack on analogy doesn’t work. The Law of Analogy will always hold. To reiterate what Geisler said: an effect is similar to its cause (B → b). “The cause cannot give what it doesn’t have.” If someone were to deny this, he would have to deny all similarity. This cannot work because “unless there were some knowledge of the cause, there would be no basis for denying any similarity.”
Pace Kant, his statement comes down to we can’t know ultimate reality except that one facet of ultimate reality. He must already have knowledge of ultimate reality to say we can’t know it.
Pace Wittgenstein, it is self-defeating to express that the inexpressible can’t be expressed.
Criticisms of Religious Fideism
1) Confuses belief *in* God with belief *that* God exists. There is a difference between belief in God and supports for that belief in God.
Polytheism
Polytheism can be anything from Hinduism to Mormonism to Wicca. Of interest is the Mormon claim that each God was begotten by another God. If this is in fact what they teach, then it is open to the same attacks made on finite godism.
Plotinus, himself probably not a monotheist, has an argument that works well against the idea of many gods. All plurality presupposes a prior unity. “Thus many gods are not self-explanatory. What is the basis of their unity?” Pace Mormonism, there cannot be an endless series of many gods begetting other gods. We can’t say we were always here, for that violates the law of causality. If the universe isn’t eternal, then these lesser gods aren’t eternal. If they came into existence, they are just creatures.
Panentheism
Atheism
The only interesting criticism atheism has is whether the ontological argument backfires. Are existence statements necessary? Atheists say no. We can turn it around: is the statement “no existence statements are necessary” a necessary truth or not?
Another problem that comes up here and also with pantheism (and also to some criticisms of divine simplicity) is whether God’s being a necessary being makes creation necessary. Geisler responds: the only thing a necessary being must will is the necessity of his own nature.
Theism
Geisler has an extended, almost overwhelming, point-by-point case for theism. There is no way I can cover it here. Here are some links.
It is worth noting some Christian conclusions from his case on being. If God is a necessary being, then:
He is changeless. What has potentiality can change.
He is non-temporal. Space and time measure positions of change.
There is only one necessary existence. If there were two Pure Acts, then they would have to have some real potentiality for change, otherwise they would be identical. If they were identical, then they would be the same thing. Yet, a necessary being cannot have potential; therefore, there is only one.
Such an existence is simple. Something that has parts would have to have a greater something to put those parts together.
Similar arguments can be used to prove the infinite and uncaused nature.
We are not at Christian theism yet. We are getting close. Such a God above is ultimate. Failure to worship this God at the very least is idolatry, since you are not giving ultimate commitment to the ultimate.
The final section of the book is a series of test cases on Christian theism. Of most importance is the defense of miracles. Pace Hume, past regularity does not rule out a future singularity.
Moreover, miracles do not attack science. Not all science is empirical science. Forensic science, for example, involves proleptic leaps to the unknown. Forensic science cannot test things in a lab.
Miracles occur in the natural world, but they are not of the natural world. The phrase “all events that are natural occur in the natural world” cannot be converted into “all events that occur in the natural world are natural.”
Conclusion
This is not the first apologetics book I would recommend. It is not even the first book by Geisler I would recommend. The careful student is urged to study his Introduction to Philosophy before diving into this work.
April 13, 2014
Norman Geiser’s masterful work, Christian Apologetics, is a very thorough textbook that builds a strong epistemological foundation before even addressing Christian truth. Geisler’s initial goal is to establish an adequate test for truth, and from there to show that the Christian worldview meets the tests for truth. Because of this, the book covers over a half a dozen alternate view before even evaluating theism.
First, Geisler shows the shortcomings of agnosticism. He critiques the views of Kant, Hume, Ayer, and Wittgenstien. Following the critique of agnosticism comes the evaluation of rationalism. The views of Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hackett, and Clark are examined. Next comes an inspection of fideism. Here Pascal, Kierkegaard, Barth, and Van Til are summarized and critiqued as adherents to various strands of fideism.
Geisler continues in his worldview analysis by looking at experientialism, evidentialism, and pragmatism. Again, the author’s goal in presenting each of these views is to examine its core epistemology and to find out what its test for truth is. Geisler shows that rationalism, fideism, experientialism, evidentialism, combinationalism, and pragmatism all fall short as adequate tests for truth. Each of them may have elements that are useful in one sense or another, but none of them is a fully adequate test for truth.
Before Geisler launches into theism, he does lay out what he presents as an adequate test for truth. First, he presents unaffirmability as a test for falsity. That is to say: if a view is self-defeating, whether directly or indirectly, it must be false. Second, Geisler presents undeniability as a test for truth. If something is either definitionally undeniable or existentially undeniable, it must be true. These two tests are for the truthfulness of a worldview. Once you establish the correct worldview, then you can move on to determine the test for truth within that worldview. For this internal test, Geisler presents systematic consistency as the test for truth for statements within a worldview that has first been established through the tests of unaffirmability and undeniability. Systematic consistency means that whatever most consistently and comprehensively fits into that system is true. Geisler admits that systematic consistency does not provide absolute certainty of truth. Here he points to probability as the guide, as absolute certainty is not possible when a finite mind is not in possession of all the facts.
Having laid a very thorough epistemological base, the author then proceeds to establish the truthfulness of Christianity. The worldviews of deism, pantheism, panentheism, atheism, and theism are compared. Using the aforementioned tests for truth for each of these worldviews, theism wins out. With theism established through a very methodological evaluation of each competing worldview, Geisler then builds on the theistic worldview.
Now Geisler builds the case for the historical reliability of the New Testament. After showing that the New Testament is an accurate picture of Jesus, he makes the case for the deity and authority for Jesus Christ. And finally, with the Lordship of Christ established, a case can be made for the inspiration and authority of the Bible as a whole.
This review has attempted to paint an overall flow of Geisler’s apologetic system. It truly is thorough. Christian Apologetics is not light reading, as it deals heavily with philosophical foundations and epistemological concerns from the outset. However, Geisler has succeeded in authoring a comprehensive text for establishing a complete and systematic framework for Christian apologetics. This text can be commended as required reading for any serious student of apologetics.
First, Geisler shows the shortcomings of agnosticism. He critiques the views of Kant, Hume, Ayer, and Wittgenstien. Following the critique of agnosticism comes the evaluation of rationalism. The views of Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hackett, and Clark are examined. Next comes an inspection of fideism. Here Pascal, Kierkegaard, Barth, and Van Til are summarized and critiqued as adherents to various strands of fideism.
Geisler continues in his worldview analysis by looking at experientialism, evidentialism, and pragmatism. Again, the author’s goal in presenting each of these views is to examine its core epistemology and to find out what its test for truth is. Geisler shows that rationalism, fideism, experientialism, evidentialism, combinationalism, and pragmatism all fall short as adequate tests for truth. Each of them may have elements that are useful in one sense or another, but none of them is a fully adequate test for truth.
Before Geisler launches into theism, he does lay out what he presents as an adequate test for truth. First, he presents unaffirmability as a test for falsity. That is to say: if a view is self-defeating, whether directly or indirectly, it must be false. Second, Geisler presents undeniability as a test for truth. If something is either definitionally undeniable or existentially undeniable, it must be true. These two tests are for the truthfulness of a worldview. Once you establish the correct worldview, then you can move on to determine the test for truth within that worldview. For this internal test, Geisler presents systematic consistency as the test for truth for statements within a worldview that has first been established through the tests of unaffirmability and undeniability. Systematic consistency means that whatever most consistently and comprehensively fits into that system is true. Geisler admits that systematic consistency does not provide absolute certainty of truth. Here he points to probability as the guide, as absolute certainty is not possible when a finite mind is not in possession of all the facts.
Having laid a very thorough epistemological base, the author then proceeds to establish the truthfulness of Christianity. The worldviews of deism, pantheism, panentheism, atheism, and theism are compared. Using the aforementioned tests for truth for each of these worldviews, theism wins out. With theism established through a very methodological evaluation of each competing worldview, Geisler then builds on the theistic worldview.
Now Geisler builds the case for the historical reliability of the New Testament. After showing that the New Testament is an accurate picture of Jesus, he makes the case for the deity and authority for Jesus Christ. And finally, with the Lordship of Christ established, a case can be made for the inspiration and authority of the Bible as a whole.
This review has attempted to paint an overall flow of Geisler’s apologetic system. It truly is thorough. Christian Apologetics is not light reading, as it deals heavily with philosophical foundations and epistemological concerns from the outset. However, Geisler has succeeded in authoring a comprehensive text for establishing a complete and systematic framework for Christian apologetics. This text can be commended as required reading for any serious student of apologetics.
April 6, 2015
If you have not studied apologetics up to now, this is a good place to start. If you have had some philosophy, that will be helpful as you are going to dive into areas of epistemology, rationalism, empiricism and evaluate worldviews of some of the classic western philosophers. This is a classical approach to apologetics, not presuppositional. Basically, classical starts with using reason to inductively and deductively move someone from where they are at to a place where they can read scripture with some conviction that it is true. Presuppositional starts with the Bible as the primary source for evangelism, even if talking to an atheist. Personally, I think that there is a place for both schools of thought depending on the seeker. I lean classical, but either way we should have discernment for the situation recognizing that it is the Holy Spirit who convicts of sin, righteousness and judgement.
The book itself is well written and follows a logical progression from understanding what truth is to evaluating belief systems, then applying epistemology to Christianity. This book will give you some foundational knowledge for evaluating any belief system that you encounter whether that be religion, philosophy, or cultural trends like post modernism. If you desire to love God with all of your heart, soul, mind and strength, this is a good one to train your mind.
The book itself is well written and follows a logical progression from understanding what truth is to evaluating belief systems, then applying epistemology to Christianity. This book will give you some foundational knowledge for evaluating any belief system that you encounter whether that be religion, philosophy, or cultural trends like post modernism. If you desire to love God with all of your heart, soul, mind and strength, this is a good one to train your mind.
March 26, 2018
In this book, Norman Geisler brilliantly lays out a foundational argument in favor of belief in Christianity. Through a combination of logic and metaphysics, he analyzes and discards each of the major non-theistic worldviews held throughout human history. Step-by-step, he builds the case for theism before next examining why Christianity is the most reliable of all the theistic religions.
Since the scope of the book is so vast, it's inevitable that certain areas get short shrift. But as an introductory text, CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS is the book to beat. It's only real shortcoming is Geisler's dry, academic writing style, and the fact he so consistently misses the sweet spot between too little explanation and beating a dead horse.
Since the scope of the book is so vast, it's inevitable that certain areas get short shrift. But as an introductory text, CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS is the book to beat. It's only real shortcoming is Geisler's dry, academic writing style, and the fact he so consistently misses the sweet spot between too little explanation and beating a dead horse.
May 14, 2014
A good starting textbook if you are interested in defense of the Christian faith. Clear, concise definitions of various worldviews and explanations of why their truth-tests fail. It also provides an explanation of a truth-test that works and why.
This is not an easy book to read, primarily because of the deep thought required by the subject matter.
This is not an easy book to read, primarily because of the deep thought required by the subject matter.
December 31, 2016
Chapter 8 alone is worth the money spent on this book. "Formulating an Adequate Test for Truth" builds a test of worldviews and truth based on logical first principles.
August 10, 2020
I came to realize what a brilliant apologist and gifted writer Norman Geisler was by reading this book. His organizational skills are excellent, making this book not only a good book to read, but also an extremely valuable resource. I learned quite a few things and had my mind changed about some things, too, by reading this book.
As to method, the book is split mainly into two sections. In the first part, Geisler examines all the major world views (like agnosticism, atheism, pantheism, panentheism, deism, and theism) and makes a strong case for the truth claims of theism opposed to the other views. In the second part, he examines historical evidence for the likelihood of Christianity being true as opposed to other theistic beliefs.
What I really love is that for each viewpoint he disagrees with, he first presents that viewpoint's strongest case before showing its flaws. It is done in a fair and even-handed manner. This reminds me of the writings of John Henry Newman that used the same method.
I used to feel that the historical approach was sufficient in apologetics to make a case for the truth of Christianity. Geisler explains that the evidences for the resurrection of Christ (on which the belief in Christianity is based) are only convincing for those who have already accepted a theistic worldview.
If I were to compare the approach of Peter Kreeft to that of Geisler, I see both to be very useful and valuable, but Geisler is perhaps more systematic and Kreeft more accessible for those with no prior education in philosophy.
As an aside, I will mention that the views of the pantheists and panentheists were very difficult for me to understand. I found there is more to them than I previously grasped and that to really come to terms with them would require much more effort than just reading a few chapters of this book.
As to method, the book is split mainly into two sections. In the first part, Geisler examines all the major world views (like agnosticism, atheism, pantheism, panentheism, deism, and theism) and makes a strong case for the truth claims of theism opposed to the other views. In the second part, he examines historical evidence for the likelihood of Christianity being true as opposed to other theistic beliefs.
What I really love is that for each viewpoint he disagrees with, he first presents that viewpoint's strongest case before showing its flaws. It is done in a fair and even-handed manner. This reminds me of the writings of John Henry Newman that used the same method.
I used to feel that the historical approach was sufficient in apologetics to make a case for the truth of Christianity. Geisler explains that the evidences for the resurrection of Christ (on which the belief in Christianity is based) are only convincing for those who have already accepted a theistic worldview.
If I were to compare the approach of Peter Kreeft to that of Geisler, I see both to be very useful and valuable, but Geisler is perhaps more systematic and Kreeft more accessible for those with no prior education in philosophy.
As an aside, I will mention that the views of the pantheists and panentheists were very difficult for me to understand. I found there is more to them than I previously grasped and that to really come to terms with them would require much more effort than just reading a few chapters of this book.
November 25, 2024
This book is quite a tome. The author is very thorough in his arguments.
Part 1 of the book covers various methodologies for apologetics and correctly comes to the conclusion that only theism is an adequate test for truth.
Part 2 of the book covers various types theistic theistic beliefs and again correctly comes to the conclusion that Christianity is the only true theistic belief.
Part 3 is the best part of the book as it correctly shows that: (1) miracles are possible, (2) the Bible is historically correct, (3) the New Testament is reliable, (4) that Jesus is divine, and (5) the Bible is inspired and authoritaive.
The first two parts of this book in not an easy read, but it is worth the effort to understand the authors arguments. Once the arguments form Parts 1 and 2 are understood then Part 3 flows naturally from the author's arguments in Parts 1 and 2.
Part 1 of the book covers various methodologies for apologetics and correctly comes to the conclusion that only theism is an adequate test for truth.
Part 2 of the book covers various types theistic theistic beliefs and again correctly comes to the conclusion that Christianity is the only true theistic belief.
Part 3 is the best part of the book as it correctly shows that: (1) miracles are possible, (2) the Bible is historically correct, (3) the New Testament is reliable, (4) that Jesus is divine, and (5) the Bible is inspired and authoritaive.
The first two parts of this book in not an easy read, but it is worth the effort to understand the authors arguments. Once the arguments form Parts 1 and 2 are understood then Part 3 flows naturally from the author's arguments in Parts 1 and 2.
April 18, 2020
Not for everyone, but a good, in-depth look at the defense of the Christian faith. This was a college textbook and I wrote a 100 page paper on the book. It was time well spent. And if you are really into apologetics, beyond the basics and a bit of a "wonk" on the matter, then this might just be something that you would enjoy.
October 1, 2022
A real brain-melter that I wasn't expecting, but this book was fantastic. Absolutely would read it again when it's not for Apologetics class. Heavy topic, but he brilliantly analyzes as many possible views, attacks, and counterpoints to absolute truth, theism, and Christianity.
February 14, 2024
Geisler gives a thoughtful examination of the major worldviews, demonstrating that Christian theism alone satisfies the criteria for truthfulness. He also demonstrates the inescapable divine authority of Jesus Christ as witnessed in the pages of the New Testament.
February 20, 2018
Good overall and introduction to apologetics. Good analysis of worldview and objections to them. But wrong critic against van til (cause he's not fideist)
Read
June 13, 2019It is an outstanding textbook of Christian Apologetics, especially for Christians who are faced with tough-minded humanism to provide a robust response.
June 24, 2020
Amazing! Started me off right on my lifelong journey through apologetics
June 23, 2021
A very challenging book to read. Not only is it a difficult read; it's content will challenge core assumptions about what you think about life. I highly recommend it.
March 8, 2011
There is certainly a place on my shelf for The Case for Christ and Evidence that Demands a Verdict and other "apologetics" books. But this one stands alone. Rather than picking the nits of scientific arguments or the Shroud of Turin or archaeological findings, this book takes in the broad sweep of world views. It sets forth the differences between Monotheism on the one hand and Atheism, Pantheism, Panentheism, and Polytheism on the other. Then it compares and contrasts Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, the three great monotheistic faiths. The result is that having read this book, you know how to think about the big questions, and you can pull apart the multiple layers of belief that underlie every religious doctrine. After all, it's not much use "proving" that Jesus is the only way to be absolved of sin and enter heaven, if you're talking to a person who doesn't believe in sin or heaven.
November 28, 2014
I can't believe that I was finally able to click the "I'm finished" button on this one!
This book is very thorough and descriptive. I don't know that I would have understood even half of it if we hadn't discussed each chapter for an hour and a half in the Apologetics class I read it for. But after reading it, and discussing it, I have an understanding of world views and tests for truth. Before this book (and class) I would have been able to tell you that other world views were wrong, but I couldn't tell you why or how.
The only problem I had with the book was that in one of the last chapters, Geisler used the KJV wording and phrases as proof of the Bible's historical accuracy, but refuses to denounce other versions for changing the very phrases that prove the accuracy of the Bible itself. Just a tad bit self-defeating!
This book is very thorough and descriptive. I don't know that I would have understood even half of it if we hadn't discussed each chapter for an hour and a half in the Apologetics class I read it for. But after reading it, and discussing it, I have an understanding of world views and tests for truth. Before this book (and class) I would have been able to tell you that other world views were wrong, but I couldn't tell you why or how.
The only problem I had with the book was that in one of the last chapters, Geisler used the KJV wording and phrases as proof of the Bible's historical accuracy, but refuses to denounce other versions for changing the very phrases that prove the accuracy of the Bible itself. Just a tad bit self-defeating!
September 8, 2012
That was a fun refresher through four millenia of philosophy and two of history.
Made for a lot of pensive chin scratching.
Still not convinced about the role of apologetics but it was a good intellectual exercise in any case
Made for a lot of pensive chin scratching.
Still not convinced about the role of apologetics but it was a good intellectual exercise in any case
October 28, 2019
Most books are rated related to their usefulness and contributions to my research.
Overall, a good book for the researcher and enthusiast.
Read for personal research
- found this book's contents helpful and inspiring - number rating relates to the book's contribution to my needs.
Overall, a good book for the researcher and enthusiast.
Read for personal research
- found this book's contents helpful and inspiring - number rating relates to the book's contribution to my needs.
October 7, 2016
Norm Geisler's book on Christian apologetics is well written, well organized, and very readable. It is a great introduction to the field. I highly recommend this book to everyone who wishes to learn more about the Christian faith.
February 15, 2009
I read this book a while back as I was really digging into apologetics texts. The best value is his analysis of many different philosophies from history.
March 15, 2014
Highly informative, and flawless logic used in establishing the truth in the Bible and the existence of the God of the Bible.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews