mattbballman19
January 31st 2003, 02:26 PM
Yo,
Things that I have a cursory knowledge of are the following:read:
1. The first third of Van Til's "Defense of the Faith" supporting presuppositionalism.
2. A five views book which I think is entitled "Five views of apologitics", which stars William Lane Criag as the spokeman for the classical view, Gary Habermas for the evidential view, Paul Fienberg (I think that's his name) utilizing the Cumalative view, John Frame representing his nuanced version of presuppostionalism (somewhat different than Til's), and Kelly James Clark defending the Reformed Epistemological view, which has its birth and/or growth in the minds of the likes of Plantinga, Wolterstorff, and Alston.
3. Glanced at a couple of points John Frame made in his book, "Apologetics to the Glory of God".
4. Read pretty critically John Warick Montgomery's chapter called "Once Upon an a priori" in his book "Evidential Apologetics", which, I will say, has a detailed rebuttal on a reformed website that I do not know off the top of my head by Greg Bahnsen.
5. Read some brief critiques by the likes of Geisler in his "Encylopedia of Christian Apologetics" and "Christian Apologetics"
That's about all the experience I've had in gaining knowledge on apologetic methodology.:yipee:
Here's my view :)
1. I believe apologetics to be not only rationally obligatory for us, as rational creatures, but also exegetically necessary when extrapolated correctly from the text of the Bible in its social, historical, literary, and geographical context.
I expound when needed; or if I can:thumb:
2.I believe that the presuppositional methodology of Van Til to be ideologically begging the question. Foundationally, he, as William Lane Craig points out in "Apologetics: 5 views", confuses knowing Christianity to be true and showing Christianity to be true. The former coming through the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit and the latter brought about through apologetics (showing evidence, Acts 2, Acts 17, 1 Pet 3:15; utilizing valid arguments with true premises in order to reach foundational truths that the Holy Spirit may use in order to bring that person to Christ (Rom 1 and 2).
3. I believe that 2 is possible, because I think that Christians and non-Christians have a common ground: rationality, or the mind; which is necessary consequence of being created in the image of God.
4. I believe that 3 is not skewed or obviated by Van Til's idea that the noetic effects of sin have destroyed this rationality. I believe that the noetic effects of sin have corrupted that rationality such that it is still capable of grasping a logical flow of argumentation leading towards a conclusion, which Christianity happens to agree with (God's existence, Christ's existence, historicity of the resurrection, miracles, possible explanation to various forms of the problem of evil (abductive, logical, probablistic, evidenctial), etc . . .)
5. I believe that 4 is supported by my experience when God uses me in evangelistic settings and biblical evidence involving the preaching styles of the apostles. They preached a historical claim (the resurrection, of course a whole interpretive theological paradigm comes with that, for miracles have no meaning apart from their theological context) which was presupposed by the ones preaching that the people could rationally understand historical, theological ramifications thereby opening the window of their mind, to enter the fortress of the heart. I forget who said it: "I cannot love what I know to be fase" or "The heart can't accept what the mind refuses to believe" or "The mind is the door to the heart" I forget, but I think they have a ring of truth.
This rationality available to all humans being created in God's image seems to make apologetics not only possible, but preferred.
Your thoughts on the above OR some thoughts of your own would be cool.
matt
Things that I have a cursory knowledge of are the following:read:
1. The first third of Van Til's "Defense of the Faith" supporting presuppositionalism.
2. A five views book which I think is entitled "Five views of apologitics", which stars William Lane Criag as the spokeman for the classical view, Gary Habermas for the evidential view, Paul Fienberg (I think that's his name) utilizing the Cumalative view, John Frame representing his nuanced version of presuppostionalism (somewhat different than Til's), and Kelly James Clark defending the Reformed Epistemological view, which has its birth and/or growth in the minds of the likes of Plantinga, Wolterstorff, and Alston.
3. Glanced at a couple of points John Frame made in his book, "Apologetics to the Glory of God".
4. Read pretty critically John Warick Montgomery's chapter called "Once Upon an a priori" in his book "Evidential Apologetics", which, I will say, has a detailed rebuttal on a reformed website that I do not know off the top of my head by Greg Bahnsen.
5. Read some brief critiques by the likes of Geisler in his "Encylopedia of Christian Apologetics" and "Christian Apologetics"
That's about all the experience I've had in gaining knowledge on apologetic methodology.:yipee:
Here's my view :)
1. I believe apologetics to be not only rationally obligatory for us, as rational creatures, but also exegetically necessary when extrapolated correctly from the text of the Bible in its social, historical, literary, and geographical context.
I expound when needed; or if I can:thumb:
2.I believe that the presuppositional methodology of Van Til to be ideologically begging the question. Foundationally, he, as William Lane Craig points out in "Apologetics: 5 views", confuses knowing Christianity to be true and showing Christianity to be true. The former coming through the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit and the latter brought about through apologetics (showing evidence, Acts 2, Acts 17, 1 Pet 3:15; utilizing valid arguments with true premises in order to reach foundational truths that the Holy Spirit may use in order to bring that person to Christ (Rom 1 and 2).
3. I believe that 2 is possible, because I think that Christians and non-Christians have a common ground: rationality, or the mind; which is necessary consequence of being created in the image of God.
4. I believe that 3 is not skewed or obviated by Van Til's idea that the noetic effects of sin have destroyed this rationality. I believe that the noetic effects of sin have corrupted that rationality such that it is still capable of grasping a logical flow of argumentation leading towards a conclusion, which Christianity happens to agree with (God's existence, Christ's existence, historicity of the resurrection, miracles, possible explanation to various forms of the problem of evil (abductive, logical, probablistic, evidenctial), etc . . .)
5. I believe that 4 is supported by my experience when God uses me in evangelistic settings and biblical evidence involving the preaching styles of the apostles. They preached a historical claim (the resurrection, of course a whole interpretive theological paradigm comes with that, for miracles have no meaning apart from their theological context) which was presupposed by the ones preaching that the people could rationally understand historical, theological ramifications thereby opening the window of their mind, to enter the fortress of the heart. I forget who said it: "I cannot love what I know to be fase" or "The heart can't accept what the mind refuses to believe" or "The mind is the door to the heart" I forget, but I think they have a ring of truth.
This rationality available to all humans being created in God's image seems to make apologetics not only possible, but preferred.
Your thoughts on the above OR some thoughts of your own would be cool.
matt