Customer Reviews

Conviction Without Compromise: Standing Strong in the Core Beliefs of the Christian Faith

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Conviction Without Compromise is new (2008) and a great one-volume treatise on the Christian faith. The book categorizes the doctrines of salvation, revelation, and interpretation. Dr. Geisler and his co-author, Dr. Ron Rhodes, are of the same ilk and those who have read their books (numbering more than 100) will find this book impelling and thoughtful. It is written for the layman and minister alike. While some scholars may fault the book for its brevity on important issues of Christian doctrine they will find the book well researched and Biblically supported. As the dean of a Christian seminary, we are planning to include it as required reading for several of our post graduate courses. I pre-ordered the book anticipating that it would be a super textbook for our seminary. I was not disappointed.

This captures why we need to be firm as Christians and why we need not fight over non-salvation issues!

Geisler and Rhodes provide a good overview of the different doctrines that make up Christianity. In fact, they do their best to explain the difference between essential and peripheral doctrines, and I think they are successful in doing this. After explaining the importance of the essentials (i.e. Who is God, Who is Jesus, What is Salvation, etc), they give the different sides of the peripherals (i.e. tongues, women in church, etc). Of course, they're biased and give their reasons why, but at least they do give as many points as they can in a limited paperback book. It's not perfect, but it's good enough to help the average Christian think through some of the issues that are debated within Christianity. At the end of each chapter, they explain why unity within the body is vital, despite our differences on the minor (though important) issues. It will make for a very good reference book, especially when these subjects come up.

This book is about conviction that are rooted in reality. The reality that love is greater than hate. Forgiveness is greater than resentment and God is greater than all the circumstances of life

This book is an easy read and very informative. This helps provide insight on our true Christian beliefs, both essential and nonessential.

Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, Unitarian - so many denominations, how could Christianity be really united? "Conviction without Compromise: Standing Strong in the Core Beliefs of the Christian Faith" is a guide to unify Christianity as a whole through the essential beliefs of the religion, striving to cut down on the squabbles between people who all hold that Jesus is the son of God. Outlining the essential and nonessential teachings of the religion, "Conviction without Compromise: Standing Strong in the Core Beliefs of the Christian Faith" is highly recommended for community library Christian collections.

Let me first say that I have respect for and have learned from Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes in the past. However, after reading Conviction Without Compromise (CWC), I was disappointed with the theological bias they showed from their Arminian (Geisler and Rhodes claim to be "moderate Calvinists," p. 233. I don't believe there is such a thing) and Dispensational beliefs.

This is what I mean by their obvious bias: in chapter 21 they devoted two and a half pages to explaining Limited Atonement. They then spend the next five pages on Unlimited Atonement. The next page allegedly puts the limited and unlimited passages "together," when in reality it is another page defending the Unlimited Atonement view. The next seven pages again are supporting Unlimited Atonement. So let's see, that's two and a half pages for Limited Atonement, and thirteen on their favorite--Unlimited Atonement (by the way, most people realize you can't deny Limited Atonement and in any way call yourself a Calvinist). This is a pattern, and I believe a strong bias, they continue throughout several places in the book, especially when it comes to their Arminian and Dispensational beliefs.

Before I continue, I believe there was a great irony in this book when it came to Norman Geisler. While I believe Ron Rhodes shows much more liberty and charity to his Calvinist brothers, Dr. Geisler has been very personal in his attacks on people that don't hold to his Arminian beliefs (and again I reject his belief that there is such a thing as a moderate Calvinist. The TULIP stands together and builds on each point. If you deny or redefine one point, it's not Calvinism anymore. Just like you can't be moderately pregnant, you can't be a moderate Calvinist).

Let me back up the above remarks. In Geisler's 1999 edition of Chosen but Free, I believe he shows anything but liberty and charity when he makes these remarks about Calvinism:

* "false doctrine [Calvinism] will lead to false deeds" (p. 131).
* It can "have a devastating effect on one's own salvation, to say nothing about one's enthusiasm to reach others for Christ" (p. 134).
* Calvinism leads to universalism and atheism (p. 134, 35).
* It undermines trust in the love of God (p. 135). This charge was repeated in CWC (p. 251).
* The God presented by Calvinism is not worthy of worship and "does not represent God at all" (p. 135)
* Calvinists "go through exegetical contortions" to say what they believe "it must say" (p. 28), and "misuse" texts of Scripture (p. 82).
* The central aspects of Calvinism are "shocking" (p. 86), a "hideous error" (p. 205), and morally repugnant" (p. 242).

At the end of chapter 21, "The Extent of Salvation," I don't know whether Geisler or Rhodes wrote this, but the following remarks are representative of what both authors say throughout the book on non-essentials (and keep in mind the authors call the Arminian/Calvinist debate a non-essential that we must have liberty and charity on):

"Because life is very short and eternity is very long, we ought to make every effort to show liberty to our brothers and sisters on these nonessential issues during our brief time on Earth. Let us agree to disagree in an agreeable way--such behavior is befitting of the elect" (p. 253).

Now, I ask you in all honesty, do the above bullet point statements from Norman Geisler show liberty and charity to Calvinists? Do the above pejorative statements show a willingness to agree to disagree in an agreeable way? Is such behavior befitting of one of the stature of Dr. Geisler? Has he lived up to his own advice in CWC?

Ever since well know Calvinist, Dr. James White, wrote a very well written, and respectful response to Chosen but Free, "The Potter's Freedom," a book that showed liberty and charity (and was very well received in the Christian community and endorsed by some of the most respected names in Christendom), Dr. Geisler, I don't believe, has shown the liberty and charity to Dr. White he says we must display. For example, Dr. White relates this story about Norman Geisler's reaction to The Potter's Freedom:

"I am reminded of what happened years ago when The Potter's Freedom came out. I got a call while I was teaching in Mill Valley from a radio talk host on whose program I was a frequent guest. He said he had arranged to have Norman Geisler on his program, but when the day came for the interview, Geisler was nowhere to be found. They called and called, no answer. After contacting the publisher again, Geisler finally called him and asked him what his intention was in doing the interview! That's a pretty odd thing to do when you are promoting a book (in this case, Chosen But Free). It finally came out that Geisler knew I had been on his program, and so after explaining how I should have just kept my nose out of this argument (it is between him and Sproul anyway, proving that the title of Chosen But Free was, in fact, a direct response to Sproul's Chosen By God), Geisler laid down the 'conditions' on which he would do the program: 1) James White would be on the program first. 2) A tape of the program would be sent to Geisler. 3) At least two weeks would elapse before Geisler would be on after White. 4) The host would not say the names "James White" or "Potter's Freedom" at any time during the interview. 5) A delay feature would be used on any callers, and any caller using the names "James White" or "The Potter's Freedom" would be dumped before the words made it to air. If these were acceptable, he would come on. In case you are wondering, the host had me on a few weeks later, but never had Geisler on"
([']).

Also see:

[']

[']

My second and final example of what I believe is the author's obvious bias (there are more, but I will stick to two as this review is already long enough), comes in chapter 28--The Order of Second-Coming Events. This chapter, which is 13 pages long, spends most of the chapter defending another one of the author's favorite doctrines--Dispensationalism. The authors make it very obvious that the literal historical grammatical method is what they and they alone employ (see chapter 17). They perpetuate the myth, and straw man, that all other views use the spiritual or allegorical method to interpret the Bible, especially when it comes to eschatology. Here is one of several examples where the authors contradict themselves in this matter. On page 330, the authors quote Matthew 24:34 and write:

"'This generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.' This verse allegedly proves the prophecies in Scripture would soon be fulfilled. Contrary to this view, many evangelical Christians believe Christ was simply saying that the generation that is alive at the time such events as the abomination of desolation (verse 15), the Great Tribulation (verse 21), and the sign of the Son of Man in heaven (verse 30) begin to come to pass will still be alive when these prophetic judgments are completed. Other evangelicals believe the word `generation' in Matthew 24:34 is to be taken in its secondary meaning of `race.' Jesus statement could mean that the Jewish race would not pass away until these things are fulfilled."

Here's the contradiction: what happened to the author's literal historical grammatical method when it comes to Matthew 24:34 (the "many evangelical Christians" view is also the author's view)? Due to their Dispensational assumptions they switch gears and spiritualize and allegorize this text! David Chilton writes:

"Get out your concordance and look up every New Testament occurrence of the word generation (in Greek, genea) and see if it ever means 'race' in any other context. Here are all the references for the Gospels: Matthew 1:17; 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36; 24:34; Mark 8:12, 38; 9:19; 13:30; Luke 1:48, 50; 7:31; 9:41; 11:29, 30, 31, 32, 50, 51; 18:8; 17:25; 21:32. Not one of these references is speaking of the entire Jewish race over thousands of years; all use the word in its normal sense of the sum total of those living at the same time. It always refers to contemporaries."

Gary DeMar writes: "Every time `this generation' is used in the New Testament, it means, without exception, the generation to whom Jesus was speaking" (End Times Fiction: A Biblical Consideration of the Left Behind Theology, page 68).

D.A. Carson adds: "[This generation] can only with the greatest difficulty be made to mean anything other than the generation living when Jesus spoke" ("Matthew" in The Expositor's Bible Commentary).

R. C. Sproul says we cannot spiritualize the meaning of "this generation" in Matthew 24:34 by pushing it into a generation that has yet to come like CWC does: "I am convinced that the substance of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in A.D. 70" (Sproul, Last Days According to Jesus, p. 158).

Because the authors of CWC spiritualized Jesus' words of "this generation" as meaning some generation yet to come, instead of reading them in the literal sense He meant them--the generation to whom He was speaking--are they then guilty of their own admonition to non-dispensationalists:

"One danger relates to hermeneutics. As noted earlier, premillennialism utilizes a literal hermeneutic when interpreting biblical prophecy [except in Matthew 24:34 and many other places], while amillennialism and postmillennialism utilize a spiritualized hermeneutic. The literal method is a hermeneutical essential (chapter 17). Without such a method we could not know any of the doctrinal essentials. In view of this, it is sobering to ponder that while premillennialists--because of their literal approach to Scripture--are less likely to slip into liberal theology or false views on these essential doctrines, those who allegorize prophecy seem naturally more prone to this danger" (CWC, p. 331).

Because the authors of CWC spiritualize Jesus' words in Matthew 24:34, are they then guilty of "utiliz[ing]" a spiritualized hermeneutic? Are they "slip[ping] into liberal theology"? Are they in "danger" of putting their readers in a position of not knowing any of the doctrinal essentials?

One of Norman Geisler's sayings is: "Everything in the Bible is literally true, but everything true [in the Bible] is not literal." Partial Preterist Kenneth Gentry writes: "Revelation is a highly figurative book that we cannot approach with a simple straightforward literalism" (Four Views On The Book Of Revelation, p. 38). Dispensationalists, like all other biblical interpreters, interpret some expressions as literal and others as figurative. The authors of CWC admit this in pages 197-200! For example, under the heading "What the Literal Method is Not," they say:

* "The Literal Method Does Not Eliminate Figures of Speech" (p. 197).
* "The Literal Method Does Not Eliminate the Use of Types" (p. 197).
* "The Literal Method Does Not Eliminate the Use of Symbols" (p. 198).
* "The Literal Method Does Not Eliminate The use of Parables and Allegories" (p. 198).
* "The Literal Method Does Not Eliminate Spiritual Application" (p. 199).

To be fair, Geisler and Rhodes should acknowledge, that they, just like others, interpret when a prophetic passage is using figures of speech, types, symbols, parables and allegories, and spiritual application-- even when it comes to their own spiritual application of Matthew 24:34. Otherwise, they are not practicing the liberty and charity they have called others to.

One final point about chapter 28. On pages 327 and 328 the authors list the Premillennial view with no counter points or objections from the other side. But again, they show their Dispensational bias when presenting the other views. Instead of letting the other views stand-alone, like they did with their favorite Premillennial view, they list several objections to these other views, attacking Amillennialists as using a "spiritualized approach." Postmillennialists also do this according to CWC. Partial Preterists get one short stand-alone paragraph and then are subsequently challenged by the authors at almost every point with their Dispensational objections.

Having said all that, those reading this review may be surprised, despite my charges of bias in chapters 17, 21, and 28, I enjoyed reading the book and learned from it. I just wish Dr. Norman Geisler would live up to his call for liberty and charity on the Arminian/Calvinism debate, and both authors would also consider treating all sides in the eschatological debate in a more balanced way.

A well-researched and well-explained theology. It helps me understand correctly the most important fundamental keys of the Christian belief and avoid the distorted New Age teaching.

With this book, Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes seek to explore the differences between the essentials of the Christian faith (that is, those doctrines that a person must believe in in order to be saved) and nonessentials (those doctrines on which Christians can disagree).

Generally speaking, the section on essential doctrines is very informative, especially for new Christians, or as a quick review on the main doctrines of the Christian faith.

However, when it comes to nonessentials, one would expect that the authors would simply present the different schools of thaught on the various doctrines objectively, with their strenghts and weaknesses, giving the reader enough information to enable him to make up his own mind. Instead, in many cases Geisler and Rhodes clearly push their own theology, and in the process undermine opinions different from theirs.
For example, in the chapter about the extent of salvation, the authors discuss Extreme Calvinism, Arminianism and Moderate Calvinism. What they call "moderate Calvinism" is really just a fancy name for Arminianism plus perseveration of the saints, since it denies unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistible grace. Instead of simply presenting these three doctrines, Geisler and Rhodes try their best to make Moderate Calvinism seem the only reasonable option, disregarding traditional Calvinism as illogical and Arminianism as unbiblical.
Another example could be the nature of sanctification. Apart from the pre-reformation era, they present the views of Luther, Calvin and Wesley, and they provide an response to Luther's and Wesley's view, but not to Calvin's, like his view was obviously the correct one.

According to the authors, the very idea of the section about non-essentials of this book was to "agree to disagree in an agreable manner", yet it is obvious the they do just the opposite, implicitly or explicitly presenting their theology as the only biblically sound one, and all others as lacking biblical or logical support.


Another problem with this book is that, for some reason, the authors decided to consider Roman Catholics as Christians, and they had to be less than objective in order to do so. Roman Catholics are called "orthodox Christians" even though they deny some of the doctrines listed as fundamentals.
A case in point is salvation by grace through faith. About Catholics, the authors say: "meritorious works, then, play a major role in the Roman Catholic view of salvation" (p.124). About Jehova's Witnesses, they write: "salvation is impossible apart from a lifetime of good works" (p.127). The truth is, Catholics and JWs hold the same opinion about salvation: God's grace is insufficient without good works.Why, then, the authors call Jehovah's Witnesses a cult while Roman Catholics are called orthodox Christians? According to the authors, "what saves the Catholic view from utter heresy is its aknowledgement that these works necessary for salvation are prompted by God's grace, which is obtained by the necessity of faith" (p. 143). This view is fallacious because, as the authors explain: "...for a person to be saved, there must be a restoration of sanctifying grace. At the moment of baptism, this is exactly what happens, according to Roman Catholics. Sanctifying grace is infused into the person and he becomes spirituallly alive" (p.124). So the sacrament comes before sanctifying grace, and one cannot receive God's grace and be saved without the sacrament. This is work-based salvation at its worse.
I was very surprised to read this sort of ecumenical reasoning in this book, because Ron Rhodes, one of the authors, in his book "Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics", criticized RC's work-oriented system of salvation, and wrote about the necessity to evangelize them (except evangelical Catholics, in his opinion).
Generally speaking, the book is quite critical on some of Rome's unbiblical doctrines, such as the authority of the Pope, his infallibility (p.220), the Catholic Church's autoritarian structure (which they describe as "cultic") (p.221), sacramental view of the Communion ("akin to the monophysite heresy") (p.269-271) etc., yet for some misterious reasons, Catholics are still regarded as brothers in Christ throughout the whole book. Inconsistency at its worst.

The third section deals with the necessity of speaking the truth in love. This last part contains some good thoughts on the subject and I really enjoyed reading it.

Overall, this book contains some good material, but is ruined by the authors' obvious biases, inconsistencies, double standards and their inexplicable inclusion of Catholicism as a Christian denomination.