Five Views on Apologetics

827 Pages·2000·2.21 MB·English

by  Steven B. Cowan

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