PAPER NO. 94

CURRENT APOLOGETIC METHODS AND GENERAL CRITIQUE

Definitions

  1. Definition of Apologetics: defense based on proof vs. persuasion to believe.
  2. Definition of the Christian Faith: Christ is Savior and Lord.
  3. Definition of Christian Apologetics: showing that Christ is Savior and Lord.

    1. Savior: requires showing the clarity of general revelation and inexcusability of unbelief (Romans 1:20).
    2. Lord: requires taking thoughts captive which divide the church and mankind (2 Corinthians 10:4-5).
  4. Definitions of Current Christian Apologetic Methods:

    1. Evidentialism: reliance on experience (internal or external) as self-evident.
    2. Presuppositionalism: reliance on intuition (sensus divinitatis) or testimony (Scripture) as self-evident.
    3. Classical: reliance on pluralistic cumulative arguments (vs. logically cumulative arguments—from more basic to less basic).
    4. Cultural: reliance on human flourishing as self-evident.

General Critique of Current Apologetic Methods

  1. A reason for one’s belief (warrant/reasonableness) does not show inexcusability for unbelief (sin and need for Christ as Savior).
  2. Appeal to experience as common sense/naïve realism/pragmatism does not address the distinction between appearance and reality.
  3. Appeal to experience (inner or outer) does not address the assumptions used to interpret the experience/event, which assumptions can/should be tested for meaning.
  4. Appeal to experience (historical fact of the resurrection) does not address the inexcusability of all based on the clarity of general revelation.
  5. Appeal to experience (observation in science) does not critique the naturalistic assumptions used to interpret the data.
  6. Appeal to testimony, handed down as scripture, must address scriptural pluralism as well as the need for any scripture.
  7. Reason as the laws of thought is neither finite nor fallen, but is the test for meaning and is self-attesting.
  8. Reliance on pluralistic cumulative arguments leaves logical gaps in proving Christian Theism.
  9. Use of standard theistic arguments must answer historical objections or offer revised arguments, which are logically cumulative.
  10. Standard theistic arguments do not address inexcusability of unbelief of all.
  11. Cultural apologetics must show the inherent connection between sin and death; fideism is not a rational response to skepticism.
  12. Appeal to human flourishing does not sufficiently distinguish and relate the good, virtue and happiness in order to achieve rational justification in ethics. The natural moral law is the foundation for lasting culture.

Rational Presuppositionalism

  1. Thinking by nature is presuppositional—we think of the less basic in light of the more basic. If we agree on the more basic, we can agree on the less basic.
  2. Rational Presuppositionalism responds to all the above critiques of current apologetic methods.


© 2014 Logos Papers Press