withallyourmind.net

Over the past couple of weeks, I have written several blogs summarizing the different apologetics methodologies provided in Five Views on Apologetics. Here’s the link for each:

Doing Apologetics (Intro)
Classical Apologetics
Evidentialist Apologetics
Cumulative Case Apologetics
Presuppositional Apologetics
Reformed Epistemology Apologetics

It is now the moment of truth when I must declare my own preference. Here it is…. I am a classical, evidentialist, reformed, presuppositional, cumulative case apologist! As one of the contributors said, apologetics is “person variable.” I think that a wise apologist will use whatever method he deems will most likely be effective in each particular situation. The approaches are not necessarily exclusive. In fact I was repeatedly impressed at the degree of agreement confessed by each apologist. For example, Habermas said:

Much in Craig’s essay is to be commended, and many features are shared by evidentialists.

Paul Feinberg’s approach could be considered as a subspecies in the camp of evidentialist methodology… We have some differences, but these are rarely substantial.

In these areas, I embrace many of Frame’s thoughts, some of which he shares with other apologetic systems.

Not only did the replies of Bill Craig, John Frame, and Paul Feinberg not raise a single major issue, but they were largely complimentary, often augmenting my own arguments

Feinberg said:

I am in substantial agreement with what (Habermas) has to say… the cumulative case approach that I have advocated could be seen as an extension or modification of what is called the evidentialist approach.

Frame said:

In my view, not a great deal of difference exists between the methods of William Craig, Gary Habermas, and Paul Feinberg.

Presuppositionalism may be understood as a cumulative case approach that recognizes the problem of epistemic normativity.

I see considerable common ground between presuppositional apologetics and the other schools of thought represented by this volume.

Clark said:

I could have written William Craig’s essay… There is very little in Craig’s essay that I or any other Reformed epistemologist could disagree with.

What Frame and I write about how to do apologetics probably does not differ very much.

Paul Feinberg seems to agree with or concede most of the major claims of my essay.

Craig said:

(The editor) winds up with a presuppostitionalist who argues like an evidentialist and an evidentialist who endorses belief in Christian theism on the basis of the testimony of the Holy Spirit apart from evidence!

(Habermas) had better include me, too (as an evidentialist)… Gary Habermas and I seem to agree on virtually everything!

I find myself largely in agreement with the conclusion of my former teacher and old friend Paul Feinberg.

John Frame thinks of presuppositionalism as a version of Reformed Epistemology.

I am happy to say that John Frame and I do not seem to have any substantive disagreements.

The above might be a little overkill, however, the voluminous statements of agreement do support the fact that these views on apologetic methodology are not mutually exclusive. I do not mean to give the reader of this post the false impression that there were no areas of disagreement (one will have to read the book for all of that). However, I do not think it is misguided to think of one’s self as an apologist who is able to use classical, evidentialist, cumulative case, presuppostional, and/or reformed arguments effectively in the task of giving a rational defense for the Christian faith.