Norman L. Geisler (1932 – 2019) was an American evangelical Protestant theologian, philosopher, and apologist. He obtained an M.A. in theology from Wheaton College and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University, and made scholarly contributions to the subjects of classical Christian apologetics, systematic theology, philosophy of religion, Calvinism, Catholicism, biblical inerrancy, Bible difficulties, biblical miracles, the resurrection of Jesus, ethics, and other topics. He wrote or edited more 90 books and hundreds of articles.
Dr. Geisler was the Chairman of Philosophy of Religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1970–79) and Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary (1979–88) and a key figure in founding the Evangelical Philosophical Society. He also co-founded Southern Evangelical Seminary. He was known as an evangelical Thomist and considered himself a “moderate Calvinist”. He was not an anti-Catholic (i.e., he didn’t deny that Catholicism was fully a species of Christianity).
This is one of a series of comprehensive replies to his book, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (co-author, Ralph E. MacKenzie, graduate of Bethel Theological Seminary-West; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1995). It’s available online in a public domain version, which has no page numbers, so I will utilize page numbers from my paperback copy, for the sake of full reference. I consider it the best Protestant critique of Catholicism (especially in terms of biblical arguments) that I have ever found, from any time period. The arguments are impressively presented, thought-provoking, respectful, respectable, and worthy of serious consideration (which I’m now giving them).
I’ll be concentrating on the eight sections of Part Two: “Areas of Doctrinal Differences” (202 pages). These installments will be listed and linked on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, in section XVII: “Catholics and Protestants” (second from the end). Dr. Geisler’s and Ralph MacKenzie’s words will be in blue. My biblical citations are from RSV.
*****
The differences over the canonicity of the Apocrypha are not minor. They are both doctrinal and canonical. Doctrinally, the Apocrypha supports prayers for the dead (which also entails a belief in purgatory). (p. 158)
Geisler is presupposing that the New Testament teaches against prayer for the dead or never sanctions it. This is untrue. There are two fairly clear primary texts and several secondary ones. But I’ll get to that later in my reply to his chapter on purgatory. Here I’ll simply note that it’s interesting that Geisler assumes that prayer for the dead presupposes the existence of purgatory. And that’s because prayer is of no use for someone in heaven; nor is it effective for anyone in hell. Both are — in different directions — beyond prayer.
Canonically, the grounds on which the Apocrypha was accepted undermine the true test for canonicity-propheticity. In short, if the Apocrypha can be accepted in the canon, lacking, as it does, the characteristics that meet the true test of canonicity, then other noncanonical books could be accepted on the same grounds. (p. 158)
The True Test of Canonicity. Contrary to the Roman Catholic argument from Christian usage, the true test of canonicity is propheticity. That is, propheticity determines canonicity. God determined which books would be in the Bible by giving their message to a prophet. So only books written by a prophet, that is, an accredited spokesperson for God, are inspired and belong in the canon of Scripture. (p. 166)
In fact, the entire Protestant Old Testament was considered prophetic. Moses, who wrote the first five books, was a prophet (Deut. 18:15). The rest
of the Old Testament books were known as “the Prophets” (Matt. 5:17) since these two sections are called “all the Scriptures” (Luke 24:27). (p. 167)
Jesus in Matthew 5:17 said, “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.” Luke 24:27 reads, “And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” Neither of these verses prove what Geisler is contending: that there were only two “sections” of Scripture.
Moreover, as is well-known, the Jews divided their Hebrew Bible into three categories. Encyclopaedia Britannica (“Books of the Hebrew Bible”) elaborates:
The Hebrew Bible is organized into three main sections: the Torah, or “Teaching,” also called the Pentateuch or the “Five Books of Moses”; the Neviʾim, or Prophets; and the Ketuvim, or Writings. . . .
The books of the Neviʾim are categorized among either the Former Prophets—which contain anecdotes about major Hebrew persons and include Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings—or the Latter Prophets—which exhort Israel to return to God and are named (because they are either attributed to or contain stories about them) for Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and (together in one book known as “The Book of the Twelve”) the 12 Minor Prophets (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi). The last of the three divisions, the Ketuvim, contains poetry (devotional and erotic), theology, and drama in Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs (attributed to King Solomon), Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles.
The Hebrew Bible as adopted by Christianity features more than 24 books for several reasons. . . . the Bibles used in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and some Protestant churches were derived initially from the Septuagint, the Greek-language translation of the Hebrew Bible produced in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE. This included some books deemed noncanonical by Orthodox Judaism and most Protestant churches (see also Apocrypha),
Geisler does note on footnote 28 on page 167 that “‘The Prophets’ were later divided into Prophets and Writings.” But he also states, “it is clear that the original (cf. Dan. 9:2; Zech. 7:12) and continual way to refer to the entire Old Testament up to the time of Christ was the twofold division of the ‘Law and Prophets.’ “
Jesus directly contradicted Geisler’s assertion of a two-section Old Testament when He stated in Luke 24:44, “These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.” The Psalms are part of the “Writings”: the third section beyond the Torah and the prophets. The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia: “Hagiographa (= ‘Writings’)” bears witness to a threefold division of the Old Testament in 130 BC:
Origin of the Collection.
The existence of the Hagiographa collection as a third part of the canon is first stated in the prologue (about 130 B.C.) to Sirach, with which the translator and grandson of the author of Ecclesiasticus prefaced his Greek translation. At the very beginning mention is made “of the many and important things which were transmitted to the Jews through the Law, the Prophets, and the others that followed them.” There is no doubt that in this summing up of the Old Testament literature the authors of the Hagiographa are meant by “those that [κα= “as authors”] followed the Prophets.” A confirmation of the fact that this Hagiographa collection ranked even then with the older books of the canon is found in a passage in I Maccabees (vii. 17; written probably 100 B.C.), where two verses of a psalm (lxxix. 2-3) are quoted as Holy Scripture; and as all the books of the Hagiographa as now known date back at least to the second half of the second century B.C., it may be inferred that the collection included even then—that is, in the beginning of the first century B.C.—the same books as now, with the exception, perhaps, that single detached portions may have been added later.
Classic Protestant commentaries (in analyses of Luke 24:44) concur with this analysis:
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers: The three-fold division of the Law, the Prophets (including most of the historic books), and the Psalms (the latter term standing for the whole of the Kethubim, the Hagiographa or “holy writings,” of which the Psalms were the most conspicuous portion), corresponded to that which was in common use among the Jews.
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible: The prophets – This was the second and largest part of the Hebrew Scriptures. It comprehended the books of Joshua, Judges, 1st and 2nd Samuel, 1st and 2nd Kings, which were called the “former prophets;” and Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve smaller books from Daniel, to Malachi, which were called the “latter prophets.”
The psalms – The word here used probably means what were comprehended under the name of “Hagiographa,” or holy writings. This consisted of the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, and the two books of Chronicles. This division of the Old Testament was in use long before the time of Christ, . . .
Matthew Poole’s Commentary: The Jews ordinarily divided the Old Testament into the law, the prophets, and the holy writings, which they called the Hagiographa. The Book of Psalms was one of the last sort, and one of the most noted amongst them. So as by these three terms our Saviour understands all the Scriptures of the Old Testament.
Benson Commentary: Under these three, the Jews were wont to comprehend all the books of the Old Testament. Under the name law, the five books called the pentateuch were included; the chief of the historical books were joined with the prophets, and all the rest with the psalms.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary: law … prophets … psalms—the three Jewish divisions of the Old Testament Scriptures.
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible: In this he . . . alludes to the usual distinction among the Jews of the books of the Old Testament into the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa; among which last stands the book of Psalms, and is put for the whole
The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (“Writings”) states that the books in this third category may have been grouped together as early as “300 B.C.”
But be all that as it may, it still remains to be seen if even all of these books known as “The Writings” or Ketuvim or Hagiographa were written by prophets, as Geisler curiously claims. I will shortly contend that they obviously were not.
Elsewhere, in his book, A General Introduction to the Bible (rev. 1986, pp. 212-216); “The Authors Were Apostles or Prophets”, Geisler explains:
It had to be a public, not strictly a private writing. That is, it had to be offered to the people of God and not merely a private record. . . . it had to be a word from God for the people of God. . . . In short, a prophet is not infallible in his private utterance but only in his prophetic utterances. Hence it is possible that the prophets wrote other things which were not prophetic.
Second, it is possible that a book could be prophetic but still not canonic. For although all canonic writings are prophetic, it is possible that not all prophetic writings are canonic. That is, perhaps God did not intend that all prophetic books would be preserved for posterity but only those select few He deemed necessary for the believer’s faith and practice. If that be so, then propheticity is only a necessary condition of canonicity but not a sufficient condition. In that case there would be another condition for canonicity. The most likely candidate for such a further condition would be acceptance by the people of God of the books they deemed of value to the broader Christian community.
There were no apostles in the Old Testament. Therefore, by Geisler’s criterion, Old Testament books had to come from a prophet. Let’s see how that theory lines up with various books. Gleason Archer, in his Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1964) wrote about the book(s) of Chronicles and Ezra:
It is quite possible that the Talmudic tradition (Baba Bathra 15a) is correct in assigning the authorship to Ezra. . . . he would have had every incentive to produce a historical survey of this sort. (p. 390)
Ezra himself undoubtedly wrote most of the book named after him. (Note the use of “I” in Ezra 7-10.) (p. 396)
But Ezra wasn’t a prophet. He was a priest and a scribe skilled in the Torah (Ezra 7:6). This clashes with Geisler’s odd contention that “all canonic writings are prophetic.” Nehemiah is thought to have written the book of the same name (or possibly Ezra recording his word). But he wasn’t a prophet, either. He was a cupbearer to the Persian king Artaxerxes I and governor of Jerusalem.
The book of Esther gives no indication of its author. Some Jewish traditions claim that Mordecai was the author, and Archer opines that “Other possible authors might be Ezra or Nehemiah . . .” (p. 403): none of whom are prophets. This book, by the way, doesn’t even mention God or the Lord — but additional chapters of the book that Catholic Bibles contain, do mention God (22 times), and “Lord” also appears 21 times. So according to Geisler, the Protestant truncated version was a “word from God” that never mentioned Him, while the Catholic portions that mention both divine titles 43 times, are supposedly not canonical.
The book of Job gives no indication of authorship, and whoever wrote it seems not to have been a prophet, either. I have now shown that six Old Testament books agreed-upon as canonical by all Christians, lack the property of “propheticity” that Geisler claims they must have as “a necessary condition of canonicity.” If they lack propheticity, then why couldn’t this also be the case with one or more of the deuterocanonical books (known by Protestants as the “Apocrypha”)?
There is strong evidence that the apocryphal books are not prophetic. But since propheticity is the test for canonicity, this would eliminate the Apocrypha from the canon. First, no apocryphal books claim to be written by a prophet. . . . There is no predictive prophecy in the Apocrypha, such as we have in the canonical books (e.g., Isa. 53; Dan. 9; Mic. 5:2) and which is a clear indication of their propheticity. . . . There is no new messianic truth in the Apocrypha. Thus, it adds nothing to the messianic truths of the Old Testament. (p. 167)
Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin refutes this:
Books are Scripture if they are divinely inspired (2 Tim. 3:16). They do not have to have someone who functions as a prophet as their author . . .
Books do not have to contain predictive prophecy to be Scripture. Many do not contain forecasts of specific, future events in the literal sense of the text (i.e., the sense intended by the human author, apart from additional, spiritual meanings intended by the Holy Spirit). Ruth, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes are examples of books that do not contain predictive prophecy.
However, the deuterocanonicals do contain predictive prophecy. This is true both of prophecies already fulfilled (see 2 Macc. 15:13–29) and prophecies still in the future (see Bar. 4:21–5:9; Tob. 14:5–7; 2 Macc. 7:23, 12:43). These reflect the same types of prophecy found in the protocanonical books of Scripture. . . .
For example, Wisdom 2:12–23 contains a meditation on how the wicked plot against a righteous man who regards himself as God’s son. They condemn him to a shameful death, but they do not recognize the secret purposes of God, who created man for incorruption. This is a clearer messianic prophecy than most. (“Deuterocanonicals and Prophecy,” Catholic Answers, 3-13-23)
Dr. Geisler saws off the “limb” of his own argument, that he is sitting on. He undermines his own case, since it’s revealed to be self-defeating. The most curious thing is that Dr. Geisler, well-trained in logic and very adept at debate, didn’t notice this.
Man, the weird things we have to argue about in apologetics!
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In