Book Reviews, Natural Theology, Philosophical Theology, Theology, Uncategorized

Review: Five Views on Apologetics

by Dave Seng

[Note: This essay was published about 17 years ago in Tabletalk when I worked at Ligonier Ministries. It is an older piece but perhaps it will be of some help.]

Book Review

Five Views on Apologetics Ed. By Steven B. Cowen

Zondervan Publishing House, 2000.

Assessing Apologetic Methodologies

Editor Steven B. Cowen presents the aspiring apologist with a highly valuable resource with the volume Five Views on Apologetics, (FVOA) published by Zondervan. The work is generally very readable and any informed layperson would find this book clear and concise. All Christians who seek to think rationally and critically about the truth of Christianity will find the book very helpful. The strength of the volume rests in its presentation and defense of various schools of apologetic methodology. The reader is introduced to all five major schools—classical, evidential, cumulative case, presuppositional, and reformed epistemology.

William Lane Craig presents the Classical method, which he states is based on natural theology and Christian evidence such as the deity of Christ, the reliability of the Scripture, and the resurrection (28). Craig holds a two-step approach to apologetics in which he argues for the truth of theism based on Thomas Aquinas’ “Five Ways” to establish that we live in a theistic universe and then argues for Christianity based upon various kinds of evidence. Craig’s argumentation is strong but his most interesting contribution lies with his discussion of faith and reason drawn principally from Martin Luther. Craig uses Luther’s categories of the magisterial use of reason and the ministerial use of reason (36). Luther called the magisterial use of reason that which adjudicates the truthfulness of the gospel based upon shear reason alone. In the magisterial use of reason, human reasoning becomes the basis and foundation for faith. The ministerial use of reason is how the Holy Spirit guides the Christian in deciding Christian truth claims, “reason submits to and serves the gospel” (36). Most theologians reject the former and accept the latter as the appropriate use of reason. Craig claims, “Reason under the sovereign guidance of God’s Spirit and Word is a useful tool in helping us to understand and defend our faith” (37). Many of the 17th century Protestant and Lutheran Scholastics, found the ministerial use of reason helpful in discerning the place and purpose of philosophy and establishing sound principles derived from Scripture.

Evidential apologetics focuses largely on the historical evidence for Christianity. While Classical apologetics argues deductively (reasoning in which the conclusion follows with logical necessity from the premises), Evidential apologetics is largely inductive in its approach. Inductive reasoning is a form of argumentation that draws its conclusion based upon probability. (Inductive reasoning is used most often by historians and scientists and is empirical in nature.) The evidentialist, then, will draw the best possible conclusions based upon his or her premises. Evidential apologetics is termed a “one-step” approach (as opposed to Craig’s two-step method) because it seeks to argue from the very essence of what Christians believe.

Gary Habermas contributes arguments from the historical nature of Christian events based upon what he calls a “minimal facts” approach. Minimal facts, according to Habermas, are facts that are either accepted by critics or facts that would be absurd for critics to deny. The strength of the evidential method is in asserting the historical character of the Christian faith. Evidentialists will argue for theism and, more specifically, Christian theism but do not stress an elaborate use of natural theology the way classical apologists will. Nevertheless, Habermas claims that “historical evidence can serve as a species of argument for God” (92).

Paul Feinberg, the cumulative case contributor, presents a case for Christianity that is rationally compelling. Feinberg does not build his case for Christianity based on formal logical proof (i.e. inductive or deductive reasoning) but claims the best case for Christianity will be somewhat similar to how a lawyer presents a brief in a law court, or how a historian explains facts and events, or how a literary critic presents an interpretation of literature (151). The cumulative case method is sometimes called the “inference to the best explanation approach” (152). Feinberg draws from a wide variety of evidence that is common to our human experience. Cumulative case apologetics views Christian theism, other theistic religions, and atheism as systems of belief (151). The cumulative case apologist will then marshal all available evidence from the fields of history, literature, law, and philosophical theology to discern which system of belief makes more sense out the facts of our human condition.

John Frame represents the presuppositional school of apologetics. The main thrust of Frame’s argumentation is that the Bible is the only certain source of truth, ethics, and epistemology. Presuppositionalists claim that the noetic effects of sin have affected human reason in such a way that there is little or no common ground between the Christian and non-believer. The apologist, therefore, must presuppose the truth of Christianity and then argue “transcendentally” that is, the presuppositionalist would claim that every fact and argument presupposes the God of the Scriptures.

Finally, Kelly James Clark rounds out the discussion of apologetic methodology with his version of Reformed epistemology. In contrast to the classical, evidential, and cumulative case schools, Reformed epistemology claims that one’s belief in God is rational apart from evidence. The Reformed epistemologist does not deny that evidence is available or important, but claims that evidence is not necessary for rational theistic belief. Reformed epistemology argues that we know many things intuitively without empirical evidence, such as 2 + 2 = 4, moral truths such as kindness is always a virtue and killing people for fun is always wrong, and memory facts such as “I had breakfast this morning.” Clark also suggests that belief in God is more like the belief that other people exist (272). Belief in God is not arbitrary, however, and Clark points to Calvin’s doctrine that every human person has been imbued with a sense of the divine. Nonbelievers simply suppress this knowledge due to their sinfulness (Romans 1).

The apologetic task has long been a part of the Christian intellectual tradition. Christians from the earliest days of the faith can be seen contending for the faith that was delivered to the saints (Jude 3). This is easily seen in Justin Martyr’s Disputations with Trypho the Jew, Athenagoras’ Supplication to The Roman Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, Augustine’s City of God, and various works by Anselm, Aquinas, Pascal, and Alvin Plantinga in the Twenty-First century (among others). The task of defending the faith will, to some degree, be rooted in the historical and cultural climate the apologist finds himself or herself in. Many of the contributors to FVOA conclude that the Bible does not teach one specific methodology to the exclusion of other approaches. We see an evidential and empirical emphasis on the use of the senses in Luke 24:39-40, Matthew 28:6 and I John 1:1-2. The use of the mind and rationality is affirmed in I Corinthians 10:15, 2 Corinthians 10:5 and 1 John 4:1. And Romans 1:18 – 23 teaches that the truth of God is clearly perceived by unbelievers. Whatever apologetic method one holds to then, a powerful and coherent case for Christianity will show that Christian theism alone illuminates human experience (is existentially meaningful), objectively true, and more rationally compelling than any other world religion. Finally, it would be a wonderful day indeed to see a time when Christians stop debating apologetic methodology (as important as it is) and start engaging an unbelieving world with the truth of their faith.

Classical Apologetics, Intellectual History, Metaphysics, Natural Theology, Philosophy, Theology

A Critique of Presuppositionalism With Dr. Nathan Greeley.

by Dave Seng

I would like to thank my good friend Steve Hoover for telling me about this video.

Here is one of the best discussions and critiques of the presuppositional apologetic method I have seen in a long time. Dr. Jordan Cooper and Dr. Nathan Greeley are Lutheran scholars who seek to revive the Lutheran scholastic method and corresponding classical approach to apologetics.

For about twenty years I have made the point, much to the disappointment of my presuppositional friends, that the presuppositional method is nothing more than Kantian idealism. This video does a very good job of explaining why that is the case. (Note: Dr. Greeley uses the term anti-realism for Kantian idealism, both anti-realism and idealism hold the position that the mind is ultimate in determining reality. So when they speak of anti-realism, they are essentially talking about idealism.)

Idealism is an error because we do not determine reality. Therefore, philosophy and Christian apologetics must start with metaphysics, the nature of reality as it is, and not with theories of knowledge (epistemology). Our knowledge of reality, does not objectively determine reality. Our theories of reality can be wrong.

A couple of terms to know before going into the discussion.

Presuppositionalism (which I have found a few Lutherans to be adherents of) is the idea that mankind is so fallen (due to the noetic effects of sin) that there is no possible intellectual commonality between the Christian apologist and the non-Christian. There is no place for the ministerial use of reason. The apologist must first assume the truth of the existence of God and the reliability of the Bible as the proper starting point for doing apologetics. In other words, the apologist must presuppose the very things his non-theistic friend rejects in the first place.

One thing Dr. Cooper and Dr. Greeley could have pointed out is the circularity of the presuppositional approach. This is a logical fallacy which is formally called the petitio principii (begging of the question). This is an error that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is already present, usually disguised or vague, in the premises. It is seen as circular because the conclusion is present in the premises, and no real progress is made. (I am aware of Van Til’s and Frame’s response to this critique, but that should really be another post. It is enough to say, here, that when one reasons with correct premises and conclusions, a good and valid rational argument is a virtue and an expression of the ministerial use of reason. Rationality is not an intellectual or moral failing.)

Another term that comes up in the discussion is realism. In metaphysics, realism is the doctrine that Forms, or essences, possess objective reality. In modern philosophy, realism is the concept (contrasted with idealism) that physical objects exist independently of perception, the mind, or theory of reality. For realists, theories of reality, theories of knowledge, and perceptions are logically separate from objective reality itself.

Regarding realism, the name was given to a certain philosophic way of thought first inaugurated by Plato and Aristotle, developed and refined in the Middle Ages, and still living at the present time. This view includes three basic theses: 1. The world is made up of substantial beings really related to one another, which exist independently of any human opinions or desires. Reality is objective. 2. These substances and relations which make up the world can be known by the human mind as they are in themselves. 3. Such knowledge can offer sound and immutable guidance (the law of nature) for individual and social action.

Christian theology, philosophy, and apologetics should always start with a firm understanding of realism. As Dr. Cooper and Dr. Greeley point out, the Lutheran Scholastics understood this point very well.

I could say more but this discussion is too important and just fantastic. Enjoy.

Intellectual History, Metaphysics, Natural Theology, Philosophy, Theology

Lutheran Scholasticism and Aquinas

by Dave Seng

Scholasticism was the predominant system or method of theological and philosophical teaching during the middle ages, based largely on the Church Fathers and Aristotle. Classical and medieval writers using scholastic methodology wrote in a question and answer catechetical style. Although it has sometimes been forgotten, confessional Lutheranism has maintained a strong form of scholastic reasoning and apologetic methodology especially surrounding the doctrine of God and the classical arguments for His existence. For example, Luther approved of the cosmological argument. In fact, Luther, Melanchton, and Chemnitz reasserted the classical arguments for the existence of God as did the scholastic Lutheran thinkers Jakob Andreae, David Hollatz, Johann Gerhard, and Abraham Calovius among others. In the nineteenth century the confessional Lutheran, Ernst Hengstenberg promoted the classical approach to apologetics and so did Otto Zöckler who corresponded with Charles Darwin and defended classical Christian theism. In the early twentieth century, some of the leading proponents of classical Lutheran Scholasticism were theologians Leander Keyser, and Christoph Luthardt. As noted in Geisler’s essay (see below), the contemporary philosopher David Johnson is considered a Lutheran Thomist.

Lutheranism has a long history, of course, and has embraced other approaches to apologetics as well. I will not go into various methodologies here. I believe, along with Luther and the Lutheran Scholastics, that since reason is a minister to the Christian faith, it should be employed and used well, including the utilization of theistic reasoning and argumentation. The ministerial use of reason (Luther’s distinction) means that reason is a minister and support to Christian faith (which is also Aquinas’s position as well).

Further, Lutherans embrace the three ecumenical creeds (Apostle’s, Nicene, and Athanasian) which all begin with an affirmation of the existence of God. This makes sense, because, without a conception of God, miracles, the Bible, Christ’s atoning death, the Trinity, and virtually every other teaching of historic Christianity does not make sense. What good is it to argue from miracle that Jesus is the Son of God without the prior conviction that God is? Every major doctrine of the faith ultimately rests on our understanding of Almighty God.

The misunderstanding that many Lutherans have today—due largely to the errors of pietism and fideism—falsely teaches that Luther was opposed in all ways to the Christian development of the mind and natural reason. After all, he famously called reason “the devil’s whore.” Nonetheless, it should be remembered that Luther did promote the ministerial use of reason (philosophy) and his relationship to philosophy and apologetics needs to be carefully understood. It is true that Luther had both praise and disdain for Aristotle at times, and that he preferred Cicero in some cases (although not a Christian, Cicero promoted a cosmological argument for a divine creator in his The Nature of the Gods). As Luther developed, he became a critic of Nominalism and, later, further embraced his Augustinianism. A great book that addresses this aspect of Luther’s thought is Grace and Reason: A Study in The Theology of Luther, by B. A. Gerrish. It is not the case that Luther threw out the use of philosophy or rejected the idea that reason is not a support or minister to faith.

Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225 – 1274) is considered one of, if not the, greatest of scholastic theologians. I believe that Lutherans can learn much from St. Thomas. Among his intellectual accomplishments, Aquinas built upon the inductive and realist theories of Aristotle. Although Aquinas was a Christian Aristotelian, he successfully synthesized much of Augustine and gave us the great “classical” arguments for the existence of God such as a version of the cosmological argument (that the cosmos is a contingent being and depends on God for its existence), and the teleological argument (the cosmos exhibits design and was planned and designed by God), among others. Much of Aquinas’s arguments can be summarized this way: We know from experience that the world is contingent and it depends on something outside of itself for being or existence. Further, the order, harmony, and rationality of the cosmos must be the product of a mind or creator.

This is far too short of a summary of Aquinas and the Lutheran scholastics, but it must stand for now. In other ways, Aquinas comes very close to a Lutheran understanding of Sola Scripture (Scripture alone as authoritative for the Christian). After all, Aquinas was writing before the council of Trent. I do not want to make Aquinas into a kind of pre-Reformation Lutheran because that would not be fair to him. Lutherans do accept, however, that which is Scripturally true and accurate throughout Christian history. This is because truth endures across time and place. Lutherans have always wanted to keep, preserve, and care for the best of our Western Christian heritage.

At times, I have gone back and forth regarding my assessment of Aquinas. On occasion, I found his doctrine of God challenging and probably read too many critiques of Thomism, particularly from William Lane Craig. I keep coming back to Aquinas, however. One of the things that keep me coming back to Aquinas is his Aristotelian epistemology which is essentially correct. The mind has an innate, a priori capacity or potentiality to know, without which it would be impossible to know even first principles. It is a first principle that being is that which is, and that which is can be known. Regarding God as the foundation or ground of being, Dr. Mortimer Adler explains,

“Aquinas, for example, conceives “being taken simply as including all perfection of being”; and in the Judeo-Christian tradition, ‘being’ without qualification is taken as the most proper name for God. When Moses asked God His name, he received as answer: “I AM THAT I AM … Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.” Used in this sense, ‘being’ becomes the riches of terms—the one which has the greatest amplitude of meaning.” (Syntopicon, Vol. I, Great Books of the Western World, S.V. Being.)

Here are a couple of essays that explain how Aquinas has been received in general Protestantism. I wish I could find more from the Lutheran side. The first is from Norman Geisler, who argues that evangelicals can learn a lot from Aquinas, and Carl Russell Trueman who reviews the book, Aquinas Among the Protestants. If someone knows of a Lutheran source which speaks to this topic, please post in the comments below, I would really appreciate it. I am attempting to do my own research on Thomism and the Lutheran Scholastics.

I’d like to thank Lutheran scholars Dr. Adam Francisco and Dr. Joshua Pagan for their email correspondence which served as an inspiration for this post.

Does Thomism Lead to Catholicism, Norman Geisler

Thomas Aquinas, Not Just for Catholics Anymore, Carl Russell Trueman