Faith Has Its Reasons: An Integrative Approach to Defending Christianity; An Apologetics Handbook

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 ge

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 at

This is a very nice reference text. A must for any serious apologist or, for that matter, anyone who simply loves to read apologetics texts. The text is mapped out in such a way that it divides the various apologetic 'tasks' into 4 areas or parts. First, apologetics as 'proof.' Second, apologetics as 'defense.' Third, apologetics as 'offense.' And fourth, apologetics as 'persuasion.' Each part carries its own weight when dealing with certain areas or aspects of the task of apologetics. For instance, apologetics as 'proof' takes various thinkers, approaches, and worldviews and delineates them in detail for the reader. Further, a thinker is given, say, B.B. Warfield, his thoughts, writings, and methods are examined and exposited, and then his approach is described and demonstrated for the reader. This is the trend in all four parts.The authors also cover the role of philosophy in apologetics, which I might add, is a very important role. Thank you for its inclusion, this makes for an important read. Moreover, once all the various thinkers/scholars are examined, the authors take their reader to what is called the 'integrated approach.' It seems interesting that the integrative approach is applied predominantly by/to reformers or those who adhere to what is known in philosophical circles as reformed epistemology. Nonetheless, this approach is examined along with its adherents.Finally, the book also includes a few very nice extra features such as apologetic web sites, a further study section, lists of tables and charts, a name index, subject index and Scripture index. I have enjoyed reading this text, and it should be pointed out that it is written in a style of a reference text, so the reader can read 'at' it if the intent is to find a particular thing, or the text can be read from cover to cover. Either way, the book makes for good reading, I highly recommend this text.

A reviewer claims that Boa and Bowman's book tries "to take the strengths of each approach and put them together into one apologetic system." He then claims that the authors twist the approaches of other apologists to fit their categories and that the authors claim that their own integration is the best one.Frankly, the reviewer could not have been more wrong. Boa and Bowman defend each of the four approaches as valid and helpful in their own right. They go out of their way to point out ways in which various apologists do not fit neatly into one category. For example, they suggest that William Lane Craig is a classical apologist with evidentialist leanings, and that Alvin Plantinga is a Reformed apologist with classical leanings.When Boa and Bowman come to discuss the integration of the four major approaches, they state very plainly, "we do not claim that our proposals should be accepted as _the_ final integrative approach" (p. 509). Or again, "We do not wish to be interpreted as proposing a 'new approach' or a comprehensive approach that definitively unites them. Indeed, we are not sure that this is possible or even desirable" (p. 535). Instead, the authors recommend that apologists take whatever approach they find most compelling and then strengthen that approach by learning from the other approaches.This is the first book that presents sympathetically the apologetic thinking of such disparate thinkers as C. S. Lewis, Richard Swinburne, Cornelius Van Til, Karl Barth, and Francis Schaeffer. There simply isn't another book like it.

Boa and Bowman has provided the church with a wonderful resource for apologetics.It does integrate all the various apologetic approaches. It gives their history and adherents, then concludes with their "integrative approach."It does an excellent job of providing the contemporary history of apologetics, as well as an excellent bibliography.Many will find its well thought-out outline and systematic approach easy to use and understand, as they develop the fascinating topic of the defense of Christianity.As one reviewer put it, "it is comprehensive and rigorous, yet eminently readable."Highly recommended.