Customer Reviews

Classical Apologetics

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

This was a rather intense read about classical apologetics. I would highly recommend it to those that have an interest or prior knowledge and understanding of apologetics. The book is divided into three sections:

--Classical Natural Theology, an overview of problem and method --Classical apologetics, the theistic proofs, the deity of Christ, and the infallibility of scripture --Classical critique of presuppositional apologetics

The first section seemed very wordy to me, and I had a hard time getting through it. The second was very interesting, and providing a great summary of different arguments, including the ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments for God. This chapter also has chapters dealing with the Spirit and Word of God.

The third section is probably the best section (although it still lacked brevity). Chapter 11 is the best chapter in the book; it has great summaries of Luther, Calvin, and Augustine's views on reason as it relates to faith. All should check out this chapter.

Despite my immense respect and love for the teachings of each of these authors, this work is their least impressive bit of scholarship. They seem to fall to their own presuppositions (pun intended) in making a paper tiger of the views they wish to counter. They provide a slanted version of the views they oppose then commence to tear it down. It seems doubtful to me that these gentlemen are intentionally taking this direction and so we are left to believe that they truly do not understand the views they are attempting to discredit. Perhaps it is the immense respect that Dr. Sproul has for his mentor, Dr. Gerstner, that leads him down this path - and his loyalty could even be commended. Dr. Gerstner is more difficult to explain since I find it unfathomable that he could resort to intellectual dishonesty in order to play the role of contrarian. His belief in the superiority of the classical approach is without doubt. His understanding seems to view the presuppositional and classical approaches as mutually exclusive creating a false dichotomy in which he is forced to defend one against the encroachment of the other. How he came to the belief in this dichotomy is never explained or expounded upon and that makes one wonder if he explored the topic in enough depth before making judgements. Again, however, I feel unequipped and hesitant to state what seems obvious to me in light of the intellect and depth of these teachers. It sends me away thinking I must be mistaken but there seems no way around what I sense from this work.

This is without a doubt the foremost book on classical apologetics, and the first attempt ever to give a comprehensive critique of presuppositionalism. It summarizes both natural apologetics (the theistic arguments) and supernatural apologetics (the historical evidence for Scripture). Van Til is the main focus of the criticism, but other presuppositional writers like Clark, Dooyeweerd, Frame, and Knudsen are included. There is also a key chapter giving great detail to the evidence that Augustine, Luther, and Calvin were all evidentialists, despite popular charges that that they were not. This book is a must for anyone trying to understand apologetics and the issue involved between the two vastly different types of apologetics!

I think the way to understand the conflict between presuppositional and classical apologetics is to realise that their conflicting claims constitute a prima facie case for a paradox in the Christian knowledge of God.

The key point of presuppositionalism, as I understand it, is that humans cannot know anything with certainty unless they presuppose God, since to know anything with certainty requires either (a) omniscience, or (b) revelation from a being who is omniscient. Since we are not omniscient, a new 'fact' could emerge which could, potentially, falsify everything we currently think is true (e.g. the world is flat rather than spherical). The counter claim of classical thinkers is that if we cannot know anything with certainty unless omniscient God reveals it, then we cannot know anything with certainty unless we know with certainty that omniscient God is revealing it. There must, therefore, say classical apologists, be a moment of God-independent judgment, in which we admit that God exists (which deep down we already know (Romans 1)) and is revealing truth, and the purpose of the theistic proofs (more below) is to drive us to that moment (by God's grace who breaks our otherwise implacable prejudice against him). But then, says the presuppositionalist, the God-independent judgment is not necessarily true, since humans are not omniscient; indeed, apart from God, they argue, the concept of truth is meaningless.

I suggest the answer is to avoid both of these positions and opt for what Alistair McGrath calls 'creative apologetics', in which Christian rationality is neither separate from secular rationality, as presuppositionalism implies (apparently), nor contained within it, as classical apologetics implies with its view (at least as Sproul et al maintain) that the classical theistic proofs strictly prove using nothing more than the logical axioms available to everyone. This seems to resolve the paradox since it no longer requires (a) the unbeliever to presuppose God, in that creating absolute certainty of God's existence in the mind of the unbeliever is not the object of creative apologetics, rather a probabilistic assurance that prepares the way for an exercise of intuition leading to faith, and (b) by the same token, since the object is to persuade the unbeliever of knowledge which lacks the quality of absolute certainty, the presuppositionalist can accept that the unbeliever is capable of validly apprehending it.

Now it may be that Bahnsen regards his understanding of presuppositional apologetics as no different to the creative apologetics of McGrath. However, McGrath delineates the three approaches as non-identical ("Bridge Building" pp86ff), and maintains that presuppositionalism has no point of contact with unbelievers, pointing his readers to Sproul et al as a good account of presuppositionalism. McGrath says presuppositionalism implies that "to be converted is to *leap* from the secular to the Christian outlook." (Bridge Building, p87). Whether McGrath is right or not, I think that presuppositionalism is mistaken if it stresses its key point without qualification, since it runs the danger of implying that non-Christians cannot have any valid knowledge at all, which I cannot reconcile with the image of God in man, including fallen man, who is still made in God's image (James 3:9). In other words, we have some revelation 'built into' us from the way we are made.

Conversely, the danger for creative apologetics is that in regarding the classical theistic proofs as not fully demonstrative, it could present them as lacking the power of demonstration they really possess. Perhaps they don't prove God in a strictly logical sense, but they come darn close to it! And what I think is fully demonstrative is the teleological argument as it relates to consciousness. I agree with HP Owen, "The Christian Knowledge of God" (pp90-94), when he argues that the mind-brain identity theory is literal nonsense.

This work which has been so explosive, especially in the Reformed family, should be bought by every child of the Canons of Dort. Many, many, critiques notwithstanding, this work in my mind has not been refuted to date. Bob Sproul and his mentor, John Gerstner follow in the line of the Old Princetonians. They prove themselves in the succesion of Warfield. Sproul, Gerstner & Lindsey devestate the school of Van Till. This work belongs on the shelf of both friend and foe. H.S Bultmann.

Sproul rightly critiques Van Til's contradictions about whether non-Christians have "true" knowledge of God. Sproul argues that they do in accordance with Romans Chapter One and shows that Van Til inconsistently admits that they do also even though in other places he says or implies that they don't. One does not need to "presuppose" God because, according to Romans One (and Sproul), all have at least some knowledge of God through God's natural/general revelation. This allows for a common ground between Christians and non-Christians. But Sproul, being a Classical Apologist, still thinks that one must posit proofs for God's existence even though everybody apparently already knows God exists. This is confusing. Sproul, on pages 262 and 263, basically says that the primary task of the apologist is to not let the non-Christians who argue against the truth they already know "escape" by "reminding" them of "arguments which they cannot deny." This, to me, is a ridiculous and weak justification for doing Classical/Traditional apologetics. If God's existence is taken for granted in the Bible (including Romans 1), and nowhere proven because everybody apparently already knows that God exists, then theistic apologetics (distinct from Christian evidences) is a waste of time. (side note: I agree with Mortimer J. Adler who said that "true knowledge" is redundant and "false knowledge" is a contradiction in terms) - Brad Clark

This is a good work to introduce the traditional form of apologetics. It should prove to strengthen the believers faith as well as challenge unbelieving thought. However, it is not without its own holes. First, it is built upon classical foundationalism, a now defunct epistemology from the enlightenment. Second, in regards to its triadic foundation, it does not establish the law of non-contradiction as applying to beings (as opposed to it applying to thought only). Just because 'communication would be meaningless if the law of non-contradiction did not apply to beings' does not mean that it actually does. They simply presuppose that it does apply. Third, Sproul maintains that logic flows from God's character. This is a presupposition? Besides, is this Aristotelian logic, Boolean logic, or one of the others? There are more problems than that.

Contents

Preface

SECTION I : CLASSICAL NATURAL THEOLOGY: AN OVERVIEW OF PROBLEM AND METHOD
Chapter I The Crisis of Secularism
Chapter 2 The Task of Apologetics
Chapter 3 Natural Theology and Fideism
Chapter 4 The Biblical Evidence Confirming Natural Theology
Chapter 5 Toward the Reconstruction of Natural Theology: The Question of Method

SECTION II : CLASSICAL APOLOGETICS: THE THEISTIC PROOFS, THE DEITY OF CHRIST, AND THE INFALLIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE
Chapter 6 The Incomprehensibility of God and the Ontological Argument
Chapter 7 The Cosmological and TeleologicalArguments
Chapter 8 Supernatural Revelation and Miracles
Chapter 9 The Spirit, the Word, and the Church

SECTION III : A CLASSICAL CRITIQUE OF PRESUPPOSITIONAL APOLOGETICS
Chapter 10 An Outline of Presuppositional Apologetics
Chapter 11 General Apologetic Tradition on Reason and Faith: Augustine, Luther, and Calvin
Chapter 12 The Starting Point: Primacy of the Intellect and Autonomy
Chapter 13 The Noetic Influence of Sin
Chapter 14 The Attack on the Theistic Proofs
Chapter 15 The Attack on Christian Evidences
Chapter 16 The Self-Attesting God
Chapter 17 The Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit
Chapter 18 Presuppositionalism and Verification
Chapter 19 Analogical Thinking
Chapter 20 Circular Reasoning

Indexes...

This is a solid exposition of classical apologetics, which considers the reality and necessity of the use of evidence in approaching some non-believers with Christian truth claims. It offers a strong, and IMHO valid, critique of Van Tillian Presuppositionalism. Even the evidence we have that God exists derives from God. However, if we only assume God must me accepted to be known, we are guilty of circular reasoning and the average, educated non-believer will see through this. Presuppositionalism is fine if you're content only to sway the uneducated... (That may be a harsh statement, too, but I agree withe the premise of this book.)

Excellent introduction to Classical Apologetics as opposed to Presuppositionalism. Puts the subject clearly in its theological and historical context