Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Seminary Terms > Apologetics Exam '21 > Flashcards

Apologetics Exam '21 Flashcards

1
Q

Parasitic substitution:

A

Parasitic substitution is the unbeliever’s inevitable exchange of the creator for the creature. (Rom. 1:25)

When God as the norming norm is disposed of, an unbeliever finds something else in creation to become the norming norm.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Psychological Common Notions

A

Psychological common notions refers to the “soul knowledge” of God that every human possesses from birth. Bavinck calls this “Innate Knowledge” and notes that this knowledge is “both the capacity and the inclination to arrive at SOME firm, certain, and unfailing knowledge of God.” (RD II. 71)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Epistemological Common Notions

A

Epistemological common notions are the second order responses we suppress; and that we can articulate. Bavinck calls this the “Acquired Knowledge of God.” (RD II. 72-76)
Knowledge that comes to humans from without by observation that serves to augment psychological or implanted knowledge.

Psychological knowledge, on the other hand, is implicitly known all the time.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Transcendental Argument:

A

An argument that targets the root and seeks to discover what sort of foundations the house of human knowledge must have, in order to be what it is.” – Van Til, Survey of Christian Epistemology, 11.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

‘Calvinistic Circle’

A

The Charge of Roman catholic theologians that the Reformers used circular reasoning in stating that Scripture is proven by Scripture

*God’s word alone is axiomatic.
(discussed on pg. 10 of the Coursepack)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Suppression of the truth:

Definition-

A

Denying what is plainly manifested of God.

*Different worldviews are permutations of an antitheistic worldview (those in Christ or in Adam - generating suppression of truth, ie, fleeing from God in sin).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Rationalist-irrationalist dialectic:

A

The journey between Scientism (our manifestation of rationalism) to Emotivism (our manifestation of irrationalism); these end up feeding into one another because it is unstable (no human being can carry the weight of being self-authenticating)

*When you’re not a Christian, especially in the secular world, you’re going to be moving back and forth between rationalism and irrationalism. And it is an unstable connection.

Belief that human life has intrinsic value and yet ascribe to moral relativism.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Logos:

A

What to say-Honor Christ

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Pathos:

A

Know your audience-In peters context: persecution. Have no fear of them.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Ethos:

A

live your faith.-Suffer for righteousness sake, and offer a defense in gentleness of spirit.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Principium cognoscendi:

A

This is the Norming/Normed Norm which is the original, self-authenticating truth from God which all other truth is based. The internum version is the redeemed intelligence (from common grace), and the externum version is the word of God. This is used to show how wisdom is based on a source, which is God (principium of being), and is used in the argument for the existence of God.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Sensus divinitatus (John Calvin):

A

Sense of God that is in all humans

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Third world culture (Rieff):

A

Third world culture contrasts with first and second world culture because it is not rooted in anything sacred, but it is rooted in itself. This was the “Children, eat your vegetables because I say so” idea. The culture is rooted in itself, making it self-authenticating.

*Society says morality and culture is grounded in an appeal to itself; a culture that is persisting in an independent identity separate from all sacred orders.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Immanent Frame (Taylor):

A

This term appears in Taylors Secular Age. It is an analysis of our modern world, cutting out the transcendent and reducing our view of reality to what we can see in nature.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Proximate/ultimate starting point:

A

points that are immediate in a discussion; cannot stand on their own.

E.G. Proximate: human dignity;

*Proximate starting point: Bavinck’s articulation of worldview; in order to have a worldview, you need a to start proximately with sense perception (going along with what sense data tells you).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Ultimate starting point:

A

a self-authenticating reality that grounds everything else.

E.G. Ultimate: doctrine of creation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

2 ULTIMATE starting points that justify your ability to use your proximate starting points:

A

Ontological/Principium Essendi

Epistemic/Principium Cognoscendi

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Principium Essendi

Of the 3 fundamental principles of theology

A

(God the Trinity)
The principle of being.

The principal actor in theology - God.

everything is traceable back to God

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Principium Cognoscendi- Internum

Of the 3 fundamental principles of theology.

A
  • The principle of knowing or cognitive foundation.

- Redeemed intelligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Principium Cognoscendi- Internum

Of the 3 fundamental principles of theology.

A
  • The principle of knowing or cognitive foundation.

- Redeemed intelligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Principium Cognoscendi- Externum

Of the 3 fundamental principles of theology.

A

(The word of God)

The external principle of knowing.

Part 2 of the 3
Self-justifying realities on the basis of which we can do theology. Because these principles exist we can know God.

*everything that is cognitively known is traceable back to what God has revealed in His Word

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Bavinck says that people will use sense perception to have a proximate starting point and the Christian’s apologetics job is to…

A

trace their proximate starting point back to the ultimate starting point (GOD),

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Worldview:

Definition-

A

A basic heart commitment about metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics which one holds subconsciously and/or consciously. A world view can be implicit, but can also be refined.

*Comprehensive set of beliefs that fit together in a consistent or coherent manner.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Unacknowledged legislators:

A

Christianity is the unacknowledged legislator for societies moral standards.

i.e. where did society get the idea that humans have inherent dignity from? This is established out of an influence from the Bible. But they don’t realize that, or if they do, they don’t acknowledge that.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Borrowed capital:

A

Borrow Capital: Scriptural ideas that are used in post-christian societies; it is “borrow” in the sense of these scriptural ideas are being used, but scripture is not being credited as the source, whether intentionally or unintentionally

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Scientism:

A

The epistemological position that one can only know XX is discoverable by the scientific method or empirically verified by sense perception.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Emotivism:

A

An ethical theory that regards judgments and ethical values as expressions of feeling or attitude and prescriptions of action, rather than assertions or verifiable reports of anything.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

First World Cultures:

A

The age before Christianity. Morality grounded in myths, Oracle’s and fate; superstition, pilgrimages, and so on… Pre-Christian society.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Second world culture:

A

Judaeo /Christian order of society; morality is grounded in the biblical God that transcends space and time that transcends the creaturely order.
Morality is known through Scripture.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Principled pluralism:

A

Argues that we must learn anew to live together with our differences. We need to learn a tolerance and forbearance that is reflected in our public policies.

*Rejects both the Christian nation’s attempt to Christianize the public square and the secular nation’s attempt to secularize the public square.
Instead, it favors a pluralistic public square.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Mental states(Consciousness):

A

Feelings, thoughts, conscious decisions – an ‘I’ or ‘Ego.’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Soft naturalism:

A

The metaphysical thesis that all that exists are either physical objects or are explainable by an appeal to physical objects – ergo, mental states emerged from physical states.

  • Thomas Nagel ‘an explanatory gap’. Conceiving the impossible and the mind-body problem.’ 344
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Strong naturalism:

A

The metaphysical thesis that all that exist or physical objects; ergo- mental states do not exist: if you recognize its existence you have to account from where it comes from.

Charles Taliaferro, Golden cord, 28.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Propositions:

A

A non-linguistic entities shared by all.
Proposition is the nonlinguistic bearer of truth or falsity which makes any sentence that expresses it either true or false.
Refer to things beyond themselves.

*Thoughts… about God’s thoughts.
Cannot be creaturely thoughts because they are necessarily existent truths proceeding from a necessarily existing mind.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Cosmological arguments:

A

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe (space, time and matter) began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
This cause is necessarily timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, plausibly personal and known, conceptually as God.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Teleological argument:

A

Is that the world exhibits an intelligent purpose based on experience from nature such as its order, unity, coherency, design and complexity.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Motion (According to Aquinas)

A

Aquinas called motion “the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality”.

God is the Prime Mover, the First Cause, the Necessary Being.

*There cannot be an infinite chain of efficient causes, there must be an immutable first cause of all the changes that occur in the world, and this first cause is God.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Proximate Point/ Ultimate Point

A

Starting Point

Start with any fact and trace it back to what is behind it. The apologist shows that the PROXIMATE (Starting) point cannot stand on its own, but relies on the ULTIMATE starting point (which is God/God’s word).

*i.e. human dignity depends on doctrine of creation. God made everything in the image of God, and that is why we have human dignity. The Triune God made them to be that way. We know that because it says so in Scripture. This is both in general revelation and special revelation (principles of knowing)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Goals and Tasks of Apologetics

As discussed in class

A

Apologetics is a theological science, Only God converts.

Brief Benefit Analysis:

Causes us to take deliberate account of what we believe

Teaches that Christians do not need to be embarrassed or silent about what they believe

Christians can use apologetics as a way to silence objections; we can leave the opponents without excuse.

Our end must be to glorify God; thus, we must have biblical theology, in order to properly defend our God.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

1st Pet. 3:15 in relation to apologetics. #1

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.

A

This passage gives an overview of all that apologetics entails: logos (honoring Christ with what we say), pathos (knowing your context), and ethos (living out your faith)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

1 Pet. 3:15 in relation to apologetics. #2

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.

A

Mandates all Christians to engage in apologetics. Therefore, God will provide all the sufficient and necessary equipping by His Word and Spirit.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

1 Pet. 3:15 in relation to apologetics. #3

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.

A

Parallel passage to Isaiah 8:11-15 shows what it means to honor Christ and also prepares us for the inevitable dividing and rejection that will come with apologetics.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Rieff‘s Beliefs Or… “Be-Rieffs 😂”: #1

First and second world cultures

A

1st and 2nd world culture have more in common because both give credit/makes sense of everyday experience through the lens of seeing a transcendental frame above them (God or some supernatural force or impersonal fate); human culture and civilization are anchored in and participating in something larger than themselves.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Rieff‘s Beliefs Or… “Be-Rieffs 😂”: #2

3rd World Cultures

A

3rd world culture historically is not survivable. It is unprecedented in human history.

*They aren’t able to have their own foundation because no human being can carry the weight of being self-authenticating; so parasitic substitution is the result.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Kuyper’s View Apologetics

Summation

A

Because of the antithesis, apologetics is not a fruitful discipline. He gave very little space for the topic, and dedicated most space for theology. There is no overlap in worldview between believer and nonbeliever.

45
Q

Warfield’s View Apologetics

Summation

A

Apologetics is not a theological discipline. Don’t talk about antithesis. Just evidences. One must use apologetics to vindicate theology.
Apologetics is foundational pre-theological enterprise.

(There’s a point of contact so no need to talk about the antithesis. Apologetics is purely common ground.)

46
Q

Van Til’s View Apologetics

Kuyper/ Warfield Synthesis

A

Van Til took both positions. M

Kuyper is right about the antithesis, and yet there is a point of contact across the antithesis because the unbeliever is working out of borrowed capital and general revelation and still in God’s world.

Apologetics can still bring truth in love across to the unbeliever because of that reality. (warfield’s common ground is actually common grace and general revelation, so when they affirm something that is in common with us, they are actually standing on Christian ground, not some natural foundation that is pre-theological.)

47
Q

What was Nietzsche’s ‘madman’ parable about? #1 (Overall)

A

Cutting out the Transcendent: The Immanent Frame

48
Q

What was Nietzsche’s ‘madman’ parable about? #2 (God’s Residual Effect)

A

The decline in the belief in God will not mean all the influences from God will disappear right away. Instead, His influence will still persist, despite his death, despite the fact that we’ve done away with God, we would still act as if he exists.

49
Q

What was Nietzsche’s ‘madman’ parable about? #3 (Audience)

A

Audience: madman is addressing Christians who have done away with God but continue to live as they had but without the religion. The Madman is also a non-Christians or the atheists; that they live without a belief in God, and therefore have no basis for anything, meaning an untethering of all meaning, from the source.

50
Q

What was Nietzsche’s ‘madman’ parable about? #4 (Grounds for Morality/ Guilt)

A

Morality, guilt, rationality… none of this has a base but they have not realized/fully reckoned with all that impact and don’t realize that they can’t continue to live the same way as when they did believe in God.

51
Q

What was Nietzsche’s ‘madman’ parable about? #5 (Of Philosophy)

A

Nietzsche argues that because of all this, we cannot philosophize analytically, or rationally anymore. We have to philosophize with a hammer. The strongest philosophy now would win, not through rational demonstration, but simply through the demonstration of power.

52
Q

Bavinck on ‘worldview’
(pg. 22 in notes) #1
(A Worldview is comparable to what and why?)

A

A worldview is like a map. You expand it, you change it, as you learn things. All have a worldview, but some don’t know much about their view. Christians should be able to expand the unbelievers world view. First principles: Human knowledge starts with such perception, and then you learn what science has said about the law.

53
Q

Bavinck on ‘worldview’
(pg. 22 in notes) #2
(Starts with?)

A

Human knowledge starts with perception, and then you learn what science has said about the law. You start with what is in front of you and science. Afterwards, you search for wisdom to see what is behind science.

54
Q

What does it mean to be ‘epistemologically self-conscious’?

A

To be aware not only of what you believe, but why you believe it.

55
Q

The Goal of Epistemological Self-consciousness. (Expository Nature Of)

A

To be awakened to the fact that there are foundations that we’re constantly depending upon in metaphysics and epistemology and ethics. So often, apologetics is really about exposing the unbeliever to their suppression of the truth. To the fact that they’re depending upon this God, they’re constantly actually denying.

56
Q

OUTLINE Of The Argument From Consciousness. #2

There is an explanation for the existence of mental states.

A

No reason is found to believe that mental states are only brute facts that require no explanation.

57
Q

OUTLINE Of The Argument From Consciousness. #3

The explanation is not a natural scientific one.

A
  • natural science cannot reproduce mental state;
  • there is no inherent connection between mental and physical states;
  • the causal closure of physical states; and - -inadequacy of evolutionary explanations
  • consciousness isn’t necessary for survival)
58
Q

OUTLINE Of The Argument From Consciousness. # 4 (Personal)

A

….Therefore, the explanation is a personal one.

59
Q

OUTLINE ofThe Argument From Consciousness. #5 (Theistic).

A

If the argument is personal than it is theistic.

60
Q

OUTLINE Of The Argument From Consciousness. #6(Therefore, Theistic ).

A

Therefore, the explanation is theistic.

61
Q

How does Genesis 2 implicate our understanding of the nature and tasks of apologetics?

A

The tree: general and special revelation are all God’s work. General revelation should be understood by special revelation. the nature of apologetics: The two revelations should be understood together.

62
Q

How does Genesis 3 implicate our understanding of the nature and tasks of apologetics?

A

Genesis 3: the Fall. either oath-keeper or oath breaker.

63
Q

Response to “Presuppositionalism is unhelpful because it commits to circular reasoning.” #1

Ascent of questions.

A

Descartes: It is not a normal circular reasoning.
Normal is: I exist -> I can doubt -> I exist.
Our reasoning: my possibility of doubting of my own existence presupposes that I exist.
(The possibility of the choice to doubt depends on one’s existence.)
Our reasoning is not that reason proves God’s existence but the possibility of reasoning itself presupposes that God exists.

64
Q

Response to “Presuppositionalism is unhelpful because it commits to circular reasoning.” #2

A

To argue by presupposition is to distinguish that epistemological and metaphysical principles underlie and control reasoning.
Our way of reasoning presupposes the truth of Christian theism – the Trinity that ultimately controls Christian reasoning.

65
Q

Cause and Effect:

A

“I am sick because I ate expired fish”

Cause and Effect have to do with the causes of an event and have nothing to do with logical proof.

To be caused is not to be proved.

*E.g. Cause and Effect: If we believe that love is good and we believe it by seeing its effects in our survival (effect of a belief that love is good), but we say that it is useful for survival is not giving us any reasoning for believing that the proposition is true. The only reason we believe it is because it helps us live. If our brains are only for survival, then how do we know if the beliefs we have are true?

66
Q

Ground and Consequent:

A

“John must be sick because he is absent in class today.”

I believe your conclusion X is unreasonable, because X does not follow from Y.

*Wishful thinking, prejudices, and delusions of madness, are all caused but they are grounded.

67
Q

Some complications related to appealing to ‘commonsense’ and ‘natural law’ in apologetics #1

Different points of appeal

A

Our secularist counterparts appeal to natural law and commonsense through their different views (parasitic substitution views) of human nature etc. (saying another way: Secular counterparts have a competing view of what natural law and commonsense is.)

68
Q

Some complications related to appealing to ‘commonsense’ and ‘natural law’ in apologetics #2

Epistemological Unpredictability

A

Our counterparts have a variety of ideas regarding natural law and commonsense. So an appeal to it becomes very complicated because we cannot predict their epistemological (knowledge vs. opinion) response to it.

69
Q

Some complications related to appealing to ‘commonsense’ and ‘natural law’ in apologetics #3

Christian appeal to nature

A

(Freda Goudas): When Christians appeal to nature, it sounds like an appeal to Scripture to the modern world. What is happening, is that when we appeal to nature to ground Christian claims, we appeal to our Christianised view of nature.

70
Q 
Aquinas’s cosmological argument from motion. (OUTLINE BULLETS)
#1 Motion is-
A

(Freda Goudas): The argument from motion is the first and more manifest proof of God. Aquinas states that there is not only physical motion in e.g. moving our head but a technical definition.

Motion is any change from potency to actuality. Potency is the potence, the possibility of what someone can achieve, and actuality is where you are at this moment.

71
Q 
Aquinas’s cosmological argument from motion. (OUTLINE BULLETS) 
#2 Potentiality-
A
  • God is always powerful and never changes.
  • Never moves from potentiality to actuality.
  • In our world, we can’t have something potentially hot and actually hot at the same time. When it becomes hot it stops being potentially hot and now it is actually hot.

*There has to be a starting point where pure actuality, the first cause of motion. God can move potential things to realize actuality. If there is no actuality as a starting point and the starting point is a potential motion, then there is no reason to believe that a potential motion could move the object.

72
Q 
Aquinas’s cosmological argument from motion. (OUTLINE BULLETS) 
#3 First Cause Must…
A

And if in the beginning, someone is not good and only potential good (God), then he would be dependent on another creature to be from potential good to actual good.

•There has to be the first cause of the goodness of the creatures, to make them be from potential to goodness. God never changes, He has no motion.

73
Q 
Aquinas’s cosmological argument from motion. (OUTLINE BULLETS) 
#4 Type of Determinism-
A

(Rachael Jukarainen)

  • Not a physical determinism: nor a domino effect (everything is an effect of physical causes)
  • But a theological determinism: because God has written things to occur the way they do.
  • There needs to be THE FIRST mover. That is God.

*Remember to interpret this argument WITH his Summa Theologia. The Creator and Creature distinction is present.

74
Q

Aquinas’s cosmological argument from motion. (4 Simplified Points)

First move, everything or objects infinitely regress

A
  • There must be a first mover, which is itself unmoved, and that is God.
  • Everything in motion was put in motion by something else.
  • Objects are in motion
  • There cannot be an infinite regress of movers.
75
Q

Aquinas’s cosmological argument from motion. (CRITICISMS)

A
  • Does not establish the existence of any particular god, or a sentient god.
  • Assumes the impossibility of infinite regress of motion, which is impossible to prove?
  • Contingent upon the Creator/creature distinction, which must be defined; otherwise argument is self-defeating.
76
Q

Implications Of Creator/Creature Distinction + Analogical Reasoning for Apologetics (EXHAUSTIVE ESSAY OUTLINE BULLETS) #1
Categorical difference

A

The distinction: We are of a completely different category to God. He is analogically able to intervene in our world but because our situation is not equivocal or Univocal we cannot grasp the full picture. With natural and special revelation (general revelation) we can understand it.

77
Q

Implications Of Creator/Creature Distinction + Analogical Reasoning for Apologetics (EXHAUSTIVE ESSAY OUTLINE BULLETS) #3

Our Analogous Relationship

A

•Analogical (Analogy) reasoning is when we have a derivative understanding given to us by God (like a bridge, showcasing the Creator/creature distinction); we are not completely cut off from God so that he is not unknowable; we are not completely like God so that our understanding is a microcosm, but at the same time God can see us as He is engaged with us even if He is in a different category. The gap between us and God closes by the bridge of God with general and special revelation

78
Q

Implications Of Creator/Creature Distinction + Analogical Reasoning for Apologetics (EXHAUSTIVE ESSAY OUTLINE BULLETS) #4

Our thoughts

A

•Analogical reasoning (1) (Aquinas): Thinking in language that is neither literally true (univocal) nor unrelated to the subject matter (equivocal), but that bears a genuine resemblance to that subject matter. (2) (VT) Thinking in subjection to God’s revelation and therefore thinking God’s thoughts after him.

John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013), 1135

79
Q

Implications of Romans 1 for apologetics (Bullet Points) #1

P. P. S.

A
  • Psychological knowledge in natural revelations
  • Point of Contact
  • Suppression of that Knowledge (of God)
80
Q

Implications of Romans 1 for apologetics (Bullet Points) #2

*His Divine Simplicity declares all must know.

A

*Sun metaphor
(Unchanging nature of God but due to the fact that we are in diverse conditions) ie. wet ground, dry ground, ground with seed imbedded will all react differently to the same sunlight. For obvious reasons the sun is incapable of shining on a minority.

His divine simplicity implies
At the very basest of levels God has revealed some information of himself to all.

Instead of dealing with the obvious on the level of sight, the blind may instead make the incredible claim the sun was never out.

Parasitic substitution (the invariable result for those who reject him)

81
Q

Implications of Romans 1 for apologetics (Bullet Points) #3

*Suppression roots

A

Unbelief is rooted in suppression of the truth; in light of Romans 1 is an exposing of the suppression of the truth that is underneath ALL intellectual objections.

82
Q

Implications of Romans 1 for apologetics (Bullet Points) #4

Unbelief is Emotional.

A

No one is purely an intellectual atheist.
No one is purely an intellectual unbeliever. Philosophy degree not needed. Everyone is motivated by their heart to suppress the truth about the real God, because everybody’s running away from God; there is an incentive rooted in the sinful heart of ourselves, for us to deny that there is a God.

The Incentive is idolatry. We get to be our own God. Genesis 3

83
Q

Argument from logic and reasoning. (OUTLINE Bullets) #1

The problem of the unity of consciousness.

A

How could a material object like the brain, extend across space and composed of billions of discrete physical parts, serve as the basis for the unity of our conscious experience?

*Descartes argues that if the mind is not made up of parts, it cannot be made of matter because anything material has parts. This by itself would be enough to prove dualism.

84
Q

Argument from logic and reasoning. (OUTLINE Bullets) #2

The problem of intentionality.

A

-Words on a page,
-thoughts,
-beliefs
-Other intentional mental states
Have the Property of intentionality or “aboutness”
Cannot be explained in purely material terms.

85
Q

Argument from logic and reasoning. (OUTLINE Bullets) #3

The problem of epiphenomenalism and one-way causation.

A

Can consciousness and mind be simply emergent phenomena from entirely material substrate?

  • Yet have no causal power over the material?
  • Materialist believe at most there is a brain to mind or bottom of causation. But not mind to brain. Top down causation. If so, the common sense conclusion that physical actions are caused by choice is mistaken.

i.e. I may feel like I have rational, purposeful control over my actions, but if materialism is true that feeling is entirely illusory.

86
Q

Argument from logic and reasoning. (OUTLINE Bullets) #4

The problem of cognitive reliability.

A

If human cognitive faculties are exclusively emergent from blind material processes, I have no grounds to believe that my faculties are reliably directed towards TRUTH.

  • Natural selection is geared towards survival not truth.
87
Q

Argument from logic and reasoning. (OUTLINE Bullets) #5

The problem of knowledge and proper function.

A

Plantinga’s argument for proper function contends that our having belief producing faculties constructed according to a good design plan is a precondition of having knowledge and furthermore that such a notion is alien to metaphysical nationalism.

88
Q

Argument from logic and reasoning. (OUTLINE Bullets) #6

The problem of Normativity.

A

Materialistic worldview argues there are no objective norms.
There is no right and wrong. What is, is what is. The laws of morality and the laws of thought have a normativity not reflected in the laws of physics. The former cannot be explained in terms of the latter. How do you account for oughtness?

89
Q

Argument from logic and reasoning. (OUTLINE Bullets) #7

The problem of necessary existence.

A

All material entities exist contingently. For any material entity “M”, “M” might not have existed.If materialism is true, nothing exists necessarily, which is to say there are no necessary beings. However there are some immensely impressive argument for the existence of a necessarily existent being, thus against materialism.

90
Q

Argument from logic and reasoning. (OUTLINE Bullets) #8

The problem of propositions and the laws of logic.

A

Propositions of the primary barriers of truth, that is to say, truths are just true propositions. Propositions cannot be material in nature…If materialism were true it would be no propositions, in which case there would be no truths, including the truth that everything is material and nature.

*If materialism were true then materialism would not be true. Materialism true there would be no laws of logic.

91
Q

Argument from the Resurrection. (OUTLINE Bullets) #1

Memory Key- Independent Enemy Embarrassed the Short Eyewitness.

(INDEPENDENT sources)

J.T.T.

A

Multiple independent sources
attest to the historical fact.

Josephus (37 AD)the Jewish historian- pawn in the Roman empire
“Pitied the Christians who believed that Jesus resurrected from the dead”

Tacitus Greek (56 AD) historian- Mentions resurrection/Christian belief in Resurrection.

The Talmud- Central text of rabbinic Judaism- Mentions resurrection of Jesus/Christian belief in resurrection.

92
Q

Argument from the Resurrection. (OUTLINE Bullets) #2

Memory Key- Independent Enemy Embarrassed the Short Eyewitness.

(ENEMY attestation)

A
  • There are historical sources by people who do not share the same worldview Enemy at the stations to the historical claim, which is another station to the Storico claim by those who have nothing to gain, they have no incentive to believe that it was a historical event.
  • Paul – the persecutor of Christians, giving up his position of power and authority to become a Christian.
  • James – brother of Jesus who didn’t believe Jesus/mocked him then calls himself a servant/slave to Christ post resurrection.
93
Q

Argument from the Resurrection. (OUTLINE Bullets) #3

Memory Key- Independent Enemy Embarrassed the Short Eyewitness.

(EMBARRASSING admission)

A

•Embarrassing admissions to the historical claim,
•Apostles: Doubting/slow to believe (Luke 23 )
*Thomas. Did not want him to die Mark/7,8
•Peter denied him
•We’re shocked and skeptical of him rising from the dead.

•Women testimony- Women’s testimony were considered inferior/not true. Would be normally counted as evidence against them but their testimonies were allowed despite the “shame”associated.

94
Q

Argument from the Resurrection. (OUTLINE Bullets) #4

Memory Key- Independent Enemy Embarrassed the Short Eyewitness.

(SHORT Timespan)

A
  • Short time span-There is only a short time span between the attestations and the event to which they are attesting.
  • Gospels and letters of Paul are within the first generation (first within 30 to 90 years);
  • first generation people were alive when these were written, and none of them debunked/denied these claims, in fact attested to their reliability
  • Examples of other historical documents like Aristotle and Plato come hundreds of years after
  • The Quran’s claims came 600 to 700 years after
95
Q

Argument from the Resurrection. (OUTLINE Bullets) #4

Memory Key- Independent Enemy Embarrassed the Short Eyewitness.

(EYEWITNESS accounts)

A
  • Not just sources but eyewitness testimonies- Super important.
  • 1 Corinthians 15 l- Peter, James, Paul and hundreds of others.
  • 1John We have felt, touched, seeing the resurrected one (Empirical testimony)
96
Q

Historical Claims All Historians Attests. #1

A
  • Jesus of Nazareth died by crucifixion under Pontius pilot
  • The birth of the early Christian church points to eyewitness testimony to the resurrection that followers were willing to die for
  • Mass hallucinations? Ridiculous.
  • Died because they really believed based on eyewitness testimony.
  • There was really an empty tomb. No one was able to count to eat by locating Jesus his body. Roman authorities tried to prove that someone stole the body but could not.
97
Q

Historical Claims All Historians Attests. #2

A
  • Divine exchange theory -Surah 4:157 -And attempt to find an alternative reason for all these attestations to the plethora of proof that it happened.
  • Survived it? He would’ve needed healing time and no one would’ve believed the rose.
  • None of these are as sensible as the reason that people were really telling the truth about what happened what they witnessed. (Occams’ Razor)
98
Q

Argument to Naturalists (refusing to accept supernatural possibility) #1

The unseen supports the visible.

A

God’s providence undergirds absolutely everything. And so what we’re seeing as the physical laws of the universe, is really our way of describing God’s ordinary Providence.

99
Q

Argument to Naturalists (refusing to accept supernatural possibility) #2

Miracles.

A

A miracle is not a violation of an otherwise fixed universe, impersonal, fixed universe, but a miracle is simply an extraordinary abnormal work of God.

*Those saying that a miracle is a violation of natural law, or physical law in this context presuppose a deistic theology where God is outside of a self enclosed system and what God has to do to perform miracles to inject himself and interfere within it. That’s not Christian theology.

100
Q

Argument to Naturalists (refusing to accept supernatural possibility) #3

Impossibility of Disproving Miracles

A

They’re smuggling in naturalistic assumptions, deistic theological assumptions.

Must point out that’s not the kind of metaphysical system that Christians believe in. It’s impossible to prove that the natural universe is a self enclosed system and impossible to prove that a miracle by definition is a violation of natural law.

*These are philosophical, theological claims; these are not empirical claims.

101
Q

Argument to Naturalists (refusing to accept supernatural possibility) #4

Inconsistencies in their beliefs.

A

Because that’s the realm of philosophical reason, not empirical investigation; they’re being inconsistent.

While they’re saying I only believe on empirical evidences and nothing else. And the physical laws of universe are empirical. And God can’t violate them. They’re actually making metaphysical judgments, not just empirical judgments.

102
Q

Transcendental argument and why some reformed thinkers argue it is the most fitting form of all apologetics for reformed theology. #1

Offers no compromise of God’s authority.

A
  • The reformed have a higher view of God’s sovereignty. (James Anderson article)
  • It does not presuppose other truths to be more noble than God’s existence.
  • It does not compromise God’s transcendence or Aseity. (Kuyper /Warfield synthesis)
  • Not post modern. It is an analysis of first principles. It’s an analysis of the unbeliever’s story. It moves Christianity far beyond being a great assumption.
103
Q

Transcendental argument and why some reformed thinkers argue it is the most fitting form of all apologetics for reformed theology. #2

Steps: Expose, inconsistencies , persuade

A

A- Expose their suppression of the knowledge of the God that is creating those desires.
B- Show them the inconsistencies that follow from their ideas.
C- Then persuade them to adopt the Christian worldview because it fulfills their worldview actual desires.

104
Q

Transcendental argument and why some reformed thinkers argue it is the most fitting form of all apologetics for reformed theology. #3

The unbeliever’s wants.

A

You want tolerance. You want forgiveness. You want humanitarian equality. Well, how does a naturalistic framework make sense of that? How does emotivism make sense of that? Well here’s how a Christian framework makes sense out of forgiveness and tolerance, etc.

105
Q

Transcendental argument and why some reformed thinkers argue it is the most fitting form of all apologetics for reformed theology. #4

Method/overview: The Task

A

To subvert the unbelievers’ foundations and definitions. While keeping sight of what the things want as a POINT OF CONTACT. They know deep inside that they want these things. And that’s your opportunity to not only show how the Gospel fulfills their desires but that Christianity is the only home for those ideals.

106
Q

Transcendental argument and why some reformed thinkers argue it is the most fitting form of all apologetics for reformed theology. #5

The Purpose.

A

You want to disclose to them that they don’t have any legs to stand on. And then here’s an invitation to not only embrace the gospel, but also a kind of framework that can make sense of the very things that they want in the first place.

107
Q

Transcendental argument and why some reformed thinkers argue it is the most fitting form of all apologetics for reformed theology. #6

Establishing in them Epistemological Self Consciousness

A

Because most unbelievers are not self conscious about the worldviews that they believe in. It’s mostly implicit, it’s unconscious, they haven’t really thought about foundations very clearly. How unlivable what they want is in the light of what they claim to believe.*This method pushes for epistemological self-consciousness.

108
Q

Univocal

A

Having one possible meaning.Literal language/one to one correspondence.

109
Q

Equivocal

A

Unintelligible/ ambiguous

110
Q

Analogical

A

Comparison between things for the purpose of explanation.

111
Q

Transcendental arguments are commonly thought of as anti-skeptical argument because their goal is…

A

To show what the skeptic doubts or denies turns out to be a necessary precondition of some other principle or experience that they take for granted.

Seminary Terms (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions