Debating Techniques: How They Are Being Used Against Christianity (Integrated Apologetics)

He did, however, accept the label reluctantly, given that it was a useful way of distinguishing between those who deny a neutral basis for apologetics and those who do not. His student, Greg Bahnsen , aided in some of the later developments of Van Tillian Presuppositionalism, and the Bahnsen Theological Seminary continues to promote presuppositional apologetics in its curriculum. John Frame , another student of Van Til, also continues to advocate a presuppositional approach, although he is generally more critical of Van Til's thought than Bahnsen was. Butler, has also been active in advancing the field.

Among his contributions is a technical, metalogical study of transcendental arguments in general and the Transcendental argument for the existence of God in particular, which he wrote for Bahnsen's festschrift. By , presuppositional apologetics had acquired a new advocate in the Presbyterian theologian Gordon Clark. The differences between the two views on presuppositionalism, though few in number, caused a significant rift between the two men, and even after both Clark and Van Til had died, John Robbins a theologian and former student of Clark's and Bahnsen were often involved in heated exchanges.

In a book outlining the major schools of apologetics, the presuppositional approach was given equal time alongside other schools of thought the "classical" and "evidential" noted above, for example.

1. Government Information Collections in the Networked Environment: New Issues and Models?
2. Presuppositional apologetics.
3. The Sweet Science.
4. A Very Different School: Book 1 in the Professor Alexanders Fantastic Fieldtrips series (Volume 1).
5. The Classical Method;
6. Johnson C. Philip Quotes (Author of Logic And Apologetics)!
7. INTEGRATED TOOLS OF APOLOGETICS.

Van Til is considered by Dr. John Frame, Professor of Systematic Theology and Philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary, to be one of the most outstanding apologists of his time due to his being "probably the best versed on the history of philosophy and the philosophical issues that bore upon Christianity" [18]. Apologists who follow Van Til earned the label "presuppositional" because of their central tenet that the Christian must at all times presuppose the supernatural revelation of the Bible as the ultimate arbiter of truth and error in order to know anything.

Christians, they say, can assume nothing less because all human thought presupposes the existence of the God of the Bible. Though Van Tillians do, at one point, "put themselves in the shoes" of the opponent, "for the sake of argument", to demonstrate where that position would lead, they claim that they can only do so because this is actually God's world, and man is actually God's creature, made in God's own image, and as such can never completely shut God out in living or thinking —hence there is always a common basis for dialogue, even though it is, in the presuppositionalist's view, a basis which the opponent is not usually willing to acknowledge and which is decidedly biased rather than neutral.

According to Frame, "[Van Til's] major complaints against competing apologetic methods are theological complaints, that is, that they compromise the incomprehensibility of God, total depravity , the clarity of natural revelation, God's comprehensive control over creation , and so on. Rather, Van Tillians employ these beliefs, which they justify on Biblical grounds, in the service of transcendental arguments , which are a sort of meta-argument about foundational principles, necessary preconditions, in which the non-Christian's worldview is shown to be incoherent in and of itself and intelligible only because it borrows capital from the Christian worldview.

For example, where evidentialists would take the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system as a neutral common starting point and construct a cosmological argument for an unmoved mover , Van Tillian presuppositionalists would ask for a justification for the belief in the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system, given the worldview of the opponent, attempting to show that such a belief presupposes the Christian worldview and is ultimately incompatible with the opposing worldview.

Van Tillians also stress the importance of reckoning with "the noetic effects of sin" that is, the effects of sin on the mind , which, they maintain, corrupt man's ability to understand God, the world, and himself aright. In their view, as a fallen creature, man does know the truth in each of these areas, but he seeks to find a different interpretation—one in which, as C.

Lewis said, he is "on the bench" and God is "in the dock. Van Til illustrated this alleged inconsistency as a child, elevated on the father's knee, reaching up to slap his face, and Bahnsen used the analogy of a man breathing out air to make the argument that air doesn't exist. Another important aspect of the Van Tillian apologetical program is the distinction between proof and persuasion.

According to the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans , man has ample proof in all of creation of God's existence and attributes but chooses to suppress it. Gordon Clark and his followers treat the truth of the Scriptures as the axiom of their system. Like all axioms, this axiom is considered to be self-evident truth, not to be proven, but used for proof.

Theologians and philosophers strongly influenced by Dr. Clark include Francis Schaeffer , Carl F.

• Cristalli di quarzo, manifestazioni di luce (Italian Edition).
• How To Lose Belly Fat?
• The Tigers Back (Gemma Open Door)!

Sproul though with many published reservations and John Robbins of the Trinity Foundation. Clark's system has been described by Gary Crampton as, "The 66 books of the Old and New Testaments are self-attesting and self-authenticating. Scripture stands in judgment over all books and ideas, and it is to be judged by no person or thing. The Bible alone is the Word of God. This is the Reformed principle of sola Scriptura. By contrast, some Van Tillians have suggested that God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture reveals apparent paradoxes.

However, Clark allowed that presupposing axioms or "first principles" themselves do not make a philosophical system true, including his own; the fact that all worldviews he examined other than Christianity had internal contradictions only made Christianity highly more probable as truth, but not necessarily so.

Some Van Tillian critics suggest that the concept of coherence itself must be defined in terms of Christian presuppositions but is instead being used by Clark as a "neutral" principle for discerning the truth of any proposition. For example, we note that Jesus called fishermen.

Contemporary Jewish literature had much to say about people whose jobs made them virtually incapable of keeping the law of Moses. Two groups often singled out for special negative comment were carpenters and fishermen—carpenters because they doubled as undertakers and were handling dead bodies all the time, and fishermen because they had to handle and sort mixed catches of clean and unclean fish. Both groups were incapable of observing the strict Jewish rules about ritual purity, which prohibited contact with anything unclean.

Yet Jesus calls precisely such fishermen, who hovered on the fringes of Jewish religious life. What made Simon and Andrew leave everything and follow Jesus? Does Jesus offer compelling arguments for the existence of God? Does he explain to them that he is the fulfillment of the great prophecies of the Old Testament?

There is something about him that is compelling. The response of Simon and Andrew was immediate and intuitive. Mark leaves us with the impression of an utterly compelling figure who commands assent by his very presence. Although this account of the encounter between Jesus of Nazareth and the first disciples by the Sea of Galilee is very familiar, we need to read it with an apologetic agenda in mind.

It helps us set apologetics in its proper perspective. It reminds us that argument can be only part of our strategy. In many ways, our task is to lead people to Christ and discovery of the living God. Apologetics does not and cannot convert anyone. But it can point people in the right direction by removing barriers to an encounter with God, or opening a window through which Christ can be seen.

The Evidential Method

Apologetics is about enabling people to grasp the significance of the gospel. It is about pointing, explaining, opening doors, and removing barriers.



Yet what converts is not apologetics itself, but the greater reality of God and the risen Christ. To explain this important point, we may turn to another account of the calling of the first disciples:. Having encountered Jesus of Nazareth, Philip is convinced he is the one he has been hoping for. He then tries to persuade Nathanael that Jesus is the fulfillment of the hopes of Israel. Nathanael is clearly skeptical about this, and raises an objection: Could such a person really come from Nazareth?

Yet instead of meeting this objection with reasoned argument, Philip invites Nathanael to meet Jesus of Nazareth and decide for himself. Now Philip might have answered Nathanael with a detailed argument. Or perhaps he might have set out the various factors that led him, Andrew, and Peter to follow Jesus of Nazareth and believe him to be the culmination of the hopes of Israel. Yet Philip has learned that encounter is to be preferred to argument. Why argue with Nathanael when there is a more direct and appropriate way of resolving the matter?

On meeting Jesus and hearing him, Nathanael comes to his own conclusion: You are the King of Israel! We see here the importance of pointing people toward Jesus of Nazareth. We can, like Philip, explain what we find so powerfully compelling and attractive about Jesus. The point is important. Apologetics, we are often told, is about persuading people of the truth of the Christian faith. Now there is some truth in that—but it is not the whole truth. There are serious limits to the scope of arguments. You may be able to persuade someone that an idea is correct—but is this going to change his or her life?

Philip rightly discerns that Nathanael will be transformed not by an argument, nor even an idea, but by a personal encounter with Jesus. He does not argue for Jesus—he points to Jesus. Is this not a helpful model for Christian witness—pointing people to Jesus, whom we have found to be the fulfillment of human longings and the culmination of our aspirations, thus allowing them to encounter him for themselves, rather than relying on our arguments and explanations? Yet the story continues, and there are further apologetic points to be made. A few days later, Jesus and his disciples attend a wedding at Cana in Galilee.

The impact of this sign on the disciples is significant. Faith is here seen as the outcome of a revelation of the glory of Christ. This goes far beyond reasoned argument. Faith is the response to the realization of the full majesty, glory, and wonder of Christ. Even this brief discussion of the nature of apologetics indicates that it has a strongly theological dimension. It may be helpful to explore this in a little more detail before proceeding further. This is a constant theme in the New Testament.

Faith is not about a mere change of mind; it is about personal transformation through an encounter with the living God. Second, the New Testament depicts human nature as being wounded and damaged by sin. We are not capable of seeing things as they really are. Arguments do not cure blindness, nor does the accumulation of evidence, powerful rhetoric, or a compelling personal testimony.

Blindness needs to be healed —and such a healing is something only God is able to do. God alone is able to open the eyes of the blind and enable them to see the realities of life. Apologetics thus depends upon the grace of God and the divine capacity to heal and renew. This is not something we can do. This helps put apologetics in proper perspective!

Third, this theological perspective sets the apologetic task in its proper context. We realize we have an important but limited role to play in bringing people to faith. God is the one who will convert; we have the privilege of bringing people to a point at which God takes over. We point to the source of healing; God heals. We witness to the power of forgiveness; God forgives. We explain how God has changed our lives, transforming them for the better; God enters lives, and changes them.

We have a real and privileged part in this process, but are not left on our own. Apologetics is always undertaken in the power and presence of the risen Christ. An analogy may help make this critically important point clearer. Imagine you had blood poisoning some years ago. Certain symptoms developed, and you realized you were seriously ill. A skilled physician told you what the problem was. And there was a cure: The drug was quickly administered, and within days you were on the road to recovery.

The Heart of Apologetics

Did the physician heal you? In one sense, yes. The physician told you what was wrong with you, and what needed to be done if you were to be healed. But what actually cured you was penicillin. But in the days before penicillin was discovered, this condition meant only one thing: There was nothing that could be done to save you. Identifying the problem would not have been enough to heal you. A cure was needed. This analogy allows us to get a good sense of how apologetics works, and how we fit into the greater scheme of things.

The apologist can use many strategies to explain, communicate, and defend the idea that there is something wrong with human nature. Equally, we can use many strategies to explain, communicate, and defend the fact that there is indeed a cure.

#80 - Richard Carrier on Christianity, Jesus, and Christian Apologetics

But apologetics itself does not heal; it only points to where a cure may be found. We may provide excellent arguments that such a cure exists. We could provide personal testimonies from people whose lives have been changed by discovering this cure. But in the end, people are healed only by finding and receiving the cure, and allowing it to do its work. We may play a real and important role in helping them to realize they are ill and telling them how they could be cured. Without us, they might not find the cure.

But the actual process of healing itself results from the power of penicillin, not from our words. American poet Edna St. These facts are like threads that need to be woven into a tapestry, clues that need to be assembled to disclose the big picture. Christianity gives us a way of bringing order and intelligibility to our many and complex observations of the natural world, human history, and personal experience. It allows us to integrate them, and see them as interconnected aspects of a greater whole. We want to see the big picture that makes sense of all we observe.

More importantly, we want to know where we fit into this great scheme of things. The Christian faith is about grasping the big picture, enabling us to see a larger and nobler vision of reality than human reason can disclose. The world is studded with clues about human nature and identity. Reality is emblazoned with signs pointing to the greater reality of God.