Customer Reviews

Five Views on Apologetics

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

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

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.

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.

The contributors to Five Views provide many insights into the realm of apologetic methodology. Though there are differences between them, some (not all) of these are exaggerated. It might even be said that, in certain ways, they complement one another.

The Classical apologist emphasizes theistic arguments as a preliminary step in arguing for Christianity. Though this step is not necessary, it can be helpful in discussions with certain individuals, especially those with some background in philosophy and/or science. The Evidentialist introduces various pieces of evidence that refute non-Christian assumptions and support a biblical worldview. The Cumulative Case advocate rightly sees that people come to Christ due to a variety of factors; this approach says, in essence, that Christianity makes best sense of all the available data. Presuppositionalism provides a necessary basis for the entire apologetic enterprise, insisting on a biblical methodological foundation; it highlights the necessary heart commitment to the Lordship of Christ. Finally, the Reformed Epistemological view brings out the fact that is rational to follow Christ even apart from a traditional presentation of evidence. It also takes seriously the need to deal humbly with one's fellow man.

Of course these apologetic perspectives certainly cannot be reduced to what has been mentioned in the previous paragraph. Each one has much more to say about methodology. Still, these views are not irreconcilable, and the individual proponents often admit as much. While there is significant disagreement about aspects of the apologetic venture, at least some of this can be attributed to such factors as personality, giftedness, the individual experience of each author, the target audiences in view, and the particular field of apologetic engagement in which each writer specializes.

Though some of the objections raised by these apologists (i.e., against the other views) can tend to aim at the worst examples of other methodological schools, bordering at times on caricature, such endeavors are certainly worthwhile, promising to yield much apologetic fruit, and so producing better models for understanding and reaching the lost.

As with any interpretive situation, a number of factors will play a role in the success of this endeavor. These include: (1) A fundamental commitment to Scripture as the apologetic resource and guide, (2) A willingness to acknowledge basic similarities and overlap among the different methodological positions, and (3) An openness to the interpretive suggestions of others.

All of the views represented in Five Views provide pieces (some larger than others) of the methodological puzzle. Though this researcher disagrees with some of the remarks of these men, they all show by their participation in this project the attitude most conducive to this task.

It is this researcher's hope that the preceding discussion might positively impact the reader's attitude toward apologetics. To that end, may God be pleased to work through His people in the effort to call men and women "out of darkness and into His marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:9).

[The above comments were taken from the conclusion of a much longer work on this subject, particularly this book. If you are interested, you may contact me by e-mail, and I will be happy to mail a copy to you.

Thanks, Carmen

Too often, content is studied to the neglect of form: reading this book will cure that problem. It's kind of annoying the way they fall all over themselves to agree with one another and downplay the differences given that this book is in the "counterpoints" series, but some good-old Christian charity is actually refreshing.

The book features a good introduction and a brief but helpful glossary of terms. Craig's opening piece has a great excursus on Plantinga and natural theology that is worth half the price of the book in itself. The book is 400 pages and filled with excellent references and fairly detailed subject and person indices. Because of the detail of the entries, this book could actually serve as an introduction to apologetics, with the reader learning the basic apologetics for the existence of God, the Resurrection of Jesus, and the truth of the Christian worldview generally. If you're not even sure what apologetics is, this would be a great book to begin with, especially because you'd get five different (though surprisingly similar) views. On the other hand, I'm a Philosophy nstructor and apologist who knows most of these guys and I still found the book very beneficial to read. In short, no one can fail to benefit from reading this book.

For anyone just entering the world of Christian apologetics or the seasoned defender of the faith, this book offers a thought-provoking exposition of the five major methods of apologetics. From the time tested classical method to the reformed epistemological method and just about everything in between this book will give the reader an idea of the thought processes of our days apologists. It allows the reader to come to a conclusion based on input from all sides of the story, thus arriving at a well informed decision. A must for anyone intent on entering the world of Christian apologetics.

I am a seminary student and I recently had the privilege of taking a course in apologetics methods taught by the editor of this book, Dr. Steve Cowan. Steve is a fine man of God and a true expert in this area of comparing apologetics methods/religious epistemology. The contents of the book have been outlined well in other reviews so I won't re-hash those. There are a few points worth noting about this book and its topic.

1. This is not a book for someone looking for apologetics answers to use in their witnessing. This is a scholarly book co-authored by some of the most powerful scholars in evangelical Christianity today. The dialog is mostly theological/philosophical and can be hard to follow. Each of the scholars only has a few pages to sketch the main contours of their actual apologetic. The rest of their writing concerns the theoretical framework for that apologetic. This is expected as long as you understand the purpose of the book is to discuss meta-apologetics or "how we establish a framework for how we do apologetics." Some commercial book reviews seem to under-emphasize or miss this point and it is important since it could be a disappointment to someone just starting in their apologetics ministry. You may want to do some study in the apologetics topic of Faith and Reason before tackling this book. J.P. Moreland's "Love Your God With All Your Mind" is a good starter on Faith and Reason.

2. The debate over apologetic methodology primarily concerns positive case apologetics where the Christian is seeking a broad method for advancing the positive case in favor of Christianity, as opposed to answering or defending against objections to the faith. Defending against specific objections almost always takes on a presuppositional tone where the apologist looks for underlying assumptions, fallacies or implications in the objection that weaken its effectiveness. This book is not about mounting this type of defense, but rather, how we should architect an effective positive case in favor of Christian truth claims. There is some cross-over of course, but it is helpful to realize this about the book as you read it. This high level point is assumed, but not often made within the book itself.

3. There is a significant convergence of thought that comes out within the interaction between the five panelists. There are certainly some areas of disagreement, and a few sparks fly (!) but overall, the panel finds more common ground than has traditionally been the case. All of the panelists are respectful and constructive toward one another. In the Conclusion, Dr. Cowan outlines 6 points of commonality. For example, presuppositional apologist John Frame agrees to the existence of common epistemological ground with unbelievers. Traditionally, the presuppositional view would not have conceded a point like this, but Frame shows he is his own scholar in many ways by also presenting an approach to help resolve the perennial complaint about obvious circularity in the presuppositional method. The value of evidences and arguments was also agreed to among all the writers but as with most things it is a question of degree and emphasis.

4. Study of apologetic methodology is useful theoretical background for those who are called to apologetic ministry, but I for one am glad to see some of the common ground emerging after decades of theoretical discussion, writing and debate. Let's not get hung up here a lot longer, there's much Kingdom work to be done. I fear encouraging new apologists to commitment into one technical method or another can easily detract valuable resources from more practical, and yes Biblical, efforts.

This is a very good book on what I found to be a very challenging topic. This book is unique in its bringing together leading proponents of each apologetic approach. Another good book on this topic is Faith Has Its Reasons by Boa and Bowman. It does not have the benefit of the exchanges between leading experts that Five Views provides, but it does have tremendous depth as a resource for the history of apologists, their methods and practical conversational examples for each approach.

Upon reading the contributions by such erudite authors as William L. Craig, Gary Habermas, Paul Feinberg, John Frame, Kelley James Clark, and the editor Stephen Cowan, I have found the interaction in this book fruitful for Christians seeking a proper understanding of how to defend one's faith. The issues penetrated in this book include how to lay a foundation for one's Christian belief and how we can convince others that the Christian gospel is true. Whether you are a presuppositionalist, an evidentialist, a classical apologist, or somewhere in between you are sure to find this book a much needed tool in finally figuring out the relationship between faith and reason. I recommend this work to anyone seeking a good methodology for apologetic work.

While the book was very interesting and quite readable, the viewpoints of the various authors may leave the reader confused regarding the differences between the five apologetic methods. The authors seem to argue in several places, that one of the other authors has compromised their position and actually belong in a different philosophical camp then the one they claim to belong. They do an effective job of writing in such a way as not to lose the average reader, but the result appears to have been a watering down of their positions. The banter between the authors is amusing at times, breaking up the scholastic challenge of reading what otherwise is a difficult topic. This book is a good introduction to Christian apologetics, but would be a dissapointment for those who might be more experienced with Christian philosophy.

This book is useful in that it presents a catalogue of methodologies that have been used in apologetics in the not so distant past. It also indicates (unwittingly) the need for a new style of apologetics for the present day. Evidentialists use a one step approach, Classical Apologists use a two-step method. What is needed for today's culture is a ballet.

Classical Christian Apologists usually employ a two-step approach in their methodology. The first step is to establish the claim that God exists, and then to establish the claim that God has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. One strength of this approach is that pedagogically, people usually accept new ideas generally before they do specifically. The Apostle Paul uses this method in every epistle. The approach is also more useful in times like the present when atheism (both explicit and implicit) is more prevalent.

Craig version utilizes the kalam cosmological argument to make his case for a personal God. It is the strongest of the proofs for the existence of God, in that rests on the finite existence of the universe, which can be argued effectively with common sense and mathematics. Craig, in fact, claims that the finiteness of the universe is proven philosophical in two ways. Actually there are three ways and they are more mathematical than philosophical. The "proof" still suffers the question-begging problem, however, in that it is not clear that existence must always entail cause, and even if a cause is accepted, why must the cause be God, especially a personal one? On the other hand, his defense of the claims of Jesus based on the historicity of the resurrection seems as ironclad as these sorts of claims can be.

Craig also makes much of the distinction between knowing and showing and the important role of the witness of the Holy Spirit. That is all well and good, but isn't apologetics more about showing? So why so much discussion on how Christians know?

Evidential Apologetics claims as its distinctive, that it is a one-step approach to establishing the truth of Christianity by historical evidences. If Christianity can be so established, then there is no need for the preliminary step of establishing theism. Habermas is aware of the difficulty, nay, the impossibility of unbiased historiography. Consequently, he limits admissible evidence to "minimal facts", i.e. data that is 1) well-evidenced and 2) general admitted by critical scholars. He also admits to the epistemic differences between believers and unbelievers, but does rely on certain shared commonalities between believers and unbelievers such sense perception, scientific theories, and the rules of logic.

He begins on a weak note by laying the foundation for his case with the testimony of Jesus regarding himself - this as recorded in the New Testament. Unfortunately this is a testimonial account of a testimony, which for anyone who does not accept Biblical inspiration, approaches the status of gossip. He does access pre-New Testament and extra-biblical sources to support some of his data, but they are admittedly few. Habermas' biggest problem is his overlooking the fact that all the evidence in the world will not affect most people. How people view evidences will be dependent on their respective presuppositions. Two people may draw opposite conclusions from the same body of evidence. In addition, there are some people whose minds are already completely made up, and they don't want to be confused with the "facts". The best that evidential apologetics can do is, to paraphrase Clark, defeat the defeaters.

Much like a legal case, Cumulative Case Apologetics relies on the collaboration of a number of aspects, which, while not complete as individual arguments, are convincing when taken together. The most important strength of the cumulative case approach is that it establishes a Christian worldview and not just a logical argument for theism and/or Christianity. Ultimately, people live their lives according to their worldview, not according to some logical argument. Few individuals qualify for this category of apologists, because it is global, not narrow, and defies academic or theological categorization.

Feinberg does an adequate job of defining the apologetic style, but a poor job of fleshing it out. Where's the "law, history, and literature"? He only presents a toolbox of truth tests and an org chart of the witness of the Holy Spirit. To his defense, the category is enigmatic due to its comprehensibility and organic non-formal nature. Nevertheless, what he tries to do in description is somewhat akin to killing the frog by dissecting it.

In spite of Craig's inappropriate and paranoiac response to Feinberg's treatment of postmodernism, Feinberg does a fair job of recognizing the postmodern culture. What he ultimately misses, however, is that he thinks that certain states of affair "require some explanation". That's the real problem. Many postmodernists don't "require" explanation; they don't even want them. They will, in fact, resist them if you try to explain. They can only respond to a life lived, against which there is no argument.

Presuppositional Apologetics by definition presupposes something. What it presupposes is what (who) classical apologetics seeks first to prove - the God of Scripture. It is economical in that sense. The claim is that a basic belief in God is not irrational, but is, in fact, essential to any attempt to think clearly at all. The question is not "Your place or mine?", but the statement, "My place or no place at all", commonly stated as "My way or the highway." While the claims of Presuppositional Apologetics may be true, they present an attitude that doesn't serve well as an entrée to dialog, especially in this day and age of pluralism and "tolerance."

Having said that, Frame lists an admirable array of methodological items, especially "2. Apologists, therefore, must resist temptations to contentiousness or arrogance" and 7. The actual arguments we use in apologetic witness will vary considerably depending on who [sic] we are talking to. Apologetics is `person variable.'"

As for the postmodern phenomenon, Frame applauds it for its rebellion against Modernism, but rails against its immature claims against absolute and objective truth. He shows that the claim against objective truth is self-refuting, a philosophical card trick that has become old hat, and despite being true remains oddly ineffective. Frame concludes his chapter with an altar call worthy of any revivalist meeting.

Reformed Epistemology Apologetics resists the requirement of evidence and argument as a starting place for apologetics and claims that it is proper and rational to accept belief in God for three reasons: 1) few people have the ability to access theistic arguments, 2) God has given people an innate sense of Himself (sensus divinitatus), and 3) belief in God is more like a belief in a person than in a scientific theory. Claims 1) and 3) are non-controversial. 2), however, is open to debate. The debate is internal to Biblical studies, which makes the claim doubly vulnerable. There is disagreement even amongst those who hold the Bible to be authoritative. To those who do not hold the Bible to be authoritative, the premise never gets off the ground.

It is common sense to admit that most of what people believe is not based on comprehensive investigation of evidence. Indeed, most of what we all believe is based on no investigation at all, just the testimony of someone else. Why would belief in God differ? Reformed epistemology also maintains that the innate awareness of God has been impaired by sin so that the real project for apologetics is a moral one, not an intellectual one. This seems right and Biblical and corrective to the direction of those who attempt to win by rational argument alone. In fact, those who rest their case on argument, even with their perfunctory appeals to the work of the Holy Spirit, are themselves remnants of the Enlightenment era that they claim to eschew.