New Accredited MA in Apologetics

Biola University has launched a modular MA in Apologetics. The program boasts a stellar faculty and significant curricular flexibility once core studies have been completed. More information can be found here.

 

For those who may be interested in the material, but not necessarily in pursuing a degree program, BIOLA is also putting on a non-degree certificate program of lectures in Christian Apologetics.

Incidentally, I encourage open-minded agnostics in Southern California to attend one of these symposiums and examine an articulate presentation of the case for Christ. It may surprise you.

Dave

 

Ed~

Thanks for pointing this out. Good news!



Chris

 

Hi,
I actually graduated from the program this past May. It has actually been around for a while. I started in Aug. 1999 and I believe the program actually began about two years before that.

I learned a lot from the program. It was a great blessing. It covered a wide range of biblical and theology courses for a solid foundation along with some great apologetics classes.

Some classes that I was able to take:
Theological Research Methodologies
Hermeneutics
Biblical Apologetics
Essential Christian Doctrine
Historical Theology
Christianity among World Religions
Old Testament
New Testament
Personal Foundations of Ministry
Defending the Faith

http://www.biola.edu/academics/scs/apologetics/index.cfm

Biola does have some new graduate degrees that they now offer:

Master of Arts in Science and Religion
http://www.biola.edu/academics/scs/scienceandreligion/

Master of Business Administration
http://www.biola.edu/academics/business/business/MBA/

Take care and God Bless in this new upcoming year,

-Paul

 

Are these presentations anything similiar to the book "The Case for Christ"?

 

I am sure they are (based on what I seen come from Biola). At least in that they will undoubtedly be presented in the standard pop-evangelical evidential format (Lee Stroble, Josh McDowell, et al). Personally, I'm more inline with the transcendental arguments put forth by Van Til and honed by Bahnsen, but to answer your question, I would guess, yes.

 

I’m glad you qualified your comment as a guess. Biola University and its Talbot School of Theology can hardly be construed as a purveyor of “pop-evangelical” apologetics. The school is as philosophically rigorous as one will find anywhere, and graduates of the M.A. in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics program enter the most prominent doctoral programs in the country. Some even get free rides to study under renowned philosophers like Alvin Plantinga at Notre Dame. Folks like Dean Zimmerman, associate professor of philosophy at Rutgers, have gone on record saying that the school’s graduates are amongst the best prepared in the country.

As for the faculty, men like J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig are regarded as highly competent philosophers—even by their atheistic peers. Case in point: Noted atheist and associate professor of philosophy at the University of Houston, Keith Parsons, has said that Moreland and Craig are “top-notch” philosophers. You can verify the accuracy of Parson's claim by picking up Moreland and Craig’s, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (InterVarsity Press, 2002).

It should be noted that the M.A. in Apologetics and the M.A. in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics are two different programs, but there’s significant overlap in faculty instruction. Regardless of the program, when guys like Moreland and Craig are teaching the courses, the approach can hardly be construed as “pop” anything.

 

Hi Ed

CMT was specifically speaking about the presentations that Biola sponsors call "The Case for Christ". Are you speaking of the same? Is it Biola's professors that produce these presentations? If it doesn't follow the outline of the book "The Case for Christ", why would they use the same title? Thanks.

 

My response is to mostly point you to Dave Hayden's reply. Nonetheless, I do consider Moreland and Craig to be “pop-eve” as I defined it earlier. Note that being a competent philosopher and a popular evangelical are not mutually exclusive terms as the connotation of your reply implies. I say again, they are more in line, in their presentation of apologetics at least, with an evidentialist (read popular) approach rather than the presuppositional approach that I pointed out.

In addition, and I do not intend to sound acrimonious, but I do not consider anything I have read by Moreland to be philosophically, much less theologically, challenging. What I mean by that is that his audience is primarily the layman and not the philosopher. This is not to say that he is incapable of producing a philosophically challenging work, but that he has not. My point is that you will not find Moreland’s regurgitation of the [Hume refuted] archaic cosmological argument to be of the same level as Bahnsen’s transcendental argument. I am sure many find Moreland to be thought-provoking; I consider Moreland’s published works to be introductory. I grant that it is entirely possible that I have simply not been exposed to Moreland’s best works and so I am open to any suggestions. I am an avid reader of apologetics and philosophy, so if you can suggest a little known read, then I heartily ask for it.

Soli Deo Gloria

 

Yes, I'm speaking of the same program.

The second post in this thread, authored by another Dave, did not say the Biola lectures were titled "The Case for Christ." Dave was simply describing the program in his own words. Actually, the lecture series to which you refer is titled "Defending the Faith." It is part of a one-year certificate program for lay people already possessing advanced degrees, but the lectures are open to the public. And, yes, lectures are given by men such as J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig. Other lectures have included academic stalwarts like Frank Beckwith of Baylor University, Alvin Plantinga of Notre Dame, and Dallas Willard of the University of Southern California.

So, again, characterizing the program as "pop-evangelical" apologetics is inaccurate and misleading.

 

Your previous post tied the label "pop-evangelical" to Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell. Fair enough. But popularizers like Strobel and McDowell, who provide a worthy service to the body of Christ, would not claim to be scholars. So mentioning the Biola lecturers in the same breath is misleading. To a certain extent, it's demeaning.

As you pointed out, evidential apologetics is the most culturally popular brand of the discispline. But someone like William Lane Craig, for example, can't be accurately called an evidentialist since his apologetic begins with philosophical theistic arguments and moves to historical evidences from there. He would be more accurately called a classical apologist. This is just one reason why it's not entirely accurate to pigeonhole Biola as an evidentialist school. It's more balanced than that.

As for Moreland's writings, start with the book I suggested earlier. Then pick up some of his books not published by popular houses. Track down some of his journal articles and papers presented in societal meetings attended by his peers. You'll then see why his colleagues would vigorously contend your assessment. You may even begin to agree with them.

 

I was under the impression that Biola's M.A. in Apologetics was launched by Craig Hazen in the fall of 1997, but that the 16 hours of distance courses were a recent development. Did you take any of the distance courses? If so, how would you compare them to modular and/or traditional classes at Biola?

 

The label is to their "presentation," and they are one and the same. The substance, we are agreed, is not the same, however, "demeaning" is more elitist than it is accurate.

This is why I focused my comments on Moreland and not Craig. That being said, classical apologetics has long been the standard and thus falls firmly under the title of "popular." I grant you that ontological arguments may not be in the tool chest of every layman, but I certainly heard them in my Introductory Philosophy class.

I own the aforementioned book, but I will certainly try and find some journal articles.

Ed,
This is a reach, but I'll go for it anyway. Are you in touch with either Moreland or Craig? A certain Dr. Robert Morey (AKA: Dr. Bob) has challenged them both to formally debate the subject of "freewill." Neither have accepted despite many offers. If, per chance, you know them personally, could you gently suggest it might be beneficial to the body?

 

Two quick points:

1. The adjective "pop" often conveys a pejorative tone when used by experts to describe things like psychology, theology, or apologetics. It doesn't merely refer to something that is widely known. In that vein, I don't see how it's elitist to suggest that Craig and Moreland shouldn't be referred to as pop-apologists. As for their presentation, I don't know any apologists who teach the discipline--regardless of persuasion--that would say it's identical to authors like Strobel or McDowell. But we can take this up in private correspondence.

2. Moreland, who's widely regarded as one of the most sophisticated writers to deal with the relationship of science and theology, would also be most accurately labeled a classical apologist. An evidentialist, by standard definition, would be more along the lines of John Warwick Montgomery or Gary Habermas.

My concern in this thread is that Biola is represented fairly and accurately to those looking at its educational programs. It cannot be defined as an evidentialist institution, since its faculty and lecturers represent other schools of thought. As pointed out, Moreland and Craig are classicists. As you know, Plantinga, who is a special lecturer, is a Reformed apologist. And I know of at least one regular lecturer who is a thoroughgoing integrationist (i.e., he combines classical, evidentialist, Reformed, and fideist approaches in his teaching). Prospective students looking at Biola should be assured that they'd be getting a broad apologetic education.

 

Agreed and agreed! I think my point was missed originally. I originally replied to Dave Hayden. The lectures that were referred to are open to the public and I have attended ("non-degree certificate program"). What I saw and heard was equivalent to reading a Lee Stroble book. This is where I am coming from. I believe Philip Johnson was the last I saw there; although I frequently bump into Koukl speaking here in So Cal. I am not speaking of the MA in Apologetics program, much less the M.A. in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics.

In all honesty, I am mostly familiar with Craig through my Open Theist friends. The only apologetic work I have read by him (excluding et al's) was The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus and even that was some time ago (hence my association with him as an evidentialist).

I fully support your conclusion that, "Prospective students looking at Biola should be assured that they'd be getting a broad apologetic education." You can find a who's who of popular-evangelicals that lecture there by clicking here. Sorry, I couldn't resist.