Customer Reviews

Balanced Apologetics: Using Evidences and Presuppositions in Defense of the Faith

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

 

 

From my perspective, Mayers does not offer much to apologetic discussion except to debunk purest evidentialists and purest presuppositionalists. As I have been a convinced Van Tillian presuppositionalist for about a year and a half, I don't see that Mayers offers anything that Van Til himself has not already offered. Van Tillians do not reject the use of evidences in apologetics, but they work to see them within a proper theological and anthropological viewpoint. God has revealed Himself in the world, but as man is gripped by the noetic effects of sin, he will not receive those evidences as being valid apart from the gift of God changing their broken will. Is Mayers trying to dissuade people from a Kuyper-eque denial of the need for apologetics? Though this view is a threat to apologetics, it seems to be a minority opinion even among presuppositionalist Reformed theologians. I just don't see the point of this book unless he is trying to reach a broader audience (at least on the presuppositionalist side), maybe of Van Tillians. As a Van Tillian, expecting to be told to "lighten up," I was confused because Mayers seemed very presuppositional in many points though he worked diligently to show that he wasn't a presuppositionalist. I don't think Mayers has much new to say to those who are already convinced of the biblical case for Van Til's apologetic. Though Mayers seems to want to stress the equality of presuppositions and evidences the fact that evidences are interpreted through our presuppositions continually shines through. After reading Mayers' book, I continue to be convinced that presuppositions rule the day. Yes evidences are important, but are impotent unless the presuppositions of the heart are changed. Just as the will of man, though real, is eclipsed by the will of God, so evidences, being true, are eclipsed by the presuppositions that interpret them. Though I found Mayers to affirm much of Van Til, I was disappointed by the lack of practical application of Mayers' apologetic. I am disappointed that Mayers did not deal with things like the transcendental argument in light of his view of evidences. It is clear from reading the book that God has revealed Himself in the world, but man sufferers under the noetic effects of sin, they will not receive those evidences as valid apart from the gift of God into their broken will. Overall, I did not find the book to be helpful. I'd stick with Van Til, Bahnsen, and Frame.

The historic fight between the evidentialist and the presuppositional apologist has been such that restaurants require them to sit in separate sections. It would be well for these opponents to heed Ronald Mayers' volume pleading for balance, and backing up the requirement for it with solid facts.

This book is not a rundown of what 'presupping' and 'eviding' are all about and how to combine them, but rather a full-fledged logical defense of the need to combine them. Of greatest value here is Mayers' presentation of apologetic practices in the New Testament and in the early church. A study of the techniques of Paul shows that he modified his presentation according to who he spoke to (becoming all things to all people!), so that when reasoning with the Jews, he appealed to the OT, but when speaking to the Areopagus, he quoted no Scripture but instead appealed to natural theology - and remained thoroughly Biblical. The credible apologist will likewise be prepared to meet prospective discussion parteners on their own terms to the degree necessary, without compromising the truth of the Word of God.

My one reservation is that this book is nearly fifteen years old. Even so, much of what it says is timeless.