ebook img

Five Views on Apologetics PDF

827 Pages·2000·2.21 MB·English
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview Five Views on Apologetics

Books in the Counterpoints Series Church Life Exploring the Worship Spectrum Evaluating the Church Growth Movement Two Views on Women in Ministry Who Runs the Church? Exploring Theology Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Five Views on Apologetics Five Views on Law and Gospel Five Views on Sanctification Four Views on Eternal Security Four Views on Hell Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World Four Views on the Book of Revelation How Jewish Is Christianity? Show Them No Mercy Three Views on Creation and Evolution Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond Three Views on the Rapture Five Views on Apologetics Counterpoints Exploring Theology • William Lane Craig • Gary R. Habermas • Paul D. Feinberg • John M. Frame • Kelly James Clark • Stanley N. Gundry series editor • Steven B. Cowan general editor Copyright ZONDERVAN™ Five Views on Apologetics Copyright © 2000 by Steven B. Cowan All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. By payment of the required fees, you have been granted the non-exclusive, non-transferable right to access and read the text of this e-book on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, downloaded, decompiled, reverse engineered, or stored in or introduced into any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafter invented, without the express written permission of Zondervan. ePub Edition MARCH 2010 ISBN: 978-0-310-87226-9 Requests for information should be addressed to: Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49530 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Five views on apologetics / Steven B. Cowan, general editor; William Lane Craig…[et. al.] p. cm.—(Counterpoints) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-310-22476-4 (softcover) 1. Apologetics. I. Cowan, Steven B., 1962-II. Craig, William Lane. III. Counterpoints (Grand Rapids, Mich.) BT1102.F465 2000 239—dc21 99-053551 CIP All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible: New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved. Table of Contents Cover Page Books in the Counterpoints Series Title Page INTRODUCTION GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS Chapter One CLASSICAL APOLOGETICS CLASSICAL APOLOGETICS AN EVIDENTIALIST’S RESPONSE A CUMULATIVE CASE APOLOGIST’S RESPONSE A PRESUPPOSITIONALIST’S RESPONSE A REFORMED EPISTEMOLOGISTS RESPONSE Chapter Two EVIDENTIAL APOLOGETICS EVIDENTIAL APOLOGETICS A CLASSICAL APOLOGIST’S RESPONSE A CUMULATIVE CASE APOLOGIST’S RESPONSE A PRESUPPOSITIONALIST’S RESPONSE A REFORMED EPISTEMOLOGIST’S RESPONSE Chapter Three CUMULATIVE CASE APOLOGETICS CUMULATIVE CASE APOLOGETICS A CLASSICAL APOLOGIST’S RESPONSE AN EVIDENTIALIST’S RESPONSE A PRESUPPOSITIONALIST’S RESPONSE A REFORMED EPISTEMOLOGIST’S RESPONSE Chapter Four PRESUPPOSITIONAL APOLOGETICS PRESUPPOSITIONAL APOLOGETICS A CLASSICAL APOLOGIST’S RESPONSE AN EVIDENTIALIST’S RESPONSE A CUMULATIVE CASE APOLOGIST’S RESPONSE A REFORMED EPISTEMOLOGIST’S RESPONSE Chapter Five REFORMED EPISTEMOLOGY APOLOGETICS REFORMED EPISTEMOLOGY APOLOGETICS A CLASSICAL APOLOGIST’S RESPONSE AN EVIDENTIALIST’S RESPONSE A CUMULATIVE CASE APOLOGIST’S RESPONSE A PRESUPPOSITIONALIST’S RESPONSE Chapter Six CLOSING REMARKS A CLASSICAL APOLOGIST’S CLOSING REMARKS AN EVIDENTIAL APOLOGIST’S CLOSING REMARKS A CUMULATIVE CASE APOLOGIST’S CLOSING REMARKS A PRESUPPOSITIONAL APOLOGIST’S CLOSING REMARKS A REFORMED EPISTEMOLOGIST’S CLOSING REMARKS CONCLUSION Copyright About the Author About the Contributors More Counterpoints: About the Publisher Share Your Thoughts INTRODUCTION Steven B. Cowan Fairly early in my life as a Christian—somewhere in my late teens, I think—I discovered apologetics. This discovery was very timely because I had also discovered that the faith I had in Christ was not shared by everyone. In fact, I discovered that some people outright rejected, even ridiculed, my faith. What’s more, I found out that skeptics had raised arguments against my faith. And being the inquisitive fellow that I am (I hate unanswered questions!), I wondered myself, quite apart from all of these skeptical challenges, what reason or reasons there might be for believing the religious beliefs that I embraced. Thus, Paul Little’s little book, Know Why You Believe, and Josh McDowell’s Evidence That Demands a Verdict came at an appropriate time in my life, introducing me to apologetics. And from Little and McDowell, I jumped right into Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley’s Classical Apologetics—the book that sparked an insatiable thirst in me for apologetics, philosophy, and theology. No sooner had I discovered apologetics, however, than I also uncovered the fact that not every apologist did apologetics the same way. It was Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley’s fault, if the truth be known. They distinguished between something they called “classical apologetics” and this bogeyman called “presuppositionalism.” And I soon discovered that there were other varieties of apologetic methods as well, and that the disagreements between them could sometimes be sharp. As a young college student, I had a hard time trying to figure out who was right and who was wrong in this debate. I distinctly remember (this was in the early 1980s) wishing that someone would publish one of those “multiple views” books on apologetic methodology so that I could see all the different views side by side and have an easier time making up my own mind. I waited and waited for well over a decade, and no such book appeared. Then I decided to do it myself! And Zondervan has been gracious enough to assist me. THE NATURE OF APOLOGETICS This is a book about apologetic methodology, not a book of apologetics per se. That is, it is not a book that seeks to do apologetics as much as a book that discusses how one ought to do apologetics. But for the sake of some of our readers, it may help at this point to spell out what apologetics is. Apologetics is concerned with the defense of the Christian faith against charges of falsehood, inconsistency, or credulity. Indeed, the very word apologetics is derived from the Greek apologia, which means “defense.” It was a term used in the courts of law in the ancient world. Socrates, for example, gave his famous “apology,” or defense, before the court of Athens. And the apostle Paul defended himself (apologeomai) before the Roman officials (Acts 24:10; 25:8). As it concerns the Christian faith, then, apologetics has to do with defending, or making a case for, the truth of the Christian faith. It is an intellectual discipline that is usually said to serve at least two purposes: (1) to bolster the faith of Christian believers, and (2) to aid in the task of evangelism. Apologists seek to accomplish these goals in two distinct ways. One is by refuting objections to the Christian faith, such as the problem of evil or the charge that key Christian doctrines (e.g., the Trinity, incarnation, etc.) are incoherent. This apologetic task can be called negative or defensive apologetics. The second, perhaps complementary, way apologists fulfill their purposes is by offering positive reasons for Christian faith. The latter, called positive or offensive apologetics, often takes the form of arguments for God’s existence or for the resurrection and deity of Christ but are by no means limited to these. Of course, some apologists, as we will see, contend that such arguments are unnecessary or perhaps even detrimental to Christian faith. These apologists focus primarily on the negative task and downplay the role of positive apologetics. Nevertheless, most, if not all, would agree that the apologetic task includes the giving of some positive reasons for faith. THE QUESTION OF TAXONOMY Although apologists agree on the basic definition and goals of apologetics, they can differ significantly on the proper methodology of apologetics. That is, they disagree about how the apologist goes about his task—about the kinds of arguments that can and should be employed and about the way the apologist should engage the unbeliever in apologetic discourse. To use a military analogy, differences of opinion exist regarding the best strategy to use in defending the faith. These differences in apologetic strategy usually turn upon more basic disagreements with regard to important philosophical and theological issues. This leads me to the question of taxonomy. How do we delineate the different approaches to apologetics? Of all the other books on apologetic methodology, no two classify the various methods in exactly the same way. For example, Gordon Lewis classifies apologetic methods according to their respective religious epistemologies. 1 He distinguishes them by what each one takes to be the correct approach to acquiring knowledge of religious truths. On this basis, he differentiates six apologetic methods.2 Religious epistemology can be the decisive factor in distinguishing one apologetic method from another. For example, two of the methods Lewis distinguishes are pure empiricism, defended by J. Oliver Buswell Jr.,3 and rationalism, defended by Gordon H. Clark.4 Buswell’s methodology requires us to make observations of the world and draw causal inferences from those observations, which, he believes, will lead the objective observer to belief in God and in the truth of the Christian faith. He uses the classical theistic arguments and appeals to historical evidences for the resurrection of Jesus. Clark, on the other hand, repudiates the use of such arguments and evidences, largely on epistemological grounds. Instead, he argues that the apologist must begin with Scripture as a first principle. That is, Scripture serves as a rational axiom by which all other truth claims are tested. Clark then argues that Christianity is the only coherent system, all other worldviews being logically inconsistent. Thus, the religious epistemologies of these two apologists lead them to very different apologetic approaches. There is no doubt that religious epistemology can function to demarcate different apologetic methods. But it is equally evident that religious epistemology cannot always distinguish apologetic methods. Let’s again take Buswell’s pure empiricism, but this time let’s compare it with what Lewis calls rational empiricism, which he attributes to Stuart C. Hackett.5 Buswell’s epistemology follows in the vein of Locke and Hume, who believed that all knowledge arises from experience. Hackett is a Kantian who synthesizes rationalism and empiricism. Like Kant, he believes that knowledge begins with the raw data of experience, but that this data is organized and structured by a priori categories of the mind. Students of epistemology know that these approaches to knowledge are significantly different, yet the apologetic approaches that derive from these epistemologies, for all practical purposes, do not differ.6 If we compare what Buswell actually does by way of making apologetic arguments with what Hackett does, we will discern little if any variance. Hackett uses theistic arguments to establish the truth of the theistic worldview. He then, like Buswell, appeals to historical evidences to establish the resurrection and deity of Christ. So, again, 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. This sentiment is strongly echoed by more than one of the contributors to this volume. Gary Habermas, for example, argues that his evidentialist approach to

Description:
The goal of apologetics is to persuasively answer honest objections that keep people from faith in Jesus Christ. But of several apologetic approaches, which is most effective? Five Views on Apologetics examines the “how-to” of apologetics, putting five prominent views under the microscope: Class
See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.