Five Views on Apologetics

Rating:
Summary: Pretty good delineation of opposing views
Review: "Five Views on Apologetics" was certainly helpful to gain a picture of the differences (and similarities) between the different apologetical methods. All five methods have good things to offer, and it's certainly a good book for anyone who is new to apologetics to read.

It can be a bit heavy at times, especially when it goes into Bayes' Probability Theorem, so at least an elementary knowledge of apologetics is required, but the book will certainly help you to become clearer in your method of apologetics.

The factor that made me give this book 4 stars rather than 5 was that many of the methods seemed to correspond to each other so often that there were only very minor differences between each one. The Presuppositional Method and the Reformed Epistemological Method were the only two that seemed quite contrasting to the others, so there was a little too much agreement for my liking (perhaps that's a good thing, but the editor could have chosen apologists with starker contrasts in their methods).

Overall, a worthwhile book for a Christian interested in apologetical methods, but definitely not the type of book you should read as a skeptic to find evidences for Christianity -- it is primarily concerned with the method for communicating the evidence, not the evidence itself.

Rating:
Summary: Apologetics down and dirty
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Apologetics down and dirty
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: A good overview of the options for apologetics specialists
Review: 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

Rating:
Summary: A good overview of the options for apologetics specialists
Review: 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

Rating:
Summary: Amatuer Apologist
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: An advance in apologetics, but not for the novice
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Best Book Comparing the Various Methods Available
Review: I got my copy from Amazon a few weeks ago and the day I received it I could not put it down. This is a wonderful text. The book covers five various apologetic methods from five well known scholars who promulgate and defend each of their own views. Moreover, once each of these five scholars have written why they use a particular method, the other four have an opportunity to respond. The responses are by far the best part of the book. However, the actual essays that cover the five methods give the reader a better grasp on that particular method. This book is helpful in several ways. First, it provides the reader a fairly exhaustive treatment of each of the various apologetic methods. Second, it allows the reader to actually see what proponents of the each of the various methods are saying about each of the other methods. Third, it includes some of the best, if not the best, scholars in each of the various methodologies covered. The contributors include, William Lane Craig (Classical Method), Gary R. Habermas (Evidential Method), Kelly James Clark (Reformed Epistemological Method), Paul D. Feinberg (Cumulative Method), and John M. Frame (Presuppositional Method). The only downside to the book that I can see is the idea that some may think that their particular method was not accurately covered by the scholar at hand. In other words, the Presuppositionalists may wonder why John Frame was used instead of someone else, etc. However, I believe that each method was given a fair assessment and the initial essays with the responses will make the book a wonderful reference for many years to come.

Rating:
Summary: Good Collection of Apologtics Perspectives
Review: On the whole this is a good introduction to the different methods of apologetics held by major apologists today. Methods avocated in this volume are the Classical Method (William Lane Craig), the Evidential Method (Gary Habermas), the Cumulative Case Method (Paul Feinberg), the Presuppositional Approach (John Frame) and the Reformed Epistemology approach (Kelly James Clark).

There seems to be some imbalance in that the Classical, Evidential and Cumulative Case perspectives disagree on realtively little, with the big controversy lying between them and the presuppositional approach. The Reformed Epistemology essay seems to be the odd duck in the bunch as Reformed Epistemology really has not articulated a distinct apologetic to date, nor does Clark deliver one here.

This book provides a helpful interchange on the different views of apologetics. The unfortunate aspact of the book is how the different participants talk past one another. This is seen most clearly in the responses to Frame. Nevertheless this is a good volume and will help those seeking to better understand how to do apologetics. Recommended.;

Rating:
Summary: Five Views Provides Many Valuable Insights
Review: 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