Testing Christianitys Truth Claims: Approaches to Christiian Apologetics

In this book six different approaches to Christian apologetics are contrasted. The systems represent not different methods but rather different epistemologies (theories of knowledge). In Five Views on Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000) editor Steven Cowan criticizes this approach, because different epistemologies don't necessarily lead to different apologetic methods: "while religious epistemology is certainly important and may play a significant role in distinguishing one apologetic method from another, it is not sufficient (in every case) for distinguishing one method from another." (p.10) However, when chosing an apologetic method, eventually one comes down not only to how to do apologetics but also how to think about apologetics. And when differentiating between different ways of thinking about apologetics the differences Lewis points out are quite necessary, even if some may produce very similar methods.The six different approaches (and representatives) are pure empiricism (Oliver Buswell), rational empiricism (Stuart Hackett), rationalism (Gordon Clark), biblical authoritarianism (Cornelius Van Til), mysticism (Earl Barrett) and the verificational approach (Edward Carnell). Lewis shows appreciation to all systems, while he also offers critique to all of them save one (Carnell), with whom he agrees.Buswell is commended for his appreciation of facts as a pointer to truth, but is criticized for his tabula rasa epistemology; Clark acknowledges that man has innate thought-forms but appeals only to non-contradiction and not to facts; and Barrett stresses the religious experience, something other apologists often forget to talk about, but he offers no further test for truth. The difference between Carnell and Hackett can at first be hard to see. Both appeal to both the mind's thought-forms and facts, though Carnell appeals also to other kinds of experience such as morality and love. The main difference, however, is that Carnell argues from a hypothesis about the existence of the God of the Bible, and tries to test this hypothesis. Hackett on the other hand goes the other way: he starts with the mind's thought-forms and facts and argues to the God of the Bible. The problem with Hackett's apologetic seems to be that he doesn't take the presuppositions of people into due account. "What constitutes evidence from one perspective is not considered evidence from the other", Lewis writes in his evaluation (p.98). According to Van Til's apologetic God is the ultimate reference point for everything. God knows all facts, has interpreted them and given us (part of) His interpretation in the Bible. Man has only finite knowledge and cannot relate all facts, so without God's interpretation of reality everything becomes meaningless. If the unbeliever were consitent in his non-christian presuppositions, he would deny all truth. However, since we are created by God and live in God's world, unbelievers do know things, inconsitently with their denial of Chri