Most Helpful Customer Reviews
96 of 104 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A good overview of the options for apologetics specialists, August 25, 2000
This review is from: Five Views on Apologetics (Paperback)
Few books have seriously tackled apologetic method, or how Christianity should be defended rationally. The last book I know of that surveyed options in this regard was Gordon Lewis, "Testing Christianity's Truth Claims" (Moody Press, 1976; republished by University Press of America). This book presents five different approaches, each represented by one of its exponents: Classical Apologetics (William Lane Craig), Evidentialism (Gary Habermas), Culumulative Case Method (Paul Feinberg), Presuppositionalism (John Frame), and Reformed Epistemology (Kelly James Clark). Much ground is covered concerning the Bible's approach to apologetics, where apologetic arguments should begin, how certain arguments for Christianity are, and so on. I will simply make a few comments. The presentations by Craig and Habermas are the most worthwhile because they are the most intellectual rigorous and well-documented. They also tend to agree with each on most things and reinforce each others views. While I tend to favor a cumulative case method (influenced by E.J. Carnell and Francis Schaeffer, but with more appreciation for natural theology), Feinberg's comments are the weakest by far. He never mentions the leading exponent of this view in our generation (Carnell) nor Carnell's apt and well-published student (and my esteemed colleague), Dr. Gordon Lewis. Not one word about either one! His comments are brief, his documentation is thin, and he fails to advance anything very creative or helpful, I'm afraid. A better person should have been chosen, such as Gordon Lewis. Frame gives his "kinder, gentler" version of Cornelius Van Til, which still suffers from the same kinds of problems--most notably the fallacy of begging the question in favor of Christianity. Nevertheless, the notion of a "transcendental argument" for theism is a good one, but it should not carry all the weight of apologetics. Clark's material is philosophically well-informed (one would expect this of a student of Alvin Plantinga!), but apologetically timid. Clark almost sounds like a skeptic at times. A few bones more bones to pick. The editor refers to Francis Schaeffer as a presuppositionalist. This is false; he was a verificationist with more in common with Carnell than with Van Til. Gordon Lewis's fine essay on Schaeffer's apologetic method in "Reflections on Francis Schaeffer" makes this very clear. None of the writers address the great apologetic resources found in Blaise Pascal. I also found at least two grammatical errors. Nevertheless, as a professor of philosophy at a theological seminary who teaches apologetics, I found this volume very helpful and useful. But let's not get so involved in methodological concerns that we fail to go out in the world and defend our Christian faith as objectively true, existentially vital, and rationally compelling (Jude 3)! Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Philosophy Denver Seminary
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
27 of 31 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Apologetics down and dirty, September 1, 2002
This review is from: Five Views on Apologetics (Paperback)
Before I write anything, I would like to suggest that the reader of "Five Views on Apologetics" first read "Faith Has Its Reasons" by Kenneth Bow and Robert Bowman, Jr. (NavPress). Doing so will give you a good overview of the methodology taken by the different positions; it would be akin to reading a preview of this afternoon's football game, with a summary of the players and the strategy that will be used fully explained. Overall "Five Views on Apologetics" is worthwhile for the serious-minded Christian. I do like these "View" books because they allow all sides to take part in a dialogue that certainly has more potential to get things accomplished rather than a free-for-all live debate. All sides get to give their side with succeeding rebuttals. This book certainly had some lively discussion as all of the participants had their own ideas of how apologetics should be handled. The five positions were: William Lane Craig (classical); Gary Habermas (evidential); Paul Feinberg (cumulative); John Frame (presuppositional); Kelly James Clark (Reformed Epistemological). However, there were three weak points that I need to point out. First, I'm not sure the debaters were the best representatives of the positions they defended. For instance, Craig could be described as a combination classicist/evidentialist. Much of what he said could have been written by Habermas, as even Habermas admitted. Feinberg had, I believe, the weakest argumentation, as I just never did track with his thoughs. Meanwhile, Frame certainly has his own twist on Van Til's ideas, yet these twists make his position a "kinder, gentler" version of Reformed apologetics and thus is not truly representative of Van Tillians--and there are plenty of these thinkers out there. And Clark might as well let Alvin Plantinga write his section since Clark seemed to mention Plantinga in practically every paragraph. Second, it is apparent that much of the differences quickly became similarities by the end of the book. In fact, Craig even mentioned how he appreciated the similarities the debaters had. If this is so, then why write the book in the first place? In fact, more than once a respondent to another's position declared, in essence, "Why, that could have been me writing! I think--fill in the name--really is a--fill in the position--like I am." This attitude prevailed through much of the book, especially in the concluding comments. (At the same time, perhaps we should rejoice that in a book of Christian division, so many similarities could be found!) Finally, I think the book got a little too technical in some areas, especially by several of the writers. I think Craig is a master philosopher, and I've seen Bayes' Theorem before, but I'm still scratching my head trying to understand several pages of formulas he put together to support one of his points. Perhaps with some personal explanation I could better understand, but I'm thinking many reading this book would have been totally lost (as I humbly admit I was). Although I didn't agree with his stance, I thought John Frame did the best in explaining his philosophy in the simplist, most logical way possible. Despite what I feel are its shortcomings, I do recommend this book for the serious student who is interested in apologetics. I enjoyed it very much and was certainly enlightened about the role apologetics takes in the Christian's life.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
13 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good Book on a So-So Topic, July 16, 2004
This review is from: Five Views on Apologetics (Paperback)
This is a book written by apologists, for apologists. It is not a book whose primary emphasis is to present a meticulous apologetic for the Christian faith that everyday Christians can use and draw personal strength from, but is rather a book that debates what the best apologetic method is for going about erecting such an apologetic. As such, its use I think is somewhat limited beyond the rather small audience that likes to have discussions like this. A point needs to be made about this entire subject matter. I strongly sympathize with Frame's view that debates on apologetic method are actually pretty boring and in many instances, do not represent the best of Christianity or even Christian apologetics. Regretably, apologetics has too often become a collection point for Christians who frankly like to fight and enjoy conflict. While the contributors in this book generally refrain from doing that, which is good, the history of apologetics includes no shortage of individuals it seems who once played Cops and Robbers, but then grew up and realized they couldn't do that anymore, so they began playing Clarkians and Van Tillians, or Classicists and Evidentialists, and so on. While debate over apologetic method has value and does get into larger and arguably more important theological questions, this debate can be conducted much better than it has been in the past, and in that respect, one can hope that the generally civil tone of the contributors (though Craig and Clark in particular could sometimes use a course in remedial Christian love on occasion in here) will serve as an example of such discussions in the future. Relative to the book itself, many of the contributors are first rate apologists in their respective traditions. Craig is one of the elite apologists around, and surprises a bit with an extended emphasis on the Holy Spirit in his essay. Habermas is a top evidentialist and it shows in his abbreviated defense of the resurrection of Jesus. Feinberg is a respected theologian who does seem to come up a bit short in his cumulative case essay. Frame is the most respected presuppositionalist around today, and presents a convincing, if incomplete, argument from transcendence. Clark is a disciple of Plantinga, and his tone, not to mention his essay, could have both stood for considerable improvement, though in my view, the Reformed epistemology he embraces entails an inherent handicap of not being very persuasive, though its major tenets tend to be true. The strengths of the book are that the top rung of scholars here (Craig, Habermas, and Frame) all concede some points that previous partisans in their respective schools would not. Craig and Habermas concede that there is no neutrality, that the unregenerate heart is not neutral about God, but rather hostile. A major, and justified, criticism of classical and evidential apologetics is that both approaches tend to give natural man far too much credit in their ability to objectively examine the claims of Christianity and to reason rightly about such things in their natural state. Frame, on the other hand, concedes common ground between believer and unbeliever in a meaningful way, and also finds legitimacy in employing more traditional tools of apologetics as part of a larger transcendental argument. His defense of 'broad circularity' and critique of other systems who necessarily hold to this as well is also good and necessary in order to try and head off the major critique of presuppositionalism - that it's ultimately circular and illogical. I think the major weakness of the book is that I don't think it is going to satisfy very many readers. For those who are looking for a good fight between Christians over apologetic method, this book will probably disappoint. As I said before, I think the charitable tone and attempt to find common ground is a real strength and is productive, but devoted disciples of particular apologetic methods will probably not see it that way and will yearn for a bloodier fight than what takes place. On the other hand, the mere fact that the book emphasizes apologetic method rather than apologetic arguments, by definition, commands a pretty small audience. Most casual readers, I suspect, are not terribly interested in the philosophical underpinnings behind apologetic method, and are more interested in wanting from the church's scholars a practical and compelling way to engage unbelief, which this book doesn't labor very hard to do. It's legitimate to lament this kind of disinterest in the foundational aspects of belief, knowledge, and theology that apologetics tends to build on, and perhaps this book will do something to improve that situation, but I doubt it. So this is a good book that does provide value to the present state of Christian apologetics. It provides a needed corrective to much of the rancor that surrounds inter-party battles among apologetic schools, and in my view, this is its most meaningful contribution.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
