Users Product Reviews: |
Product Review Summary: Fails to address the REAL problems in Apologetics This book, like so many books written by Christians, starts from a premise. An academic premise, if you will. The premise is that the arguments being taught in academic institutions like Biola (Bible Institute of Los Angeles) are valid, and they simply aren't.
The Gospel of Mark is nothing but a Sales Pitch written for an End of the World cult that was gaining momentum between 30 and 100 AD. After the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, three elements were added to the earlier gospels. (1) Jesus became an exorcist who could command demonic spirits, (2) Angels appeared to herald the birth of Jesus, and (3) Jesus predicted a general resurrection of the dead.
Jesus is asked, "If there is a woman whose husband dies, and she marries his brother... in the resurrection, whose wife will she be?" Obviously, Jesus was not talking about his own resurrection. The question required prior knowledge of a general resurrection... a general resurrection which NEVER happened.
You can't discuss the question "Is Christianity credible?" or "How do you defend your Faith?" without mentioning the actual criticisms of Christianity. This book is a Straw Man argument. They defend "faith" against attacks that aren't being made, and ignoring the real problems.
The real problems (1) Peter said he was living in the last days, and 1,900 years have passed (2) Demons don't exist and exorcists are con men (3) The Gospel of Mark was written as a Sales Pitch for a cult based on resurrection, exorcism and angels, and nothing in the Sales Pitch is historical. It's a complete fabrication. Jesus never met John the Baptist. There was no Roman centurion who watched Jesus die on the cross and announce, "Surely this was a righteous man" or "Surely this was a son of theos.' The term "son of theos" was a title used by Augustus, and it was simply a fictional attempt to make potential cult members think a high-ranking Roman considered Jesus "equal with the Emperor Augustus."
Books like this are worthless, because they give Christians the false assumption that the Gospels are historical documents and credible. They are no more credible than the writings of Applewhite insisting a flying saucer is traveling behind Halley's Comet. Or the writing of L. Ron Hubbard describing how Xenu arrived on earth.
If you want to defend Christianity's credibility, address the real issues. The Gospels are the product of a silly resurrection cult, not historical documents. If the dead are supposed to appear in new bodies and live like angels without benefit of marriage.... when will that happen? It's been 1,900 years and so far, nada.
Product Review Summary: Reasons and Resources... Faith Has Its Reasons (FHIR), a book not of apologetics, but about apologetics, discusses four different apologetic styles: Classical, Evidentialist, Reformed, and Fideist. Quick to point out that no apologist adheres to exclusively one, the book nevertheless presents them linearly with an attempt at intregation toward its end.
With studies of noted apologists, patterned analysis, and frank discussion of strengths and weaknesses, FHIR is extremely educational for those who read, but have not mastered, the art of Christian defense. Prior to FHIR, I moved from apologetic to apologetic without considering the origins, development, or particular applications. I now have much more to ponder than merely the case any apology presents.
If FHIR suffers, it suffers from an overly simplistic attempt at role play. Each apologetic approach is accompanied by a dialog of an adherent and two unbelievers. While the adherent certainly applies the apologetic represented, the response of the unbelievers and the setting in which they respond is hardly real-world. Indeed, it comes across as somewhat naive.
These dialogs, however, are but minor portions of a major resource and should not, by any means, alter its worth. FHIR informs, challenges, and seeks to champion the integration of apologetic styles to increase their effectiveness and range. Professional apologists can judge the success of the book's stated objective, but as a mere apology reader, I found it exceeds expectations. 5 stars.
Product Review Summary: A good metapologetic, but not great for beginners This book bills itself as a handbook of apologetics, and at times it seems like a textbook. In the end, though, I think the authors would agree that it is (to use a word from the book) a metapologetic: it is about apologetics rather than an example or even a summary of apologetics.The authors divide apologetics into 4 broad classes: The classical (which uses deductive logic); the Evidential (which uses inductive proofs); the Reformed (which relies on Transcendental arguments; and the Fideist (which uses indirect arguments and may not be an apologetic at all). The authors are quick to point out that few people fit neatly into any one category. In the final section of the book, they attempt to move toward an integrated approach that capitalizes on the strength of each model. I would have gotten more out of the book if they had given more thorough examples of how these various apologetic systems work. How do evidentialists use history to argue for the probability of Christ's Resurrection? How do writers like Van Til avoid logic in making the Transcendental argument? These are questions that aren't addressed directly in the book. This isn't a criticism, but I make the point in case others are looking for a more descriptive approach to various apologetic systems. To my mind, the end of the book is the weakest part. The attempt to integrate the approaches is interesting, and I agree that different apologetics will resonate better with different people. However, I think the authors go too far in trying to pinpoint which method--even which Gospel account--will best apply to certain types of people. I was surprised to discover the NFs (in the famous personality test) respond better to Mark's Gospel--I'm an NF, and I find Mark the account that resonates least with me. Maybe I'm an unusual NF, or maybe the authors were just pushing their theories a bit too far. I think it's probably the latter. In any case, I think this is a good book, but it's probably more useful to people who have some background in apologetic thought than to beginners.
Product Review Summary: An apologetic methodology The apostle Peter was very clear when he said that we are to have an answer for everyone who asks us to give the reason for the hope that we have (1 Peter 3:15-16). However, he didn't give us specifics of how we were to go about giving these answers, so Christians have taken it upon themselves to create different systems of methodology in order to follow the commands of Jesus (Matt. 29:19-20) and the apostles (Jude 3; 1 John 4:1).The reason why I like "Faith Has Its Reasons" is that the authors make it very difficult to see where their biases lie. They cover the major ways apologetics is practiced (classical, evidential, Reformed, fideistic, and integrative) and give reasons used by its adherents to support their particular positions. What's interesting to me is how, in so many cases, I was able to agree with plenty presented in each position. It seems very clear to me that those from the different camps are (were) dedicated Christians who read the same Bible I do and worship the same God and Jesus. It's just that we don't quite see eye-to-eye on the exact process of how we are to "have an answer." It should be pointed out that there is little difference between classical/evidential (the authors even point to William Lane Craig as a hybrid of the two positions) and Reformed/fideistic. When I went to seminary, I was taught that much of the conflict came between Carnell and Van Til; while that might be too simplified, the disagreement these men had really seems to be a dividing line between what could easily be lumped into two camps rather than five. I'm not sure that this book will change the way you view apologetics, but it certainly will give you a clearer understanding of why, say, a Reformed thinker might shudder when someone says Geisler or Aquinas. It will help you understand the reaons why there is disagreement about how apologetics ought to be done. An excellent index that can be used to find certain thinkers and see where they belong is another strong feature of the book. As for me, I tend to lean toward the classical/evidential system because it's the way I live. Regardless of a person's disagreement with me or the fact that one's presuppositions against Christianity may keep him from ever believing, I believe that Isaiah 1:18 as well as the systematic arguments demonstrated by the apostles (I immediately think of Paul in Acts 17) beckons me to present the evidence as best I know how to persuade as many as called unto God. (As a friend of mine says, "We are only in sales; God is in production.") I also know that presuppostionalism tends to lend itself to a specator sort of syndrome. A recent example is a debate in San Diego last spring between a presuppositionalist and an atheist. The Christian get "blown out of the water" because he dodged the atheist's arguments and rested his case with hardly a blow. True apologetics means having to go where some Christians may fear to tread (especially in this politically correct age we live in) and get some dirt under our fingernails in order to present truth. It is through this type of apologetics where people who otherwise would have never known God became dedicated Christians (McDowell and Craig are two, off the top of my head). Needless to say, "Faith Has Its Reasons" will be staying close by on my bookshelf as a ready-reference tool. I highly recommend it for those Christians who are willing to think outside the box.
Product Review Summary: For What it Does, it is the best Contemporary Work in Print Boa and Bowman have put together a lengthy survey on apologetic methods within Christianity. In the process, they have surpassed all other comparative apologetic works by cogently and thoroughly examining apologetic methods and the great thinkers who have subscribed to the various methods.This book is extremely useful for a number of reasons. It's obvious strength is its thorough treatment of four major apologetic methods; classical, evidential, presuppositional, and fideist. This book is the best in print in dispassionately presenting each view, its strengths and weaknesses, and how each view interacts with various apologetic issues and objections. The reader will gain a solid working knowledge of apologetic school of thought to reflect upon and possibly incorporate in their own approach to apologetics. Second, this book provides one of the best summary level examinations of many prominent Christian thinkers throughout church history. Anybody who wants a good summary treatment on the thinking of folks like Pascal, Kierkegaard, Van Til, Clark, Kuyper, Barth, Craig, Plantinga, Geisler, Aquinas, and many others will find it here. Third, their demonstration of how each apologetic system interacts with key issues such as science, theology, the Bible, Jesus Christ, etc is very informative. I found these examinations to be very insightful, since it impressed upon me the reality that evangelical Christianity is not at all monolithic in how it views the relationship of apologetics to these vital issues. Through this diversity of thought, I have found my own approach to apologetics expanded and challenged in a very healthy way. Lastly, the authors truly invoke a spirit of Christian love throughout this book. The authors clearly hold to the view that great Christians can and have held to each apologetical method, and the authors have properly resisted any attempt to use apologetical method as a litmus test to judge the level of anyone's Christian walk. This is very refreshing, and is definitely a step in the right direction. While properly pointing out where certain thinkers in each camp have strayed from acceptable evangelicalism (Barth and his errant view of Scripture, Pinnock and his god of limited omniscience, etc), they affirm the value of each apologetic method and the thinkers who hold to each view. At the end of the book, the authors attempt an integration of each method which I found helpful and balanced. The authors properly note that pure integration may not be possible, and might not be desirable either. I felt that the biggest strength of their integration approach was the belief that each apologetic method is useful for reaching certain people who hold certain objections or presuppositions, and that these apologetic approaches can be integrated somewhat with certain methods being more emphasized than others based upon the beliefs and views of the person we are in dialogue with. The only weakness of the book is that while it does attempt to deal with tangible objections such as in the inspiration of Scripture, the deity of Christ, and the problem of evil, readers who are looking for comprehensive apologetic responses to these issues may not be satisfied by what's here. This is a book that deals with apologetic method, and while it does show how each method generally responds to these kind of objections and issues, the reader will not really find a systematic treatment here, although I should stress that what is covered in these areas is very helpful. But since this is not really the thrust of the book, I do not see it as a weakness of the book worthy of demoting the 5 star rating I've given it. This is a thoroughly researched book which in my view, presents the best contemporary treatment of apologetic methods in a spirit of Christian love that will hopefully serve as a model for further development of respectful apologetic method in the future. A well done book that is highly recommended.
|
Similar Products with reviews:
Five Views on Apologetics
A History of Apologetics
The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog, 5th Edition
Christian Apologetics
Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics
|
