Classical Apologetics

Rating:
Summary: An exercise in incompetence
Review: Drs. Gerstner and Sproul have been a great influence on me and I think very highly of them both. But.... I think they missed the mark in their critique of pressup. apologetics by a rather wide margin.

I don't think the authors ever asked/answered the begging question of reason - who's standard do we use to judge truth? Because, in the final analysis, that is the question of our day. We cannot approach any topic (apologetics, science, whatever) without some standard test for what is true. The highest commodity of all societies is never identified and we're never given the response to Pilate's question, "what is truth?"

The resounding answer I would expect from great men such as these authors is - "truth is what God says it is..." but instead we get "truth is what man reasons it to be..." and in the end they fail to convince me. If I were lost, I would still have the out of claiming - if _my_ reason is the ultimate test then why should I bother to listen to you especially since there are far more wise men than you that are more adept at applying their reasoning who would disagree with you. To accept the primacy of man-centered reason without the pressuposition of the God-centered standard of truth would imply that we follow the way of the most intellectually capable men/women of history - most of whom do not follow the ways of God but instead argue against him. The authors argue against circular reasoning only to be faced with the dilemma of autonomous reasoning and the inevitable result.

Read it for a one of the best (though not very convincing) arguments for classical apologetics but keep in mind the test of truth and see if the authors ever reach it...they don't. So, even the best of the critiques falls short!

Rating:
Summary: Disappointing
Review: In Bible college I was given this book as a text for a class on Apologetics. I was fairly new to the Reformed faith, and highly indebted to Dr. Sproul's works such as Chosen By God. He helped give me a proper view of predestination, reprobation, depravity, election, perseverance etc. During that time I also read his book Faith Alone that critiqued Roman Catholicism and enjoyed it immensely. But having read this book on apologetics, I came away from it sadly confused. It came across as Roman Catholic at worst and Arminian at best. Although the authors are Calvinistic in their approach to other areas of theology, in terms of their apologetics they are a strange hybrid of a variety of traditions.
Classical Apologetics is a tough read for someone who is just getting in to apologetics, there are better ones out there to be used as an introduction - for example Scott Oliphant's The Battle Belongs to the Lord, or Greg Bahnsen's Always Ready.
It is divided into three sections 1) sets forth their unreformed view of natural theology (for a critique of the natural theology of this ilk, see John Owen's Biblical Theology) 2) is a section on the "classical" theistic proofs, which are nothing more than a reassertion of Aquinas' theology and 3) a horrible critique of presuppositional apologetics a la Cornelius Van Til.
The scholarship in this book is poor. Whoever the publisher was, or the editor, they should have looked at it more closely. There are some glaring errors in terms of research. For example, when they cite Edwards on the noetic effects of sin (and try to make him out to be a rationalist) footnote nine on page 243 actually refers the readers to one of Dr. Gerstner's books! For a good review of Edwards' apologetical background, see Stephen Nichols' book An Absolute Sort of Certainty or Scott Oliphant's article Edwards the Reformed Apologist at www.reformed.org.
The bulk of the book is set at critiquing Van Til. They label him a "fideist" - a horrible charge. One that Sproul denied in a debate with Greg Bahnsen (www.cmfnow.com), yet stated categorically in this book!
Their attack on circular reasoning proves that they don't understand what Van Til was saying when he called it a "glorious circle." He did not mean that the fallacy of begging the question was glorious, rather he gloried in the fact that there is no higher standard with which to measure the claims of the Bible (otherwise that standard would be deemed more worthy than the Bible) so it is self-attesting and therefore its attestation of itself is in fact circular. Just as Christ's authority is based not on some outside source to measure it, rather it is attested to by His own authority.
For an indepth critique of this book I would suggest Oliphant's article, as well as the appendix of John Frame's Apologetics to the Glory of God and Bahnsen's response at cmfnow.com.
Don't buy this book, unless you have to for class. If you do, look at it critically and in light of what others have said about it. Sproul, Gerstner and Lindslay come out looking like Arminian rationalists, which is very sad to say the least.

Rating:
Summary: Disappointing
Review: In Bible college I was given this book as a text for a class on Apologetics. I was fairly new to the Reformed faith, and highly indebted to Dr. Sproul's works such as Chosen By God. He helped give me a proper view of predestination, reprobation, depravity, election, perseverance etc. During that time I also read his book Faith Alone that critiqued Roman Catholicism and enjoyed it immensely. But having read this book on apologetics, I came away from it sadly confused. It came across as Roman Catholic at worst and Arminian at best. Although the authors are Calvinistic in their approach to other areas of theology, in terms of their apologetics they are a strange hybrid of a variety of traditions.
Classical Apologetics is a tough read for someone who is just getting in to apologetics, there are better ones out there to be used as an introduction - for example Scott Oliphant's The Battle Belongs to the Lord, or Greg Bahnsen's Always Ready.
It is divided into three sections 1) sets forth their unreformed view of natural theology (for a critique of the natural theology of this ilk, see John Owen's Biblical Theology) 2) is a section on the "classical" theistic proofs, which are nothing more than a reassertion of Aquinas' theology and 3) a horrible critique of presuppositional apologetics a la Cornelius Van Til.
The scholarship in this book is poor. Whoever the publisher was, or the editor, they should have looked at it more closely. There are some glaring errors in terms of research. For example, when they cite Edwards on the noetic effects of sin (and try to make him out to be a rationalist) footnote nine on page 243 actually refers the readers to one of Dr. Gerstner's books! For a good review of Edwards' apologetical background, see Stephen Nichols' book An Absolute Sort of Certainty or Scott Oliphant's article Edwards the Reformed Apologist at www.reformed.org.
The bulk of the book is set at critiquing Van Til. They label him a "fideist" - a horrible charge. One that Sproul denied in a debate with Greg Bahnsen (www.cmfnow.com), yet stated categorically in this book!
Their attack on circular reasoning proves that they don't understand what Van Til was saying when he called it a "glorious circle." He did not mean that the fallacy of begging the question was glorious, rather he gloried in the fact that there is no higher standard with which to measure the claims of the Bible (otherwise that standard would be deemed more worthy than the Bible) so it is self-attesting and therefore its attestation of itself is in fact circular. Just as Christ's authority is based not on some outside source to measure it, rather it is attested to by His own authority.
For an indepth critique of this book I would suggest Oliphant's article, as well as the appendix of John Frame's Apologetics to the Glory of God and Bahnsen's response at cmfnow.com.
Don't buy this book, unless you have to for class. If you do, look at it critically and in light of what others have said about it. Sproul, Gerstner and Lindslay come out looking like Arminian rationalists, which is very sad to say the least.

Rating:
Summary: Good Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics, but...
Review: Sproul rightly critiques Van Til's contradictions about whether non-Christians have "true" knowledge of God. Sproul argues that they do in accordance with Romans Chapter One and shows that Van Til inconsistently admits that they do also even though in other places he says or implies that they don't. One does not need to "presuppose" God because, according to Romans One (and Sproul), all have at least some knowledge of God through God's natural/general revelation. This allows for a common ground between Christians and non-Christians. But Sproul, being a Classical Apologist, still thinks that one must posit proofs for God's existence even though everybody apparently already knows God exists. This is confusing. Sproul, on pages 262 and 263, basically says that the primary task of the apologist is to not let the non-Christians who argue against the truth they already know "escape" by "reminding" them of "arguments which they cannot deny." This, to me, is a ridiculous and weak justification for doing Classical/Traditional apologetics. If God's existence is taken for granted in the Bible (including Romans 1), and nowhere proven because everybody apparently already knows that God exists, then theistic apologetics (distinct from Christian evidences) is a waste of time. (side note: I agree with Mortimer J. Adler who said that "true knowledge" is reduntant and "false knowledge" is a contradiction in terms) - Brad Clark

Rating:
Summary: An exhaustively thorough question-begging straw man
Review: Sproul rightly critiques Van Til's contradictions about whether non-Christians have "true" knowledge of God. Sproul argues that they do in accordance with Romans Chapter One and shows that Van Til inconsistently admits that they do also even though in other places he says or implies that they don't. One does not need to "presuppose" God because, according to Romans One (and Sproul), all have at least some knowledge of God through God's natural/general revelation. This allows for a common ground between Christians and non-Christians. But Sproul, being a Classical Apologist, still thinks that one must posit proofs for God's existence even though everybody apparently already knows God exists. This is confusing. Sproul, on pages 262 and 263, basically says that the primary task of the apologist is to not let the non-Christians who argue against the truth they already know "escape" by "reminding" them of "arguments which they cannot deny." This, to me, is a ridiculous and weak justification for doing Classical/Traditional apologetics. If God's existence is taken for granted in the Bible (including Romans 1), and nowhere proven because everybody apparently already knows that God exists, then theistic apologetics (distinct from Christian evidences) is a waste of time. (side note: I agree with Mortimer J. Adler who said that "true knowledge" is reduntant and "false knowledge" is a contradiction in terms) - Brad Clark

Rating:
Summary: This is the magnum opus of apologetics!
Review: This is without a doubt the foremost book on classical apologetics, and the first attempt ever to give a comprehensive critique of presuppositionalism. It summarizes both natural apologetics (the theistic arguments) and supernatural apologetics (the historical evidence for Scripture). Van Til is the main focus of the criticism, but other presuppositional writers like Clark, Dooyeweerd, Frame, and Knudsen are included. There is also a key chapter giving great detail to the evidence that Augustine, Luther, and Calvin were all evidentialists, despite popular charges that that they were not. This book is a must for anyone trying to understand apologetics and the issue involved between the two vastly different types of apologetics!

Rating:
Summary: Good, just a little wordy at times
Review: This was a rather intense read about classical apologetics. I would highly recommend it to those that have an interest or prior knowledge and understanding of apologetics. The book is divided into three sections:

--Classical Natural Theology, an overview of problem and method --Classical apologetics, the theistic proofs, the deity of Christ, and the infallibility of scripture --Classical critique of presuppositional apologetics

The first section seemed very wordy to me, and I had a hard time getting through it. The second was very interesting, and providing a great summary of different arguments, including the ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments for God. This chapter also has chapters dealing with the Spirit and Word of God.

The third section is probably the best section (although it still lacked brevity). Chapter 11 is the best chapter in the book; it has great summaries of Luther, Calvin, and Augustine's views on reason as it relates to faith. All should check out this chapter.

Rating:
Summary: Good, just a little wordy at times
Review: This was a rather intense read about classical apologetics. I would highly recommend it to those that have an interest or prior knowledge and understanding of apologetics. The book is divided into three sections:

--Classical Natural Theology, an overview of problem and method --Classical apologetics, the theistic proofs, the deity of Christ, and the infallibility of scripture --Classical critique of presuppositional apologetics

The first section seemed very wordy to me, and I had a hard time getting through it. The second was very interesting, and providing a great summary of different arguments, including the ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments for God. This chapter also has chapters dealing with the Spirit and Word of God.

The third section is probably the best section (although it still lacked brevity). Chapter 11 is the best chapter in the book; it has great summaries of Luther, Calvin, and Augustine's views on reason as it relates to faith. All should check out this chapter.

Rating:
Summary: legends.
Review: This work which has been so explosive, especially in the Reformed family, should be bought by every child of the Canons of Dort. Many, many, critiques notwithstanding, this work in my mind has not been refuted to date. Bob Sproul and his mentor, John Gerstner follow in the line of the Old Princetonians. They prove themselves in the succesion of Warfield. Sproul, Gerstner & Lindsey devestate the school of Van Till. This work belongs on the shelf of both friend and foe. H.S Bultmann.

Rating:
Summary: A Well-Intentioned but Poorly Executed Defense of the Faith
Review: While all Christians, especially members of Reformed denominations, must applaud the intent of the authors of this work, there is good reason to have deep reservations about its execution, and about the effect of this work on non-Christians.

From a scholarly standpoint, Classical Apologetics is marginal at best. The authors make numerous errors in attribution, and frequently resort to the long-repudiated practice of referring to easily-available original sources only via secondary sources and commentaries, which makes tracking down references needlessly difficult. More significantly, this practice leads to extremely signficant, even damning, errors in their arguments. To cite but one example, on p. 25 the authors claim that Thomas Aquinas held that man cannot know any truth without grace. This puzzling (and false) claim arises from a number of significant editorial and scholarly faults. The chain of error begins with authors' failure to quote the original text (in this case Aquinas' Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, Question 109, Article 1.); they refer instead to a commentary, which they then proceed to quote out of context. Finally, their apparent ignorance of the nature of medieval scholastic method (in which the disputed thesis was generally presented first, followed by the approved or canonical position) leads them to attribute to Aquinas a position diametrically opposed to his actual view, which is that the natural light of the intellect is sufficient for the acquisition of knowledge.

Apart from such sloppy scholarship and sophomoric errors, there is the problem of the book's content. The authors argue in Part I for the sufficiency of the general revelation of God in His natural creation as ground for various proofs of His existence, but never explain how proving God via nature proves the Christian God, rather than Baal, Zeus, or Vishnu. This is an odd ommission, particularly since there are any number of standard (though flawed) evidentialist explanations of how nature reveals only the Christian God. One does not expect such lapses from a figure as widely respected as R.C. Sproul.

Part II falls far short of the mark for similar reasons, even though its focus is philosophical and a priori, rather than natural and a posteriori (as in Part I). It, too, fails to articulate the necessary connection between any of the proofs of the existence of God (ontological, cosmological, and teleological), and the Christian God. These arguments are just as useful for a Hindu or a Buddhist as for a Christian, which underlines the danger of evidentialist apologetics; working backward from either creation or from the mind of created man to God leads at best to a god unknown, to a god or gods of man's own creation.

In summary, this is a book with significant promise squandered in weakly presented positions, poor scholarship, and an uneven and at times unbalanced critique of presuppositional apologetics. This book will be a disappointment to all Christians who long for a coherent, cogent defense of the faith. Sadly, it may also fail the open-minded non-believer, and encourage the atheist or proverbial Manichee, who need only defeat a few feeble arguments in order to prove his own reasonableness and the purblind ignorance of Christianity. These worthy and well-meaning gentlemen have unwittingly provided cannon fodder for the enemies of our faith.