Five Views on Apologetics

Counterpoints

by Steven B. Cowan (Editor), William Lane Craig (Contributor), Gary R. Habermas (Contributor)

Of the most common approaches to apologetics, which is most effective? The goal of apologetics is to persuasively defend Christianity against charges of falsehood, inconsistency, or credulity. It's an intellectual discipline that serves to bolster the faith of Christian believers and to aid the task of evangelism, but are some methods more effective than others? Five Views on Apologetics examines the "how-to" of apologetics, putting five prominent techniques under the Offering a forum for presentation, critique, and defense, this book allows the contributors for the different viewpoints to respond to the others. Your own informed conclusions can then guide you as you meet the questions of a needy world with the claims of the gospel. The Counterpoints series presents a comparison and critique of scholarly views on topics important to Christians that are both fair-minded and respectful of the biblical text. Each volume is a one-stop reference that allows readers to evaluate the different positions on a specific issue and form their own, educated opinion.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Philosophy, Christianity, Religion, Nonfiction, Evangelism

400 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2000

About the author

Steven B. Cowan (M.Div.; Ph.D.) is the Jim Young Professor of Religion and Associate Professor of Christian Studies at Louisiana College in Pineville, La.

Reviews

[Mark Jr. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Once upon a time, a fellow Christian young man, age 20 or so, like me, invited me to go witnessing in the downtown area where I live. We ran into a young lady who was reading Neale Donald Walsch's then-popular Conversations with God, some of the worst claptrap ever to proceed from a printing press. I won't give specifics, but as I began to speak my partner began to feel uncomfortable with my approach. Deeper than that, he disagreed with the doctrine behind it. And he felt the necessity to say so. In front of the girl we were witnessing to. I remember the incredulity on her face: "You guys don't even agree on this?"

It's a little disconcerting to see how apparently equally committed and intelligent Christians tear apart each other's justifications of the Christian faith. So a book like this one is a bit sad, in a way. I'll put my cards on the table right here by noting that this disagreement by itself disposes me toward presuppositionalism: if even Christian apologists can't agree on the best strategy for defending and promoting Christian truth, then something deeper must be going on than what the eyes can see. All of these Christians have access to the same divine words and the same divine world. What causes them to come to different conclusions about how to persuade non-Christians to repent and believe the gospel? Presuppositions, I'd think.

Nonetheless, Habermas, Craig, and Feinberg (particularly the first two, for what it's worth) did impress me with their acumen, and I'm glad I have their work at my disposal should I ever need it in apologetic conversations. This, I felt, was another reason to go with Frame: his view does a better job accounting for the value of the other views. A presuppositionalist should be happy to point to data in the world and show how they in turn point to God. Evidentialists, on the other hand, seem to dismiss--at least functionally--the importance of presuppositions in human thinking.

Finally, what conservative Protestant could not stir to hear Frame say in his concluding essay that "the most fundamental point of presuppositionalism is the application of sola scriptura to apologetics"? I'm with Frame in wishing the debate would go away; I don't like disagreeing over evangelistic methodology. But I do feel I have to defend the authority of Scripture.

This book (and I'm sorry I didn't mention Clark: I felt like his essay meandered too much) is an unfortunate necessity. May God use all of our faltering efforts, no matter what our apologetic perspectives, to bring His sheep into the fold.

[Nathan Ormond · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some good parts (especially everyone dunking on presuppositional apologetics) and some bad parts (the case for presuppositional apologetics).

Some of the views seem sort of arbitrary, the evidentialist case is just randomly in there and G Habermas is just like "well... yeah this is just a part of what Craig is arguing for" and the Cumulative Case point of view seems equally pointless. More thought should've gone into having more distinct views.

Pretty interesting to read the points against though. I shall quote William Lane Craig with glee against pre-supps in future "your methodology commits a logical howler, namely, begging the question"! (gold)

[JR Snow · Rating 4 out of 5]

Basically, Habermas, Craig, and Feinberg are all huddled together, attacking Frame, while Clark also attacks Frame, but is the weird kid who can't get in with the cool Evidence guys. Poor Frame. Yay Plantinga! -2017.

Read again in January 2021 for Apologetics with Dr. James Anderson at RTS. My original, though less mature thoughts from 2017 still stand (above). I remain staunchly a Classical man, even more so after reading this volume. I think Feinberg's articles were unnecessary. I also think it would have been great to get Sproul to write in place of Craig, because Craig's "Classical" view was basically identical with Habermas (Evidentialism). The more distinctive view of CA advocates for the establishment of a theistic worldview before moving on to historical evidences, otherwise arguments for miracles are far less plausible. But, Dr. Craig is fine with moving Resurrection–>Theism, just like Habermas is, though there will still be differences in preference.
Also, all five authors (but especially Clark and Craig) make such use of Plantinga, it is really a shame that he didn't contribute to the Reformed Epistemology view. Plantinga everywhere in this book.

[Zack · Rating 3 out of 5]

Three stars earned for an impressive effort and useful citations/footnotes.

Kelly James Clark and William Lane Craig seemed to be operating on a varsity level, while everyone else was playing JV. Habermas was nearly-varsity, though.

I think Frame stumbles in his presentation of Van Tillian Presuppositionalism. I was most sympathetic to his view before picking up the book, and now I’m wondering if I’m not closer to Reformed Epistemology (Clark) or Classical Apologetics (Craig). Frame was perhaps at his best in his concluding statement.

At certain points, it seemed like it was all against Frame, despite his nearly insufferable “winsomeness.” Craig, Habermas, and Clark impressed me as doing “real” philosophical heavy-lifting, even if I didn’t always agree with them. I wish we could see some Van Tillians of their caliber.

[Colton Brewer · Rating 3 out of 5]

The discussions on the methodologies are alright, but it’s a tedious book. A lot of the responses felt like they were talking past each other.

[Chris McMillan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent cast of authors. William Lane Craig wrote a scorcher essay on his Classical Apologetics, which uses a combination of Reformed Epistemology for personal assurance with evidentialist methods of sharing his faith. His essay responses were also well-written. Kudos to Kelly James Clark for representing Plantinga’s position well. Habermas acquitted himself quite nicely, too. As for John Frame, I can certainly understand where he’s coming from. And yet, his essay felt like a near-total miss. He was winsome and less dogmatic than other presuppositional hounds, but it just couldn’t land with me.

[Tyler Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book did shed some light for me on the issue of apologetic methodology, but it didn’t solidify me in a position. Being confessional, I tend to lean towards presuppositionalism, but I’ve been greatly helped by classical/evidentialist thinkers.

The weakness of this volume is in the 5 views they named and the authors that endorsed them. The classicalist, The evidentialist and the cumulative case person have essentially the same position. And the authors are so not committed to their approach they accuse each other of being in their camp. Frame is likewise very generous with those of other camps, which is great in person but less helpful in debate. Clark seems to be the only one with a unique stance.

I wish they had made this a 3 views book and put a staunch classicalist (like Sproul) and an old school presuppositionalist (like oliphant/Edgar’s) and let them really work through the differences. The overlap made this book much too long.

[Derek · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read most of it but started skimming towards the end. This book feels like walking into an argument in the teachers lounge: I'm too dumb to keep up but benefit from what I can catch.

[Daniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Helpful and, at the same time, not helpful (in a non-paradoxical way). Allow me to explain, starting with how it is not helpful. The book contains what I would call some counter-productive ecumenicism between the apologetic methodologies. As the title indicates, the book is supposed to contain five views (classical, evidential, cumulative case, presuppositional, and reformed-epistemology) on apologetic methodology, thus one expects there to be meaningful contrasts drawn between the different views by the authors who respectively hold to the different views. However, some of the authors stress Christian unity to such an extent that it becomes unclear what is unique about the specific methodology that they represent. For example, I still have little idea what makes Feinberg's (cumulative case) methodology different from Habermas' (evidential). Craig (classical), while presenting a strong argument for Christian theism, also does a poor job differentiating his methodology from evidential apologetics. By contrast, Habermas, Frame (presuppositional), and Clark (reformed-epistemology) each present clear cases on the basics of their methodologies, with Habermas in my view successfully arguing by the end of the book that the two remaining methodologies are really in his camp. As a result, the book basically ends up with three views (classical/evidential/cumulative case, presuppositional, and reformed-epistemology).

This leads to how the book is helpful, as there is significant clash between these three views. Frame and Habermas in particular have several productive interactions on Biblical epistemology, neutrality in argumentation, the use of evidences, and circular reasoning (with regard to one's standard of truth). I think Frame comes out on top on most of these issues, but Habermas makes a good point that, for all the talk of how presuppositionalists are fine with evidences (but not evidentialism), there has been little to no scholarship presenting Christian evidences from a presuppositional perspective, something that in my view would be quite useful. Clark's reformed-epistemology is interesting from an intellectual standpoint, but it appears dangerous from a Biblical standpoint. Scripture says that God's "invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they [those who refuse to worship God] are without excuse." (Romans 1:20). But Clark denies that there is any apologetic that can show Christianity (or theism more generally) to be rationally compelling or even just probably true. This leads him to say that atheists can be entirely rationally justified in rejecting a belief in God. To say the least, this does not leave unbelievers "without excuse," quite the opposite in fact. Most of the other authors do a good job rightly critiquing this as far below what a Christian apologetic should do. Frame's presuppositional apologetic is the best of the presented methodologies and has the added benefit (compared to other presuppositional cases) of not completely throwing 1000 years of Christian apologetics out the window. Frame is gracious and relentlessly Biblical in his argumentation, pushing all apologists to stay true to what the Bible says about truth and God's authority. I am pleased that all the authors of the book reject the idea that an apologist should feign neutrality. We should not pretend to be neutral about whether Christianity is true in order to show why one should become a Christian, because no one, Christian or non-Christian, can be neutral towards the Truth of Scripture. Additionally, all of the authors conducted themselves with the charity that brothers in Christ should have towards one another. The humor of several of the authors (especially Clark) is welcome as well in a book with so much philosophy. While this book certainly has some missed opportunities, it still presents a useful comparison of apologetic methodologies without dumbing down the philosophical language (at least not too much).

[Zach Brandt · Rating 4 out of 5]

As of now, I find Craig’s apologetic to be the most persuasive. His mixture of reformed epistemology, scriptural exegesis, natural theology, and evidential arguments is quite comprehensive. I think Frame’s point about epistemic normativity is important, though. Clark’s solution to the problem is unsatisfying.

Classical Apologetics:
- Craig: distinction between knowing and showing. The Holy Spirit is a defeater of possible defeaters.
- Responses: Does the witness of the Holy Spirit sufficiently warrant Christian faith when compared with other religions that make similar claims (Habermas)? Is it really true to say that the testimony of the Holy Spirit is overwhelming (Feinberg)? By what standard do we judge evidence (Frame)? How do we rise above our epistemic situatedness to see truth as it really is (Clark)?

Evidential Apologetics:
- Habermas: historical evidence is ideal because it can decide between religions and demonstrate God’s existence.
- Responses: Does one require a biblical worldview in order to interpret the evidence biblically (Frame)? I think I agree with Frame that when using evidential arguments, one will eventually have to dismantle the presuppositions the unbeliever holds that prevent them from interpreting the data biblically. Is the best role for evidence a defeater defeating role (Clark)?

Cumulative Case Apologetics:
- Feinberg: Our goal should be to show that the Christian system of beliefs best fits the evidence of life. Tests for truth: consistency, correspondence, comprehensiveness, simplicity, livability, fruitfulness, and conservation.
- Responses: The tests for truth are not tests, but criteria to help determine the best solution (Craig). How to deal with “the issue of epistemic normativity” (Frame)? The tests for truth viewed differently among different systems (Frame)?

Presuppositional Apologetics:
- Frame: reason is not neutral. Epistemic normativity. Typical Frame stuff.
- Responses: Is it analogous to compare the rationalist’s circularity to the presuppositionalist’s circularity (Habermas)? Is reason simply a tool or a norm to find truth (Clark)?

Reformed Epistemologist Apologetics:
- Clark: Properly basic truths. Evidence is helpful, but non-coercive. He seems to recognize the same epistemic normativity problem as Frame, but does not agree that scripture is to be that norm in apologetics. The closest thing I found to answer to this problem in Clark is, “The starting point for our beliefs is our socio-cultural upbringing. Our beliefs are situated in a specific historical context. Should you embark on the reason-giving project, you need to recognize this and try your best to find some common beliefs to appeal to.” Then, in the closing remarks, “We simply cannot get the view from nowhere—not with respect to trees and surely not with respect to gods. We are finite, believing creatures with all that attends that fact.” This seems like something of a skeptical flare in Clark’s epistemology. Is it so bad to say, with Frame, that revelation supplies that view from nowhere?
- Responses: Without a strong offensive apologetic, will reformed epistemology lead to relativism and pluralism (Craig)? “It is Scripture, if anywhere, that we are likely to discover a source of nondefeasible religious knowledge,” (Frame).

[Drake · Rating 3 out of 5]

Definitely an interesting read. I was not expecting all the deep epistemological debates in this volume, though such discussions make sense in hindsight (the end goal of apologetics, after all, is for people to know and believe in the truth of Christianity). Each of the contributors is thought-provoking in their own way, and my mind was certainly stretched to grasp concepts that I had never considered before (e.g. Platinga's definition of "warranted belief"). It was also encouraging to see how nuanced each view was. There seems to be a general tone of surprise in the "Response" sections by the contributors at how closely their views agree with one another (though there was plenty of room for significant disagreement). Ultimately, what matters is not which apologetic "camp" one falls into, but rather what approach in a given time and place best honors God and His truth. Nevertheless, the philosophical/epistemological debates seemed to be a bit too technical at times for a series like this. I don't think Bayes' Theorem of Probability is particularly relevant to the average layperson, but that complex equation became the point of contention at a number of places (too often, in my opinion) throughout the book. While some of the other books in this series would be at least decent introductions to the topic at hand, I would certainly NOT recommend this one as a first step for someone wanting to study apologetics without having done some studies in philosophy/epistemology beforehand.

As for the individual contributors: I found Frame's presuppositionalism to be the most compelling of the five views, not because it exposes the other approaches as futile, but because it provides a biblical "framework" (pun intended but also unavoidable) within which the other four approaches can thrive. Both Frame and Habermas make excellent cases for their views (somewhat ironic, since they are in one sense on opposite ends of the spectrum) and provide very thoughtful responses to their critics. I thought Craig and Clark were mixed bags; their essays are brilliant in some places and frustrating in others. Feinberg's essay and responses were, in my opinion, the weakest in terms of argumentation, even though I would probably identify more with his "cumulative case" approach than that of Craig, Habermas, or Clark.

[Jeffrey Reynolds]

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.

[Russell Holland · Rating 3 out of 5]

Five Views on Apologetics is a book that seeks to give an overview of five differing approaches to the subject of Christian apologetics. Apologetics is an enormous subject; narrowing it even to five specific views in as many essays is a substantial task. As the introduction explains, “Apologetics is concerned with the defense of the Christian faith against charges of falsehood, inconsistency, or credulity.” (Cowan 2000, 8) Apologetics “is an intellectual discipline that is usually said to serve” both an offensive and defensive task. (Cowan 2000, 8) That is, apologetics has the task of both defending the faith for believers and attacking the unbelief of the lost in evangelism. The contributors did a good job condensing and summarizing their views while also making it clear to the reader that further reading and study are necessary to have a more comprehensive understanding of the topic. Some technical jargon muddies the waters, making the book a challenge for the uninitiated, but overall, the book helps in understanding the basic premises of the different positions and apprising the reader of the differences between approaches. Many of these differences are not apparent to the casual observer, and this book helps to reveal them. Most of the differences are based on basic disagreements over philosophy and theology. (Cowan 2000, 8) This ambiguous truth is made clear in the pages of this book and is one of its strengths. One sees, for example, how those who are Reformed in their theology approach the question of defending faith very differently than those of more orthodox or ecumenical theology. The distinction of the various approaches cannot be handled in an absolute way because many factors influence an individual approach. (Cowan 2000, 13) The book does a good job of introducing the complexity of apologetics as a discipline.

[Roger · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great primer on the areas of distinction and overlap between five major apologetic methodologies. If you pay attention to the in-group debates between different schools of apologetics, the most satisfying part of this book is the realization of how complimentary each of these methods are. Sure, there may be some finer nuances and even what individuals perceive to be irreconcilable differences, but taking this big-picture view is refreshing and rewarding.

My experience of this book is atypical. I would assume that most people who encounter this work do so as an initial, or nearly initial, experience of apologetics. I am coming to it in the final semester of an apologetics graduate program. In that program, I have drawn deeply from each of these methods' wells: classical, evidential, comprehensive case, presuppositional, and Reformed epistemology. I have come to appreciate what each one brings to the table. From that angle, the most rewarding part of this book was being affirmed in my own conviction that there is no one biblically superior apologetic method. Rather, all efforts at offering an honest defense in service to the gospel are worthy of regard and development.

And, as it is with most of the non-fiction books I read, the bibliography alone is worth the purchase price.

[John McLain · Rating 4 out of 5]

I appreciated the book for getting me to reflect more on apologetics and evangelization at a more macro level. In the end the five views held much less disagreement than I expected--simply reading the responses of the four other contributors to Kelly Jame Clark's entry on reformed epistemology shows this, with presuppositionalism being the most divergent. In the end the biggest sticking point is probably internalism, though that doesn't always play front and center. In the end all five seem to agree that individuals can come to justified belief apart from classic theistic arguments.

The structure of the book was interesting, allowing for a sort of dialogue between individuals who are all knowledgeable, well-respected, and in this instance respectful. However, the book's organization starts with one of the primary entries, follows with the responses of the other contributors to that entry, then gives the concluding remarks of the entry's author to those responses before moving to the next primary entry and so forth. I actually found it more beneficial to read it like a debate, going through all of the primary entries, then circling back and going through all the responses, and then all of the closing remarks. That might just be a personal preference, and I understand the topical arrangement.

In the end a thought-provoking book even if it didn't settle much for me.

[Jesse Huck · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is the apologetics method of 5 individuals

If you are hoping to have a understanding of the five methodologies of apologetics presented in this book you should look somewhere else. The five authors of this book present their personal apologetic method, not the apologetic methods they fit into.

The most beneficial methodology in this book would be the reformed epistemology section as it is a confusing and not fully developed apologetic methodology.

I have respect for many of the authors of the articles in this book but they do not accurately represent a general view of their apologetic system outside of maybe reformed epistemology.

If you are willing to read a larger book I would recommend "Faith Has Its Reasons" by Kenneth Boa. I do not agree with many of his critiques of the different methodologies. However, he does a great job of evaluating different people in the apologetic methodology groups to formulate a general understanding of each apologetic method. Likewise, I do not agree with his idea of taking the best of each method to form a new apologetic system as all of the positive aspects that are logically sound of each methodology can be used by the classical apologist.

[Christina · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is not for the fainthearted. It's more like a master's level introduction to apologetics class textbook. I found it immensely valuable, and I'm a bit of a nerd when it comes to philosophy, theology, and the like. But it definitely was not an easy read to plow through.

The book is setup with one representative for each of the five apologetic views and then each of them get to respond to the others' views in a written debate type of format. The conclusion is yet another response to the responses. The best way to read this book is actually to read each of the views in isolation and then go back to read the responses. I can attest that after 381 pages of intense apologetic rhetoric, my understanding of the various apologetic methodologies is substantial. I have read many apologetic books, but none that categorize and explain the various apologetic methods. I found this book very helpful in deepening my understanding of the differences in apologetic approaches.

I recommend this book to those intensely curious in learning the intricacies in the five approaches and who have the reading stamina to read through such a rigorous textbook.

[Ethan McCarter · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some of the source information is well and fairly presented in this compilation volume. I will be the first to admit that I am biased and an already convinced Classical method proponent, though there are cogent points made by other schools. However, there really was not that much discussion going on in the book between the varying views. True, many took shots at Clark (Reformed Epistemology) and Frame (Presuppositional) than the others; but, even then most of them simply picked one or two areas to discuss and move on. Not to mention, the book is quite dry and hard to get through at times. If you have to read it for a class (As I did) then just digest the info, but don't expect much more than that. If you want an actual, in-depth look at any of the schools then go back to primary sources from men like Craig, Plantinga, or Van Til.

[Daniel Woodfield · Rating 4 out of 5]

A helpful outline of five apologetic methods, assigned for my MA class on Apologetics. As my lecturer was John Frame, there was an obvious emphasis throughout the teaching on presuppositional apologetics. In all, the essays presented by each apologist were enlightening, challenging, and encouraged me to reflect on the dynamics of how apologetics actually works in conversation with others.

Perhaps this says something of my mindset in reading but whilst I found the introductory essays by each writer very helpful, I rarely found their critiques of one another and subsequent defences to be of value in helping me determine which approaches I value.

The summary in 'Apologetics of the Cross' is recommended for a better overview, as this is far more concise and makes substantial use of 'Five Views.'

[Aaron Green · Rating 2 out of 5]

I like these 'Counterpoint' Series books overall. I'm reading 4 Views of Hell as well, and they also did 4 Views on Revelation that was very useful, but part of their layout is having the other viewpoints give counterarguments against each view; which is useful and helpful when you're dealing with Hell and eschatology, but it's a little odd for apologetics because defending the faith is not a linear idea always. Defending the faith is taken on a case by case basis depending on who you are talking to. So, the various approaches are helpful to know, but the counter arguments almost always spent some time applauding the other viewpoints, because they all are essentially arguing the same thing; just mainly starting from a different angle. Therefore, it was only just 'okay' because it just ended being too long. Had it just presented the five views, it would have been more efficient.

[Neh · Rating 2 out of 5]

Here's my sloppy (non-) review. The editors could have done a better job at distilling down these philosophizing writings into genuine interaction among the diverse voices. If these guys could have all the trees and pulps in this country produced as papee, they would still keep going. Well, readers, do yourself a favor and read the book backwards. And then please come back and thank me.

I gotta complain about one other thing. As other reviewers here say, the presuppositionalism and John Frame were attacked quite a bit. Guess what, as one of the replies noted, it was Frame, and him only, that obeyed the "gentleness and respect" command of 1 Peter. Ironically, the Bill Lame Craig, most ungracious to Frame, winsomely loses readers in his pseudo-pedantic paragraphs, with his usual nerdiness and his veneration of A. Plantinga. The application of 1 Peter passage about humility is found even more cogent in this contrast of these two styles.

In the end, I advocate a well-mixed approach of all these views, and that all these guys kinda teamed up in straw-manning JF made me incline more towards presuppositionalism. And I also think it is a stretch to have 5 representatives of apologetic methods..all they fall broadly under the spectrum of the evidential and presuppostional approaches.

[Neil Kruger · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 Stars

The contributing essays were fine and, as is normally the case with apologetics, gives the reader much to consider and think through.

As a means of studying apologetic method or argumentative strategy these essays overlapped too much to give the reader a clear picture of distinctive approaches to apologetics. It must have been a nightmare to edit. This likely demonstrates that apologetic methodology, as it matures, will tend to converge and integrate insights from other approaches. Still, the reader will be left wondering why there are five views, especially given that epistemic considerations (besides Frame's essay) are neglected.

There is still much to appreciate, but I would not pick this up as the first book to give exposure to defending the faith.

[Cole Brandon · Rating 2 out of 5]

There’s a lot to sort out here - 5 contributors is at least one too many and the layout of the book also contributes to its chaotic disorganization. There is too much foundational disagreement to have a meaningful discussion on methodology. That said, Craig does best, especially with his amazing knowing versus showing distinction. Clark also does very well, but he argues better against other apologetics than for his own. Frame is too agreeable for a counterpoints volume. Habermas does very well, but for me Clark’s critique puts him out. Feinberg comes across weak in his capitulation to unbelievers. In sum, gold for Craig, silver for Clark, bronze for Habermas, honorable mention to Frame, and Feinberg bringing up the rear.

[Kevin Gray · Rating 3 out of 5]

I appreciated the exposure even to the idea of differing apologetic approaches and to the actual explications thereof. I didn’t find the responses helpful, and I skimmed most of them, especially the rejoinders (Closing Remarks). It seems to me that this debate is about finding the Holy Grail of the perfect method, achieving epistemological, philosophical, and rational “Nirvana” (I apologize if that is too pejorative). I don’t think we need to achieve that—I think we just need to have tools in our tool belt or various witnesses to help strengthen our faith and to communicate it (and its defense) to others. All of it will all hit deaf ears without the Spirit. There seem to be good points on all sides. I hope this does not make me sound like a Relativist.

[Carey Smoak · Rating 3 out of 5]

I like the format of the book. Each of the five authors writes an essay and the other four authors critique the essay. Then the author of the essay writes a response (rejoinder) to the critiques. In this way, the book is like written discussion between the five authors.

The topic of the book is different approaches (methods) of doing apologetics. Each author has a different view on how apologetics should be done, i.e., the methods that one should use when doing apologetics.

From my perspective, I see the differing methods as different tools that I can use when doing apologetics. In other words, there are five tools at my disposal and I can choose the right tool for the right situation.

[Neil Williams · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you are looking for a book that helps you understand the different Christian beliefs about Christian Apologetics you might have found the right book.

The problem I found with this text is that all five views are limited in explaining their views. It is an introduction to these five views with some bickering thrown in. It is of my opinion that they should be studied individually from longer works written by individuals such as these so that their views might have a better explanation where they can each give a better defense and more examples of their own apologetics.

I learned from it but was left a little dissatisfied.

[Lucas Nosal · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book for my Worldview and Culture Class. I came into it not really expecting much. I mean who wants to read a book about different apologetic methodologies? However, I did learn some things as I read it. I appreciate the work of all of the authors. When it comes down to it, there isn't really that much of a difference between all of them. All agree that it is the Spirit who must work, and sometimes he works through the presentation of evidences, sometimes he works through the presentation of Scripture. Though I have preferences and opinions on the best method (Presuppositionalism), I am thankful for people who "do apologetics", regardless of their method.

[Sara Leacock · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is great if you just want to learn about various apologetic methods from some of the best and brightest apologists in each method. The compare and contrast was helpful, and each author was given time to respond to each other method as presented by the expert in that field and also rebut responses to their own method.

[Nate Goldstein · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book. I have a better knowledge of the differing methods of apologetics. Would love to see a second version of this to see how the conversation has developed over the past 20 years. A bit taxing to read at times especially in William Lane Craig section using Bayes Theorem was a bit over my head and hard for the average reader to comprehend.

[Sean McGowan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a great book. I actually appreciate a lot of what every contributor wrote, although I do not agree with each methodological approach. I am more in line with Frame, although I really appreciate a lot (not all) of what I hear from Alvin Plantinga and the other Reformed Epistemologists.