Apologetics?

[seer]

Why do christians spend so much time on apologetics,trying to prove God. Especially Calvinists. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by The kalam cosmological argument? Does God really need such arguments to reach the elect? Is not the preaching of the Gospel/His Word enough?

[lee_merrill]

Hi Seer,

Well, there are apologetic-type arguments in the Bible! We have an example, and see also this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=54910) over in the Stand To Reason forum...

Blessings,
Lee

[Calvinist4Him]

Why do christians spend so much time on apologetics,trying to prove God.

Perhaps it's not so much about proving God to others, as it is proving God to oneself. Christians...well Christians like me struggle with doubt from time to time.

Especially Calvinists.

John Calvin would say that (one of) the purpose(s) of apologetics is to silence the mouths of mocking anti-Christians. According to 1 Peter 3:15 we should always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks us to give a reason for the hope that is in us. According to 2 Timothy 2:15 we are to study to show ourselves approved unto God, as workmen that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. According to 2 Corinthians 10:5 should we not be destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ?

Calvinists do not "try" to prove God, either God exists or He doesn't, and Calvinists like me suppose that we cannot "prove" anything if God doesn't exist. How is that trying to prove God? I believe we are presupposing God without proving Him because of the impossibility of the contrary. But I think your question is an interesting one, especially for non-Calvinist apologists.

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by The kalam cosmological argument?

Yes of course, havn't you read that Scripture? :hehe: But seriously, you know the answer. :wink:

Does God really need such arguments to reach the elect?

Of course not, and when God regenerated me, I had nearly zero knowledge of such arguments. But the problem with your question is that God doesn't need anything, He doesn't need the elect, so perhaps such arguments are part of His pleasure, His will...I'm quite certain they are. Do the arguments keep you coming back for more? Do they keep you thinking about the existence of God? Isn't it interesting how the Almighty has ways of getting our attention and maintaining it?

Is not the preaching of the Gospel/His Word enough?

Did God not create this world and everything in it? Is there any revealed truth which isn't first His truth? Sure, preaching the gospel is enough unto salvation, but God wants us to grow in knowledge and understanding. Though He allows it, He doesn't want us drinking milk years after our conversion.

Btw, isn't this a re-run of another one of your threads from awhile back. I see you're just as stubborn headed as before. Maybe one can't teach an old dog new tricks?

[c968]

I'm a calvinist, so I believe that God can use very simple truth in the Word to bring a person to salvation. But apologetics can be the watering and planting that Paul talks about; those things that God chooses to use to prepare a person's heart (even though technically He wouldn't need to use it, nevertheless He has apparently chosen to make watering and planting His tools).

[smaller]

Why do christians spend so much time on apologetics,trying to prove God.

We could also agree that we spend most of our time on this subject trying to eliminate false gods i.e. the "gods" that are formed by the minds of men.

So really we are engaged in the activity of the destruction of IDOLS and their "sanctuaries" in men's minds. A quite engaging activity I might add. Jesus also spent a considerable amount of time on this particular activity.


Especially Calvinists. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by The kalam cosmological argument? Does God really need such arguments to reach the elect? Is not the preaching of the Gospel/His Word enough?

Ultimately there are only two views of God.

View A. will say that God is Superior to all things

View B. will say that God is what view B. says God is and all the subjective nonsense that goes with formula B.'s premise.

It's rather easy to discern the differences in a man who serves a personally subjective IDOL and a position of God as Superior over all things, even position B.

As such position A. is logically superior.

enjoy!

smaller

[Spiderman&Co.]

Why do christians spend so much time on apologetics,trying to prove God. Especially Calvinists. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by The kalam cosmological argument? Does God really need such arguments to reach the elect? Is not the preaching of the Gospel/His Word enough?

A good question for a thread, Seer.

In regards to Calvinists I have a couple of thoughts...

First, John Calvin was not a very technical apologist. In fact, he developed what he called the sensus divinitatis (literally, "God sense"). This was a fascinating move that was also used by Thomas Aquinas to say that God has implanted a sense of God in the hearts of all men. This sense of God is triggered by various situations that men find themselves in - a sense of God's granduer after viewing the beauty of nature (see Ps. 139), a sense of accountability to God for my personal, moral shortcomings (see Rom. 1), and other scenarios in which a person "just feels" the presence and existence of God. Much of this is built on the theology of Romans 1 and 2 (particularly the first chapter).

Calvinists have varied in terms of their approach to apologetics. Following Calvin the so-called Scholastics began a much more systematic, logical, and philosophical presentation of theology which I think naturally spilled over into apologetics. Some Calvinists have held strongly to the traditional "proofs" of God's existence, while others, like Cornelius Van Til have rejected the proofs in favor of alternative approaches. (In my humble opinion these projects have been unsuccessful in the ultimate aim.)

But the sensus divinitatis is something I find quite interesting and has deep implications for our apologetics. For more on this and some of the above thoughts Alvin Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief is a fabulous starting point.

[Calvinist4Him]

Calvinists have varied in terms of their approach to apologetics. Following Calvin the so-called Scholastics began a much more systematic, logical, and philosophical presentation of theology which I think naturally spilled over into apologetics. Some Calvinists have held strongly to the traditional "proofs" of God's existence, while others, like Cornelius Van Til have rejected the proofs in favor of alternative approaches. (In my humble opinion these projects have been unsuccessful in the ultimate aim.)

Actually, Dr. Van Til didn't reject the traditional "proofs", he rejected the methods by which those proofs are argued, and he rejected the notion of merely proving the possibility of God's existence. He recognized something I began to recognize through informal debating, being a Christian is not a half-hearted commmitment, and none of the writers of Scripture, write anything to the effect of "God probably exists, it's more likely that He exists than that He doesn't exist." The writers of Scripture do not question the existence of God. None of the traditional arguments are bullet proof, none of them prove the existence of God leaving no room for doubt, or a backdoor exit. So, epistemological assurance can only be held by presupposing the axiom (God) of Christian faith, the 'object' of Christian faith (God), because other methodologies are autonomous in assuming a neutral ground (human reason or sense perception) and therefore rooted in subjectivism. Listen to the Greg Bahnsen/R. C. Sproul debate and tell me you don't agree.

[Spiderman&Co.]

Actually, Dr. Van Til didn't reject the traditional "proofs", he rejected the methods by which those proofs are argued, and he rejected the notion of merely proving the possibility of God's existence.
You are correct. But in reading Van Til and Bahnsen it is obvious that they don't put much apologetic stock in the proofs. They use them under the umbrella of the transcendental argument, which, in my opinion is not the same thing. They call it a different "formulation." I call it an entirely different argument. Hence I do not usually hesitate to say that they "reject" the traditional proofs.

He recognized something I began to recognize through informal debating, being a Christian is not a half-hearted commmitment, and none of the writers of Scripture, write anything to the effect of "God probably exists, it's more likely that He exists than that He doesn't exist." The writers of Scripture do not question the existence of God. None of the traditional arguments are bullet proof, none of them prove the existence of God leaving no room for doubt, or a backdoor exit.
So??? This is an argument from silence. Just b/c the Bible does not use the traditional proofs says very little about their apologetic validity. Also, it says even less about their philosophic legitimacy.

So, epistemological assurance can only be held by presupposing the axiom (God) of Christian faith, the 'object' of Christian faith (God), because other methodologies are autonomous in assuming a neutral ground (human reason or sense perception) and therefore rooted in subjectivism.

First, how is "epistemological assurance" gained by "presupposing" anything? Least of all God? Epistemological assurance is gained in many, many ways. These range from strong to weak probability. I have an eye appointment in about an hour. I have epistemological assurance of this b/c I spoke to a doctor at the office. But I don't have absolute certainty. Just a strong probability based upon the validity of testimony, the validity of my memory, etc.

Second, how is autonomous human reason a subjective root? Perhaps the more important quesiton is this: Is all use of reason autonomous?


Lastly, it occurs to me that this post strays from the parameters of the OP. If you want to discuss this further it might be polite to start another thread.