Critical Essay: Five Views on Apologetics by Cowan Steven B.

Introduction

Steven Cowan brings together ideas of different editors in the modern Christianity giving as each writer tries to prove his method as the best. Cowan tries to explain on the honest obstacles that prevent people from faith in Jesus Christ and encourage their faith in gospel creating a room to several apologetic critiques. The book allows different opinions from other people, comparison and similarities of other apologetics contributors and responds to those critiques. The book has a definite starting and flow of philosopher ideas stating the role of the book as intended. Cowen views that important apologetic methods are the classical method, the evidentialist method, the cumulative case method, the presuppositional method and the reformed epistemology methods.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

According to Cowan, Steven. B., classical method explains the probable religion of God existence then the pieces of evidence to create the dependability of the Christ and the scriptures. The technique argues that the order of existence of God and the evidence is essential for one to believe in Gods miracles, history and interpret the practical information. The critique is that miracles only does not prove the existence of God. William Craig suggests that classical methodology should not hold on these steps but give the form of probability arguments.

Evidential method placed by Gary Habermas has a lot of mutuality with the classical approach. The approach proposes on one -step technique that miracle is just one prove that God exists. It focuses on past and inductive opinions for the specific Christianity without explaining the detailed nature of the theology. However, the differences between the two are that the evidence use and the existing facts like miracles and the truth. The method describes historical events and then clarify that such an unusual incident is practical if only the Christian God exist to convince the believers. Habermas said that it is difficult to push people into the kingdom of God by the use of reasoning and proofs. The actuality of sins widens the gap between people and God and plays a significant role in how unbeliever view God. Human beings have no power to save, but transformation takes place because of God. William Craig challenged the method saying that miracles do not provide an adequate explanation to be an apologetic method.

The cumulative case of the apologetic approaches do not seem like a Christianity influences, but like lawyer statement in the court. The approach interprets data and the fact not based on formal arguments like proof. The method supporter Basil Mitchell argues that the technique is a critic of the classical and evidentialist methods, that put together some facts creating a more clear and comprehensive model than any other existing theory. Christian theist says that Christianity offers the best facts compared to other theists; however, cumulative case tries to consider factors like the environment, the existence of the religion, individual morals and old pieces of evidence.

The presuppositional method supported by John Frame proposes that there is no interactive platform for followers and nonbelievers that allows followers to achieve their goals. The apologist assumes that the scripture provides the truth and the pieces of evidence interpreted. John Frame one of the presuppositionalist argues that God makes ideas conceivable and hence non-follower lives low lives without God. He said that there are some appreciated dynamic resulting from these ideas like explaining everything through the word of God. The presuppositionalist believe that God created man with reasoning ability and the faith in God. The apologist sense of the right and wrong is the instrument of the Holy Spirit and used by them while at work unlike Frame and Calvinist suggestions

Reformed epistemology method protected by Kelly James Clarks is closely connected to the presuppositional method and criticize the evidentialist. Epistemologist suggests that people can believe in many things without necessary evidence. The apologist doubted how suggestions were very significant in the apologetic methods. The author approves that both hostile and protective arguments for Christianity are essential today. The changed position such as presuppositional position has obvious problems caused by a form of free will. The critique is apparent because they explain that one can believe in God existence without proofs or order of miracles and people would believe in God instantly without assistance if the evidentialist arguments were rational and correct.

The editors tend to differ in their opinion as seen in the book that is Craig, Habermas and Feinberg stress on their personal methodologies uniqueness. However, the differences between these methods have no significance in the book. Patrick S. Critics on apologetic method points out some gaps by the editor of the book. Craig in classical approach brings some concerns against presuppositional; he could not get all basis by definition bringing more significant perceptions about the possibility to make some points which are wrong for philosopher because it might create misunderstanding to other editors. In the evidential method, Habermas seems to have an excess dislike for the presuppositional approach. Habermas uses the foundation already formed by other editors of the four apologetic, and he doesn't realize that. Habermas borrows the ideas of the classical method to explain his method which is not original this making the apologetic way to face a lot of challenges. Feinberg appears not to understand the presuppositional approach because he wants his idea seen in cumulative case approach. Frame in the presuppositional method does not explain the problem of complexity as expected in an apologetic method making the approach less presentable. Patrick criticizes Clark ideas in the reformed epistemological approach because the editor does not explain to the Christian that God exists making the method unrealistic. In Christian life, the most important thing is to glorify God as described by the apologist. The writer in the book seemed to agree on the meaning of some terms. The book is more of the methodology than apologetic which the primary purpose of the book raises a critic from the apologetic form supporters.

The presuppositional approach does not seem to support the Christian faith making it less apologetic which is the key role of the apologetic method. The apologetic way is also criticized because it does have more capturing facts to be recommended most comparing to other methods, but instead, the writers want their opinion look better than others, and some technique were intimately connected making them seem like one. The first three methods have much-shared information whereby Habermas appeals Craig oftenly, and he acknowledges they have fewer differences. Frame says Clark dissatisfied by Clarkhim in epistemological approach because he feels Clark should have tried to explain the Christian faith. However, Frame mentioned that Clark is a transformed epistemologist. Clark, on the other hand, said there presuppositionalism was not clear because it suggested that non-believer know nothing creating misinterpretation of the method. Clark created a perception that all the idea of the frame were senseless as he said every individual could get the information from the scripture as If the scripture lacks importance to confirm people. All the authors in the apologetic method created on philosophical basis and testimonies instead of instead of biblical scriptures hence requiring the theological transparency. The apologetic methods apologist appears to write on what an individual considers the best. Each writer writes on his idea and assessed by the other four writers creating misinterpretation to some people because they will not understand which writer believe in what thing. This method is not clear on why there are considerable differences between the five methods and how they intend to work on the dissimilarities.

Conclusion

Cowan gives people ground to compare and contrast the apologetic method which is inclusive of other people ideas. This method brings to the table perception of different applied methodologies as viewed in the five views apologetic book because of it more of dialogue between the five authors with different opinion making it more interactive. The authors of the apologetic book did a recommendable job trying to bring the five methods together to explain the issues important to Christianity. The authors of the book attempt to appreciate each other irrespective of their differences and also attempts to defend their methods from critics of other writers.