Five Views on Apologetics

This was an excellent overview of the basic apologetic methods being bandied about. As an atheist interested in debate, there was no better way to see the ins and outs of different arguments for god than to watch believers, who if anything want the argument to be true, take on the arguments on their own merits

Apologetics is an extremely important and yet overlooked aspect of Christianity. We are ready to give an answer to every man for the hope that is in us (1 Pet. 3:15), and to contend earnestly for the faith (Jude 3). But how do we do this? Leave it to human beings to come up with organized systems to approach this, and this book introduces us to five different styles to accomplish this. Let me explain the five views as I would define them: 1. Classical, represented by William Lane Craig: One should start off proving the existence of God before moving to miracles, the resurrection of Christ, etc. 2. Evidential, represented by Gary Habernas: One does not need to prove God's existence before addressing miracle/the resurrection of Christ. 3. Cumulative Case, represented by Paul Feinberg: One cannot prove God's existence or other things by formal argument, but one can informally show Christian theism to be the best alternative. 4. Presuppositional, represented by John Frame: One needs to address people's presuppositions as they are making the case for Christianity. 5. Reformed Epistomology, represented by Kelly James Clark: One cannot prove any argument rational, but one can believe without any evidence. There can be some variation between the approaches. Most of these authors have been accused of others at not really representing their views. Steven Cowan, the book's editor, pointed out that in the past some of these methodologies acted like you could do it their way or you can do it wrong, particularly Classical, Evidential, and Presuppositional. This actually is a strength for the book. One reason people avoid apologetics is because it is divisive. These authors come across as if they're aware they're co-soldiers, on the same side. I believe this is the way it should be in the Body of Christ. To be honest, like evangelism methodologies, I would say the answer to the question "Which is the correct methodology?" is "Yes." God designed each person differently. Some people work better with a certain methodology. And different people would respond to different methodologies. Let me conclude by stating that I'm in the process of starting a novel, involving a murder mystery during an apologetics conference. This book actually will come in handy for this project. My Dad gave this as a gift, and I am very appreciative of it.

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 th

Upon reading the contributions by such erudite authors as William L. Craig, Gary Habermas, Paul Feinberg, John Frame, Kelley James Clark, and the editor Stephen Cowan, I have found the interaction in this book fruitful for Christians seeking a proper understanding of how to defend one's faith. The issues penetrated in this book include how to lay a foundation for one's Christian belief and how we can convince others that the Christian gospel is true. Whether you are a presuppositionalist, an evidentialist, a classical apologist, or somewhere in between you are sure to find this book a much needed tool in finally figuring out the relationship between faith and reason. I recommend this work to anyone seeking a good methodology for apologetic work.