tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5970683153008645393.post7453759563772903409..comments2024-01-09T16:17:22.327-06:00Comments on Bring the Books: An Evening With Reasons To BelieveAdam Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05826908205996140341noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5970683153008645393.post-24186900289633533332008-03-30T17:16:00.000-05:002008-03-30T17:16:00.000-05:00No, I'm not saying that in the broad terms you use...No, I'm not saying that in the broad terms you used. <I>Any</I> apologetic methodology? It doesn't sound right, but are there any other methodologies besides Classical and Presuppositional? I don't know. Could there be anything <I>sinful</I> about a <I>method</I>? I would find <I>that</I> difficult to believe. I suppose a method could be sinful if it were dishonest and only gave people the information we wanted them to hear, but I see nothing sinful or dishonest about the <I>classical</I> approach, specifically.<BR/><BR/>It has many good features and answers alot of unbelievers' questions. It answered alot of <I>my</I> questions, anyway ("does God even exist at all?" "Did Jesus rise from the dead?"). As ambassadors for Christ, are we not to answer challenges and questions of unbelievers? I think we are. I've been in several situations where I am fairly certain using the TAG would have made things even more confusing. Again, I don't think that everyone is ready to wrap their head around the Transcendental argument. Heck, most people can't even <I>pronounce</I> "transcendental"!<BR/><BR/>Now, I also did <I>not</I> argue that <I>any</I> apologetic which gets someone saved is an okay apologetic. Rather, my point in offering my own anecdotal story was to give an example of the classical apologetic at work, showing on a case by case basis how it played out for me. Ultimately, my story should end with the rhetorical question, "What is sinful about the way I was saved?" If it is not sinful, then I would argue it is okay. Simply because the presuppositional method is <I>better</I> (which I personally believe) is not enough of an impetus to throw out or condemn the classical approach, wholesale. That was the point of my anecdote. Though the Classical method is weak in some places, there's still good stuff there.<BR/><BR/>Your restatement is sort of on the right track, but it turns things just enough to make it sound like I approve of the classical approach on different grounds than is actually the case. Just to be clear, I believe the classical approach is acceptable because (A) It is not sinful (it is not endorsed [some may disagree with this, but I'm still biased towards presuppositionalism] <I>or</I> condemned in Scripture), and (B) It does offer a truthful apologetic, albeit one which is neither complete (it is not the one-stop-shop that presuppositionalism offers) or perfect. <I>Those</I> are the grounds upon which I approve of an apologetic methodology. Perhaps there are other features which I would require of a good methodology, but these are the only two which come to mind at the moment.Adam Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05826908205996140341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5970683153008645393.post-16944027800775782192008-03-30T13:44:00.000-05:002008-03-30T13:44:00.000-05:00Adam,I want to make sure I am understanding your p...Adam,<BR/><BR/>I want to make sure I am understanding your point. Are you saying that any apologetical method is alright, so long as people get saved? Is this right? After all God gets glory <I>whenever</I> someone is saved, so any method that brings about salvation is God glorifying.Josh Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11640837095855180429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5970683153008645393.post-4402141767076660362008-03-29T18:29:00.000-05:002008-03-29T18:29:00.000-05:00Most presuppositionalists take the position I know...Most presuppositionalists take the position I know you take, Josh, and say that the presup approach is the only approach that Christians should use, and though I see that apologetic methodology being used in scripture, I do not think that means that it is the <I>exclusively Christian</I> apologetic approach. "Paul uses approach A" does not necessarily entail "We should not use A and also B." (With A, of course, being the TAG and B being Classical arguments.) As best as I can tell, it simply doesn't follow.<BR/><BR/>I would also argue that although the presuppositional approach is the <I>best</I> approach, I do not feel that it is the only approach which glorifies God. After all, I personally came to faith in Jesus Christ and recognized Him as Lord because I first changed my worldview away from atheism. I then, upon reflection and study (and through the teaching and debates of classical apologists such as William Lane Craig) came to recognize Jesus as risen and, indeed, as God. Finally, upon reading Scripture, I bowed my knee to Him and yielded my life and all my soul up to him. This happened in stages, and to argue that this journey which I went on from atheism to full-blown Christianity did <I>not</I> glorify God simply does not comport. You may (and I don't know that you will) simply <I>say</I> that God was not glorified by my discovery that His Son had, indeed, risen from the grave through historical research, but that simply wouldn't make any sense to me or match my own experience.<BR/><BR/>After all, Jesus is the Truth. To discover the Truth (regardless the method) should be glorifying to Him. Again, I suppose I differ from most presups in that I do not use the TAG because I feel I am commanded to use it exclusively, but rather, because it is a powerful argument (when <I>fully and properly</I> understood). But I would also say that my wife, for example, would probably never get the TAG. That's not a shot at her (<I>at ALL</I>), it's just that not everyone has this cold, hard, precise intellect that can get some of this tougher stuff.Adam Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05826908205996140341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5970683153008645393.post-48547985971977135442008-03-29T16:51:00.000-05:002008-03-29T16:51:00.000-05:00Adam,I guess that is a long way of saying "A". :)S...Adam,<BR/><BR/>I guess that is a long way of saying "A". :)<BR/><BR/>So to answer your question, "so why not?" <BR/><BR/>We are to glorify God in <I>everything</I> we do. This includes our apologetic approach. Further, the only way to glorify God (in this regard) is to use the apologetic method that he sets forth in his Word. <BR/><BR/>Now, we can discuss whether or not this is the presup. approach, but at least as Christians we <I>must</I> answer "B" to my first post. And this means we have to let God set our apologetical agenda.Josh Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11640837095855180429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5970683153008645393.post-84376470722858341122008-03-29T16:41:00.000-05:002008-03-29T16:41:00.000-05:00I believe that if you are talking to someone with ...I believe that if you are talking to someone with a common sense worldview, you should not first turn them into an epistemological skeptic so you can explain to them why you think the cosmological argument isn't sound. That is a bad starting point. Now, perhaps this is because I don't see a Common Sense worldview as being a devastatingly egregious perspective to hold to in the first place.<BR/><BR/>I think that presuppositional arguments are good. In fact, I do believe that the Transcendental Argument is the greatest argument I have ever heard for God's existence. It is a sure and certain argument, and I believe it to be almost flawless. Why almost? Because nobody understands it unless they've had an PHI 101 class. How do I know? Because it took me <I>forever</I> to finally grasp! I had to listen to sermon after sermon (<I>hours</I> of them; I'm just dumb!) by Bahnsen. I listened to numerous debates between Bahnsen and atheists so as to see the TAG in action, and even <I>then</I> I was trying to wrap my head around what was really being said. How can I expect someone to grasp the depth and beauty of the TAG when we are barely touching on these issues? Do you know how many times I heard Bahnsen (and even Doug Wilson) debate atheists who absolutely did not understand the argument that was being set forth? Can I ask too many rhetorical questions?<BR/><BR/>This is why, if I'm talking to an unbeliever who holds a common sense worldview, I will meet them on that level. I am able to, so why not? After all, who has time to explain (in a casual setting) Hume's skepticism of causality, etc.? I certainly don't unless it's an extended discussion. Besides, as my philosophy days draw farther and farther away, I'm starting to forget everything I learned. For example, I can't remember what that thing is that Hume said we can't be sure of (you know; "we can't be sure that something will happen the same every time, we just <I>assume</I> it will be the same"). I need to stay in top form, but it's tough to stay sharp.Adam Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05826908205996140341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5970683153008645393.post-76737424618453657632008-03-29T13:12:00.000-05:002008-03-29T13:12:00.000-05:00Adam,As Christians, are we to do any apologetics t...Adam,<BR/><BR/>As Christians, are we to do any apologetics that "gets the job done," or are we to do apologetics as God has instructed us?<BR/><BR/>In other words, are we to just do whatever we want, as long as it works, when doing apologetics, or are we to take our apologetic queue from God's Word?Josh Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11640837095855180429noreply@blogger.com