Why are evangelical apologists so mediocre?

[camerong]

I just watched Lee Storbil’s Case for Christ, the video version (available on Hulu here).

This made me reflect upon something. This video, and its arguments, are mostly really bad. I mean, I obviously agree with the ultimate conclusion, but a viewer has to take of her thinking cap to be convinced by this. This mediocrity, I think, is pretty common among evangelical apologists. I once was nearly a fundamentalist, and even then, when I read Ravi Zacharias or Josh McDowell, I recognized it as really worthless stuff.

I bring this up because I think it was mediocrity which actually turned me off Christianity altogether for several years. I recognized that the average atheist I knew was far more sophisticated in this arena than even the above-average evangelical.

Fast forward to my becoming Catholic, where priests often spend 5 to 10 years *postgrad * studying philosophy, language, theology… nearly every Catholic writer I have encountered (with a few notable exceptions) is brilliant, extremely well-educated, and passionately spiritual.

Am I the only one with this conclusion? I don’t mean this post to be offensive to any evangelicals, but it seems a very common trend. And, at the very least, it makes me extremely happy to be a Catholic

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I just watched Lee Storbil’s Case for Christ, the video version (available on Hulu here).

This made me reflect upon something. This video, and its arguments, are mostly really bad. I mean, I obviously agree with the ultimate conclusion, but a viewer has to take of her thinking cap to be convinced by this. This mediocrity, I think, is pretty common among evangelical apologists. I once was nearly a fundamentalist, and even then, when I read Ravi Zacharias or Josh McDowell, I recognized it as really worthless stuff.

I bring this up because I think it was mediocrity which actually turned me off Christianity altogether for several years. I recognized that the average atheist I knew was far more sophisticated in this arena than even the above-average evangelical.

Fast forward to my becoming Catholic, where priests often spend 5 to 10 years *postgrad *studying philosophy, language, theology… nearly every Catholic writer I have encountered (with a few notable exceptions) is brilliant, extremely well-educated, and passionately spiritual.

Am I the only one with this conclusion? I don’t mean this post to be offensive to any evangelicals, but it seems a very common trend. And, at the very least, it makes me extremely happy to be a Catholic

Apologetics generally tries to prove or defend the TRUTH. Evangelical and, protestant apologists spend a lot of time trying to prove the false is true and defend error.

 

[HereticalTheist]

Apologetics generally tries to prove or defend the TRUTH. Evangelical and, protestant apologists spend a lot of time trying to prove the false is true and defend error.

Try reading better Evangelical Apologists for one thing:

Clive Staples Lewis
William Lane Craig
Norman Geisler
Alvin Plantinga
Peter Van Inwagen
Robert Koons
J.P. Moreland
R.C. Sproul
Paul Copan
Eric Reitan

There are many many more one could name.

 

[Call_Me_V]

I just watched Lee Storbil’s Case for Christ, the video version (available on Hulu here).

This made me reflect upon something. This video, and its arguments, are mostly really bad. I mean, I obviously agree with the ultimate conclusion, but a viewer has to take of her thinking cap to be convinced by this. This mediocrity, I think, is pretty common among evangelical apologists. I once was nearly a fundamentalist, and even then, when I read Ravi Zacharias or Josh McDowell, I recognized it as really worthless stuff.

I bring this up because I think it was mediocrity which actually turned me off Christianity altogether for several years. I recognized that the average atheist I knew was far more sophisticated in this arena than even the above-average evangelical.

Fast forward to my becoming Catholic, where priests often spend 5 to 10 years *postgrad * studying philosophy, language, theology… nearly every Catholic writer I have encountered (with a few notable exceptions) is brilliant, extremely well-educated, and passionately spiritual.

Am I the only one with this conclusion? I don’t mean this post to be offensive to any evangelicals, but it seems a very common trend. And, at the very least, it makes me extremely happy to be a Catholic

Purely my opinion, but evangelicals seem to me to be more “faith” based while Catholics tend to be more “reason” based (not that either group excludes either one, of course). The Catholic Church has embraced natural theology, the idea that its beliefs are rational and evidenced, since Thomas Aquinas. The Protestants, on the other hand, are intellectually descended from people like Martin Luther and John Calvin, who, if memory serves me correctly, not only took an obsessively anti-reason, pro blind faith approach, (I believe it was they who embraced the fideist idea that faith was irrational, but that you should still have faith anyways) but even seemed to resent science and earthly knowledge in general. Though many modern day Protestants have embraced science, natural theology, and the idea that their beliefs are rational, they are still, in my opinion, trying to recover from the anti-intellectual traditions of their reformers, while Catholics have embraced natural theology for years.

I would, in their defense, however, say that not all evangelical apologists are that bad, and not all Catholic apologists are very good. I remember reading one of Dr. Hahn’s books written against Richard Dawkins, and though I’m working from memory, I remember not being able to finish it because it wasn’t very good (which is particularly bad when one considers that A) I was Catholic at the time, and B) there are more holes in the logic of Richard Dawkins than there are in swiss cheese, Dr. Hahn just couldn’t seem to find many of them). On the other hand, there are very competent Evangelical apologists as well, my personal favorite being Dr. William Lane Craig, of reasonablefaith.org, who has certainly come closer to bringing me back to Christianity than any Catholic apologist that I’ve read or listened to. Watch a few of his debates and you’ll see what I mean: the man is a debating machine! Very talented.

V

 

[HereticalTheist]

Apologetics generally tries to prove or defend the TRUTH. Evangelical and, protestant apologists spend a lot of time trying to prove the false is true and defend error.

Due respect Rich…but there are many many talented and brilliant Evangelical apologists who are out there in the trenches striving for the truth, and yeah maybe they haven’t got the whole truth, but if they reach even one soul who through their diligent comes to know Christ, and perhaps even to know his Church eventually…then who are you to denigrate their important and soul-saving work? Show some humility and admit that if God can use Balam *** to deliver a message, he can certainly use a world-class intellectual, and protestant philosopher, of the likes of Alvin Plantinga to win a soul here and there.

 

[HereticalTheist]

Purely my opinion, but evangelicals seem to me to be more “faith” based while Catholics tend to be more “reason” based (not that either group excludes either one, of course).

Be careful here. While I tend to think that many evangelical laymen tend to be anit-intellectual, we should resist painting with a broad brush. There are many profound and deep protestant thinkers both currently and historically.

The Catholic Church has embraced natural theology, the idea that its beliefs are rational and evidenced, since Thomas Aquinas. The Protestants, on the other hand, are intellectually descended from people like Martin Luther and John Calvin, who, if memory serves me correctly, not only took an obsessively anti-reason, pro blind faith approach, (I believe it was they who embraced the fideist idea that faith was irrational, but that you should still have faith anyways) but even seemed to resent science and earthly knowledge in general.

This is false…fideism (which by the way the Catholic philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal defended an early proto-type of) did not develop until well after Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, via the work of Johann Georg Hamann in the Late 18th century, a theologian heavily influenced by the Scottish skeptical philosopher David Hume.

Though many modern day Protestants have embraced science, natural theology, and the idea that their beliefs are rational, they are still, in my opinion, trying to recover from the anti-intellectual traditions of their reformers, while Catholics have embraced natural theology for years.

Your opinion, it appears, has scarce basis in fact.

I would, in their defense, however, say that not all evangelical apologists are that bad, and not all Catholic apologists are very good.

Quite right.

 

[Cominghome89]

Try reading better Evangelical Apologists for one thing:

Clive Staples Lewis
William Lane Craig
Norman Geisler
Alvin Plantinga
Peter Van Inwagen
Robert Koons
J.P. Moreland
R.C. Sproul
Paul Copan
Eric Reitan

There are many many more one could name.

I wouldn’t consider C.S. Lewis even close to an evangelical. Evangelical in the sense of trying to evangelize non-Christians? Sure, in that broad sense of the word many of us Catholics are evangelical as well. In the sense of American “Bible-believing”, Billy Graham type evangelicals? Not at all. Lewis relied heavily on Christian Tradition, despite his loyalty to the Church of England and not the Catholic Church.

I think it’s important to separate the term “evangelical” from other Protestant ways of thinking only because “evangelical” has a very specific connotation today, particularly here in the States.

In Christ,
Frank

 

[Call_Me_V]

Be careful here. While I tend to think that many evangelical laymen tend to be anit-intellectual, we should resist painting with a broad brush. There are many profound and deep protestant thinkers both currently and historically.

A fact that I think I pretty well acknowledged, specifically with my recommendation of Dr. Craig.

This is false…fideism (which by the way the Catholic philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal defended an early proto-type of) did not develop until well after Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, via the work of Johann Georg Hamann in the Late 18th century, a theologian heavily influenced by the Scottish skeptical philosopher David Hume.

Thanks for the correction, my mistake.

Your opinion, it appears, has scarce basis in fact.

I was presenting my opinion based on my experiences. Nearly all of the Protestants that I have met in real life have been strictly “faith, faith, faith” types. Did you read my entire second paragraph, where I praised Dr. Craig and said that he was the best Christian apologist that I’ve ever read?

Quite right.

And I never intended anything otherwise. I apologize if my post offended you, I have the utmost respect for many Protestant apologists (as I tried to say in my first post, in the areas that I am interested in, the Protestant apologists like Dr. Craig are, in my opinion, far superior to any of the Catholic apologists in the field).

Sorry for any confusion,
V

 

[LoyalViews]

Though I can’t watch it (Hulu is US only), in other things I have seen, Evangelicals, and Protestants of the like, preach nothing but error and falseness. They have false prophets, and thos televangelists only want money. They also want nothing but to argue about doctrines and dogmas and teachings. Televangelists try to gain converts (a.k.a people to give them money so they can buy ****).

Thos radical Protestants who fly across stages, hippy-hoppiting and flitting like a butterfly without wings across their “churches”, speaking in gibberish, etc…

Personally, they give me nightmares!

 

[Call_Me_V]

Thos radical Protestants who fly across stages, hippy-hoppiting and flitting like a butterfly without wings across their “churches”, speaking in gibberish, etc…

Personally, they give me nightmares!

My (now Catholic) dad became totally turned off to religion by the very wacky Baptist preacher at the church that he attended when he was young. He wasn’t able to take religion seriously for a long time after that.

V

 

[HereticalTheist]

I wouldn’t consider C.S. Lewis even close to an evangelical. Evangelical in the sense of trying to evangelize non-Christians? Sure, in that broad sense of the word many of us Catholics are evangelical as well. In the sense of American “Bible-believing”, Billy Graham type evangelicals? Not at all. Lewis relied heavily on Christian Tradition, despite his loyalty to the Church of England and not the Catholic Church.

I think it’s important to separate the term “evangelical” from other Protestant ways of thinking only because “evangelical” has a very specific connotation today, particularly here in the States.

In Christ,
Frank

have look at this article on “Defining Evangelicalism”…I would say Lewis nicely adheres to the five key beliefs of the Evangelical laid out therein…isae.wheaton.edu/defining-evangelicalism/

 

[Julian0404]

I cannot speak to their writting as I have not had the opportunity to purchase any of their works, but as their strength of faith and presentation orally, I find that I enjoy Ravi Zacharis and Josh McDowell whenever I come across them on the radio - Ravi more than Josh.

They understand Christianity and they always leave me richer for the experience of having heard them.

I also wonder and medidate on how GOD works wonders in ways we can never know, when I hear the above gentlemen. Their message is so strong, but yet they haven’t connected the last two dots of TRUE PRESENCE and PAPAL AUTHORITY, and it leaves me in awe of our wonderful GOD that HE has made such strong orators of the faith, but yet the free will of these gentlemen has kept them from embracing the words and desires of GOD completly.

I hope I am alive to see both of these gentlemen and agents for GOD, finally connect the dots.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Due respect Rich…but there are many many talented and brilliant Evangelical apologists who are out there in the trenches striving for the truth, and yeah maybe they haven’t got the whole truth, but if they reach even one soul who through their diligent comes to know Christ, and perhaps even to know his Church eventually…then who are you to denigrate their important and soul-saving work? Show some humility and admit that if God can use Balam *** to deliver a message, he can certainly use a world-class intellectual, and protestant philosopher, of the likes of Alvin Plantinga to win a soul here and there.

That’s true. Remember that a broken clock is right twice a day. I heard once that it is better however to refuse a box of chocolates with “only” 10% arsenic, even though the other 90% are all perfectly good, especially when you can’t tell which ones are which.

 

[Drawmack]

I just watched Lee Storbil’s Case for Christ, the video version (available on Hulu here).

This made me reflect upon something. This video, and its arguments, are mostly really bad. I mean, I obviously agree with the ultimate conclusion, but a viewer has to take of her thinking cap to be convinced by this. This mediocrity, I think, is pretty common among evangelical apologists. I once was nearly a fundamentalist, and even then, when I read Ravi Zacharias or Josh McDowell, I recognized it as really worthless stuff.

I bring this up because I think it was mediocrity which actually turned me off Christianity altogether for several years. I recognized that the average atheist I knew was far more sophisticated in this arena than even the above-average evangelical.

Fast forward to my becoming Catholic, where priests often spend 5 to 10 years *postgrad * studying philosophy, language, theology… nearly every Catholic writer I have encountered (with a few notable exceptions) is brilliant, extremely well-educated, and passionately spiritual.

Am I the only one with this conclusion? I don’t mean this post to be offensive to any evangelicals, but it seems a very common trend. And, at the very least, it makes me extremely happy to be a Catholic

Funny, if you read the Case for Christ instead of watching it you’ll notice that three of the people he interviews for it are Catholic priests because he goes to the pre-eminent authority for each topic regardless of what stripe of Christianity they espouse.

 

[Drawmack]

I wouldn’t consider C.S. Lewis even close to an evangelical. Evangelical in the sense of trying to evangelize non-Christians? Sure, in that broad sense of the word many of us Catholics are evangelical as well. In the sense of American “Bible-believing”, Billy Graham type evangelicals? Not at all. Lewis relied heavily on Christian Tradition, despite his loyalty to the Church of England and not the Catholic Church.

Let me get this straight you don’t consider someone who writes articles defending the Christian faith for publication in a secular media source an evangalist? Might I ask what an evangalist is in your opinion?

 

[basinite]

That’s true. Remember that a broken clock is right twice a day. I heard once that it is better however to refuse a box of chocolates with “only” 10% arsenic, even though the other 90% are all perfectly good, especially when you can’t tell which ones are which.

That’s the best response I’ve seen to a thread in a long time. Well said brother!

 

[basinite]

Try reading better Evangelical Apologists for one thing:

Clive Staples Lewis
William Lane Craig
Norman Geisler
Alvin Plantinga
Peter Van Inwagen
Robert Koons
J.P. Moreland
R.C. Sproul
Paul Copan
Eric Reitan

There are many many more one could name.

CS Lewis was definitely NOT an evangelical protestant. If anything he was a “closet” Catholic. It’s too bad Tolkien (who helped convert Lewis to Christianity) wasn’t entirely successful in bringing Lewis to the fullness of Christianity, which can only be found in the Catholic Church.

 

[HereticalTheist]

CS Lewis was definitely NOT an evangelical protestant. If anything he was a sorta a “closet” Catholic. It’s too bad Tolkien (who helped convert Lewis to Christianity) wasn’t entirely successful in bringing Lewis to the fullness of Christianity, which can only be found in the Catholic Church.

1. Maybe Tolkien would have been more successful if he and Edith hadn’t shunned Lewis after his marriage to Joy Gresham (a divorcee). Alas.
2. Did you see the link I posted above? Lewis pretty well fits the five criteria that (at least some) historians use for determining who is or is not an evangelical. And certainly if you ask an Evangelical, they will claim him (as Catholics will claim him, and Anglicans will claim him) as amongst their own.

 

[basinite]

1. Maybe Tolkien would have been more successful if he and Edith hadn’t shunned Lewis after his marriage to Joy Gresham (a divorcee). Alas.
2. Did you see the link I posted above? Lewis pretty well fits the five criteria that (at least some) historians use for determining who is or is not an evangelical. And certainly if you ask an Evangelical, they will claim him (as Catholics will claim him, and Anglicans will claim him) as amongst their own.

I don’t see how an evangelical protestant could claim Lewis as one of their own and still be intellectually honest. For starters, CS Lewis taught the doctrine of purgatory in one of his most famous books “Mere Christianity”. I think we would both agree that “purgatory” and “evangelical protestants” don’t mix. I think most evangelical protestants are probably ignorant of what CS Lewis really believed.

 

[jasev]

I don’t see how an evangelical protestant could claim Lewis as one of their own and still be intellectually honest. For starters, CS Lewis taught the doctrine of purgatory in one of his most famous books “Mere Christianity”. I think we would both agree that “purgatory” and “evangelical protestants” don’t mix. I think most evangelical protestants are probably ignorant of what CS Lewis really believed.

I’m a bit tired, and probably just not thinking/remembering clearly… but where does he teach this in that book?

In any case, to the original poster - who are some of the Catholic apologists that are so great, and are they great at defending against protestants or in explaining / defending the faith to the vast non-Christian world? Honest question there as I really just don’t know.

BTW - I would have to give a tip of the hat to N. T. Wright and John Stott. Wright may not be considered an Evangelical (thought I’m sure some certainly claim him!), but I’m pretty sure you could say certainly Stott is Evangelical and Anglican.