from: Zondervan
Regular marked price: $19.99Discount Price: $13.59
Cost Savings: $6.40 (32%)Price fluctuation possible.
How soon does it ship: Normal ship time within one day
Shipping? Absolutely FREE if you qualify for Super Saver Shipping.
Type of bind: Paperback
Dewey Decimal Number: 239
EAN num: 9780310224761
ISBN number: 0310224764
Label: Zondervan
Manufacturer: Zondervan
Quantity: 1
Page Count: 400
Printing Date: February 01, 2000
Publishing house: Zondervan
Sale Popularity Level: 80741
Studio: Zondervan
Other books you might be interested in perusing:
Editor's Notes and Comments:
Product Description:
A multiple-view book on apologetic methods, this material deals with a very relevant topic in the midst of a changing culture. Its primary contributors are: William Lane Craig, Gary R. Habermas, Paul D. Feinberg, John M. Frame, and Kelly James Clark.
User popularity level:
Rated by buyers 
-
This book is useful in that it presents a catalogue of methodologies that have been used in apologetics in the not so distant past. It also indicates (unwittingly) the need for a new style of apologetics for the present day. Evidentialists use a one step approach, Classical Apologists use a two-step method. What is needed for today's culture is a ballet.
Classical Christian Apologists usually employ a two-step approach in their methodology. The very first step is to establish the claim that God exists, and then to establish the claim that God has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. One strength of this approach is that pedagogically, people usually accept new ideas generally before they do specifically. The Apostle Paul uses this method in every epistle. The approach is also more useful in times like the present when atheism (both explicit and implicit) is more prevalent.
Craig version utilizes the kalam cosmological argument to make his case for a personal God. It is the strongest of the proofs for the existence of God, in that rests on the finite existence of the universe, which can be argued effectively with common sense and mathematics. Craig, in fact, claims that the finiteness of the universe is proven philosophical in two ways. Actually there are three ways and they are more mathematical than philosophical. The "proof" still suffers the question-begging problem, however, in that it is not clear that existence must always entail cause, and even if a cause is accepted, why must the cause be God, especially a personal one? On the other hand, his defense of the claims of Jesus based on the historicity of the resurrection seems as ironclad as these sorts of claims can be.
Craig also makes much of the distinction between knowing and showing and the important role of the witness of the Holy Spirit. That is all well and good, but isn't apologetics more about showing? So why so much discusion on how Christians know?
Evidential Apologetics claims as its distinctive, that it is a one-step approach to establishing the truth of Christianity by historical evidences. If Christianity can be so established, then there is no need for the preliminary step of establishing theism. Habermas is aware of the difficulty, nay, the impossibility of unbiased historiography. Consequently, he limits admissible evidence to "minimal facts", i.e. data that is 1) well-evidenced and 2) general admitted by critical scholars. He also admits to the epistemic differences between believers and unbelievers, but does rely on certain shared commonalities between believers and unbelievers such sense perception, scientific theories, and the rules of logic.
He begins on a weak note by laying the foundation for his case with the testimony of Jesus regarding himself - this as recorded in the New Testament. Unfortunately this is a testimonial account of a testimony, which for anyone who does not accept Biblical inspiration, approaches the status of gossip. He does acess pre-New Testament and extra-biblical sources to support some of his data, but they are admittedly few. Habermas' biggest problem is his overlooking the fact that all the evidence in the world will not affect most people. How people view evidences will be dependent on their respective presuppositions. Two people may draw opposite conclusions from the same body of evidence. In addition, there are some people whose minds are already completely made up, and they don't want to be confused with the "facts". The best that evidential apologetics can do is, to paraphrase Clark, defeat the defeaters.
Much like a legal case, Cumulative Case Apologetics relies on the collaboration of a number of aspects, which, while not complete as individual arguments, are convincing when taken together. The most important strength of the cumulative case approach is that it establishes a Christian worldview and not just a logical argument for theism and/or Christianity. Ultimately, people live their lives according to their worldview, not according to some logical argument. Few individuals qualify for this category of apologists, because it is global, not narrow, and defies academic or theological categorization.
Feinberg does an adequate job of defining the apologetic style, but a poor job of fleshing it out. Where's the "law, history, and literature"? He only presents a toolbox of truth tests and an org chart of the witness of the Holy Spirit. To his defense, the category is enigmatic due to its comprehensibility and organic non-formal nature. Nevertheless, what he tries to do in description is somewhat akin to killing the frog by dissecting it.
In spite of Craig's inappropriate and paranoiac response to Feinberg's treatment of postmodernism, Feinberg does a fair job of recognizing the postmodern culture. What he ultimately misses, however, is that he thinks that certain states of affair ... Read More
Rated by buyers 
-
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.
Rated by buyers -
The text gives a good taste of the differences between these schools of apologetics. Some reviewers have shortchanged Clark's Reformed epistemology position, referring to it as "weak" and "timid." For those who really want to understand RE and have no prior exposure to analytic philosophy (e.g., Wittgenstein, Thomas Reid, etc.), I'd advise supplementing Clark's essay with something written by Alvin Plantinga or Nicholas Wolterstorff. RE operates with an entirely different epistemology from that relied upon by evidentialists and classical apologists. I don't see this as a weakness of Clark's essay. The fact is that most evangelicals have had little exposure to analytic philosophy (except for covenental Calvinists, of course).
Rated by buyers -
For those unfamiliar with this book, it is, strictly speaking, not a book on apologetics, so much as it is on meta-apologetics (that is, formulating grounds for methodology on how to do apologetics), and for the most part the five contributors, along with the editor Stan Gundry, do an adequate job of representing this task. As a caveat emptor, anyone potentially interested in this book should know that it undoubtedly is going to be unfriendly for the casual or uninformed reader, and as such I hesitate to call it an "introductory" text, though it certainly can serve as such if you are willing to devote yourself to a fairly careful reading. Cursory perusal of the chapters will certainly not function here! On a more specific note, I, along with another reviewer below, recommend instead (or at least before) this text, the book "Faith has its Reasons," which, being both more comprehensive and straightforward to read, surely serves as a better overall guide to meta-apologetics (and does some actual apologetics too, though only to elucidate how a meta-apologetic would work itself out in practical terms).
That being said this book does serve its purpose well, and the dialogues between William Lane Craig, Gasry Habermas, David Clark, Paul Feinberg, and John Frame are quite enlightening and engaging. Of the essays, agreeing with Dr. Groothius above, I saw the ones by Craig and Habermas as the best, and most helpful, in terms of outlining their position with documentation and clarity (regardless of how much I agreed with either of them.) The least helpful essay is Feinberg's. I found it clumsy and simply unconvincing. Thought I disagree (to certain extents) with presuppositional and reformed methods, I found their corresponding essays to be much better than Feinberg's (though Frame was, in my opinion, dissapointing and inconsistant as well).
As far as pitfalls of the book, I felt that despite the idealistic descriptions that the various authors put forward regarding the logic of their systems, methodologically they actually are all either similar (as is the case especially between Graig, Habermas, and Feinberg) or inconsistance (e.g. Frame says he wants to argue transcendentally, but really puts forward no transcendental arguments in the classical sense he conveys). This was dissapointing because I was sometimes left confused on how the actual apologetics would look with the resective meta-apologetic. Moreover, Frame's and Clark's theoretical outlines of their "apologetic" methods are absolutely weak, with Frame arguably question begging due to the circularity of his epistemology, and Clark simply aborting the necessity of any "positive" or "offensive" apologetics.
All in all, though, I recommend this to anyone interested in apologetics who is looking for an above-average exposition of meta-apologetic themes.
Rated by buyers -
This book is not for the first-time student of apologetics. It's deep and, at times, difficult. However, for anyone with a serious interest in apologetics, this is a great way to find out which method suits your apologetic style and why. It was eye-opening for me.
I am confident that God can use most (if not all) of the five distinct methods covered in the book. But it was very helpful to me to consider pros and cons of each and decide which approach seemed appropriate for me.
Great book, if you feel ready for it!
Find other books like this one:
