A Brief Reply To Richard A. Purdy -- By: Norman L. Geisler

Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 26:3 (Sep 1983)
Article: A Brief Reply To Richard A. Purdy
Author: Norman L. Geisler

A Brief Reply To Richard A. Purdy

Norman L. Geisler*

I have only two brief points to make. First, most of the questions raised1 have already been addressed in other writings of mine with which Richard Purdy shows no familiarity. See The Roots of Evil (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981); “Man’s Destiny: Free or Forced?”, Christian Scholars Review 9/2 (1980) 99-120; “Avoid … Contradictions: A Reply to John Dabres,” JETS 22 (1979) 55-66; “Avoid All Contradictions: A Surrejoinder to John Dahms,” JETS 22 (1979) 149-160; Syllabus on Christian Apologetics (Norman L. Geisler, 1978); “God, Evil, and Dispensationalism,” Walvoord: A Tribute (ed. D. K. Campbell; Chicago: Moody, 1982) 95-112; “The Missing Premise in the Cosmological Argument,” Modern Schoolman 56:31–45 (1978).

Secondly, Purdy’s overall argument is fallacious. It goes like this: (1) Norman Geisler insists that Christianity is based on theism. (2) Geisler’s argument for theism fails. (3) “On Geisler’s own admission, then, Christianity has fallen.”

As we have answered his objections elsewhere, Purdy has by no means shown that our argument fails. But it is clear that even if the arguments by a given theist fail, it certainly does not follow that theism (and, thus, Christianity based on it) has failed.

*Norman Geisler is professor of systematic theology at Dallas Theological Seminary in Texas.

1 R. A. Purdy in JETS 25/3 (1982) 351-358.

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()