Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
77 of 84 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A good overview of the options for apologetics specialists, August 25, 2000
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
|
|
|
22 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Apologetics down and dirty, September 1, 2002
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.
|
|
|
15 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Five Views Provides Many Valuable Insights, November 6, 2000
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
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Winfred Corduan
by Ronald H. Nash
by Phillip E. Johnson
by John M. Frame
by Thomas Lea
See all Editorial Reviews
