For him apologetics was a function of the whole human person, dealing as much with the imagination as with the intellect, and ultimately was concerned with the personal reality of Christ himself.
The classical apologetical tradition, as the term classical suggests, is the dominant approach to apologetics in church history, especially prior to the modern period.
These apologists typically believe that the most effective apologetic will utilize more than one line of argument in defense of the Christian faith.
His most important and directly apologetical works were Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1952); Miracles: A Preliminary Study, 2nd ed.
As he saw it, classical apologetics was effective because most non-Christians accepted the elemental laws of logic and the reality of absolutes ( though not the true absolute of God ). Modern man’s lack of confidence in logic and his relativistic view of truth make it ineffective to conduct apologetics without challenging such epistemological issues. “The use of classical apologetics before this shift took place was effective only because non-Christians were functioning, on the surface, on the same presuppositions, even if they had an inadequate base for them. In classical apologetics though, presuppositions were rarely analyzed, discussed or taken into account” (1:7).
Note that these are not the same “four distinctive and harmonious approaches” that Lewis earlier says are incorporated into Carnell’s approach: “facts, values, psychology, and ethics.” 8 Those four approaches stem from the four points of contact that dominate Carnell’s four major apologetics treatises: reason ( An Introduction to Christian Apologetics [1948]), values ( A Philosophy of the Christian Religion [1952]), justice ( Christian Commitment: An Apologetic [ 1957]), and love ( The Kingdom of Love and the Pride of Life [1960]). 9 Carnell himself described these four approaches in Kingdom of Love: “In my own books on apologetics I have consistently tried to build on some useful point of contact between the gospel and culture. In An Introduction to Christian Apologetics the appeal was to the law of contradiction; in A Philosophy of the Christian Religion it was to values; and in Christian Commitment it was to the judicial sentiment. In this book I am appealing to the law of love.” 10
Schaeffer’s formal method of apologetics was shaped primarily, though not exclusively, by Reformed apologetics, including the presuppositionalism of Van Til. However, his actual argument for the existence of the God of the Bible closely follows the classical approach, and he affirmed the verifiability of biblical Christianity in terms compatible with some forms of evidentialism. The practical application of his apologetic, on the other hand, assumes the central fideist contention that the truth must be lived and not merely affirmed.
These apologists typically believe that the most effective apologetic will utilize more than one line of argument in defense of the Christian faith.
According to Carnell, the Christian proves the validity of the hypothesis that the God of the Bible exists “in the same way that the scientist proves the law of gravity.”. That is, he shows that this assumption, or hypothesis, is “horizontally self-consistent” and that it “vertically fits the facts of life” (355).
The only proof for the law is that nothing is meaningful without the law’s being presupposed” ( Introduction, 57). 13 Here Carnell uses a transcendental argument to prove the validity of the first principle of deductive logic in the same way that Van Til used one to prove the existence of the God of the Bible.
On the one hand, he strongly emphasized the fundamental undeniability of deductive logic. The “law of contradiction [better known as the law of noncontradiction] is so basic . . . that it cannot be demonstrated. The only proof for the law is that nothing is meaningful without the law’s being presupposed” ( Introduction, 57). 13 Here Carnell uses a transcendental argument to prove the validity of the first principle of deductive logic in the same way that Van Til used one to prove the existence of the God of the Bible. Carnell’s argument, though, is another way of stating the argument—basic to classical apologetics—that logic must be valid because its denial is self-defeating.
Geisler’s textbook Christian Apologetics is divided into three parts. In the first part he considers how to test competing truth claims. Having chosen a test for truth, he applies it to the major worldviews in the second part and argues that theism—the view that the world was created by a God who is able to perform miracles—is the true worldview. Finally, in the third part he presents evidence in support of the Christian faith.
The classical apologetical tradition, as the term classical suggests, is the dominant approach to apologetics in church history, especially prior to the modern period . It emphasizes the presentation of Christianity as rational —as logically coherent and supportable by sound arguments—and offers what its advocates consider proofs of various types (though especially philosophical proofs) for the existence of God as a first step in defending the truth claims of the Christian faith. As we are using the term in this book, ‘classical apologetics’ also refers to an idealized type that is more or less fully exemplified in apologists in that tradition. Of necessity, then, we will be offering generalizations; that is, what we say about apologetics of this idealized type or approach is generally applicable to apologists in the classical tradition, but one must allow for considerable variations and exceptions. One other qualification needs to be made: as a distinct approach and explicit methodological stance, classical apologetics, like the other three basic approaches discussed in this book, is actually a modern development.
After examining the alternatives available to the theistic God, Geisler concludes that “the morally best world is better than a morally good world or than no moral world at all ” (354).
58 “We know Christianity is true primarily by the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit. We show Christianity is true by demonstrating that it is systematically consistent” (48). In other words, Christian apologetics does not pretend to create the grounds for knowing that Christianity is true, but rather points to or presents Christianity as rational as a means of encouraging unbelievers to receive the witness of the Spirit.
Lewis’s best-known apologetic work, Mere Christianity, was really a combination of three books (The Case for Christianity, Christian Behaviour, and Beyond Personality). In it he refuted atheism, naturalism, and dualism, and presented a case for the unique claims of Christ. A 1993 Christianity Today poll found it far and away the most influential book in readers’ Christian lives, apart from the Bible. 21 In its original form as BBC radio talks during World War II, Mere Christianity may actually have contributed in some measure to the Allied victory by encouraging faith and hope among the British people.
His final words on the subject indicate that for him the reasonableness of belief in miracles rests on the reasonableness of belief in God: “Once the non-Christian understands who God is, then the problem of miracles should cease to be a problem for him” (155).
The crux of this method is found in the fifth part, in which the apologist presents arguments for the Christian position “from premises accepted by the unbeliever as well as the believer.” The arguments thus function as proofs that should be acceptable to unbelievers if they are constructed properly and if the unbelievers reason properly. “The arguments in this book demonstrate that the essential Christian doctrines are true, unless they are bad arguments; that is, ambiguous, false or fallacious.” Not all the arguments have conclusive demonstrative force, though; some are “probable” and function more as “clues” that gain persuasive force when “considered cumulatively” (18).
Christian apologetics is the branch of theology which seeks to defend Christianity against objections through the use of evidence, logic, and historical arguments. In this article I will give you 4 classic Christian apologetics arguments that defend the logic for the existence of God. I will not exhaustively cover each of these 4 arguments.
The reason the existence of God is logical is because our world demands there be a first cause which did not need a cause itself.
A designed world demands the existence of a Designer. Apologetics Argument 3: Conscience. Without the existence of God, good and evil is just your opinion. If there is no God there is no logical reason for an absolute moral standard. Those who deny the existence of God only have two choices when it comes to morality.
If an eternal God does not exist than an eternal moral standard does not exist. Since humans do know deep down that an eternal moral standard does exist, they should also know that an eternal God also exists, thus they are without excuse when they deny God’s existence.
Additionally, many claim science disproves the miracles and resurrection of Christ because the defy scientific laws. If you enter into this investigation without believing miracles cannot happen, then you have made your determination before looking at the evidence. If God exists miracles are logical.
The complexity of creation is a huge problem for those who deny the existence of God. The fact that Science exists at all suggest our world must be reasonable, logical, and full of laws that can be studied because of their fixed nature.
Without the highly tuned existence we have, the scientists who argue for mindless evolution would not be able to study creation at all. Ironically, scientists argue for luck and randomness as they study a highly tuned world. Romans 1:19-20 explains:
The authors suggest that modern apologetics has excelled in emphasizing the role of our actions in apologetics
The authors' working definition of apologetics is "the practice of making an appeal and a defense for the Christian faith"
Worship, baptism, and the celebrations of the Lord's Supper serve as visual apologetics for the gospel
The future glory christians will have in christ helps us to carry our cross with bold humility as we live and engage with the world
according to the chapter, the gospel is not the same thing as apologe tics
It is possible to present the gospel in a culture without doing contextualizing
Alvin plantinga stated that there is no argument which will fully persuade everyone or absolutely prove christianity
The author states that apologetics, in its most basic form is "the practice of making an appeal and a defense for the Christian faith."
A proponent of hard classical apologetics would insist that a logical argument for theism must precede a historical argument for the resurrection of Jesus
The author states that this specific apologetic category is perhaps the most pervasive in Scripture with some of the most obvious of this type being found in the Gospels and Acts.
A defensive apologetic is a response to some objection a person may have to Christianity or a reason why he/she does not believe is true.
Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”.
Acts 17:22-31. So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects.
For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”’. Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.”.
elders, in the church Rebuke Faith, As A Body Of Beliefs doctrine, Purpose of Teaching Exhortation, Objects Of Teachers. holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. Acts 18:28.
If something is obvious – easy to see or understand – we can say ‘of course’. And that’s why we often use ‘of course’ when we say ‘yes’ to requests.
Of course means the answer is obvious . You know I want to help. Please go ahead. So when people ask us for something, we often say ‘of course’.
Yes, it is. Oh. I’ve got my car so I can give you a lift if you like. Thank you very much. Now that conversation is polite. If someone asks a question and they don’t know the answer, say a simple yes. Now one more thing. The opposite of course is ‘Of course not’. Again, we say it to add emphasis.
‘Of course.’ This is such a useful English phrase, but be careful. If you use it wrongly people might think you’re angry or when you’re not, or they might think that you think they’re stupid. That’s no good! You don’t want to get it wrong, but don’t worry. In this video you’ll learn how to use it correctly.#N#‘Of course’ is a dangerous phrase because it can be polite or it can be rude. Let’s start by looking at some polite ways to use it.
Were my answers appropriate? No! Geri’s questions were normal questions, not requests, and she didn’t know what my answer would be. Let’s look at what I should have said.
A simple yes. That’s what you need. Just say ‘yes’ without ‘of course’. Let’s look at another example. Suppose I ask about you about the weather.
There’s a curious thing about the phrase of course. Use it correctly and it’s polite. But use it wrongly and it causes problems. Learn how to use it correctly in this video.