Thread: Who’s the “best” living apologist today? Classical or Presuppositional?

In Christian charity who’s the “best” living apologist today? Classical or Presuppositional?

Dr White and Dr Sproul for their respective subject matters and intended audiences.

for me personally it's still Jesus.

I would like to suggest that Alvin Plantinga's name be added to the list. The apologists that are listed here, no doubt, rely heavily on the philosophical contributions that Plantinga has made over the last forty years.

They are all heavy hitters, but Plantinga's work has been essential to their body of work.

Having been fortunate enough to once hear R.C. Sproul preach in person, I thought he was amazing. He did the whole thing extemporaneously and spoke for an hour on a passage in Romans.

Dr. James White hands down! By the way, hes coming down to jersey, June 22-24.

Why isn't Dave Hunt on the list?

Originally Posted by Craig

Why isn't Dave Hunt on the list?

Dave Hunt? um, really?

Originally Posted by Craig

Why isn't Dave Hunt on the list?

I was surprised (and somewhat disappointed) years ago when I heard Plantinga give a lecture at Southern seminary. Two things stood out to me. First he made it quite clear that he was a "Reformed philosopher, not a Reformed Theologian", and for some reason mentioned that his philosophical stance would excuse his conscience should he ever have to steal (in theory no doubt) in order to feed his family. That, rightly or wrongly, has colored my reading of him.

Josh McDowell is one of the most widely read and most accessible for non churched folks.

Apologetics must not use a lot of jargon.

Plantinga, Bahnsen and others are fine for already-Christians to read to know how to defend their faith, but I still find that Josh McDowell is the best to give to non churched nonbelievers who are not acquainted with a lot of Christian lingo, etc.

As far as cults and non-secular religions, James White is a well disciplined heavy hitter. I've downloaded his recent debate with Dan Barker, and when I get around to listening to it I suppose I'll get to see how he handles secular religions.

Glad am I to hear so many of my TR brethren praise and laud a fellow Fuller grad, James White! Whenever I am tempted to want to hide under the table in the "where did YOU go to seminary?" treads, it is nice to point to Piper, Riddlebarger, and White.

White is more of a debater than most of the other candidates listed. For connecting apologetics to the larger history and tradition of the church, R.C. can hardly be beat. Plus he is accessible, despite his penchant for latinisms.

I have heard the most of Douglas Wilson's presuppositionalism and I think he does pretty good

I do not know if he is the best but Ravi Zacharias should at least have made the list

I think Sproul is good, but not being an evidentialist myself, I couldn't vote for him.

Wouldn't Sproul be considered a classical apologist as opposed to an evidentialist? He argues for the existence of God using classical arguments as opposed to showing a bunch of facts.

Originally Posted by jpfrench81

Wouldn't Sproul be considered a classical apologist as opposed to an evidentialist? He argues for the existence of God using classical arguments as opposed to showing a bunch of facts.

Yes, I think that's the best category for Sproul. McDowell would more appropriately represent an evidentialist approach...

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by jpfrench81

Wouldn't Sproul be considered a classical apologist as opposed to an evidentialist? He argues for the existence of God using classical arguments as opposed to showing a bunch of facts.

Yes, I think that's the best category for Sproul. McDowell would more appropriately represent an evidentialist approach...

McDowell is an evidentialist of the historical kind. Sproul (Classical) is evidentialist of the philosophical kind. IMHO. The logical proofs for the existence of God (a la Aquinas) attempt to provide philosophical evidence for the existence of God. What Sproul denies is historical evidentialism not philosophical evidentialism. Nash and Reymond classify Sproul in the evidentialist camp.

Originally Posted by Re4mdant

I do not know if he is the best but Ravi Zacharias should at least have made the list

let's put him instead of Geisler..BLEH

Originally Posted by ReformedChapin

Originally Posted by Re4mdant

I do not know if he is the best but Ravi Zacharias should at least have made the list

let's put him instead of Geisler..BLEH

O. Wow. Geisler is on the list? mhmm. You see, guys like Dave Hunt and Geisler I've never heard defending the Christian faith.Although, I have heard both of these men attack Reformed theology, and even worse, redefine historical terms. I cant listen to Geisler. He has a sermon critiquing calvinism on youtube. (weak arguments)

-----Added 5/19/2009 at 03:17:25 EST-----

Originally Posted by ReformedChapin

Originally Posted by Re4mdant

I do not know if he is the best but Ravi Zacharias should at least have made the list

let's put him instead of Geisler..BLEH

Ravi is sharp.

White

Originally Posted by jpfrench81

Wouldn't Sproul be considered a classical apologist as opposed to an evidentialist? He argues for the existence of God using classical arguments as opposed to showing a bunch of facts.

Aren't the classical arguments all based on evidentialism and empiricism? Mostly coming from Aquinas who Christianized Aristotle?

I tend to think that White's approach is aided greatly by his skills as a debator. Those skills, coupled with his broad theological knowledge (systematically, historically, etc.), make him quite formidable.

I don't know that think "best" is a word we ought to employ about the ministry and godly men but I think Michael Horton is an effective and faithful apologist.

I like Bahnsen and Paul Manata. Never heard R.C. Sproul defend/argue the classical arguments before, so I wouldn't know. William Lane Craig, of course, is also very good.

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

I like Bahnsen and Paul Manata. Never heard R.C. Sproul defend/argue the classical arguments before, so I wouldn't know. William Lane Craig, of course, is also very good.

I would vote for Bahnsen as well, but I thought when the question asked who is the best "living" apologist that it meant living amongst us.

My vote for best living apologist would be James White. His knowledge for manuscript evidence is excellent. He also does very well with identifying his opponents presumptions.

Two others that I have seen in person are very good are Phillip E. Johnson who has of late suffered a couple of strokes that has removed him from the current debate forum. He can be heard on the Veritas Forum. Another that I have seen is Ravi Zacharius who is a great speaker to hear in person.

I think Doug Wilson is the best living apologist that I have listened to. James white is a distant second.

There are none living, that I have heard or read, who hold a candle to Bahnsen.

Peace,
DK

I think Doug Wilson is the best living apologist that I have listened to. James white is a distant second.

There are none living, that I have heard or read, who hold a candle to Bahnsen.



Agreed. A gentleman at my last church gave me a copy of his "mid-level course on apologetics". I listened and thought "mid-level for who?".

Paul Manata says this in regards to his being among the options to choose from:

It is flattering to see my name there, but it is utterly ridiculous to have my name there, especially considering (a) who I am ahead of and (b) who didn't make the cut.

Some names I think should up there: Scott Oliphint, Bill Edgar, Robert Reymond, Tim Keller, and Ravi Zacharias.

Originally Posted by Re4mdant

I do not know if he is the best but Ravi Zacharias should at least have made the list

Originally Posted by J. David Kear

I think Doug Wilson is the best living apologist that I have listened to. James white is a distant second.

There are none living, that I have heard or read, who hold a candle to Bahnsen.

Peace,
DK

Hmmm...I like Doug...while I think he's better than most pop apologists, there are some men I think out-perform him. I'm a presupper, but I like Ravi Zacharias quite a lot...his lectures moreso than his books (except Can Man Live Without God?...that was good). James White is excellent when it comes to false religions and arminianism...I recommend him more than anyone else when it comes to those two issues.

Alvin Plantinga is interesting, and I think EAAN is great.

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

Paul Manata says this in regards to his being among the options to choose from:

It is flattering to see my name there, but it is utterly ridiculous to have my name there, especially considering (a) who I am ahead of and (b) who didn't make the cut.

As much as Manata doesn't think he belongs on the list...I read Triablogue a lot. Other than the Bayly Blog, it is the only other blog I check out regularly and read entirely. Why? Because I see more original material there than anywhere else.

I voted for White, Sproul, and Ravi. Sorry if I was only allowed one.....

Michael Horton