Lecture Test - Apologetic Methods Flashcards
What is Fideism?
Faith cannot be supported by reason because either man’s mind is too fallen to make use of reasons, or because faith simply does not overlap reason (i.e., what is of faith is not held on reasons, and vice versa). More sophisticated forms hold that the nature of language is such that we cannot describe realities such as God, or that God is above our intellect. Thus this view denies that we should do apologetics. We should simply proclaim the gospel.
Who holds to Fideism?
- Pascal (“the heart has reasons that reason knows nothing of”).
- Kierkegaard (truth is subjectivity).
- Barth (there is no connection between man’s being and God’s being; rather, He is so far above us that our minds cannot grasp Him through natural revelation and we can know Him only through the special revelation of the Bible).
What are the criticisms of Fideism?
It (a) fails to see that God can work through man’s fallen mind and (b) that He does so in the Bible, as seen by its many proofs (not for the existence of God, because atheism was not a challenge). While some there is an aspect of faith by which we ought to believe in spite of lack of evidence or even evidence to the contrary (cf. Job, Heb. 11:6), there are other dimensions of faith by which we ought to believe because of proof (cf. Jn. 20:31, Ac. 1:3).
What is Presuppositionalism?
We cannot reason anyone to faith from an independent body of evidence; they must begin by presupposing it. That is because (1) reasoning is ultimately circular, especially when dealing with a worldview, (2) people have no right to sit in judgment on God and His Word, they must submit to it (so to offer reasons for belief is to inflame the problem, which is man’s sinful autonomy). The only proof available is that if we do not make Christianity the foundation of our knowledge, nothing else makes sense–we cannot account for logic, nor our ability to describe the world in categories, morals, or anything else. If the non-Christian can function or seems to be able to make sense of the world, it is only because he is covertly borrowing from the Christian world view. We cannot present the truth in pieces and expect that the unbeliever can merely add a few pieces and thereby have an acceptable world view. Rather, the unbeliever has rejected the God of the Bible and needs to completely give up his worldview and rebuild it on the presupposition that the God of the Bible exists and that truth is whatever God says. The apologist should not be trying to persuade an unbeliever using that unbeliever’s current criteria for judging truth–that would only play to his sinful desire to live autonomously, apart from God. That autonomy expresses itself intellectually in the desire to decide what truth is. But we as creatures should instead submit to whatever God says is truth. Thus the unbeliever’s problem is not a lack of information, but a lack of repentance. So the apologist’s task is not primarily to present intellectual arguments, but to answer the fool (unbeliever) as his folly deserves (Prov. 26:4,5). Unlike the fideist, the presuppositionalist believes we should do apologetics. We should reason transcendentally, that is, from the assumption that the Christian God exists and His Word is true, and that nothing makes sense without that starting assumption. The basic method of reasoning is therefore a reductio ad absurdum argument, by which we reduce the opponent’s view to an absurdity. We show it is absurd by showing that it does not have what it takes to support rationality, that is, if we believe as he does, we have no reason to be rational (i.e., no basis or ground for it). Van Til held that we can show that nothing but (Reformed) Christianity offers a basis for rationality. Some presuppostionalists would bring up the sort of information offered as proof by the Classical Apologist or Evidentialist, but only as something they are calling the unbeliever to believe, not as a way to independently prove the truth of Christianity.
Who holds to Presuppositionalism?
Van Til, and Bahnsen; John Frame is a modified Presuppositionalist.
What are the criticisms of Presuppositionalism?
As critics like Norman Geisler see it, Presuppositionalism is virtually the same as fideism because presuppositionalists try to get the unbeliever to accept the truth up front, rather than offer reasons for believing it. In this way Presuppostionalists fail to distinguish what we believe from why we believe it (they fail to distinguish between ontology [what is true] and epistemology [why we think it is true]). Circular reasoning is also regarded as a weakness, and the Presuppositionalist’s approach reduces to something disturbingly like, “we know the Bible is true because it is God’s Word, and whatever God says is true.” Furthermore, such circularity is the basis of the apologist’s task in that he should not allow the unbeliever to question or test the Word of God, but rather to submit to God by presupposing that the Bible is true. To the Presuppositionalist, accepting from the start the entirety of Christian theology is the only right way to think, but to the critic it is an apologetic impossibility because no one can present the whole of Christian theology when talking to the unbeliever. Furthermore, the critic would say that it is unlikely the unbeliever could strip away so much of his thinking and start from scratch. So in reality, the truth has to be presented in pieces, and people have to change their views in pieces–exactly what Van Til says should not happen. The critic notes that while the Presuppostionalist argues for the sufficiency of Scripture, the center piece of his apologetic (that only Christianity offers a basis for rationality) is actually entirely foreign to the Bible. Instead, the prophets, Christ, and the Apostles argue from things like prophecy, providence (e.g., preservation of Jewish people), miracles, and the resurrection. And it is expected that those arguments can be grasped in pieces and can move someone (through the Holy Spirit) from unbelief to belief (e.g., Jn. 20:31). To the critic, this runs counter to Van Til’s approach. Furthermore, the Presuppositionalist insists that we should not invite the unbeliever to independently (or autonomously) evaluate the truth using his own (fallen) criteria. Yet the critic would point out that asking the unbeliever to see that only Christianity provides a basis for rationality is asking him to reason autonomously (not to mention very philosophically). And while the Presuppositionalist insists that his is the only view that takes depravity seriously, the critic would point out that the Presuppostionalist is making every bit as great a demand on the fallen person’s thought processes as traditional apologetics. And if the Presuppositionalist wants to insist that we cannot use reason to bring someone into the kingdom because the depraved mind is bent away from God, then the Presuppositionalist ought to become a fideist. Criticism has been made of the transcendental, or indirect, saying that it proves only a God sufficient to ground knowledge, not the Christian God (note that the Presuppositionalist criticizes traditional arguments for God because they do not themselves prove the Christian God).
What is Reformed Epistemology?
It is rational to accept without proof the foundational beliefs of one’s world view. So, the Christian is rational for believing in God even if he cannot prove that God exists. Everyone accepts beliefs which they would have difficulty proving, such as that the world was not created five minutes ago with apparent age (everything you could use for proof–rings in trees, memories, and so on–could be used by an opponent who says it was all created with apparent age). Of course the Reformed Epistemologist does not claim that we can be rational if we believe just anything. We should believe those things that we conclude on the basis of reliable processes, that is, those processes that have given us what we have judged in the past to be true beliefs. Note that Plantinga has offered a lot of evidences for belief in God.
Who holds to Reformed Epistemology?
Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff.
What are the criticisms of Reformed Epistemology?
It is not strict enough about what we believe. If we say it is okay for one person to believe in God without proof, then it must be okay to believe in the Great Pumpkin without proof.
What is Experientialism?
Experience is the only proof we can have, or the only proof we need.
Who holds to Experientialism?
NA
What are the criticisms of Experientialism?
It is naive in that experiences must be interpreted, and that interpretation can be erroneous.
What is Veridicalism?
We can know the existence of God and the truth of Christianity without proof, but we can also corroborate it through many different types of proof. Every human has universal givens, that is, things he knows simply because he is human. These include such things as the principle of non-contradiction, and even that God exists. Christians have special givens, things they know in addition to what everyone knows. The Christian, for example, knows that God cares for them, the Bible is God’s Word, and that he is saved.
Who holds to Veridicalism?
Mark Hanna.
What are the criticisms of Veridicalism?
It allows for too much as “given.” If we allow belief in too much without proof, it is no better than fideism (Hanna says this misunderstands what he means by “given,” and, that givens can be corroborated).
What is Combinationalism?
We can treat Christianity as an hypothesis to be tested. There are two tests for truth. First we see if a belief (hypothesis) contradicts itself, then we see if it fits all the relevant facts. Christianity passes both tests, which confirms our faith. It should also be something we can live by, which forms a another test. According to Carnell, Van Til was right that we can begin with Christianity, but he was wrong for saying that we ought not to test its truth (note that Van Til said Christianity cannot be directly tested, but it is deductively confirmed because we cannot think without presupposing it; this was his transcendental argument). If our faith is not reasonable then we are not rational. Furthermore, Van Til was wrong about common ground. There is plenty of agreement between viewpoints. When considering for example a tree, the Christian, Buddhist, and Marxist agree about a lot of things regarding its structure, life processes, and so on. Their views disagree only on ultimate questions such as whether the tree was created.
Who holds to Combinationalism?
E. J. Carnell, Gordon Lewis, Richard Swinburne.
What are the criticisms of Combinationalism?
The outcome of our test for facts is pre-determined by our worldview; so there is no way to have an objective test. Also, we ought to use two tests for truth. If one is not sufficient, adding another one will not help.
What is Classical Apologetics?
We must first prove theism (the existence of a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, holy, and creator), then we can prove Christianity. We prove God by such things as the cosmological argument (that the universe could not have come into existence uncreated), teleological argument (that design needs a designer), and moral argument (objective morality must have a basis beyond humans). If we do not prove theism first, when we prove the resurrection a person could conclude merely that a freak incident occurred, or the like.
Who holds to Classical Apologetics?
J. P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, R. C. Sproul, C. S. Lewis, and many others.
What are the criticisms of Classical Apologetics?
It first attempts to prove a generic God rather than the God of Christianity.
