 |
Taking Every Thought Captive |
 Got Life? Our Ministry Our Beliefs Our Staff Articles What's New? Contact Us Resources Bookstore Search Links
|
THE APOLOGETICS STUDY BIBLE A Book Review by Massimo Lorenzini Cabal, Ted, ed. The Apologetics Study Bible. Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007. 2008 pp. $39.95. Introduction The Apologetics Study Bible is a collaborative effort of dozens of leading evangelical scholars to produce a study Bible specifically aimed at giving answers to the common intellectual objections and questions about the Christian faith. It contains many features we have come to expect in a study Bible such as commentary notes, book introductions, maps, and charts. Probably the most notable feature of this study Bible is the numerous brief articles dealing the most common apologetics issues as well as a dozen biographical sketches of important defenders of the faith in church history. Also included are very brief “Twisted Scripture” articles that refute misinterpretations of key Scriptures. This review will concentrate on several of the articles in the study Bible that stand out as especially helpful as well as a few that could be stronger. Summary The first article in the study Bible is by Kenneth Boa titled “What is Apologetics?” A simple definition, according to Boa, is “the defense of the Christian faith” (xxv). Boa identifies the meaning of apologia (from which “apologetics” is derived) as originally conveying the idea of “a speech of defense” or “a defense made in the courtroom” (xxv). Apologia then began to be used to describe a group of Christian writers in the second century who “defended the beliefs and practices of Christianity against various attacks” (xxv). Four functions of apologetics are vindication (or proof), defense, refutation, and persuasion. The rest of the articles vary on a wide range of topics such as “Is Psychology Biblical?” to “How Does the Bible Relate to Islam?” to “What is a Worldview?” The authors strive for a non-sectarian and balanced perspective. For example, in the article “Are the Days of Genesis to Be Interpreted Literally?” author Ted Cabal presents the arguments by both young-earth creationists who believe the creation days to be literal 24-hour periods as well as old-earth creationists who believe the days refer to indefinite ages. The article “Is Psychology Biblical?” allows for integration between the Bible and psychology where human observation and research are judged consistent with Scripture. The articles also include potentially polarizing topics such as in the case of “How Can the Bible Affirm Both Divine Sovereignty and Human Feedom?” This question is addressed in two different articles by two authors holding differing positions. Bruce Ware writes from a soft determinist or compatibilist position, while William Lane Craig presents the view of molinism to explain how God’s sovereignty does not infringe upon to human freedom. Evaluation In general, I found many of the articles to be mediocre in their depth of analysis and in their helpfulness to equip Christians to defend their faith. The articles, in general, are brief introductions to the topics they address. They do not go into enough detail to help an uninformed reader develop his or her thinking on a particular issue. For example, in “What is a Worldview?” author Ronald Nash gives a decent definition of a worldview: “the total of answers people give to the most important questions in life” (923). But he does not explain the role of worldview in the process of interpretation of facts nor the relation between worldviews and behavior. The only truth test for evaluating a worldview Nash offers is the test of coherence. This completely ignores the role of presuppositions and epistemology. Many competing worldviews can claim internal coherence and yet be false. How do we make any progress here? Furthermore, Nash, as all the other articles, does not offer any recommended reading for learning more about worldviews. This fact seems particularly problematic since the articles give such a surface treatment to their topics. Offering additional resources would have greatly benefitted the reader who wants to pursue the topic further. Other articles gave good and thorough overviews of a topic, but failed to highlight important implications for apologetics. For example, in “What is Divine Revelation?” Gordon Lewis lists seven distinct sources of revelation. Actually, the seventh, Holy Scripture, Lewis offers as merely a record of the previous six sources of revelation. I would argue that Scripture itself is more than a mere record, but is a source of revelation itself. I found it helpful to identify these various sources to understand the multi-faceted way God has made himself known. An important implication that was not brought out in the article is the fact that, for us today, Scripture is the supreme functional source of divine revelation and the authority by which any and all claims to divine revelation are to be tested. Many cults and false religions are based on claims to divine authority and revelation. This article missed a good opportunity to point out to the reader that the Christian Scriptures should be employed to refute false claims to divine revelation. Articles I found to offer more depth include the following: “Evolution: Fact or Fantasy?,” “Aren’t All Religions Basically the Same?,” “How Should Christians Understand Postmodernism?,” “Why Would a Good God Send People to an Everlasting Hell?,” “Can the Gospel Be Presented Across Cultures?,” and “What Are Common Characteristics of the New Religious Movements?” This latter article gave a very comprehensive survey of common marks of a cult. The Christian who is armed with this knowledge will stand a far better chance of discerning a false religious system even if he or she has never heard of the group by name. In “Aren’t All Religions Basically the Same?” author Craig Hazen critiques the oft-repeated analogy of the blind men feeling various parts of the same elephant. This analogy is used to illustrate that all the religions of the world are likewise touching upon differing aspects of the same ultimate reality. He keenly points out the downfall of the analogy which is to ask “Who sees the elephant?” In other words, who is the one that stands outside of human limitations to see that all the religions are describing the same thing? Someone has to be the final arbiter of truth, which is precisely the point this analogy is designed to steer us away from. For Christians, the obvious answer is that Jesus Christ is the one who transcends all of creation, sees all and definitively declares that He alone is the way, the truth, and the life. Phillip E. Johnson, in “Evolution: Fact or Fantasy?,” refutes the idea of macroevolution. Observation only demonstrates the reality of microevolution, or “adaptive variation” as Johnson prefers, which is to say that species do adapt to certain environmental conditions through natural selection. Macroevolution, or simple species evolving into more complex, is a theory lacking scientific evidence. Charles Darwin observed microevolution and simply extrapolated macroevolution on the assumption that given very long periods of time, species evolved from simple to complex. Darwin made this assumption without any evidence of transition forms and without accounting for the source of the massive amounts of complicated genetic instructions needed to create complex organisms. Johnson points out that when debating evolutionists, Christians tend to over-complicate the matter. The simple fact is that, regardless of how much time is allowed for in the earth’s history, random variation and natural selection are incapable of creating any new genetic information. Johnson concludes, “Without a mechanism that can be demonstrated to be capable of the necessary creation, the theory of evolution is just a fantasy with no real scientific basis” (8). In “How Should a Christian Understand Postmodernism” Douglas R. Groothuis evaluates postmodernism as a philosophy or worldview. Groothuis demonstrates a very keen grasp of the issues by pointing out that postmodernism is predicated on a denial of the existence of objective truth and a suspicion of truth claims as mere powerplays: “Postmodernists claim that any comprehensive and authoritative worldview is forever out of reach and that to claim otherwise is an arrogant pretext for dominating those with whom one disagrees” (1385). Texts are to be “deconstructed” in a cynical effort to find hidden agendas. “Truth” is nothing more than a social, linguistic construct aimed at achieving certain political ends. In contrast, Groothuis states that Scripture claims to be objectively true and authoritative. Scripture asserts that God alone possesses comprehensive knowledge and can be trusted to give the correct interpretation of facts. Truth is that which corresponds to reality. Humans do not create truth regardless of social custom or personal opinion, a fact demonstrated by the Bible’s condemnation of idols as false gods (truth is truth no matter who affirms the opposite). Groothuis points out the obvious contradiction that the postmodern denial of absolute, objective truth is an assertion intended to be taken as absolute, objective truth. Postmodernism, in the end, “succumbs to a kind of intellectual indifference—the enemy of moral progress and spiritual value” (1386). Conclusion I found the articles in The Apologetics Study Bible to be a mixed bag of cursory overviews to very good analyses of issues related to Christian apologetics. I do not think I would recommend this resource. A glaring omission is the lack of cross references. I affirm the role of analogy of faith in Bible interpretation and I would think a cross referencing system to be a necessary feature for a Bible designed to help Christians defend the faith. The usually skimpy commentary notes emphasized answers to questions and objections that might be raised in by skeptics, a noteworthy feature for an apologetics Bible. I think the idea behind it is commendable and it seeks to meet a necessary need in the body of Christ. I really want to like this Bible. I find, however, the general lack of depth along with it’s non-Reformed and non-presuppositional slant to be its downfall. I would instead recommend a good study Bible like The MacArthur Study Bible along with a book on apologetic methodology like Pushing the Antithesis, a book that answers specific questions like The Bible Has the Answer and a dictionary of apologetics like the New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics. Another apologetics study Bible worth considering is the New Defender’s Study Bible edited by the late Henry Morris of Institute for Creation Research.
|
