Five Views on Apologetics

Rating:
Summary: Good Book on a So-So Topic
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Good Book on a So-So Topic
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Must Read for Those Interested in Aplogetics
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: A useful but limited guide to apologetics
Review: While this book has certain benefits, as a dialogue between five perspectives on apologetics and containing an introduction that briefly overviews each, it is not for the beginner. Although it contains a glossary, the writing style of most of the contributors (Clark being an exception) is dense and assumes that readers have some familiarity with the views presented. Alongside other books on apologetics, this could be helpful, but many readers will finish the book with less, not more, clarity on how the views are different.