Classical Apologetics by John H. Gerstner, Arthur W. Lindsley, R.C. Sproul Summary and Reviews
|
List Price: Our Price: $14.00 You Save: $11.99 (46%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $3.96 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of Classical Apologetics
Book Review: Disappointing
Summary: 1 Stars
In Bible college I was given this book as a text for a class on Apologetics. I was fairly new to the Reformed faith, and highly indebted to Dr. Sproul's works such as Chosen By God. He helped give me a proper view of predestination, reprobation, depravity, election, perseverance etc. During that time I also read his book Faith Alone that critiqued Roman Catholicism and enjoyed it immensely. But having read this book on apologetics, I came away from it sadly confused. It came across as Roman Catholic at worst and Arminian at best. Although the authors are Calvinistic in their approach to other areas of theology, in terms of their apologetics they are a strange hybrid of a variety of traditions.Classical Apologetics is a tough read for someone who is just getting in to apologetics, there are better ones out there to be used as an introduction - for example Scott Oliphant's The Battle Belongs to the Lord, or Greg Bahnsen's Always Ready.
It is divided into three sections 1) sets forth their unreformed view of natural theology (for a critique of the natural theology of this ilk, see John Owen's Biblical Theology) 2) is a section on the "classical" theistic proofs, which are nothing more than a reassertion of Aquinas' theology and 3) a horrible critique of presuppositional apologetics a la Cornelius Van Til.
The scholarship in this book is poor. Whoever the publisher was, or the editor, they should have looked at it more closely. There are some glaring errors in terms of research. For example, when they cite Edwards on the noetic effects of sin (and try to make him out to be a rationalist) footnote nine on page 243 actually refers the readers to one of Dr. Gerstner's books! For a good review of Edwards' apologetical background, see Stephen Nichols' book An Absolute Sort of Certainty or Scott Oliphant's article Edwards the Reformed Apologist at www.reformed.org.
The bulk of the book is set at critiquing Van Til. They label him a "fideist" - a horrible charge. One that Sproul denied in a debate with Greg Bahnsen (www.cmfnow.com), yet stated categorically in this book!
Their attack on circular reasoning proves that they don't understand what Van Til was saying when he called it a "glorious circle." He did not mean that the fallacy of begging the question was glorious, rather he gloried in the fact that there is no higher standard with which to measure the claims of the Bible (otherwise that standard would be deemed more worthy than the Bible) so it is self-attesting and therefore its attestation of itself is in fact circular. Just as Christ's authority is based not on some outside source to measure it, rather it is attested to by His own authority.
For an indepth critique of this book I would suggest Oliphant's article, as well as the appendix of John Frame's Apologetics to the Glory of God and Bahnsen's response at cmfnow.com.
Don't buy this book, unless you have to for class. If you do, look at it critically and in light of what others have said about it. Sproul, Gerstner and Lindslay come out looking like Arminian rationalists, which is very sad to say the least.
Book Review: Excellent scholarly work
Summary: 5 Stars
This book is a mixture of philosophy, church history and theology. It lays down the foundations of apologetics and of the intellectual enterprise. It is very interesting but the style is sometimes too lengthy. The 1st part sets the problem of fideism and secularization, and responds with natural theology and logic.
The 2nd part Deals with the religious knowledge, proofs and scripture. It has some very good discussions on miracles, the Holy Spirit, etc which are not found elsewhere. the treatement of the ontological arguement is not very clear.
The 3rd part deals with the absurdities of Presuppositionalism. It deals with with the ideas of Dooyeweerd, Van Til, John Frame and others. their ideas are ideas so incredibly absurd that I wonder if they deserved such lengthy expositions and refutations. This part may also be a good corrective to those who have read the writings of Francis Schaeffer or have been influenced by his ideas.
The book is not always easy to read and may be too difficult for "uneducated" readers.
Book Review: Good Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics, but...
Summary: 5 Stars
Sproul rightly critiques Van Til's contradictions about whether non-Christians have "true" knowledge of God. Sproul argues that they do in accordance with Romans Chapter One and shows that Van Til inconsistently admits that they do also even though in other places he says or implies that they don't. One does not need to "presuppose" God because, according to Romans One (and Sproul), all have at least some knowledge of God through God's natural/general revelation. This allows for a common ground between Christians and non-Christians. But Sproul, being a Classical Apologist, still thinks that one must posit proofs for God's existence even though everybody apparently already knows God exists. This is confusing. Sproul, on pages 262 and 263, basically says that the primary task of the apologist is to not let the non-Christians who argue against the truth they already know "escape" by "reminding" them of "arguments which they cannot deny." This, to me, is a ridiculous and weak justification for doing Classical/Traditional apologetics. If God's existence is taken for granted in the Bible (including Romans 1), and nowhere proven because everybody apparently already knows that God exists, then theistic apologetics (distinct from Christian evidences) is a waste of time. (side note: I agree with Mortimer J. Adler who said that "true knowledge" is redundant and "false knowledge" is a contradiction in terms) - Brad ClarkBook Review: Good, but Modernist
Summary: 3 Stars
This is a good work to introduce the traditional form of apologetics. It should prove to strengthen the believers faith as well as challenge unbelieving thought. However, it is not without its own holes. First, it is built upon classical foundationalism, a now defunct epistemology from the enlightenment. Second, in regards to its triadic foundation, it does not establish the law of non-contradiction as applying to beings (as opposed to it applying to thought only). Just because 'communication would be meaningless if the law of non-contradiction did not apply to beings' does not mean that it actually does. They simply presuppose that it does apply. Third, Sproul maintains that logic flows from God's character. This is a presupposition? Besides, is this Aristotelian logic, Boolean logic, or one of the others? There are more problems than that.Book Review: Good, just a little wordy at times
Summary: 3 Stars
This was a rather intense read about classical apologetics. I would highly recommend it to those that have an interest or prior knowledge and understanding of apologetics. The book is divided into three sections: --Classical Natural Theology, an overview of problem and method --Classical apologetics, the theistic proofs, the deity of Christ, and the infallibility of scripture --Classical critique of presuppositional apologetics
The first section seemed very wordy to me, and I had a hard time getting through it. The second was very interesting, and providing a great summary of different arguments, including the ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments for God. This chapter also has chapters dealing with the Spirit and Word of God.
The third section is probably the best section (although it still lacked brevity). Chapter 11 is the best chapter in the book; it has great summaries of Luther, Calvin, and Augustine's views on reason as it relates to faith. All should check out this chapter.