Four Views on Christianity and Philosophy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology) by Paul M. Gould

Four Views on Christianity and Philosophy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology) Reviews

• 
  Robert Durough, Jr.

  Part of Zondervan’s Counterpoints series, Four Views on Christianity and Philosophy offers wonderful insight for those interested in the interaction between Christianity and philosophy. The four contributors include one atheist (Graham Oppy) and three Christians of varying tradition (K. Scott Oliphint, Timothy McGrew, and Paul Moser). As is typical of the series, each contributor presents an essay, which is followed by a response from each of his peers. This text, however, is different from others I’ve read in the series in that it contains a rejoinder from the contributor after the responses—a welcomed addition to the template!
  
  Conflict Model: Graham Oppy’s naturalist perspective is not surprising, and many of his finer points of argument are left to citations of outside sources due to limited space in this work. It is doubtful that readers of the intended audience will be persuaded by his arguments, but inclusion proves quite helpful for stimulating intellectual engagement. Though adamant and firm in his conviction that there is no God, his writing maintains a sense of humility (as much as can be expected from any professional philosopher) and welcomes his counterparts as part of a larger philosophical community, something I’ve found to be uncommon in these sorts of atheist vs. Christian philosophical exchanges.
  
  Covenant Model: K. Scott Oliphint promotes God-given theology as the only true philosophy (and that it’s not philosophy because it’s God-given). Oliphint is a staunch Calvinist and, to his detriment, simply cannot move beyond Calvin. His arguments may make sense to those already indoctrinated with Calvinism, but he puts forth no real argument for his perspective, runs in circles, and fails to rightly engage with his counterparts. This is, however, a good example of this perspective on Christianity (what Oliphint believes to be true orthodoxy) and philosophy, and is thus worth wading through in order to better understand its presuppositions and blind spots.
  
  Convergence Model: Timothy McGrew embraces philosophy as a God-given tool to help us better understand our reality and sees it as a means by which one may be brought closer to God, though not all the way. He maintains that revelation and something beyond pure reason is necessary for us to be brought into a right relationship with God (e.g., it may be reasoned demonstrated that Jesus was a real person, but to believe that he is the Son of God—and God—requires revelation beyond pure reason). Though he has not been brought over himself, even Oppy acknowledges that this bridge may bring atheists to Christianity.
  
  Conformation Model: Paul Moser believes that using any reason or natural evidence for God is actually sinful because one can only come to God through some sort of direct revelation embodied in some sort of “experience” that he claims is the hallmark of a Christian. (McGrew notes in his response that he hopes Moser isn’t saying what he thinks he’s saying—that McGrew isn’t a Christian—because he does not share the same sort of conversion experience [218], but Moser implies at the end of his rejoinder that McGrew is not ���led by God’s Spirit” [224], which amounts to placing him outside of Christ when read in conjunction with his other points.) Though distinct, the views of Oliphint and Moser may appear to be virtually identical in practice, which is why they praise each other’s perspectives with few exceptions.
  
  In total, no contributor really recognizes his blind spots, although it is difficult when they aren’t being well noted (or noted by those who seem to be intentionally misreading them). Oppy and McGrew appear to be the most reasonable and engaging of the four, perhaps because Oliphint and Moser are paradoxically professional philosophers who believe philosophy is outside of God. I would, however, still recommend reading for anyone interested in the ongoing debate regarding Christianity and philosophy.
  
  
  *I received a temporary digital copy for review from Zondervan via NetGalley.
• 
  AH

  Oppy, Mcgrew Oliphint and Moser, each offer a model that looks at the relationship between Christianity and philosophy. After each chapter responses from other writes based on their own models, follows. I think the main advantage of this book is that it just looks elsewhere for another domain of inquiry in philosophy of religion.
• 
  Brian Watson

  The relationship between Christianity and philosophy is an important one. It touches on issues such as the relationship between faith and reason, or religion and science. In this book, four different philosophers expound their views and respond to the views of the others.
  
  Graham Oppy, an atheist, believes that one of the major purposes if philosophy is to compare worldviews. Therefore, philosophy can be used to assess Christianity versus naturalism. Not surprisingly, he believes naturalism to be a superior worldview. However, he is too dismissive of argumentation and evidence that would call naturalism into question. It seems to me that naturalism cannot properly account for features of this world that we hold to be important, like purpose and meaning, ethics, human rights, consciousness, and more.
  
  Scott Oliphint, more of a theologian than philosopher, calls his view the covenant model. He believes that theology trumps philosophy and that all truths are revealed by God (whether in the special revelation of the Bible or in nature). I find his view compelling, but it suffers from what I might call hyper-presuppositionalism, which is a reference to a particular method of Christian apologetics. While I hold much of his theology, he seems to value too little the role of reason and public evidence. Also, his way of communicating would be seem to be unpersuasive to non-Christians.
  
  Timothy McGrew, a Christian philosopher, uses his chapter to make a case for natural theology. Paul Moser, a Catholic philosopher, dismisses natural theology. His theology leads him to disagree with Oliphint (he seems to reject sola scriptura without doing so explicitly here). He believes that Christian philosophy and wisdom should be tied to the character of Christ. I can't argue against that, though I think natural theology does have some value and that we must respond to God's revelation in Christ through the Spirit-breathed revelation that is the Bible.
  
  This is an interesting conversation. However, after reading this book, I don't feel like I arrived at any conclusions. Perhaps the point of this book is simply to get one to think, and to begin an important conversation.
  
  
• 
  Bob Morton

  Standard disclaimer. I got an advanced copy of the book from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review. I would like to thank them and Zondervan For the ability to be able to read it in advance.
  I think in getting this book I bit off a little more than I could chew. That is why it took me so long to read it.
  A few semesters ago, I took a Introduction to Philosophy class and have become fascinated with the idea that Philosophy and Christianity have so much in common yet be so different. I was approaching this book as a way for me to explore Christianity in respect to philosophy. I was not really prepared for what I was reading in that respect. That does not make the book bad, just not what I was thinking when I requested it.
  The book is a compilation of four ways to look at the two subjects.
  Conflict view - philosophy is better than Christianity
  Covenant view - the exact opposite
  Convergent view - philosophy confirms Christianity
  Confirmation view - trying to make philosophy in a Christ centered fashion.
  
  Of the four I feel that the author of the Conflict view did the best in explaining and defending his point of view. Of the four, the confirmation view was the one I tend to adhere to and felt it was handled fairly well.
  
  Each author gives his point of view, the other three get a chance to make their comments and then the original author gives his rebuttal to the comments they have made.
  
  I liked the format, but as I said, I had to take a lot of time to read as I was not fully understanding some of the terms. This is not for the average reader. While good, it is more something that I would expect to see in a classroom.
  I do recommend it, but make sure that you have a good grasp of both the theology of Christianity and the understanding of how Philosophy works.
• 
  James Chappell

  This is a worthwhile read if only to read the views of McGrew and Oppy. Oliphint and Moser's essays, rebuttals and rejoinders were quite frankly leaning too far in the way of fideism that I found them painful to read.
  
  Oliphint's essay basically read like suggesting we should begin philosophy with the assumption that the Bible is true, and Moser's view basically grounded philosophy in Christ. Oppy was incredibly succinct and he writes beautifully, but I found his view that Christianity was naturalism with add-ons (so had more explaining to do) too pessimistic. In the end, I found McGrew's view to be more fair despite the fact that I find all but one (the resurrection) of the traditional arguments for Christian theism to fail to hold ground by itself against hard scrutiny. Having said that, McGrew's point was their collective effectiveness as clues that together work for suggesting general theism.
  
  McGrew and Oppy are both fine philosophers and I enjoy reading their work, although I do on occasion fine Oppy to be a touch too dismissive about anything that would hope to threaten naturalism. If there were one philosopher that would lead me to atheism, it would be Oppy, but if there were one who would defend my theism, it would be McGrew. I prefer him and find him more intellectually stimulating than William Lane Craig.
• 
  Danny Adkins

  I had never heard of Dr. Timothy Mcgrew, and found him to be absolutely amazing in his debating ability. Moreover, him and his wife reviving Undesigned Coincidences, completely through me off. I had never heard of these arguments before and they have been around for a couple hundred years. I found Dr Oliphint, completely on point from a presuppositionial(covenantal), however, I have been slowly moving away from this methodology. Moser, it was just strange to read his arguments and many times I thought, are we reading the same bible? Oppy, clearly committed the taxi cab fallacy, as pointed out by Mcgrew. However, it was actually nice to read actual arguments from an atheist who doesn’t follow along the new atheist rhetoric. I believe that Mcgrew had the strongest, most rigorous, and compelling arguments in which Philosophy and Christianity are to be thought of together.
• 
  Jonathan Hatt

  I’m partial to Dr. Oliphint because he’s my professor. But all four of the contributors were helpful in understanding their side.
• 
  Patrick S.

  Another good topic for a great book series. It is best, in this day and age, to promote good debate. It is especially good when the topic is the discipline of how to think in the context of the worldview systems of atheism and theism.
  
  Just a brief take on the different writers. Opponents brings an atheist worldview to the table and his understanding of what philosophy is takes on a more utilitarian and romanticized version. His main problem is that he doesn't offer justification for his definition. Oliphint is the one I was rooting for in the beginning since I take his view. He does an ok job of presenting his view but he takes too much for granted. His big value is in his responses. McGrew is very well placed in the evidentialist camp. McGrew's biggest fault is his misreading of Romans 1 and his reliance on its supposed parallel with Words of Wisdom. Moser is kind of ok. His neo-orthodox view makes very little sense and he draws conclusions from Scripture that are no way good readings.
  
  It would have been nice to have one more back and forth in the responses between them all.
  
  Overall this is a good book. Yet it falters in just being ok. It's nice to see evidentialists and presuppositionalists speak on a shared topic and I hope the Counterpoint series features them exclusively soon. Both Oliphint and McGrew would be excellent writers on the topic. Final Grade - B-
• 
  Alex

  A big thank you to NetGalley for a copy of this book!
  
  ---
  
  An excellent and illuminating read! It has definitely strengthened my argument for Christianity, and honed my critical faculties. I would recommend this to anyone interested in either Christianity or philosophy. There need not be any hesitation, for this book is solid.
• 
  Matt Manry

  This is a great book. Definitely worth checking out if you're interested in Christian philosophy. I would say that my personal views align more with Oliphint/Moser, but both Oppy and McGrew offer interesting and well thought out contributions to the dialog as well.
• 
  Rick Sam

  Oppy's writing for Naturalism is worth reading this book. Other that that, I feel that you cannot conclude much from it, yet you might learn about different views within Philosophy and Christianity intersecting.
  
  Deus Vult,
  Gottfried