“We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.” — 2 Cor. 10:5
There are generally thought to be three approaches to Christian apologetics. Definitions will vary, but here are what I think are some good ones.
One approach is known as fideism which says that the best defense of the faith is preaching the Gospel, and that “rational evidences” have nothing to do with the process. Faith and reason, while both having their place, are opposed to one another like oil and water.
Presuppositionalism has its roots in Calvinist theology, emphasizes the unbelievers darkened reason and the power of the Word of God to convert, and, according to John Frame, “should present the biblical God, not merely as the conclusion of an argument, but as the one who makes argument possible” (Cowan, Five Views on Apologetics, 2000, p. 220).
Evidentialism looks to engage a persons’ rational capacity and takes advantage of accepted methods of doing scientific and historical research. It examines the claims made about Jesus Christ by the eyewitnesses of the Biblical narratives, and looks to determine whether or not the claims are, as the Apostle Paul put it, “true and reasonable” (Acts 26).
What is one to make of the variety of approaches to Christian apologetics?
Nathan cites writers as diverse as Kierkegaard, Plantinga, John Warwick Montgomery, and Sye Ten Bruggencate. In the comments, Richard Swinburne is cited (“On my view, Christians can quite properly offer any arguments for the truth of Christian belief they think are appropriate. I doubt that these arguments are sufficient to warrant the firmness of belief involved in faith (as traditionally understood) but it doesn’t follow that they have no use at all. On the contrary; they can be extremely useful, and in at least four different ways....”).
Read the whole article here, which promises to turn into a series....
The practical outworking of each is useful, but a coupl;e of things are worth highlighting:
ReplyDeleteIn fideism, the regard against reasoning is a) not biblical (the apostles employed reasoning) and b) a failure to recognize that God ordains the means.
Evidentialism, practiced alone, relies on a) natural revelation and b) the epistemological limitations of the evaluation of evidence. There will always be a likelihood, however slim, that it isn't true.
The only way that someone will accept evidence despite the limitations is if natural revelation is abandoned in favor of particular revelation. The only way this can happen is if one is regenerated by the Holy Spirit in the process recognizing therewith in some regard that their former presuppositions were incoherent, and that in this was a need for reconciliation for God to be found only in the true gospel. As such, presuppositionalism provides a far more meaningful starting place for apologetics, but recognizes the need to import some of the methods of the other schools of thought.
Thanks Jim -- I tend to agree with you, although there's so much more to all of this that I think many folks (like myself) will benefit from the discussion.
DeleteYou also have William craigism where you argue for a general god's existence.
ReplyDeleteShizoo,
ReplyDeleteYes, for the sake of brevity, I kind of subsumed what some have called "classical apologetics" under "evidentialism"....Evidentialism tends to move quickly to the resurrection.
I hope that you will take a look at my posts and possibly join in the discussion.
John,
Again, thanks for the promo. I hope that I can provide some real constructive food for thought - regardless of which view(s) we tend to favor.
+Nathan
Thanks Nathan, I'm looking forward to it.
DeleteAfter thousands of witnessing encounters; I tend to favor a "reasoned fideism" a la Stephen Evans. It takes into consideration both the noetic effects of sin and the sometimes useful appropriation of evidences and arguments.
ReplyDelete