MODERN APPROACHES OF
CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS
Introduction
Postmodernism has grown into its full shape in this
twenty first century. And all the religious systems are breaking down from its
stand for its foundation has been shaken badly. In the midst of all these
threats and damages Christianity stands strong. Though the postmodernism has
turned to be crucial for all kind of belief system, it is the Christian
apologist who shielded the Christianity from all kind of criticism and made it
so reasonable for all kind people. All Christian apologists of twenty first
century became armour of Christianity and it belief. The profoundness of
apologetics depends on the approaches that they hold. So now there are
different types of apologists who follow different type’s approaches. These differences
among the apologists and their approaches have led many to ask the questions that
why there are many approaches? What are the different between them? The main
goal of this paper is tracing out the origin and history of apologetics and to discuss
the modern approach of apologetics.
1.
DEFINING APOLOGETICS
1.1
Origin and Usages of the Term Apologia
in History
The word apologetics has confused many into thinking
that it refers to some kind of apologizing. The word apologetics did not derive
from the English word apology as many think, but from the Greek word apologia. [1]
The word apologia was originally used for a speech of defence or an answer
given in reply. In ancient Athens it was used in the court room as part of the
normal judicial procedure, usually after the accusation was made. When the
defendant was allowed to refute the charge, he would attempt to speak away the
accusation. The part of speaking away is called apologia (Apo-away,
logia-speech). The best classical examples of such an apologia were Socrates
and Plato: they made defence against the charge of preaching strange gods.[2]
1.2
Usages of the Term Apologia in New Testament
The word apologia appears seventeen times in the New
Testament both in noun and verb form. When its presented by Luke, in one place,
usually the word apologia referred to a speech made in one’s own defence (acts
19:33). But in other places like, where Christians and Paul were put to the
trail for preaching something unlawful, Luke uses the apologia in reference to
the situation in which they had to defend the charges made against them.
Apostle Paul himself has used word apologia in
different context in his epistle. When the question rose concerning his apostleship,
Paul felt the necessity of defending himself against the allegation. In one
sense, even the letter to the Corinthian was an apologia intended for his
apostleship. When Paul wrote the epistle to the romans he made mention of one
things that; though the written law is not given to the gentiles but the God’s
law which is written on their heart would judge or defend against them in the
day of judgement. In the second letter to
timothy, towards the end of his life, Paul mentions the rejection on his first defence
concerning his first trial. He also extents his appreciation towards the Philippians
church for supporting him in the time of both in imprisonment and defence of
gospel. In total the defence of Paul was not for him but for the gospel of
Christ alone.
The key verse for apologetics was taken from one of
the epistles (1 peter 3:15) of peter. In this verse peter asks the believer to
be prepared to make a defence to everyone who asks you to give an account for
the hope that is in you. The context in which the verse was written is the
similar to the Paul’s last epistles and to Luke’s writings. The whole message of this verse is that, in
the time of challenge or threating, Christians are to behave lawfully, maintain
a good conscience, and give a reasoned defence of what they believe to anyone
who asks.
1.3
Origin and Usage of the Word Apologetic in Church History
The word defence began to take a narrow sense to
refer to group of writers who defended the belief and practices of Christianity
against various attacks. In the second century, most notably Justin martyr and
Tertullian wrote some treaties with the title apology and apologeticum to
the government. Later these people were called as the apologetic. Until 1794
the use of the apologetic was not defined as a specific theological discipline. After a long period of debate, in 1908
B.B.Warfield catalogued some of the alternate perception including his own
conclusion: they are as following
philosophical apologetics, psychological apologetics, historical apologetics,
biblical apologetics.
1.4
Apologetic and Related Terms
As for present era the term apology refer to some specific effort or work in defence of the
faith. The effort of apology might be a written document, a speech, even a film
or any medium of communication which might possibly be used.an apologist is
someone who make a practice of the defending the faith . Intellectual context
is the place where the apologist develops his apology. The word apologetic
refers to the particular approach to the defence of the faith. Apologetics is a
closely related word to apologetic, and can be used synonymously. The word
apologetics has been used at least in three ways. First it refers to the
discipline concerned with the defence of the faith. Second, it refers to a general
grouping of approaches or system developed for defending of the faith. Third,
sometime it refers to the activity of presenting an apology. The word metapologetics refers to the study
of the nature and method of apologetics. This word is very recent one, and has
been used very rarely.[3]
1.5
Functions of Apologetics
First, apologetics is used in a practical way to
prove Christian truth and to bring the unbelievers to faith. This may involve
arguments from history, philosophy, science, culture, logic, and testimony. The
key element of this function is to remove intellectual stumbling block and to
create an atmosphere in which belief can come to life.
Second, apologetics is used in defence against the
criticism and attacks on the gospel. When the gospel is defended, the church
will have opportunity of receiving more strong (health) faith. Defending gospel
can also guard the church from false doctrine.
Third,
apologetics strengthens the faith of believers when they are being attacked by
voices of doubts, worldly influences, and personal crises. However, the
apologetics can work as a key in anchoring the faith of Christian who faces
with doubt.[4]
Fourth,
apologetics stands against the opposing beliefs, in others words it refutes the
opposing beliefs. In this, the arguments are made not for the Christian belief
but against non-Christian beliefs.[5]
2.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF APOLOGETICS
If we trace back the origin of the apologetics in
god’s word, it goes a long way back to Old Testament. Though it was not done in larger scale, yet
we find the strong evidence for the word of apologetic. If we want to name
them, they are very few, like Elijah Ezra, prophets, sometime god himself. But
when we look at New Testament we find apologetics in greater scale. a careful
study would study on new testament would tell about the great use of apologetics in the new testament. The main
intention of the apologetics in the New Testament is to prove the divinity of
Christ. Therefore, anything that came against the claims for credential of
Christ and resurrection upon which Christianity is built were rebutted. Even
some of the writings were written in response to criticisms and false
teachings.
The two volumes of the New Testament by Luke are
most explicitly apologetically in purpose. When we look at the introduction of
gospel by Luke, it is very obvious that Luke has gathered the materials in
order to prove the historicity of the person Jesus Christ. But at the same time even the very content and
structure of acts suggests that the purpose acts is to defend Paul and the
Christ whom he preached. Resurrection of
Jesus, fulfilment of prophecies, and charismatic phenomena are the main themes
of the apologetical frame works. He also makes mention of Paul’s speech in
which the apologetics arguments were presented. For instance, Act 17 contains
the wonderful speech of Paul, in which Paul addresses to the non-Jewish
congregation about resurrection. Actually the speech of Paul was intended to
give a response to those people who misunderstood resurrection.
Even apostle John has followed the similar way of Paul
in using Greek philosophical and religious term in the gospel, in which the
preincarnate Christ is called logos. So,
the term logos, to any gentile or Hellenistic Jewish reader would have
immediately invoked up platonic and stoic notion of the universal reason that
was govern the cosmos.[6]
In second century, Justine martyr (100-165) used the
messianic prophecies from Old Testament. Since he was a convert from Platonism
to Christianity he used platonic philosophy to prove Christianity. One of the prominent
figures after Justine was Augustine (354-430).though Augustine had totally adapted
to the view of Paul regarding salvation and sovereignty of God, he used the
philosopher thought concerning the maker of cosmos. He was a greatly influenced
by platonic philosophy. Anselm and Aquinas were the two Christian philosophers
of middle of ages who stand out for their contribution to apologetics, and
whose work were read and debated even today. Anselm was known for him argument
for God through ontological theory. Many of the time this has been treated as a
rational proof of the existence of God. At the same time, Thomas Aquinas was
known for his five arguments for the existence of God. At the time of
reformation, Martin Luther came up with doctrine of justification by faith in
Jesus Christ alone. Later on John Calvin joined the reformation and worked
against Roman Catholic denomination. But in the seventeenth century the
skepticism began to knock down the Christianity. At this crucial period the
French catholic mathematician and apologist Blaise Pascal brought a new
approach. He rejected all the traditional arguments for God and emphasized the personal,
relational aspect.[7]A
century after Pascal, there emerged a group of modern apologist with new
approaches. The rise of this modern apologetics and their approach were result
of enlightenment, which took place in the beginning of seventeenth
century.
3. MODERN APPROACH OF APOLOGETICS
Early in the seventeenth century the skepticism of
the Scottish philosopher David Hume laid a cornerstone for enlightenment. Enlightenment
rejected all the revelation claims and all natural theology, and relied only on
human reason. With his skepticism, Hume convinced many that the teleological argument,
miracles and other Christian apologetical arguments were unsound. Another enlightenment
philosopher Immanuel Kant also criticised the cosmological and ontological
argument for the existence of God. These successive waves of attack on
Christianity forced Christians to develop apologetic response.[8]
3.1 Classical Apologetics
Classical
apologetics is an approach that begins with natural theology and then move
further to prove the truthfulness of Christianity and its claim. Reason is the
substance of the classical apologetic in determining the truth[9].
Sproul, Grestner, And Lendsly argue that
miracles cannot prove god. As the matter of fact it is god alone who makes
miracles possible. They believe that without establishing the theistic world
view no one will be able to give sense to miracle, historical facts, and
empirical data. Even the historical event could be shown to be divine act
within the theistic context. In other words, it is impossible to prove the
existence of god by showing miracles as the evidence. But it is not the point of the entire
classical apologist. According to William Craig, the classical methodology need
not insist on theoretical necessity in the order of these two, but only, given
the nature of probability arguments.[10]
Since
this approach has been used by many prominent apologist of early century it got
named as classical apologetics. The historical root of this approach goes all
the way back to first century, where Paul was using in Athens. When we look at
second century, it was Justin martyr who had developed the element of classical
apologetics. In doing so, he made use of philosophy in order to prove the
existence of god. But in the later period it was continued through Augustine. Augustine used the miracles, fulfilled
biblical prophecies, and dramatic growth of church through persecution to prove
that God has revealed himself in Christ. It was medieval period when the
classical apologetics got a systematic formulation. At this time Anselm had
brought his ontological argument into focus, which later became one of the most
prominent arguments for the existence of God. Anselm believed that ontological argument
would help the believers to edify and persuade unbelievers[11].
After Anselm it was Thomas Aquinas, the respected Roman Catholic theologian,
who advocated a classical approach for the defence of Christian faith. In doing
defence, Aquinas had five ways of argument for the God’s existence, which
starts with argument from motion, the nature of efficient cause, possibility
and necessity, the gradation found in tings, and the governance of the world.[12]
In
nineteenth century we find another profound classical apologist William Paley,
whose argument for the existence of God is being used unto present. Some people
identify him with Evidentialism. British philosopher William Paley is the one
who introduced the idea of watch maker. Sooner it became a kind of an eye
opener to most of the apologist. By using the concept of watch maker the
apologist intended to help the people to pre suppose a maker of universe. As
for the modern apologist, it is William lane Craig who is the powerful
apologist, who is also a well-known theologian and philosopher. Though the Craig is a classical apologist, yet
he differs on the role of Holy Spirit in conviction. According to Craig Holy
Spirit is an authenticating person who confirms to the believer that what he subscribes
to by placing his faith is the Christian message is true. Yet, it is up to the
person to accept the invitation of God and allow the work to take place. As for
the arguments are concerned it is a subsidiary ways to help the believers to
understand that what he believes is reasonable.
Classical approach, generally
be dependent on both the Holy Spirit and logical argumentation. The main
arguments of the classical approach are Kalam Cosmological, Design, Moral, and
Teleological. Since most of the apologists are following the classical
approach, the work of the classical apologists must be taken into consideration
by everyone who makes their own personal apologetic[13]
Classical
apologetics was practiced by Augustine, Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas. Modern
classical apologists include Winfried Corduan, William Lane Craig, Norman L.
Geisler, John Gerstner, Stuart Hackett, Peter Kreeft, C. S. Lewis, J. P.
Moreland, and R. C. Sproul.
Despite
of all the strength in classical argument, there are some weaknesses which have
been exposed by the other apologist. In
classical approach the arguments for the existence god is called irrefutable
proof. According to proponents other apologists the irrefutable proof cannot
provide a formal proof beyond the bounds of rationality. In other words, even
in the absence of irrefutable proof one can hold a rational set of beliefs
about the world. The second case is that if a skeptic refuses all the argument
for the existence of god, he is totally free from examining the historical
evidence for the accuracy of scriptures. Probably this can put an end to the
entire apologetic’s case.[14]
3.2 Evidential Apologetics
Evidential
apologetics amounts to what the titles implies because they always go for real,
tangible, historical, archaeological evidence in order to establish to the
truth claims of Christianity. Though it has much in common with classical
apologetics, it differs concerning the use of miracle as the primary evidence to
prove god. Evidential method is unlike classical method which holds two way of
approach to prove the Christianity. Evidential apologists disregard the two ways
of arguments for the existence of god, instead they puts forth the evidences as
the only way of proving god. The matter of fact is Evidentialist totally relies
on probability.[15]
In
the modern era, the evangelical apologists of America have been dominated by
evidential approach. The only reason why American evangelical apologists have
adopted evidential approach is that the evidential approach always emphasis on
the presentation of Christianity as factual or verifiable by the examination of
the evidence. By the early century eighteenth century modern science seemed to
be explaining more and more about the natural world, requiring god as an
explanation for the things less and less. Though it believed in the creator of
the universe, god’s continuing process of control over the universe was
rejected. According to deism god created everything and kept himself away the
creation, and therefore the universe is without a sustainer. As a result of
deism which eliminated God from universe, there emerged a group of apologist
with the method called evidential on order to compete with science. One of the
most notable apologists of Evidentialism is William Paley, who also counted as
classical apologist. Evidentialist approach has over the past two century
gradually as a significantly different model of apologetics. The reason for the
development of evidentialist apologetics was the rise of deism.
The
evidential approach is fairly free in its use of various positive evidences and
negative critique, philosophical and historical. But the main focus of this
method is to accumulating the various historical and inductive arguments. The
notable thing about evidentialist is that they will argue both for theism and
Christianity at the same time without the support of natural theology. Mostly
they begin with the historical factuality of Jesus’ resurrection and then argue
that such an event is explainable only if a Christian God exists. Thus evidential would go on to argue that
Jesus’ resurrection authenticates his claims to be God incarnate and his
teaching on the divine authority of scripture.[16]
The
primary criticism against evidentialist focused on the acceptance of the
evidence by the evidential apologetics. As for the evidentialist, most of the
time the scripture has been the centre focus of the evidentialist to prove the
existence of god and validity of Christianity. Therefore, it is always not
necessary that a skeptic should consider or accept the evidence that we provide
for the veracity of the scripture. Another fact is that even if the
evidentialist brings the skeptic in path to believe in the veracity of the scripture,
there is no assurance that the skeptic would arrive at the conclusion where we
want him to arrive at. Though both classicalist and evidentialist travel by two
different directions, they trust in the Holy Spirit to work in the heart of the
believers.[17]
3.3 Reformed Apologetics
Since the time of Enlightenment, there has been a demand to expose all of our beliefs
to the searching criticism of reason. We are told that if a belief is
unsupported by evidence of some kind, it is irrational to believe it. Therefore
the Reformed
epistemology began to
challenge this evidentialist epistemological assumption. Those who advocate
this view hold that it is perfectly reasonable for a person to believe many
things without evidence. Most strikingly, they argue that belief in God does
not require the support of evidence or argument in order for it to be rational.[18]
In approach Reformed apologetics begins with
an entirely different base. According to Reformed apologist the existence of
God does not need to be proven, but is rather a properly basic belief. The reformed
apologists move with the conclusion that God is a person, not a thing, and the
belief of other beings outside us must be assumed, rather than proven. To prove
that the say that the existence of other persons has never been proven through
any philosophical means, and yet every person believes in the existence of
other people, so the existence of other persons must be assumed to be properly
basic, or acceptable without proof.
This
observation uncovers a more difficult one for most people to accept, that all
Knowledge
is essentially based on faith, rather than reason. Reformed apologists accept
reason to believe anything, but reject that reason itself is something which
can be reasonably proven. The reformed apologist does not believe that apologetic
arguments are powerful and assume that they may be reasonably rejected by the
skeptic. The rejection of arguments from reason, history, and other proofs,
shows that the primary problem with belief is moral, rather than intellectual.[19]
Reformed
apologists position
is that one is perfectly rational for believing in God without having to
actually prove it by resorting to external, empirical means to do so.
This method postulates at least three reasons to support its rationality: first,
the impracticality of evidence for the majority of true believers; second,
intuitive awareness of God's presence in the believer's life; and third, the
quality of positive belief in God versus the negative belief in doubt. on the basis of above conclusion the reformed apologist argue that
only few believers have the ways or means to validate their belief, but most of
the believers still believe despite of having no means to validate their
believe.[20]
The list of
contemporary Reformed epistemologists includes this volume's contributor,
already noted, Kelly James Clark. But four other names that would head that
list would be Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, George Mavrodes, and
William Alson.[21]
Criticism of the reformed apologetic centres
around the presupposition of God’s
existence; while it is true that no convincing
proof has been offered for the existence of another person, and yet all people
believe in the existence of other people, this cannot be stretched to the
existence of God. The problem is the
leap of logic between believing in the existence of a person in the ordinary
sense, and believing in a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent creator. These are
two different classes of persons; the existence of one class does not necessarily
infer the existence of the other. Beyond this, even with the assumption of
God’s existence, there is no path from this assumption to Christianity in
particular. Assuming God exists does not prove he is, in fact, the God
described in Christianity.[22]
3.4 Fideist Apologetic
Fideism is an approach to apologetics that argues
that the truths of faith cannot and should not be justified rationally. In
other words, fideists argue that the truths of Christianity are properly
apprehended by faith alone. The word fideism derives from the Latin fide,
meaning faith. Although fideism seems to be speaking against reason, they do
not maintain that the truths of Christianity are actually irrational. Rather,
by reason they mean that human reason or the use of reason by the human mind
cannot reach god. The essential thing of fideism is that the belief and truths
of Christianity are beyond our capacity to understand or express in a logically
definitive fashion.[23]
Fideism holds that the only way we can
know anything about God is by faith. Truth is subjective and personal, so we can
believe it but not prove it. According
to fideism there are no rational proofs or empirical evidence that can lead us
to knowledge of God. Therefore one must simply believe that what God has said
in God Word and done in our lives is true.[24]When the empiricism went under the skepticism the
rationalism lost the possibility of rationally demonstrating its first
principles, and thus fideism becomes a more viable option in religious
epistemology.[25]
Although fideists deny that human reason can prove
or justify Christian beliefs, they do not conclude that we should offer no
answer to the apologetic questions and challenges posed by non-Christians. Fideism
does not rebuff t such challenges with non-replies like irrationalist who say- just
believe. Fideists always answer those apologetic challenges by explaining why
reason is incompetent to provide a satisfactory answer and then showing that
faith does provide a way to deal with the problem.
Since critics of Reformed apologetics so often
equate it with fideism, we should briefly explain where the two approaches
diverge. Apologists of both traditions agree that Christian truth claims cannot
be justified or verified on the basis of assumptions or methods of reasoning
acceptable to non-Christians. Reformed apologists, however, argue that these
truth claims are internally consistent and that they can show them to be
rational from within a Christian system of thought which based on certain key
Christian assumptions.[26]
Fideism has three major strengths. First,
fideists believe that since God is a person, people should accept God as a
person whom we can have a relationship with. Therefore, fideists focus on
heart matters, God’s compassion, his love for humanity, and our basic need for
a relationship with God. Secondly, fideism correctly acknowledges that humanity
is fallen, and therefore our intellect and reasoning abilities will likely be damaged
to some degree. Therefore, fideists believe that it is wrong to believe
that logic and reasoning can carry us all the way to a personal relationship
with God.
Thirdly, fideism is centred on Christ on whom true Christianity should
be centred. When it comes to the questions of faith, Christ is always the
answer. Sometime fideists are quick to charge the natural theologians for
promoting evidences for the God of theism. For fideists, what people need is
the person of Christ, not the religion or philosophy of Christianity which is
merely an intellectual system of thought.
Although there are much positive things about fideism, it alone is
insufficient as an apologetic methodology for two reasons. First, the
idea of God as a person is only comforting on an emotional level, but many
Christian believers cannot accept the reality of God without evidences for him.
When we fail to provide the evidence for what we believe many of us might be
inclined to assume that both evolutionary biology and humanistic psychology is
the correct explanation for reality. Therefore, when we fail to provide any
evidence for our claims the idea of God will become pointless, scripture will
be out dated, and resurrection will become a myth.
Secondly, fideism is always being ready with an answer focuses on the
emotional appeal of a life of faith. The emotionally-based appeal
requires almost no preparation, whereas the evidence-based answers, on the
other hand, require doing some homework. Many in the world today, and
throughout the past two millennia, have been unwilling to consider the
existence of God and the Christian faith until confronted by a challenge to
examine the evidence for Christianity. Two popular examples of
atheists-turned-Christians are C.S. Lewis and Lee Strobel. These men
converted to a saving faith in Christ not because they were seeking an
emotional uplift, although that certainly happened later, but because they were
persuaded by the evidence.[27]
3.5
Cumulative Apologetics
Though cumulative and
evidential share lot of similarity, in presenting evidence for the truthfulness
of Christianity Cumulative case apologists take a somewhat different approach.
They have a similar interest in physical evidence, but also use logic and Classical
arguments for the existence of God. Whereas evidential apologetics focus on
hard evidence, cumulative case apologists are preoccupied with proving that
belief in Christianity is reasonable and even incontrovertible.
According to advocates of cumulative apologetics,
the nature of the case for Christianity is not in any strict sense a formal
argument like a proof or an argument from probability. According to Mitchell, the
cumulative case method does not conform to the ordinary pattern of deductive or
inductive reasoning. The cumulative apologetics is more like a lawyer in a
court of law. It is an theory that comprehensively explains that data and does
so better than any alternative hypothesis.[28]
There
are four elements seem to characterize the cumulative position.. First, cumulative
apologist presenting a broad range of information addressing the subject, with
the express hope that combination of all information will provide a sufficient
response. Second, cumulative case apologetics is broadly based argument
that is drawn from a number of elements in our experience, which in turn either
require explanation or point beyond themselves. Third,
it demonstrates what appears to be the disorganization inherent in the
approach; none of the elements that constitute this case has any priority over
any other. Fourth, the cumulative case is not simply a defence of God's
existence or theism; it is an apologetic for Christianity. But ultimately
it is depending on the argument on where the apologetic argument begins.[29]
According to Paul Feinberg, Christianity makes better sense of all the
evidence available than does any other alternative worldview on offer,
including atheism. The data that the cumulative case seeks to explain include
the existence and nature of the cosmos, the reality of religious experience,
the objectivity of morality, and certain other historical facts, such as the
resurrection of Jesus. Beside Feinburg and Mitchell, Cumulativists also include
C.S.
Lewis , C. Stephen Evans, and
Richard Swinburne.[30]
Criticisms
of the cumulative case centre around the broadening of the apologetic case, the
Worldview
tests provided and plausibility by the skeptic. Cumulative apologetic is not
focused enough and it brings in too many variables and ideas too quickly. The
cumulative case apologists counter this charge by showing the flimsiness of an
apologetic built on a single minimal case. Two answers can be presented by the
Cumulativist to this criticism. First, no single test stands alone; it is the
cumulative effect of these tests the apologist is working towards. Second,
these tests must be taken with an element of time. Though it is true that the
atheist lives within a relativistic worldview at any given moment in time, but
he cannot live within that worldview over longer stretches of time. Therefor all
systems must attempt to find some common ground on which to challenge the
skeptic. The cumulative case apologist simply seeks common ground with the
skeptic across a broad array of points, rather than trying to force a single
point of common ground on the skeptic[31]
3.6 Presuppositional Apologetics
Presuppositionalists usually hold that there is not enough common ground
between believers and unbelievers that would allow followers of the prior three
methods to accomplish their goals. The apologist must simply presuppose the
truth of Christianity as the proper starting point in apologetics. For Presuppositionalists
the Christian revelation in the Scriptures is the framework through which all
experience is interpreted and all truth is known. Various evidences and
arguments can be advanced for the truth of Christianity, but these at least
implicitly presuppose premises that can be true only if Christianity is true.
Presuppositionalists argue that all meaning, thought, and every fact logically presuppose
the God of the Scriptures.
Cornelius Van Til is the one credited with the development of this
method. A later exponent of the Presuppositional method was Greg Bahnsen. Presuppositionalists conclude the matter in
this way that all knowledge is deposited in Christ; man's
knowledge of the truth depends upon God's prior knowledge, begins with the fear
of the Lord, and requires submission to God's word.[32]
According to John Frame, one should present the
biblical God, not merely as the conclusion to an argument, but as the one who
makes argument possible. Presuppositionalists try to show unbelievers that
their own worldview is inadequate to explain their experience of the world and
to get unbelievers to see that Christianity alone can make sense of their
experience.
One thing that ought to be remembered about Presuppositionalism is that
it does not frown upon the use of evidence to defend the Christian faith.
In fact, Presuppositionalists encourage it. But the evidence, philosophy,
and logical argumentation are to be placed beneath the authority of Scripture,
which is deemed as a declaration of the mind of God, who ultimately gives
meaning to evidence found to support the Christian discovery of the truth.[33]
Presuppositionalists include Cornelius Van Til and Gordon Clark, as well as Greg Bahsen and Francis Schaeffer
as the promoters of presuppositionalism.[34]
Commonly Presuppositional apologetics has been
criticized for two specific reasons. The first is that the presupposition of
the existence of God in proving the existence of God. This way of approach is
really viciously circular and hard to arrive at some conclusion. The second is
that the skeptic isn’t so easy to convince that his thinking is not rational.
This is something like cutting the nose and giving the flower to smell. In order to convince a skeptic we should go
with his world view and bring him to a common ground where we can prove our
world to be true.[35]
CONCLUSION
Emerge
of apologetics approaches are the result of skepticism on Christian faith.
Throughout the history of Christianity, the skepticism has emerged with no
regards to time and place. Therefore, defence against the skepticism became
necessary and important to a great extent. As a result of skepticism many
people gave up their faith and went apostate. This caused all the Christian
leaders to come up with some kind of defence and arguments. Each and every time
they had developed different kind of approaches for defending the truth claim
of Christianity. People those who came
up with different approach in order to defend the Christian faith were called
apologist. These were the people whom God used in order to keep the Christian
faith alive throughout all the criticism. As for today there are many different
between the apologetics approaches as to which one is best for defence. During
the course of the clear study on all the approaches, one thing has become
obvious that all the approaches have ups and downs. Therefore, it is
meaningless to talk about what is best and what not, rather let us use all the
approaches whenever and wherever it is need. This attitude of unity will bring
great impact in Christian realm, and bring a great damage to all criticisms
that are Christianity.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Apologetics
Index. “Five Apologetic Methods: Classical”.
http://www.apologeticsindex.org.(accessed on 30-7-14)
Auten,
Brian. “A Case for Apologetics: Three Basic Functions of Apologetics”. http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/A-Case-for-Apologetics.pdf.(accessesd
on 28-7-14)
Bible.
“Fideist Apologetics: By Faith Alone”. https://bible.org/seriespage/fideist-apologetics-faith-alone
(accessed on 27-7-14).
Boa,
Kenneth d. and Robert bowman. Faith Has
Its Reason: An Integrative Approach To Defending Christianity. Milton
Keynes: paternoster, 2006.
Colley,
Caleb
. “Reasoning about
Fideism”. http://espanol.apologeticspress.org/articles/3442 (accessed on
1-8-14)
Geisler,
Norman L. Christian Apologetics.
Michigan: baker book house, 1976.
Hroziencik, Randall L. “The History & Philosophy of
Fideism”http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Ars-Course-1-Paper.docx
(accessed on 2-8-14)
Paul Derengowski. “Method of Apologetic
Practice: Classical Apologetics”. http://capro.info/Apologetics/Methods_of_Apologetic_Practice.html (27-7-14)
Philip,
Johnson C. & Saneesh Cherian, “Introduction to Integrated Christian
Apologetics”. http://www.brethrenassembly.com/Ebooks/Apol_001A.pdf (accessed on
28-7-14).
Russ
White. “Review of Apologetic Methods: Classical Apologetics”.
http://thinkinginchrist.com/media/papers/REVIEW%20OF%20APOLOGETIC%20METHODS.pdf
(accessed on 31-7-14)
[1] Dr. Johnson C. Philip & Dr.
Saneesh Cherian, “Introduction to Integrated Christian Apologetics”.
http://www.brethrenassembly.com/Ebooks/Apol_001A.pdf .(accessed on 28-7-14).
[2] Boa, Kenneth d. and Robert
bowman jr, Faith Has Its Reason: An Integrative Approach To
Defending Christianity. (Milton
Keynes:paternoster,2006),1.
[3]
Kenneth and bowman, Faith Has Its Reason,4.
[4] Brian Auten, A Case For
Apologetics: Three Basic Functions of Apologetics.
http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/A-Case-for-Apologetics.pdf.(28-7-14)
[5] Kenneth and bowman, Faith Has Its Reason,6
[6] Kenneth And Bowman, Faith Has Its Reason,12.
[7] Kenneth and bowman, Faith Has Its Reason,14-23.
[8] Kenneth And Bowman, Faith Has Its Reason,23.
[9] Kenneth And Bowman, Faith Has Its Reason,71.
[10] Apologetics Index, Five
Apologetic Methods: Classical. http://www.apologeticsindex.org.(accessed on
30-7-14)
[11] Kenneth and bowman, Faith Has Its Reason,50.
[12] Paul Derengowski, “Method Of Apologetic Practice: Classical
Apologetics”. http://capro.info/Apologetics/Methods_of_Apologetic_Practice.html (accessed on 27-7-14)
[13] Paul Derengowski, “Method of
Apologetic Practice”.
[14] Russ White, “Review of
Apologetic Methods: Classical Apologetics”. http://thinkinginchrist.com/media/papers/REVIEW%20OF%20APOLOGETIC%20METHODS.pdf.
(accessed on 31-7-14)
[15]
Paul
Derengowski, “Evidential Apologetics”.
[16] Apologetics index, “Evidential
Apologetic”.
[17] Russ White, “Evidential
Apologetic”.
[18] Apologetics Index, “Reformed
Apologetic”.
[19] Russ White, “Reformed Apologetic”.
[20] Paul Derengowski, “Reformed
Apologetic”.
[21] Apologetics Index, “Reformed
Apologetic”.
[22] Russ White, “Reformed Apologetic”.
[23] Bible, “Fideist Apologetics: By
Faith Alone”.https://bible.org/seriespage/fideist-apologetics-faith-alone
(accessed on 27-7-14).
[24] Caleb Colley, “Reasoning About Fideism”. http://espanol.apologeticspress.org/articles/3442(
accessed on 1-8-14)
[25] Norman l. Geisler, Christian Apologetics:
Fideism. Michigan: baker book house,47.
[27] Randall L. Hroziencik ,”The
History & Philosophy of Fideism”http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ARS-COURSE-1-PAPER.docx
[28]
Apologetics Index, “Cumulative Apologetics”.
[29] Russ White, “Cumulative
Apologetics”.
[30]
Apologetics Index, “Cumulative Apologetics”.
[31] Russ White, “Cumulative
Apologetic”.
[32] Paul Derengowski, “Presuppositional
Apologetic”.
[33] Paul Derengowski, “Presuppositional
Apologetic”.
[34]
Apologetics Index, “Presuppositional Apologetics”.
