Classical Apologetics The ability of the RAW system to come to an understanding of real truth is one characteristic that sets it apart from some other methods. One apologetic system that greatly differs from the RAW approach is the Classical system. The greatest difference between these systems is the foundation on which they function. While the RAW method acknowledges Scripture as the highest authority for truth, the classical system relies primarily on reason and reaches the rationality of Scripture as a conclusion of an argument. By using logical lines of argument, classical apologists seek to present Christianity as “rational and reasonable and therefore worthy of belief.” This is usually attempted by first demonstrating that theism …show more content…
In order to employ such tests, the system cannot begin with any prior assumptions relating to Christianity, if Christianity is what is being analyzed. Instead, an argument must begin from a place of neutrality at which the believer and unbeliever have common ground. Michael J. Kruger calls this a “nobody knows for sure” approach, meaning that there is no bias either for Christianity or against it. This attempt at neutrality is often cited as an effort to meet the unbeliever at their own level of belief and then work towards a common realization of the reasonability of the Christian’s beliefs. While beginning a line of reason with this mindset can be beneficial for relating to one’s audience, the classical apologist loses the opportunity to reach a decisively true conclusion. This is due to the deductive nature of a classical argument. Even if a deductive argument is structurally valid, the truth of its conclusion can only be sure if it begins with true premises. However, there does not seem to be any universal criteria for truth that can be followed to create a truthful claim on which to base classical argumentation. This creates a problem for those who wish to demonstrate the truth of Christianity from a foundation reliant solely upon reason. The RAW system, on the other hand, does conclude in truth. By founding their argument on the presupposed reliability of Scripture, a RAW apologist can show the truth of the Incarnation, miracles, and other seemingly irrational events. The ability of the RAW approach to do this is very important when discussing Christianity with an unbeliever. If an unbeliever is interested in taking part in a conversation concerning faith or religion, they are most often going to be searching for truth. In such cases, it would be most beneficial to approach apologetics
The topic we learned that was similar to this was the discovery of ancient copies of bibles. There has been over twenty four thousand copies of bibles found by the archeological digs, and these facts support our reliability for the historical accuracy of the bible. The copies of the bible were found in forms of papyrus, stone carvings, and etc. This discovery supported not only the historical reliability, but the accuracy of the bible itself. There was more than twenty four thousand copies found, but the errors found all together was under one percent. I thought this was a pretty good evidence to use in apologetics because there was many authors and scribes writing the bible, but what they wrote was all the same thing. There can`t be a coincidence where everyone made up something random, and it all turned out to be the same idea.
Clifford believes that it is a moral requirement that beliefs are justified in order to minimize the chance that an incorrect belief will affect other people. In the case of the ship-owner, who sent out his old emigrant ship based solely on the fact that he was able to suppress his doubts, killed every family looking for a better future. His unjustified belief had minimal effects on his business, but destroyed the lives of many families, due to his negligence in getting the ship repaired. Clifford argues that even if the ship had arrived safely, the ship owner is still guilty of not justifying his belief because once an action has occurred; it is “right or wrong forever” (Clifford). The only difference would be he would not have found out about his misdoings. His decision to convince himself that his ship would not fail him served two purposes: saving his enterprise money and easing his mind if anything were to happen to the people aboard his ship. In the second example, the unjustified accusations against, “individual citizens of the highest position and character” (Clifford), hurt their professional lives. The accusations...
Many people have gone through their lives conforming their beliefs and practices for the sake of fitting in or for the happiness of others, but Socrates was not one of these people. In “The Apology” Plato shows Socrates unwillingness to conform through a speech given by Socrates while on trial for supposedly corrupting the youth of Athens and believing in false gods. Although the title of the dialogue was labeled “The Apology,” Socrates’ speech was anything but that, it was a defense of himself and his content along his philosophical journey. At no time during the trial was Socrates willing to change his ways in order to avoid punishment, two reasons being his loyalty to his God and his philosophical way of life.
At the beginning of this semester we focused on hermeneutics and the reader’s personal interpretations and biases when reading a text. The Protestant bias is one bias that anyone who grows up in a western culture is likely to have. A protestant bias is a bias one can have regardless if they are actually a protestant. A protestant bias is a bias comes from the fact that the majority of westerners are most familiar with and base their assumptions about scripture on one particular scripture -- the Christian Bible.
To justify the ways of God is a well-trodden path, but there is more to only one path. For if...
Blind faith is hard for many. Clifford takes the side of Evidentialism, which is the assertion t
Jesus, a name known by billions throughout the world. To each, this name means something different; savior, friend, philosopher, prophet, teacher, fraud, fake, liar. Some even believe that He is just an imaginary character from the minds of those who wrote about Him. The Westminster Dictionary of Theology describes apologetics as, "Defense, by argument, of Christian belief against external criticism or against other worldly views" (Apologetics 31-32). Though there are still many mysteries that surround the ongoing debate about Christianity, evidence can now prove some of what Christians took by faith before. Now, more than ever, there is information to prove the existence of this man that walked the earth more than two thousand years ago. Little remains of His life and works except for that which is contained within the pages of the Holy Bible. Throughout the past century alone, there have been numerous discoveries, both scientific and archeological; to further prove the existence of a man called Jesus and reinforce the Bible as a legitimate historical document. The validity of Christianity and Jesus Christ himself has been the center of religious controversy for centuries. Though His identity has not and probably never will be proven, He did exist. This paper will use apologetics to prove this so. Sufficient evidence proves the existence of Jesus and forms a firm basis for Christianity.
In order to be considered a non-evidentialist, one must believe that actual evidence is not required for all of our beliefs. Pascal believ...
and that all truth is known by God, who is sovereign over all things” (Entwistle, 2015. p. 147). Furthermore, the Allies Model affirms that neither psychology nor Christianity should be subject to the other and both disciplines provide value to the subject of human nature. The Allies Model is not “content to reject either of God’s books, and they desire to read both competently. Those who embrace the Allies model are convinced that we will read more accurately when our reading is informed by a biblical worldview”
A. Under trial for corrupting youth and not worshiping the Gods in Athens, Socrates takes an attitude that many might interpret as pompous during his trial. Rather than apologise, as Plato’s dialogue title Apology suggests, Socrates explains why he is right and those who accused him are mistaken. He speaks in a plain manner, as if the jury is just another of his followers. Socrates first cites the profit at Delphi for why he behaves in ways that lead to him being under scrutiny of the law. He explains that his friend, Chaerephon, went to ask the oracle if anyone is wiser than Socrates and the oracle responded no (21a). Socrates then explains his interpretation of this being that he is wise in knowing that he does not know certain things, where
...hal. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Called to Love: Christian Witness Can Be the Best Response to Atheist Polemics." America 198 (2008): 23. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 8 Dec. 2013.
The role of faith has been debated among many theologians, scientists, and philosophers. It has been greatly discussed and depicted throughout history as whether faith is logical when it comes to religion or whether faith is completely absurd. In this essay, I will focus on the role of faith through the lenses of Christian philosophers Sorean Kierkegaard and Paul Tillich. Faith plays an important role in Kierkegaard and Tillich theology; I will critically examine their depiction of faith and compare and contrast their passages. Kiergarrd view of faith is that it is completely absurd where as Ti
Justification by faith is of great importance, it is the foundation of our whole position and standing with God. Martin Luther wrote, “When the article of justification has fallen, everything has fallen.” John Calvin called it, “the main hinge on which religion turns.” Thomas Watson said, “Justification is the very hinge and pillar of Christianity.” The issue of Justification was the primary dispute between the reformers and the Roman Catholic Church, and the problem was, and still is, between salvation by faith alone and salvation based on good works.
A Christian apologetic method is a verbal defense of the biblical worldview. A proof is giving a reason for why we believe. This paper will address the philosophical question of God’s existence from the moral argument. The presuppositional apologetic method of Reformed thinkers Cornelius Van Til and John Frame will be the framework. Topics covered here could undoubtedly be developed in more depth, but that would be getting ahead, here is the big picture.
that the idea of a God may be questioned or less acceptable to the people, when