Tag: apologetic method
-
Bahnsen and Bare Possibility
…Historically, when David Hume and Immanuel Kant exposed the invalidity of the theistic proofs, apologists generally balked at returning to revelation as the basis for their certainty of God’s existence. They elected, rather, to maintain status in the the blinded eyes of the “worldly wise” by attempting to prove Christianity’s credibility by means of arguments that hopefully pointed toward the probability of God’s existence and Scripture’s truth. They settled for a mere presumption (plus pragmatic assurance) in favor of a few salvaged items (i.e., “fundamentals”) from the Christian system. Refusing to presuppose the sovereign God revealed in the Bible
-
Expert Apologist
Negatively…
The expert in apologetics is not necessarily the one with the best philosophical arguments. The expert in apologetics does not necessarily know all of the relevant facts. The expert in apologetics does not necessarily always have an intellectually satisfying answer on hand. The expert in apologetics is not constantly trying to defend his or her own name. The expert in apologetics is not constantly after opportunities to make his or her name known. The expert in apologetics does not withhold knowledge from others. The expert in apologetics does not use language no one can understand. The expert in apologetics …
-
Wrongly, Plantinga
According to John Calvin, “As soon as ever we depart from Christ, there is nothing, be it ever so gross or insignificant in itself, respecting which we are not necessarily deceived.” Perhaps Calvin means only what we have already noted: one who doesn’t know God fails to know the most important truth about anything else. He may mean to go even further, however: perhaps he means to say that those who don’t know God suffer much wider ranging cognitive deprivation and, in fact, don’t really have any knowledge at all. (This view is at any rate attributed (rightly or wrongly) …