At present reading "Apologetics" by Van Til. How important a part of our ministry studies is Apologetics? which books etc?
In ministry how big a part does Apologetics play?
In my experiance it is not taught enough, especialy to the youth in our churches. When speaking to youth, I prefer to teach some Apologetics. I feel we are not preparing our young folks, properly, to live in the big world. Arguments for their faith I feel helps them.
What can you folks add to what I have said?
I think the modern landscape of apologetics is lacking, to say the least. Apologists use psudo-scientific language to try and prove the unprovable. We should not be focused on proving the factuality or historicity of our faith, but rather be rooted in its truth while accepting that it is by the faithfulness whose source is Christ that we have knowledge of God, and not by scientific evidence or philosophical reasoning.
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
You post sound like a rail against Evidentialism...Van Til is the modern father of Presuppositional Apologetics. Are not familiar Van Til?Originally Posted by Shea Zellweger
"Preach the gospel; if necessary use words" is like saying "feed the poor and; if necessary use food."
I am, which is why I said "the modern landscape." Van Til, C. S. Lewis, and others of the earlier part of the last century are all excellent reading. The problem is that they're not generally what come to mind when one thinks of apologetics. It's like the ancient difference between Justin Martyr and John Chrysostom. Justin tried to prove the philosophical viability of Christianity, and failed miserably. Chrysostom, on the other hand, marveled at the incomprehensibility of God, and was critical of attempts to explain the mystery of God with human logic. But while history has shown them both to be great men of the faith, Justin remains associated with Apologetics, while Chrysostom is generally not thought of as such. Neither is Lewis. And I would suggest that if Van Til had not given his book that title, we likely would not think of him as an Apologist either.
Apologetics is, by definition, the defense of a position through the presentation of information and reason, and refers specifically to the act of providing legal defense in a Greek court. The "Apologists" who I feel did it best (Chrysostom, Lewis, etc.) did not provide such a defense of the faith, and history does not remember them primarily as apologists. Sure, it's mentioned in any bio, but usually after about a dozen other labels (scholar, author, theologian, preacher, bishop...) are applied. On the other hand, Justin Martyr and Josh McDowell are Apologists first and foremost, if not exclusively, because their work is much more in line with a traditional understanding of what Apologetics is.
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Van Til must have had something going for him? He turned down the chair of Apologetics at Princeton, in end teaching at Westminster. But, if princton wanted him, he must have been good?
Yup. He had the 1920s and 1930s going for him. Back when Christian apologetics was a worthwhile field. Incidentally, it was also the period in time where Christian apologetics looked the least like classic apologia. Coincidence?
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Interesting conversation. It seems Christian apologetics has taken an interesting turn in the last century and even more recently. A lot of the so called "apologists" are consumed with arguments for literal 7 day creation or the innerrancy of the Bible using geographical and archaeological information. At the University where I teach online, several worldview courses are offered that compare Christianity to other world religions. I am not opposed to those academic endeavors, but sometimes I get the impression the goal is information and not spiritual formation. I get this sinking feeling the objective is to argue people into the Kingdom of God instead of bearing witness to Christ and loving your neighbor as yourself. I could be seeing it wrong, but that is how it comes sometimes.
Post Thanks / Like - 5 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I agree with the spirit of this post. I'd suggest, however, that the recent shift is actually a return to normalcy insofar as Apologetics are concerned, and that the movement in the early 1900s was actually the "interesting turn" in the field. If only it had stayed that way...
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
That makes sense, it just seems like most of the work in apologetics that gets noticed is of the fundamentalist kind. They are pretty media savvy bunch.
Post Thanks / Like - 5 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Fundamentalists dont always do it for me. I really dont need proof that God created etc. Some of their apologetics can appear weak to intillectuals of our day.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 LaughingPaul DeBaufer - "thanks" for this post
Some????
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 3 Laughing
While we cannot prove the unprovable, we can show that it is more reasonable to believe in the truth of our faith than not to. Without a basis in truth, our faith isn't really worth bothering with is it?
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison KeillorPost Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Basis in truth is not the same as reasonable. God's wisdom is foolishness to the world. I'm okay with that. Even as a theologian who spends what little mental capacity he has on reasoning out Christian thought, I'm okay with the fact that at the end of the day, the most important aspects of my faith, while true, are absurd to those who do not believe. I have no need to demonstrate the reasonable nature of something so incomprehensible as God.
Post Thanks / Like - 5 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Your right, God's wisdom is foolishness to the world, which is why we need not be concerned with trying to prove that it isn't. Whether God actually exists or not, and whether Jesus actually lived, died and was resurrected does matter. For if he didn't live, die and be raised, then lets just chuck the whole thing cause it's nothing more than voodoo. This is the basis in truth to which I speak, there is no need to worry about God's wisdom un less He actually exists. And further, once we get to where we realize that He does actually exist, then questioning His wisdom is surely a fools errand.
To some no explanation is necessary, to others none is possible. Seems to apply here.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
My thinking is, we are sending our kids out into the world, are we equiping them with answers, thinking, to combat that worlds proganda?
Very interesting in an oxymoronic sort of way... If I read you correctly (then the whole field of Classical and Evidential Apologetics is in question or is folly) the the best "defense" is a good "offense." It would seem you are even caught up in the language problem as you say that those (Golden Mouth and Lewis) performed the best Apology by NOT providing a defense (hence my view as oxmoronic).
So, then since Van Til rejected the whole premise or set of presuppositions necessary to play, "The Evidence that Demands a Verdict" game... you are saying that he would not be known for his role as an Apologist had he not labeled his work as such? This is intriguing?
What should/would we call Presupositional Apologetics, since in the truest since it is not Apologetics but a totally different animal?
"Preach the gospel; if necessary use words" is like saying "feed the poor and; if necessary use food."
I'm simply appealing to the classic definition of apologetics here. We took the term from Greek court proceedings, and it began as the attempt to use evidence and reason to prove the truth of Christianity. The times when the discipline has been at its best have been the times when it least resembled classic apologia. I'm not going to bother coining a new term, because there's no chance that people will actually adopt it, but I would encourage you to look at classic apologia, and see how presuppositional apologetics deviates quite a bit from its standards. Presupp Apologetics is like walking into a courtroom and insisting that the evidence is irrelevant because you already know you're innocent, regardless of what the facts of the case might suggest. You may be correct, but you sure as heck aren't going to be vindicated. I'm fine with presenting our faith in that light, I just think it's inaccurate to call it apologetics.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote