August 5, 2015

Apologetic Method Deux


From Scott Oliphint’s Covenantal Apologetics: Principles and Practice in Defense of Our Faith (end of chapter 1):

  1. The faith that we are defending must begin with, and necessarily include, the triune God-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—who, as God, condescends to create and to redeem. 
  2. God’s covenantal revelation is authoritative by virtue of what is, and any covenantal, Christian apologetic will necessarily stand on and utilize that authority in order to defend Christianity. 
  3. It is the truth of God’s revelation, together with the work of the Holy Spirit, that brings about a covenantal change from one who is in Adam to one who is in Christ. 
  4. Man (male and female) as image of God is in covenant with the triune God for eternity. 
  5. All people know the true God, and that knowledge entails covenantal obligations. Those who are and remain in Adam suppress the truth that they know. Those who are in Christ see truth for what it is. 
  6. There is an absolute, covenantal antithesis between Christian theism and any other, opposing position. Thus, Christianity is true and anything opposing it is false. 
  7. Suppression of the truth, like the depravity of sin, is total but not absolute. 
  8. Thus every unbelieving position will necessarily have within it ideas, concepts, notions, and the like that it has taken and wrenched from their true, Christian context. 
  9. The true, covenantal knowledge of God in man, together with God’s universal mercy, allows for persuasion in apologetics. 
  10. Every fact and experience is what it is by virtue of the covenantal, all-controlling plan and purpose of God. 


bit.ly/Apologetic2

June 17, 2015

Apologetic Method

Atheism, Apologetic Method, debunking atheists, Greg Bahnsen, Always ready, religion

Summary On Apologetic Method

Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen

from the book
Always Ready
Directions For Defending The Faith


The Nature of the Apologetic Situation:
1. The controversy between the believer and "unbeliever" [*I would think a more accurate term would be "idolatrous denier"] is in principle an antithesis between two complete systems of thought involving ultimate commitments and assumptions.
Col 2:3, 8
2. Even laws of thought and method, along with factual evidence, will be accepted and evaluated in light of one's governing presup­positions. Lk 16:31
3. All chains of argumentation, especially over matters of ultimate per­sonal importance, trace back to and depend upon starting points which are taken to be self-evidencing; thus circularity in debate will be unavoidable. However, not all circles are intelligible or valid.
4.  Thus appeals to logic, fact, and personality may be necessary, but they are not apologetically adequate; what is needed is not piece­meal replies, probabilities, or isolated evidences but rather an at­tack upon the underlying presuppositions of the "unbeliever's" sys­tem of thought.
1 Cor 1:20
5. The "unbeliever's" way of thinking is characterized as follows:
a.   By nature the "unbeliever" is the image of God
Gen 1:26 and, therefore, inescapably religious; his heart testifies continually, as does also the clear revelation of God around him, to God's existence and character. Rom 1:19, 20, 32
b.  But the "unbeliever" exchanges the truth for a lie Rom 1:25. He is a fool who refuses to begin his thinking with reverence for the Lord Pr 1:7 ; he will not build upon Christ's self-evidencing words Mt 7:26, 27 and sup­presses the unavoidable revelation of God in nature.
c. Because he delights not in understanding but chooses to serve the creature rather than the Creator
Rom 1:25, the "unbeliever" is self-confidently committed to his own ways of thought Pr 12:15; being con­vinced that he could not be fundamentally wrong, he flaunts perverse thinking and challenges the self-attesting word of God. Pr 13:16; 1 Cor 2:14
d. Consequently, the "unbeliever's" thinking results in ignorance; in his darkened futile mind Eph 4:17, 18 he actually hates knowledge Pr 1:22 and can gain only a "knowledge" falsely so-called. 1 Tim 6:20
e. To the extent that he actually knows anything, it is due to his unacknowledged dependence upon the suppressed truth about God within him. This renders the "unbeliever" intellectually schizophrenic: by his espoused way of thinking he actually "op­poses himself" and shows a need for a radical "change of mind" (repentance) unto a genuine knowledge of the truth. 2 Tim 2:25
f.   The "unbeliever's" ignorance is culpable because he is without excuse for his rebellion against God's revelation; hence he is "without an apologetic" for his thoughts.
g. His "unbelief" does not stem from a lack of factual evidence but from his refusal to submit to the authoritative word of God from the beginning of his thinking.
Lk 16:31
 

March 10, 2015

Cognitive Dissonance

I am astonished how adversarial atheists get when we reject their religious worldview of naturalism.

January 20, 2015

Quote of the Day

"There are basically four questions that are raised in life. The question of origin, meaning, morality and destiny. When you look at those particular questions, and try to answer them in terms of the laws of logic. You can basically look at it from three points of view; logical consistency, empirical adequacy, and experiential relevance."

Worldviews bring these three tests with it. Based on study of who Christ claims to be and all of what he said, when he answers these four questions of life of origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. "The logical consistency of his answers, the empirical adequacy by which we measure the answers, and the experiential relevance has convinced me that He is indeed the way, the truth, and the life.

It is not a leap in a vacuum, as it were, but a commitment born out of study." ~Ravi Zacharia