Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
18 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
For What it Does, it is the best Contemporary Work in Print, August 26, 2002
Boa and Bowman have put together a lengthy survey on apologetic methods within Christianity. In the process, they have surpassed all other comparative apologetic works by cogently and thoroughly examining apologetic methods and the great thinkers who have subscribed to the various methods.This book is extremely useful for a number of reasons. It's obvious strength is its thorough treatment of four major apologetic methods; classical, evidential, presuppositional, and fideist. This book is the best in print in dispassionately presenting each view, its strengths and weaknesses, and how each view interacts with various apologetic issues and objections. The reader will gain a solid working knowledge of apologetic school of thought to reflect upon and possibly incorporate in their own approach to apologetics. Second, this book provides one of the best summary level examinations of many prominent Christian thinkers throughout church history. Anybody who wants a good summary treatment on the thinking of folks like Pascal, Kierkegaard, Van Til, Clark, Kuyper, Barth, Craig, Plantinga, Geisler, Aquinas, and many others will find it here. Third, their demonstration of how each apologetic system interacts with key issues such as science, theology, the Bible, Jesus Christ, etc is very informative. I found these examinations to be very insightful, since it impressed upon me the reality that evangelical Christianity is not at all monolithic in how it views the relationship of apologetics to these vital issues. Through this diversity of thought, I have found my own approach to apologetics expanded and challenged in a very healthy way. Lastly, the authors truly invoke a spirit of Christian love throughout this book. The authors clearly hold to the view that great Christians can and have held to each apologetical method, and the authors have properly resisted any attempt to use apologetical method as a litmus test to judge the level of anyone's Christian walk. This is very refreshing, and is definitely a step in the right direction. While properly pointing out where certain thinkers in each camp have strayed from acceptable evangelicalism (Barth and his errant view of Scripture, Pinnock and his god of limited omniscience, etc), they affirm the value of each apologetic method and the thinkers who hold to each view. At the end of the book, the authors attempt an integration of each method which I found helpful and balanced. The authors properly note that pure integration may not be possible, and might not be desirable either. I felt that the biggest strength of their integration approach was the belief that each apologetic method is useful for reaching certain people who hold certain objections or presuppositions, and that these apologetic approaches can be integrated somewhat with certain methods being more emphasized than others based upon the beliefs and views of the person we are in dialogue with. The only weakness of the book is that while it does attempt to deal with tangible objections such as in the inspiration of Scripture, the deity of Christ, and the problem of evil, readers who are looking for comprehensive apologetic responses to these issues may not be satisfied by what's here. This is a book that deals with apologetic method, and while it does show how each method generally responds to these kind of objections and issues, the reader will not really find a systematic treatment here, although I should stress that what is covered in these areas is very helpful. But since this is not really the thrust of the book, I do not see it as a weakness of the book worthy of demoting the 5 star rating I've given it. This is a thoroughly researched book which in my view, presents the best contemporary treatment of apologetic methods in a spirit of Christian love that will hopefully serve as a model for further development of respectful apologetic method in the future. A well done book that is highly recommended.
|
|
|
14 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
An apologetic methodology, September 1, 2002
The apostle Peter was very clear when he said that we are to have an answer for everyone who asks us to give the reason for the hope that we have (1 Peter 3:15-16). However, he didn't give us specifics of how we were to go about giving these answers, so Christians have taken it upon themselves to create different systems of methodology in order to follow the commands of Jesus (Matt. 29:19-20) and the apostles (Jude 3; 1 John 4:1).The reason why I like "Faith Has Its Reasons" is that the authors make it very difficult to see where their biases lie. They cover the major ways apologetics is practiced (classical, evidential, Reformed, fideistic, and integrative) and give reasons used by its adherents to support their particular positions. What's interesting to me is how, in so many cases, I was able to agree with plenty presented in each position. It seems very clear to me that those from the different camps are (were) dedicated Christians who read the same Bible I do and worship the same God and Jesus. It's just that we don't quite see eye-to-eye on the exact process of how we are to "have an answer." It should be pointed out that there is little difference between classical/evidential (the authors even point to William Lane Craig as a hybrid of the two positions) and Reformed/fideistic. When I went to seminary, I was taught that much of the conflict came between Carnell and Van Til; while that might be too simplified, the disagreement these men had really seems to be a dividing line between what could easily be lumped into two camps rather than five. I'm not sure that this book will change the way you view apologetics, but it certainly will give you a clearer understanding of why, say, a Reformed thinker might shudder when someone says Geisler or Aquinas. It will help you understand the reaons why there is disagreement about how apologetics ought to be done. An excellent index that can be used to find certain thinkers and see where they belong is another strong feature of the book. As for me, I tend to lean toward the classical/evidential system because it's the way I live. Regardless of a person's disagreement with me or the fact that one's presuppositions against Christianity may keep him from ever believing, I believe that Isaiah 1:18 as well as the systematic arguments demonstrated by the apostles (I immediately think of Paul in Acts 17) beckons me to present the evidence as best I know how to persuade as many as called unto God. (As a friend of mine says, "We are only in sales; God is in production.") I also know that presuppostionalism tends to lend itself to a specator sort of syndrome. A recent example is a debate in San Diego last spring between a presuppositionalist and an atheist. The Christian get "blown out of the water" because he dodged the atheist's arguments and rested his case with hardly a blow. True apologetics means having to go where some Christians may fear to tread (especially in this politically correct age we live in) and get some dirt under our fingernails in order to present truth. It is through this type of apologetics where people who otherwise would have never known God became dedicated Christians (McDowell and Craig are two, off the top of my head). Needless to say, "Faith Has Its Reasons" will be staying close by on my bookshelf as a ready-reference tool. I highly recommend it for those Christians who are willing to think outside the box.
|
|
|
10 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A good metapologetic, but not great for beginners, February 21, 2003
This book bills itself as a handbook of apologetics, and at times it seems like a textbook. In the end, though, I think the authors would agree that it is (to use a word from the book) a metapologetic: it is about apologetics rather than an example or even a summary of apologetics.The authors divide apologetics into 4 broad classes: The classical (which uses deductive logic); the Evidential (which uses inductive proofs); the Reformed (which relies on Transcendental arguments; and the Fideist (which uses indirect arguments and may not be an apologetic at all). The authors are quick to point out that few people fit neatly into any one category. In the final section of the book, they attempt to move toward an integrated approach that capitalizes on the strength of each model. I would have gotten more out of the book if they had given more thorough examples of how these various apologetic systems work. How do evidentialists use history to argue for the probability of Christ's Resurrection? How do writers like Van Til avoid logic in making the Transcendental argument? These are questions that aren't addressed directly in the book. This isn't a criticism, but I make the point in case others are looking for a more descriptive approach to various apologetic systems. To my mind, the end of the book is the weakest part. The attempt to integrate the approaches is interesting, and I agree that different apologetics will resonate better with different people. However, I think the authors go too far in trying to pinpoint which method--even which Gospel account--will best apply to certain types of people. I was surprised to discover the NFs (in the famous personality test) respond better to Mark's Gospel--I'm an NF, and I find Mark the account that resonates least with me. Maybe I'm an unusual NF, or maybe the authors were just pushing their theories a bit too far. I think it's probably the latter. In any case, I think this is a good book, but it's probably more useful to people who have some background in apologetic thought than to beginners.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by William Lane Craig
by Avery Dulles
by Cornelius Van Til
by William Lane Craig
by Harry Blamires
