# Apologetics- Where do I begin?



## Megan Mozart

I feel a burden to study apologetics and epistemology.

Where would you instruct someone to start in the study of apologetics and epistemology? I'm looking for books. I will probably start small but also give more challenging works that I can read soon after I get some basics down. I really want a detailed, lifelong, disciplined study of this, so where would you instruct me to start, and also what goals do you think I should strive for in terms of what monumental works on the subject that I should tackle?

Also, just any personal advice for one who is looking to study this? Any personal goals you think I should consider?

Links are good too but I'm primarily looking for books (I'll take links to online books too).

Thanks!


----------



## cbryant

Megan,

If you've never studied apologetics/philosophy before the I would start with Richard Pratt's "Every Thought Captive".


----------



## Megan Mozart

The most I have ever done with apologetics is read The Reason for God and I loved it. I have also listened to two or three podcasts. 



I really want to delve into it now.


----------



## steven-nemes

Don't read presuppositionalist literature.

Listen to lecture on The Veritas Forum by JP Moreland, William Lane Craig, and Alvin Plantinga at least--and check out others which sound interesting to you.

As for books, read _5 Views on Apologetics_ and introductory philosophy texts.


----------



## Edward

cbryant said:


> Megan,
> 
> If you've never studied apologetics/philosophy before the I would start with Richard Pratt's "Every Thought Captive".



I agree. I am a big fan of Pratt.


----------



## Megan Mozart

steven-nemes said:


> Don't read presuppositionalist literature



Why not?

And to those who are presuppositionalists: Why _should_ I get into to it?


----------



## steven-nemes

Because their arguments are no good.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace

steven-nemes said:


> Don't read presuppositionalist literature.
> 
> Listen to lecture on The Veritas Forum by JP Moreland, William Lane Craig, and Alvin Plantinga at least--and check out others which sound interesting to you.
> 
> As for books, read _5 Views on Apologetics_ and introductory philosophy texts.



William Lane Craig? 

Start with " The Kingdom Of The Cults" by Dr. Walter Martin. James White has a bunch of videos on his youtube channel that will help you (there are also videos there of Dr. Walter Martin).


----------



## steven-nemes

I don't know why the eye-roll, but William Lane Craig is good stuff. He's a respected and well-known philosopher; I don't know why you don't like him.

Also Megan Mozart: study arguments for the resurrection of Jesus as opposed to arguments for the existence of God. The latter are not as powerful and as convincing as the former.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace

steven-nemes said:


> I don't know why the eye-roll, but William Lane Craig is good stuff. He's a respected and well-known philosopher; I don't know why you don't like him.
> 
> Also Megan Mozart: study arguments for the resurrection of Jesus as opposed to arguments for the existence of God. The latter are not as powerful and as convincing as the former.



http://mp3.aomin.org/images/jpeg/WLCraigslist.jpg

Isaiah 46:10-11

10: declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying,'My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,'
11 calling a bird of prey from the east,
the man of my counsel from a far country.
I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;
I have purposed, and I will do it.


----------



## Megan Mozart

I just remember that I read The Case for Christ in the beginning of High School and I remember devouring it.

Isn't Craig one of the interviewees in that book?


----------



## steven-nemes

Well, yeah, they're not Calvinists, but so what?

If the heretic of all heretics brandishes the greatest argument for the existence of a triune God, then who cares how his theology is?

The point is apologetics and philosophical argumentation, and you don't get that from the presuppositionalists, whereas you do get it from WLC and others.

-----Added 10/23/2009 at 06:00:22 EST-----

Yes he is in Case for Christ.


----------



## Reformed Thomist

Amazon.com: Defending Your Faith: An Introduction to Apologetics (9781581345193): R.C. Sproul: Books

Amazon.com: Classical Apologetics (0025986449513): R.C. Sproul, John H. Gerstner, Arthur W. Lindsley: Books

And...

Amazon.com: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (9780199263479): Brian Davies: Books


----------



## cbryant

Amazon.com: Every Thought Captive: A Study Manual for the Defense of Christian Truth (9780875523521): Jr. Richard L. Pratt: Books

Amazon.com: Reasons of the Heart: Recovering Christian Persuasion (9780875525952): William Edgar: Books

Amazon.com: Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview (9780802829696): Albert M. Wolters, Michael W. Goheen: Books


----------



## ChristianTrader

steven-nemes said:


> Well, yeah, they're not Calvinists, but so what?
> 
> If the heretic of all heretics brandishes the greatest argument for the existence of a triune God, then who cares how his theology is?
> 
> The point is apologetics and philosophical argumentation, and you don't get that from the presuppositionalists, whereas you do get it from WLC and others.



I think the point is, "What are you apologizing for?" If you have a great argument that leads to salvation by works, what exactly have you accomplished.

CT

-----Added 10/23/2009 at 06:17:41 EST-----



steven-nemes said:


> I don't know why the eye-roll, but William Lane Craig is good stuff. He's a respected and well-known philosopher; I don't know why you don't like him.
> 
> Also Megan Mozart: study arguments for the resurrection of Jesus as opposed to arguments for the existence of God. The latter are not as powerful and as convincing as the former.



I would say that the former makes no sense without the latter.

CT


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace

steven-nemes said:


> Well, yeah, they're not Calvinists, but so what?
> 
> If the heretic of all heretics brandishes the greatest argument for the existence of a triune God, then who cares how his theology is?
> 
> The point is apologetics and philosophical argumentation, and you don't get that from the presuppositionalists, whereas you do get it from WLC and others.
> 
> -----Added 10/23/2009 at 06:00:22 EST-----
> 
> Yes he is in Case for Christ.



"Who cares how his theology is?" That is one phrase I would have never thought in a million years reading from anyone on this board. Well, I for one do care. 

When William Lane Craig debated Chrisitoper Hitches and he was asked if any christian denominations were false, He replied "Ummm...well, I'm not a Calvinist. I think certain tenets of Reformed theology are incorrect." Maybe he can give good arguments as to the existence of the Triune God. But I reject Molinism as heresy. I rather listen to a reformed apologist. To each his own. Just dont be surprised when I roll my eyes at the William Lane Craig endorsments. His flaws concerning Sotierology and God's eternal decrees are enough for me to listen to someone else.


----------



## Skyler

Look for Greg Koukl, he has a series of MP3s on defending the faith.

Also, find some debates between atheists and Christians(I recommend Bahnsen v. Stein and WLC's debates) and listen to/read them. Figure out what the arguments being used to support and critique each position are.

As for William Lane Craig--he's a brilliant philosopher, but his theology needs work. The arguments he uses, insofar as they go, are good, and I use them myself. But I think there's also a place for presuppositional apologetics.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Amazon.com: Reason and Worldviews: Warfield, Kuyper, Van Til and Plantinga on the Clarity of General Revelation and Function of Apologetics (9780761840381): Owen Anderson: Books

Amazon.com: Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith (9781932805345): Kenneth D. Boa, Robert M. Bowman Jr.: Books

Are two books that I found informative. I think the first book is an interesting hybrid between classical and presuppositional apologetics known as rational presuppositionalism. 

The second book is a survey of different apologetic "school" and how they would tend to attack different question concerning the faith.

CT


----------



## MMasztal

I'd recommend Bahnsen's, "Presuppositional Apologetics" or Frame's "Salvation Belongs to the Lord".

Westminster Bookstore - Reformed Books - Low Prices - Flat Fee UPS Shipping - Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended (Hardcover) by Greg Bahnsen 9780915815555


----------



## uberkermit

steven-nemes said:


> Well, yeah, they're not Calvinists, but so what?
> 
> If the heretic of all heretics brandishes the greatest argument for the existence of a triune God, then who cares how his theology is?
> 
> The point is apologetics and philosophical argumentation, and you don't get that from the presuppositionalists, whereas you do get it from WLC and others.



Steven, an unbeliever will never be brought to the light of the gospel through philosophy. I could say more, but I would ask you to read Romans 1:16-17, and 1 Corinthians 1:17-2:5 very carefully. The Apostle puts it far better than I ever could. Philosophical arguments will come and go, and woe to those who put their faith and trust in them! Blessed are those who put their trust in Christ and his gospel, and "how beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" Those men who spend their time dressing up the gospel with things like philosophy - the wisdom of this world - will (one day) see the error of their ways. I hope they see it sooner rather than later. Can a man who is sent to preach the gospel be counted faithful when he doesn't do it, but rather fills the ears of hearers with more respectable sounding arguments?


----------



## cih1355

If you want to learn apologetics from a presuppositionalist perspective, I would recommend that you read _Always Ready _by Greg Bahnsen, _The Battle Belongs to the Lord _by Scott Oliphint, and _Ask Them Why _by Jay Lucas. The book by Jay Lucas contains many fictitious conversations between a believer and an unbeliever. These fictitious conversations give examples of how apologetics is done from a presuppositionalist perspective. 

If you want to learn about Classical Apologetics, I would recommend reading JP Moreland's book, _Scaling the Secular City_. The book discusses the arguments for God's existence, the meaning of life, the historicity of the New Testament, Christ's resurrection, philosophy of science, and so on. 

_A World of Difference _by Kenneth Richard Samples discusses different criteria that one can use when evaluating worldviews. This book gives a critique of naturalism, postmodernism, pantheistic monism, Isalm. 

_Without a Doubt: Answering The 20 Toughest Faith Questions _by Kenneth Richard Samples is a good book. 

The following link will go to a set of lectures given by Douglas Groothuis. This was for his apologetics class at Denver Seminary. He calls himself a Calvinist. 
This Week's Apologetic Lecture


----------



## Christusregnat

MMasztal said:


> I'd recommend Bahnsen's, "Presuppositional Apologetics" or Frame's "Salvation Belongs to the Lord".
> 
> Westminster Bookstore - Reformed Books - Low Prices - Flat Fee UPS Shipping - Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended (Hardcover) by Greg Bahnsen 9780915815555



I'm glad to read the few posts on here that don't have an axe to grind against presuppositionalism 


Bahnsen, van Til and Gordon H. Clark would probably be good starting points. Bahnsen's Always Ready is good.

Van Til's Defense of the faith is a tough read, but good.

Gordon H. Clark has a good book called Lord God of Truth with was bound with Augustine's De Magistra; both good. Clark has the added benefit of being intelligible. A Christian View of Men and Things may also be a good place to start.

Cheers,


----------



## TimV

> If the heretic of all heretics brandishes the greatest argument for the existence of a triune God, then who cares how his theology is?



That's great advice for a new wife. From a young man. Getting good fruit from bad trees.


----------



## JTB

Christusregnat said:


> MMasztal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd recommend Bahnsen's, "Presuppositional Apologetics" or Frame's "Salvation Belongs to the Lord".
> 
> Westminster Bookstore - Reformed Books - Low Prices - Flat Fee UPS Shipping - Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended (Hardcover) by Greg Bahnsen 9780915815555
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad to read the few posts on here that don't have an axe to grind against presuppositionalism
> 
> 
> Bahnsen, van Til and Gordon H. Clark would probably be good starting points. Bahnsen's Always Ready is good.
> 
> Van Til's Defense of the faith is a tough read, but good.
> 
> Gordon H. Clark has a good book called Lord God of Truth with was bound with Augustine's De Magistra; both good. Clark has the added benefit of being intelligible. A Christian View of Men and Things may also be a good place to start.
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


I'd echo this recommendation, especially Clark's "A Christian View of Men and Things."

If you are interested in specific fields of apologetics (like science), Clark also has several books critiquing non-Christian views of science, history, language (Lord God of Truth address that topic), etc. If you are interested in those titles, I can post a more comprehensive list.


----------



## Philip

I would start with Schaeffer's _How Shall We Then Live?_ as a starting point for a good overview of the history. In my (albeit limited) experience, knowing the history behind ideas is as important as knowing the ideas. Very often, distorted views of history are huge stumbling blocks in dialogue (I'll add that, in my opinion, Van Tillians are guilty of over-simplifying the history of ideas). Half of the time, I find myself disputing the false views of history that are common now (e.g. The gnostics were just alternate versions of Christianity that didn't make the cut; Islam is a religion of peace and equality; etc.).

I would also recommend R. C. Sproul's _Consequences of Ideas_ series as well as the _Silencing the Devil_ series of mock debates between Sproul and Gerstner.

For a Christian epistemology, I would recommend Thomas Reid (echoing all pre-modern thought--including the reformers) or even a little Plantinga.


----------



## Megan Mozart

JTB said:


> If you are interested in specific fields of apologetics (like science), Clark also has several books critiquing non-Christian views of science, history, language (Lord God of Truth address that topic), etc. If you are interested in those titles, I can post a more comprehensive list.




YES. I am definitely interested in the science. Let's hear that list.


----------



## Ron

Megan Mozart said:


> Any personal goals you think I should consider?
> 
> Thanks!



Yea, DON'T DO IT! 

Seriously Megan,

Even Bahnsen reminisced that he didn’t know how good he had it as a delivery boy driving around listening to the radio. His greatest problems in life by his own admission were as a philosopher and apologist (and not a theonomist). At the very least, do proceed with caution, the subject can consume you. I wouldn't trade those hours of mental anguish for anything but I cannot tell you how often have I felt like Michael Corleone when he said "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in." What I mean by that is don't let epistemology consume you. 

Ron


----------



## Megan Mozart

Ron said:


> Megan Mozart said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any personal goals you think I should consider?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, DON'T DO IT!
> 
> Seriously Megan,
> 
> Even Bahnsen reminisced that he didn’t know how good he had it as a delivery boy driving around listening to the radio. His greatest problems in life by his own admission were as a philosopher and apologist (and not a theonomist). At the very least, do proceed with caution, the subject can consume you. I wouldn't trade those hours of mental anguish for anything but I cannot tell you how often have I felt like Michael Corleone when he said "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in." What I mean by that is don't let epistemology consume you.
> 
> Ron
Click to expand...


Ron, I understand what you're saying.

I've considered these things before. As far as I can tell, I'm convinced that it is only the Holy Spirit that changes hearts, and not those who can argue eloquently and convincingly. I know that even a simple presentation of the gospel from one who is not learned in philosophy can be used mightily by God. 

At the same time, I _do_ think it is still a worthwhile pursuit to know why I believe what I believe, and that it's not simply believing things that have no evidence in history, science, archaelogy, philosphy, etc. Not saying that that's what you're doing


----------



## ewenlin

Pratt is good as a primer.


----------



## Ron

Megan Mozart said:


> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Megan Mozart said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any personal goals you think I should consider?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, DON'T DO IT!
> 
> Seriously Megan,
> 
> Even Bahnsen reminisced that he didn’t know how good he had it as a delivery boy driving around listening to the radio. His greatest problems in life by his own admission were as a philosopher and apologist (and not a theonomist). At the very least, do proceed with caution, the subject can consume you. I wouldn't trade those hours of mental anguish for anything but I cannot tell you how often have I felt like Michael Corleone when he said "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in." What I mean by that is don't let epistemology consume you.
> 
> Ron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ron, I understand what you're saying.
> 
> I've considered these things before. As far as I can tell, I'm convinced that it is only the Holy Spirit that changes hearts, and not those who can argue eloquently and convincingly. I know that even a simple presentation of the gospel from one who is not learned in philosophy can be used mightily by God.
> 
> At the same time, I _do_ think it is still a worthwhile pursuit to know why I believe what I believe, and that it's not simply believing things that have no evidence in history, science, archaelogy, philosphy, etc. Not saying that that's what you're doing
Click to expand...


Indeed, far from me to say that apologetics is not a noble enterprise and even our bounden duty according to each one's ability. 

For what it's worth, here are some links to some articles: 

Articles in Apologetics (Updated 3/28/07)

Apologetics – Articles Theology and Apologetic Resources

Chew on the meat and spit out the bones!

Ron


----------



## D. Paul

steven-nemes said:


> Don't read presuppositionalist literature.
> 
> study arguments for the resurrection of Jesus as opposed to arguments for the existence of God. The latter are not as powerful and as convincing as the former.



I know you're not, but you _*must*_ be kidding.
Advice to "stay away" from someone as clear-minded as Bahnsen in favor of Molinists?

-----Added 10/23/2009 at 09:42:07 EST-----



steven-nemes said:


> Because their arguments are no good.



Assertion with no support. Support, please.


----------



## ewenlin

Should we be  in here?


----------



## AThornquist

Ewen: think positive. Remember what Mr. Smiley said a couple weeks ago? "Who's know what would have happened to David [when he fought Goliath] if he didn't believe in himself?"

Megan, I have benefited greatly from Bahnsen's _Always Ready_, a little pamphlet by Van Til called _Why I believe in God_, and Pratt's _Every Thought Captive_ so far. There is also Bahnsen's _Van Til's Apologetic_ that I have to read, but the thing is a beast! I highly suggest works from Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International. There's a lot of fantastic scientific information between the two. Their books are great


----------



## reformed trucker

steven-nemes said:


> The point is apologetics and philosophical argumentation, and you don't get that from the presuppositionalists



Sorry dude, but that really deserves a , a, and a .

Yah, Dr. Bahnsen really sucked in those areas...


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Frame's _Apologetics for the Glory of God_ isn't bad.

AMR

-----Added 10/23/2009 at 10:59:20 EST-----



steven-nemes said:


> Because their arguments are no good.


Here we go again. Sigh.

AMR


----------



## Philip

I would say to balance out the presuppositionalists with common sense thinkers. No good presupper is going to deny evidence or common grace just as no common sense apologist is going to deny that our presuppositions play a significant role in the interpretation of evidence.

So yes, read your Bahnsen, Van Til, Plantinga, etc, but also read Aquinas, Anselm, Sproul, and Lewis.

Also be aware that presuppositionalism as such is a peculiarly American Calvinist phenomenon. I am not aware of any British or international apologists who have used the method, though historically it drew from the Dutch neo-Calvinist tradition of Kuyper, etc. as opposed to the common sense realism that dominated American seminaries until Van Til.


----------



## cih1355

In a previous post, someone mentioned the value of knowing about the history of ideas. Here is a book that discusses the history of western thought from a Christian perspective:
Amazon.com: Revolutions in Worldview: Understanding the Flow of Western Thought (9780875525730): W. Andrew Hoffecker: Books

I would recommend getting a book on hermeneutics and on Christian doctrine. This will help you to defend the faith against Roman Catholics, JWs, Mormons, Moonies, and so on.


----------



## SolaSaint

Megan,

First I would like to ask why the interest in apologetics? It's important just as a calling to preach or teach. Also I would warn anyone getting into an apologetic ministry to be grounded well in the faith before diving in. Apologetics isn't for the faint of heart. Remember you will be studying up on Satan's weapons and tools and it can cause one to question his/her faith at times, however it also strengthens one's faith as you learn how to defend the faith with scripture and good reason and logic.

I'm currently studying apologetics at Trinity School of Apologetics online. Just do a Google search. It is a tuition free graduate school from India, headed by Dr. Johnson Philip. Very sound biblically and very demanding in the amount of materials and study required. It only costs a minimal amount to enroll and you have 2 years to complete a Masters program. I would challenge you to check it out. God bless.


----------



## MMasztal

Skyler said:


> Look for Greg Koukl, he has a series of MP3s on defending the faith.
> 
> Also, find some debates between atheists and Christians (I recommend Bahnsen v. Stein and WLC's debates) and listen to/read them. Figure out what the arguments being used to support and critique each position are.
> .





I just bought Koukl's new book "Tactics" into my Apologetics class. Koukl says what I've been trying to say, but so much better. His MP3s are excellent. Koukl's website is Stand to Reason: Stand to Reason: Equipping Christian Ambassadors with Knowledge, Wisdom, and Character.

I'd also recommend listening to some of James White's (Alpha & Omega Ministries) talks in his You Tube page. YouTube - DrOakley1689's Channel


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> steven-nemes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because their arguments are no good.
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go again. Sigh.
> 
> AMR
Click to expand...




Here are Some Links to Reformed Apologetics sites.

-----Added 10/24/2009 at 10:10:02 EST-----

A Classic work of presuppositional apologetics is Why I Believe in God by Cornelius Van Til


----------



## Casey

cih1355 said:


> If you want to learn apologetics from a presuppositionalist perspective, I would recommend that you read _Always Ready _by Greg Bahnsen, ...





Christusregnat said:


> Bahnsen's Always Ready is good.


----------



## Megan Mozart

SolaSaint said:


> First I would like to ask why the interest in apologetics?



Honestly, it is mostly a selfish motivation. When I was in high school I just had a strong desire to learn, and apologetics was one of the things that piqued my interest. Now I have a pretty much insatiable desire to understand the Bible. My desire to study apologetics and philosophy isn't as strong, but it's up there. I just want to be able to defend the faith when I talk to family members who aren't saved, alongside knowing Christian truths of course and I hope that God will use that. Another reason is that logic and debate is interesting to me and I want to be a rock of truth amidst people who don't want to think their way through deciding their beliefs, but just pick and choose whatever feels good.

Now the second reason is because I want to know enough about the subject so that when my kids ask me how we can know Christianity is true, and can give them a solid answer. And I want it to be some part of our homeschool curriculum. There's a podcast by a Christian named Randall Niles who ever since he was twelve asked his parents questions about how we know there is a God, etc and they always said "well, you just have to have faith," and nothing more. He ended up becoming an atheist, and only after a several year search of the truth as an adult he ended up converting to Christianity. Now that has been in my mind ever since and I really don't want to make that mistake with my kids.

-----Added 10/24/2009 at 11:02:45 EST-----

Oh, SolaSaint, if my avatar is worrying you about my grounding in the faith, don't let it. It's just a joke.


----------



## Brian Withnell

I'm going to give you some really strange advice on starting off on apologetics. Start with a good book on discrete mathematics, ignore evidentialists and only read presuppositional apologists (Van Til and company) but only after you have a good foundation for mathematical reasoning. If you are looking for lifelong study, this would be the ideal course of study. The reason I say this is that if you attempt to go the evidentialist route, they are all based on circular reasoning that has presuppositions, but they just don't know where their presuppositions start.

There is no good and logical necessity apart from the axioms of a system that give a foundation. The WCF states:


> 5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: _yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. _


Our confession states that our persuasion of the scripture is from the inward working of the holy spirit ... even if we have all those reasons to find it worthy of our trust, it is an axiomatic position; we accept it without any proof because of the Spirit working within us. In other words, even our acceptance of the Bible is presuppositional (to the extent that the assurance of the truth of it is not, and cannot be, because of outward evidence).

What Kant did was take the logical underpinnings of classical apologetics out from under the house. He did so through logic and reason, and did so well. What he (and no one else can) do is take out the underpinnings of presuppositional apologetics. The presuppositional start is Romans 1:18-21 with a non-believer. I do not attempt to convince someone of the truth of what they already know. What I do is show them the inconsistency of their own system (they borrow from the starting point of the existence of God) and tear down their house of cards. (While it is possible to be _*logically*_ consistent with not believing in God, it requires being a psychopath/sociopath in order to maintain that consistency, and while there are those that have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness that far, declaring the truth is what we are required to do, not convert souls.)

As to your reasoning, you cannot, by any means of wisdom or skill in parenting (or lack thereof), change whose names were written in the book of life before the foundation of the world. If God blesses you with children, their faith is founded on God's election, not your effectiveness in parenting. Just as God's election is a great comfort and incentive to evangelize those whom we meet, it is also a great comfort and incentive to parent the best we know how trusting God to provide the result. Our trust is that he has promised to be our God, and the God of our children. More we cannot do other than raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Your desire to defend the faith needs to be tempered with a knowledge that no matter how effective you are at logical explanation, you cannot possibly control the outcome. Suppressing the truth that God has made plain to mankind is a moral issue, not a knowledge or reasoning issue. God has shown _everyone_ what is needed to know that he is, and is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him. It is only through unrighteousness that people suppress that truth. We are not better than God at convincing people of the Lord's existence ... yet evidentialists would seem to imply that if they could just argue a little better, know a little more, reason a little more clearly, people would see their need and repent. Repentance unto life is a saving grace that is given by God and is completely out of our control; we are to obey and trust the result to God who is in control.

Keep your enthusiasm to defend the faith ... it is possible that God will use you as an instrument in his hand to bring someone to faith whose name is written. But remember, it isn't based on your ability. Even at this point, you are capable of defending the faith to the extent that God demands of you at this point. Our study is more for our own edification than for our ability to win others to Christ (in ourselves, we have no ability to win others to Christ, and if the Holy Spirit is working, those whom we testify to will be won to the faith). Study to show yourself approved (to yourself!).


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Brian,

I appreciate your sentiments, but I am concerned that you are overlooking the ordained means by which the elect are brought into the kingdom. No doubt, Some of those means are indeed through the efforts of proper apologetic "preaching" of the Good News. I don't think anyone who has a proper understanding of apologetics assumes that they can reason a person into the kingdom without the efficacious workings of the Holy Spirit upon the elect. We are commanded to give a defense of that which we believe, which is basically a call to the offensive tactics of apologetics.

AMR


----------



## JTB

Megan Mozart said:


> JTB said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are interested in specific fields of apologetics (like science), Clark also has several books critiquing non-Christian views of science, history, language (Lord God of Truth address that topic), etc. If you are interested in those titles, I can post a more comprehensive list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES. I am definitely interested in the science. Let's hear that list.
Click to expand...


Well, there are several ways to go with Clark, because the late John Robbins published some of Clark's works individually, and some as compilations. So, I'll give you both (collections in parenthesis), in case you want to begin with more than one thing at a time.

General philosophy/apologetics:
1. A Christian View of Men and Things
2. Three Types of Religious Philosophy (republished as part of Christian Philosophy)
3. Religion, Reason, and Revelation (republished as part of Christian Philosophy)
4. An Introduction to Christian Philosophy (republished as part of Christian Philosophy)

Authority of Scripture/textual criticism/language:
1. God's Hammer: The Bible and its Critics
2. Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism (republished as part of Commentaries on Paul's Epistles)
3. Lord God of Truth 
4. Language and Theology (republished as part of Modern Philosophy)
5. In Defense of Theology

A Christian view of History:
1. Historiography: Secular and Religious

A Christian view of Science/psychology/empiricism:
1. Philosophy of Science and Belief in God (republished as part of Modern Philosophy)
2. Behaviorism and Christianity (republished as part of Modern Philosophy)
3. William James and John Dewey (republished as part of Modern Philosophy)

Clark's defense of his own position:
1. Clark Speaks from the Grave
2. The Philosophy of Gordon Clark, edited by Ronald Nash

Sorry, I couldn't resist posting a more complete list :-D


----------



## Brian Withnell

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Brian,
> 
> I appreciate your sentiments, but I am concerned that you are overlooking the ordained means by which the elect are brought into the kingdom. No doubt, Some of those means are indeed through the efforts of proper apologetic "preaching" of the Good News. I don't think anyone who has a proper understanding of apologetics assumes that they can reason a person into the kingdom without the efficacious workings of the Holy Spirit upon the elect. We are commanded to give a defense of that which we believe, which is basically a call to the offensive tactics of apologetics.
> 
> AMR



I am long winded, but I think I did answer this with what I consider the best methodology for apologetics.

Any system of logic must start from the axiomatic truths that are taken without proof. Our system of logic starts with God has revealed (why do you think the WCF starts with "Of the Holy Scripture" instead of God?) While we can know some things about God from general revelation (Rom 1 says so) we can have no ordinary knowledge of salvation without God revealing himself to us (and even general revelation has what God has revealed of himself and no more).

From that basic presupposition, we begin. The best method of apologetics from that point is to show that any other system that is not psychopathic or sociopathic borrows from the world view that has the God of the Bible as creator and sustainer of the universe.

The presuppositional apologist knows that the person that denies God or Christ has inconsistencies in what they believe (at least not the serial killer among us) and so pointing them out will either cause them pause and rethink (if they are elect) or infuriate them because they are being shown to reject God because of their moral defect (rejecting God, when they know God exists).

Simeon Magus could not be converted by the apostles; our later day Simeons will not be converted by us. The people that will come to Christ are those whom he has called. We are the instruments that God has chosen to use, but we must know that we cannot affect salvation for the lost, it is God that saves.


----------



## Philip

> From that basic presupposition, we begin.



And from that basic presupposition, you lose your audience.



> The best method of apologetics from that point is to show that any other system that is not psychopathic or sociopathic borrows from the world view that has the God of the Bible as creator and sustainer of the universe.



With all due respect, I have never heard an apologist prove (or even attempt to prove) the necessary connection between the God of scriptures and these truths. I have heard Bahnsen and others claim that things such as logic and language presuppose God, but I've never seen the presupposition shown--just asserted. We can possibly argue that the axiom of scripture leads to these things, but how do you demonstrate that these things _necessarily_ presuppose the truth of the Scriptures.

All that critiquing another worldview does is to prove the skill and insight of the critic--it does nothing to advance his own worldview. A critique may valid regardless of the coherence/correspondence to reality of the critic's worldview. What the presuppositionalist assumes is that he himself has perfect theology--which he does not.

This is why I would recommend a healthy dose of both presuppositionalism and common sense apologetics--each one has things to offer.


----------



## Brian Withnell

P. F. Pugh said:


> From that basic presupposition, we begin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And from that basic presupposition, you lose your audience.
Click to expand...


That may be true for the reprobate, but for the elect, I do not think so.




P. F. Pugh said:


> The best method of apologetics from that point is to show that any other system that is not psychopathic or sociopathic borrows from the world view that has the God of the Bible as creator and sustainer of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, I have never heard an apologist prove (or even attempt to prove) the necessary connection between the God of scriptures and these truths. I have heard Bahnsen and others claim that things such as logic and language presuppose God, but I've never seen the presupposition shown--just asserted. We can possibly argue that the axiom of scripture leads to these things, but how do you demonstrate that these things _necessarily_ presuppose the truth of the Scriptures.
> 
> All that critiquing another worldview does is to prove the skill and insight of the critic--it does nothing to advance his own worldview. A critique may valid regardless of the coherence/correspondence to reality of the critic's worldview. What the presuppositionalist assumes is that he himself has perfect theology--which he does not.
> 
> This is why I would recommend a healthy dose of both presuppositionalism and common sense apologetics--each one has things to offer.
Click to expand...


While I understand you have not heard someone witnessing the truth of the gospel in such a fashion directly, but might I ask how often have you heard anyone witness in any fashion? And even more salient, how many people have you heard?

In one sense, the only thing required of us is to be able to defend the faith, and also to proclaim the gospel. Proclaiming the gospel is much easier in that it requires little more than "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." Defending the faith can be done without words by a Godly life (and without a Godly life, it is impossible to defend). Words in defense of the gospel can be a sword used to incapacitate those that would try to shut the doors to hell again the message of Jesus, or answering the questions of someone that might be elect, but as yet not professing.

My point is we have a distinct advantage in proclaiming the gospel. Those to whom we proclaim it already know God (Rom 1) and his invisible attributes. We proclaim what they know, and call them to turn from where they are to the glorious grace of our Lord.


----------



## he beholds

We like these:
[video=youtube;i61I1ND45ts]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i61I1ND45ts[/video]


----------



## CNJ

LOL! Pictures of Joyce M., Joel O. and Oprah. Yep! All three need help with apologetics, not to mention theology!


----------



## Scott1

Megan,

You may find helpful to spend some time studying the Westminster Standards, including their Scripture proofs using _The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes_ by GI Williamson.http://www.cepbookstore.com/p-284-the-westminster-confession-of.aspx

While you will not have great basis for engaging an atheist, it will help much with just about anyone who says they believe in God.

Much engagement, I have found is with nominal Christians- who very often do not know Scripture well or how it fits together.


----------



## Philip

> In one sense, the only thing required of us is to be able to defend the faith, and also to proclaim the gospel. Proclaiming the gospel is much easier in that it requires little more than "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." Defending the faith can be done without words by a Godly life (and without a Godly life, it is impossible to defend). Words in defense of the gospel can be a sword used to incapacitate those that would try to shut the doors to hell again the message of Jesus, or answering the questions of someone that might be elect, but as yet not professing.



Here I think we agree. However, this is apologetics of the heart, not the head.


----------



## DMcFadden

Megan,

A lot depends on your background in philosophy. Many of the books suggested can make your head spin worse than Linda Blair in the original Exorcist movie.

I would echo the words of those who recommended an entry point like Pratt or Sproul. We all have our preferences (presuppositional, classical, or evidential apologetics). But, it is important for you to get comfortable with the flatlands of the vocabulary before you try climbing the mountains of the philosophy.


----------



## py3ak

Megan Mozart said:


> I feel a burden to study apologetics and epistemology.
> 
> Where would you instruct someone to start in the study of apologetics and epistemology? I'm looking for books. I will probably start small but also give more challenging works that I can read soon after I get some basics down. I really want a detailed, lifelong, disciplined study of this, so where would you instruct me to start, and also what goals do you think I should strive for in terms of what monumental works on the subject that I should tackle?
> 
> Also, just any personal advice for one who is looking to study this? Any personal goals you think I should consider?
> 
> Links are good too but I'm primarily looking for books (I'll take links to online books too).
> 
> Thanks!



Apologetics (if you're including polemics) is a huge field, and you have to define what you want to do. The first point is always to have the content of your faith rendered clear and explicit to your own mind, and the reasons for it succinctly apprehended. As such, then, starting with philosophical disputes and apologetic manuals is probably not the best idea. 
You'd want to be sure first of all that you had the content of Scripture pretty well down - in other words, if someone says "the Bible says" you know right away whether that's true or not. And then you'd want to make sure that you had in your mind a good summary of the principal parts of what the Bible teaches - the Confession or the Larger Catechism would work for that. Along with that would come a firmly developing grasp on interpretive methods, so that you know how to approach an unfamiliar text. This point, like epistemology, is one where there are enormous differences of opinion, and lot of trash has been written (though there are some good books on hermeneutics and some fine literary criticism). Perhaps with interpretation, as with epistemology, your best bet will be to read Scripture and the Confession with those points in mind. So you would ask, "How does Paul know that he knows this?" "How does Peter get from this text to this conclusion?" "What rule of interpretation led the Westminster Assembly to include this text in proof of this point?" "What epistemology does the exposition of the 10 Commandments require?" And so forth: this should help enable you to answer previously un-heard of questions. 
Another large part of knowing how to answer those questions, I think, is going to come in by the foundations of Scriptural and Confessional thinking becoming explicit in your mind. In other words, there are always things that are sort of taken for granted, and are consequently "unspoken"; learning how to "speak" those things gives you a more thorough grasp of your own system, and learning the skill of seeing what is "unspoken" and stating it makes you more able to critique other systems.

With those two skills (of interpretation and seeing what is assumed in what is said) in hand, and the knowledge of Scripture's content and teaching clearly present to your mind (on all four of which, of course, you are going to have to be working constantly), you are ready to tackle any given variety of false teaching. But I would encourage you not to tackle false teaching for no reason. E.g., if you know no Hindus, there is not a lot of reason to explore Hindu views in much depth. But if you have a family member who is a JW, and whom you see routinely, understanding their misinterpretations, and perhaps even more importantly, the ways that their false system enslaves and afflicts its adherents, becomes an attainment of real value. I don't think there's any value to fighting apologetic ghosts - bringing up wrong ideas that aren't live options for anyone you're in contact with. Picking fights for no reason seems to me like an excellent way to puff yourself up with pride, and ultimately fall into the snare of delusion.


----------



## steven-nemes

TimV said:


> If the heretic of all heretics brandishes the greatest argument for the existence of a triune God, then who cares how his theology is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's great advice for a new wife. From a young man. Getting good fruit from bad trees.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure exactly what this is supposed to mean. She wanted to know what to read, in as far as apologetics/epistemological issues are concerned, and I suggested she look for some philosophically sophisticated arguments/works, regardless of the theology of the writers. That seems reasonable to me.

If you want to learn theology, then you read good theology. If you want to learn philosophy, then you read good philosophy.

And if you think an argument presupposes some bad theology, then either drop it or try to alter it. Easy as that.



ChristianTrader said:


> steven-nemes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yeah, they're not Calvinists, but so what?
> 
> If the heretic of all heretics brandishes the greatest argument for the existence of a triune God, then who cares how his theology is?
> 
> The point is apologetics and philosophical argumentation, and you don't get that from the presuppositionalists, whereas you do get it from WLC and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the point is, "What are you apologizing for?" If you have a great argument that leads to salvation by works, what exactly have you accomplished.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


I don't know what this means either. Who said anything about salvation by works? I simply said that the theology of the writers she'll read, if she wants to read some philosophy, would be irrelevant.

I disagree theologically with both William Alston and Alvin Plantinga, for example, but I should not disregard their works in philosophy of religion just because of that. They may not be great theologians but they are great philosophers, and when I read philosophy, I'm looking for that--namely, philosophy, and not theology.



> I would say that the former makes no sense without the latter.
> 
> CT



Not really. If you can show the best explanation of the historical data regarding the origin of Christianity and Jesus' death, etc., is that God rose him from the dead, then who cares about bothering with complex and impractical proofs like the Leibnizian cosmological argument from the PSR? Besides, the evidence for the resurrection is more compelling than the more complicated proofs anyway.



uberkermit said:


> steven-nemes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yeah, they're not Calvinists, but so what?
> 
> If the heretic of all heretics brandishes the greatest argument for the existence of a triune God, then who cares how his theology is?
> 
> The point is apologetics and philosophical argumentation, and you don't get that from the presuppositionalists, whereas you do get it from WLC and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven, an unbeliever will never be brought to the light of the gospel through philosophy. I could say more, but I would ask you to read Romans 1:16-17, and 1 Corinthians 1:17-2:5 very carefully. The Apostle puts it far better than I ever could. Philosophical arguments will come and go, and woe to those who put their faith and trust in them! Blessed are those who put their trust in Christ and his gospel, and "how beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" Those men who spend their time dressing up the gospel with things like philosophy - the wisdom of this world - will (one day) see the error of their ways. I hope they see it sooner rather than later. Can a man who is sent to preach the gospel be counted faithful when he doesn't do it, but rather fills the ears of hearers with more respectable sounding arguments?
Click to expand...


I agree with you; no one will believe in Jesus by way of philosophy. Only the Holy Spirit can bring a person to faith. But this was my point: if she wants to learn apologetics and defense of the faith, she ought to learn the good stuff from top of the line philosophers.


----------



## ChristianTrader

steven-nemes said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the heretic of all heretics brandishes the greatest argument for the existence of a triune God, then who cares how his theology is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's great advice for a new wife. From a young man. Getting good fruit from bad trees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what this is supposed to mean. She wanted to know what to read, in as far as apologetics/epistemological issues are concerned, and I suggested she look for some philosophically sophisticated arguments/works, regardless of the theology of the writers. That seems reasonable to me.
> 
> If you want to learn theology, then you read good theology. If you want to learn philosophy, then you read good philosophy.
> 
> 
> And if you think an argument presupposes some bad theology, then either drop it or try to alter it. Easy as that.
Click to expand...


Alright, but then why send newbies to those who specialize in presupposing bad theology?



> I don't know what this means either. Who said anything about salvation by works? I simply said that the theology of the writers she'll read, if she wants to read some philosophy, would be irrelevant.



You said if a person was "a heretic of heretics" it was alright to go study under them? Salvation by works is pretty common viewpoint and should not be outside the scope of a super heretic. I believe bad theology presupposes bad philosophy and vice versa.



> I disagree theologically with both William Alston and Alvin Plantinga, for example, but I should not disregard their works in philosophy of religion just because of that. They may not be great theologians but they are great philosophers, and when I read philosophy, I'm looking for that--namely, philosophy, and not theology.



I would say that I disagree with them when they do bad philosophy. I am not sure why you completely separate philosophy from theology?



> Not really. If you can show the best explanation of the historical data regarding the origin of Christianity and Jesus' death, etc., is that God rose him from the dead, then who cares about bothering with complex and impractical proofs like the Leibnizian cosmological argument from the PSR? Besides, the evidence for the resurrection is more compelling than the more complicated proofs anyway.



Who said proofs for God's existence have to be mindblowingly complicated? I did not. Next, if God does not exist, then He cannot resurrect Jesus can He?

CT


----------



## steven-nemes

ChristianTrader said:


> Alright, but then why send newbies to those who specialize in presupposing bad theology?



A philosopher can have bad theology and still have some good arguments. Plantinga believes some strange things about hell, namely, he doesn't think that it is such that whoever goes there has no possibility of release whatsoever. That's bad theology, I think. But it is utterly irrelevant to his arguments (for an example or two) for belief in the existence of God as being properly basic and proper function as being the best account of knowledge. His bad theology is not relevant and doesn't come up.

So my point is this: when dealing with some philosophical arguments, the bad theology of the philosophers does not "touch" or "ruin" the arguments thereby.



> You said if a person was "a heretic of heretics" it was alright to go study under them? Salvation by works is pretty common viewpoint and should not be outside the scope of a super heretic. I believe bad theology presupposes bad philosophy and vice versa.



I said it was okay to study an argument that is quite good (and leads to a reasonably orthodox conclusion), even if the author is a heretic. Let's say some philosopher, Bob Smith, is a universalist. Let's say he comes up with an unbelievably convincing ontological argument, or whatever. Should we completely disregard his argument, and all the apologetical potential that it has, just because he's a wacko on a few issues? Surely not. We can disagree theologically and be in philosophical agreement with others.



> I would say that I disagree with them when they do bad philosophy. I am not sure why you completely separate philosophy from theology?



I don't understand what you're saying here. I'd disagree with them when they do bad philosophy, too.

Philosophy is separated from theology (for the most part) because a lot of philosophical issues are theologically irrelevant. 



> Who said proofs for God's existence have to be mindblowingly complicated? I did not. Next, if God does not exist, then He cannot resurrect Jesus can He?



The proofs are complex, however. Discussion regarding the PSR, for example, is complex. Discussion regarding whether or not the universe had a beginning in time (and whether this entails its needing a cause) is complex. Daniel Dennett admits as much in this here lecture given by William Lane Craig: click here

I don't think that I have to prove that God exists in order to give good reasons to suppose that he rose Jesus from the dead. The fact of the matter is that naturalistic explanations of the data (the empty tomb, public burial, resurrection appearances, the disciple's new belief in resurrection despite every reason for not holding to such belief) are wholly implausible and not worth believing. If someone comes to realize that, even if I have not given him any reason to suppose God exists, I think it would still pack a punch. Furthermore, you could use the argument from the resurrection as an indirect proof of God: if Jesus is resurrected, then the best explanation of that is that God did it.


----------



## Skyler

Hey guys,

Can we move the discussion of presuppositionalism vs. evidentialism to another thread?

I don't think it's really supporting the thread's original purpose, which was to give some good resources for studying apologetics. You could state your side of the case, and then refer to another thread where that is the express purpose of the thread. But I must admit it's a little confusing trying to read through the thread with the presup vs. evidential debate going on in the background.

Brian,

While a background in number theory is a great idea for many applications(including apologetics), I don't know that it's absolutely necessary. Certainly, you should at least know propositional logic and the various forms of argument and logical fallacies. However, I think you can learn it just as easily(and perhaps more so for some people, since it's not as abstract) in the context of studying presuppositional apologetics.

Off-topic: I'm taking a discrete mathematics course and loving it. 

Oh, and don't ignore either side. Both sides have excellent points, but if you want to be a well-rounded apologist, you should be familiar with both.


----------



## steven-nemes

Well I don't think the discussion is so much presup vs evidentialist, but rather I was just clarifying what I meant in light of some of Hermonta's comments.

-----Added 10/25/2009 at 07:14:10 EST-----

Here's a better example of what I mean, CT: NT Wright is not orthodox in his theology, yet who would suggest we not use his resources on the reliability of the gospels and so on for our apologetics? 

If we can use the unorthodox on issues of scriptural scholarship, why not use the unorthodox on issues of philosophy?


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Honestly I believe that the Roman Catholics have great apologists and should be the place to start. They really haven't changed much since the council of trent so it is good to study the foundational arguments for Christianity from the Roman Catholic perspective and then move into the Reformed arguments against Roman ecclesiology, soteriology, sacramentology, hagiology, and hagiological intercessory prayer. How can someone really be reformed if they don't understand what they are reforming from?

I also believe it is important to remember we didn't break with the Western Church we reformed it. Thus, we still share the same foundations of tradition, developed theology, and apologetics. We simply disagree on matters of authority and thus have opposing views in some areas.

I recommend that you start with Theology for Beginners by F.J. Sheed. This is a great intrduction to theology and is foundational for all christian apologetics: Amazon.com: Theology for Beginners (9780892831241): Francis Joseph Sheed: Books

I also recommed that you study Thomas Aquinas' Shorter Summa. This has some awesome foundational material in it. It is priceless: Amazon.com: Aquinas's Shorter Summa: Saint Thomas's Own Concise Version of His Summa Theologica (9781928832430): St. Thomas Aquinas: Books

Once you have established a full understanding of the basics by reading the above books then jump into a basic apologetic book by Peter Kreeft and Robert Tacelli This is a great basic apologetic book that is fundamentaly western orthodox based, but takes no sides between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism: Amazon.com: Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions (9780830817740): Peter Kreeft, Ronald K. Tacelli: Books

I then recommend that you compare the major themes of the Westminster Confession of faith Larger Catechism with Luther's small Catechism and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Bible in hand of course. That is a real theological adventure.

With the above information in hand, I would then say that you start to study key points in John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion to get a good idea of why Rome is wrong where they are wrong, (they're not wrong on everything, we can't forget that) This is the copy of the institutes that I have: Amazon.com: Institutes of the Christian Religion (9781598561685): John Calvin, Henry Beveridge: Books

Finally these books are foundational once you have the above information in hand:

Scripture Alone R.C. Sproul: Amazon.com: Scripture Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine (R. C. Sproul Library) (R. C. Sproul Library) (9781596380103): R. C. Sproul, Keith Mathison: Books

The Five Points of Calvinism Steele, Thomas, Quinn: Amazon.com: The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented (9780875528274): David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, S. Lance Quinn: Books

And for the escatological side I recommend Dr. Kim Riddlebarger's A Case for Amillenialism. I believe it conclusively disproved the other alternatives and shows us the biblical reasons why Augustine, Aquinas and all the magisterial Reformers were amillennial: Amazon.com: Case for Amillennialism, A: Understanding the End Times (9780801064357): Kim Riddlebarger: Books

So with all of that information ingested I would say that the best modern apologist by a mile is R.C. Sproul. He is orthodox on target and fundamentally accurate in all of the areas shown above except escatology. He is postmillenial (He must not have read Dr. Riddlebarger's book yet ) He is really without a peer in the apologetics field today in my opinion and I would say that in any difficult theological or apologetic situation his view be seriously consulted before a final decision is reached. He is legitimate for sure.

His website is Ligonier Ministries Reformed Theology from R.C. Sproul There are many outstanding apologetic and theological videos you can watch on there, plus a lot of articles and documents.

I have many many more books and sources I can recommend as well. Let me know if you want any more.


----------



## cih1355

If you are interested in the abortion issue, then here is a book that I would recommend that defends the pro-life position. The author of the book was an evangelical Protestant, but later on became a Roman Catholic. 

Amazon.com: Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (9780521691352): Francis J. Beckwith: Books

The following are some books that deal with the relationship between theology and science or discuss the philosophy of science.

Amazon.com: Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach (9781581347319): Vern Sheridan Poythress: Books

Amazon.com: Science & Its Limits: The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspective (9780830815807): Del Ratzsch: Books


----------



## Brian Withnell

Skyler said:


> Brian,
> 
> While a background in number theory is a great idea for many applications(including apologetics), I don't know that it's absolutely necessary. Certainly, you should at least know propositional logic and the various forms of argument and logical fallacies. However, I think you can learn it just as easily(and perhaps more so for some people, since it's not as abstract) in the context of studying presuppositional apologetics.
> 
> Off-topic: I'm taking a discrete mathematics course and loving it.
> 
> Oh, and don't ignore either side. Both sides have excellent points, but if you want to be a well-rounded apologist, you should be familiar with both.



You are going to love what it does for your understanding of apologetics ... guaranteed! 

While not knowing the abstract reasoning doesn't mean that it is impossible to work through apologetics, it certainly means that a person won't be as well grounded in the thought processes needed to understand them.

One of my favorite mental exercises is going through a classical apologist's arguments and finding the axioms that they so stridently affirm are not there. The only people that don't have axioms are those that don't use logic. Sadly, there are more and more people that are post-modern, anti-logical that it makes *any* kind of apologetics difficult. Of course for them, I declare the word, then let it do its work.

-----Added 10/25/2009 at 10:07:13 EST-----



DD2009 said:


> Honestly I believe that the Roman Catholics have great apologists and should be the place to start. They really haven't changed much since the council of trent so it is good to study the foundational arguments for Christianity from the Roman Catholic perspective and then move into the Reformed arguments against Roman ecclesiology, soteriology, sacramentology, hagiology, and hagiological intercessory prayer. How can someone really be reformed if they don't understand what they are reforming from?



Paul was reformed before the reformation started. You are reformed if you are orthodox in your beliefs -- the reformation was a return to true orthodox Christian doctrine, and those that hold to true orthodox Christian doctrine are reformed.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Brian Withnell said:


> Paul was reformed before the reformation started. You are reformed if you are orthodox in your beliefs -- the reformation was a return to true orthodox Christian doctrine, and those that hold to true orthodox Christian doctrine are reformed.



Certainly. But there has been a LOT of water under the bridge since Paul. We need to make sure we know why we are who we are today.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Brian Withnell

It is good to know what went wrong with the mainstream church (RC) in order to know what to avoid. But keeping in touch with the orthodox does not *require* knowing what is false. A person can hold to the truth without ever knowing what gnostic dualism, Arminianism, Arianism, Docetism, modalism, Monophysitism, or any number of other heresies state or how they got started. I'm not saying that it isn't good to know the errors of the past. (Election assures that those that do not study history cannot all be doomed ... if they are elect, they are saved.)


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Brian Withnell said:


> It is good to know what went wrong with the mainstream church (RC) in order to know what to avoid. But keeping in touch with the orthodox does not *require* knowing what is false. A person can hold to the truth without ever knowing what gnostic dualism, Arminianism, Arianism, Docetism, modalism, Monophysitism, or any number of other heresies state or how they got started. I'm not saying that it isn't good to know the errors of the past. (Election assures that those that do not study history cannot all be doomed ... if they are elect, they are saved.)



True, but if one wants to be a good apologist or study apologetics one must know these things.


----------



## Zenas

I have determined I'd rather be the father of 10 believers than the most intelligent, able, and wittiest apologist. Bahnsen was a genius, and I am convinced he meant what someone relayed above.


----------



## Philip

Brian Withnell said:


> It is good to know what went wrong with the mainstream church (RC) in order to know what to avoid. But keeping in touch with the orthodox does not *require* knowing what is false. A person can hold to the truth without ever knowing what gnostic dualism, Arminianism, Arianism, Docetism, modalism, Monophysitism, or any number of other heresies state or how they got started. I'm not saying that it isn't good to know the errors of the past. (Election assures that those that do not study history cannot all be doomed ... if they are elect, they are saved.)



I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I think the church owes a great debt to the heretics, because they force the Church to define herself and refocus on scripture. The Church would be poorer without the Nicene Creed, the _Institutes_, the WCF, and _Christianity and Liberalism_.


----------



## Zenas

You don't need to know what the gnostic heresies involved in order to know that they are false; all that is required is the knowledge that Christianity is true. By operation of disjunction, if Christianity is true, then all other faiths or theologies are false. 

For example, I know nothing of Buddhism, but I know that it's false because I know Christianity is true.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

P. F. Pugh said:


> I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I think the church owes a great debt to the heretics, because they force the Church to define herself and refocus on scripture. The Church would be poorer without the Nicene Creed, the _Institutes_, the WCF, and _Christianity and Liberalism_.



Right. God has a good purpose for everything, even heresies.


----------



## Zenas

P. F. Pugh said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is good to know what went wrong with the mainstream church (RC) in order to know what to avoid. But keeping in touch with the orthodox does not *require* knowing what is false. A person can hold to the truth without ever knowing what gnostic dualism, Arminianism, Arianism, Docetism, modalism, Monophysitism, or any number of other heresies state or how they got started. I'm not saying that it isn't good to know the errors of the past. (Election assures that those that do not study history cannot all be doomed ... if they are elect, they are saved.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I think the church owes a great debt to the heretics, because they force the Church to define herself and refocus on scripture. The Church would be poorer without the Nicene Creed, the _Institutes_, the WCF, and _Christianity and Liberalism_.
Click to expand...


I disagree. If there were no heretics, there would be no need for those things. If there were no need for those things, it would be because the Church was comprised of faithful believers who confirmed the Word of God. Such a situation would be perfect. 

We are sorrier for the heretics. While they cause us to clarify our doctrine, there would be no need to clarify but for them.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Zenas said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is good to know what went wrong with the mainstream church (RC) in order to know what to avoid. But keeping in touch with the orthodox does not *require* knowing what is false. A person can hold to the truth without ever knowing what gnostic dualism, Arminianism, Arianism, Docetism, modalism, Monophysitism, or any number of other heresies state or how they got started. I'm not saying that it isn't good to know the errors of the past. (Election assures that those that do not study history cannot all be doomed ... if they are elect, they are saved.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I think the church owes a great debt to the heretics, because they force the Church to define herself and refocus on scripture. The Church would be poorer without the Nicene Creed, the _Institutes_, the WCF, and _Christianity and Liberalism_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree. If there were no heretics, there would be no need for those things. If there were no need for those things, it would be because the Church was comprised of faithful believers who confirmed the Word of God. Such a situation would be perfect.
> 
> We are sorrier for the heretics. While they cause us to clarify our doctrine, there would be no need to clarify but for them.
Click to expand...


If we were really poorer for it, then they would not exist.
*
1 Cor. 11:18-19*

18For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.


----------



## Zenas

You're confusing the fact that God uses heretics to established His good purposes with heretics having some sort of positive effect on the church. The positive effect comes from God, not the heretic. The heretic has only a negative effect.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Zenas said:


> You're confusing the fact that God uses heretics to established His good purposes with heretics having some sort of positive effect on the church. The positive effect comes from God, not the heretic. The heretic has only a negative effect.



Um no, you are the one confused. God's sovereignty extends to the existence of heretics. God has a purpose for heretics. One part of that purpose is to bring about a deepening of the knowledge of His Church. The way you write, it is as if God looks down and sees heretics and then thinks, "Hey I need to make the best of it."

CT


----------



## Zenas

ChristianTrader said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing the fact that God uses heretics to established His good purposes with heretics having some sort of positive effect on the church. The positive effect comes from God, not the heretic. The heretic has only a negative effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um no, you are the one confused. God's sovereignty extends to the existence of heretics. God has a purpose for heretics. One part of that purpose is to bring about a deepening of the knowledge of His Church. The way you write, it is as if God looks down and sees heretics and then thinks, "Hey I need to make the best of it."
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


You're presuming to know the way I write and you're reading into it more than is necessarily required.

God purposes heretics to effect His plan. That doesn't mean the church owes a debt to the heretics. The heretic is bad. The good that necessarily flows from their existence comes from God not from the heretic as you seem to be implying by arguing that they're "good for us".


----------



## ChristianTrader

Zenas said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is good to know what went wrong with the mainstream church (RC) in order to know what to avoid. But keeping in touch with the orthodox does not *require* knowing what is false. A person can hold to the truth without ever knowing what gnostic dualism, Arminianism, Arianism, Docetism, modalism, Monophysitism, or any number of other heresies state or how they got started. I'm not saying that it isn't good to know the errors of the past. (Election assures that those that do not study history cannot all be doomed ... if they are elect, they are saved.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I think the church owes a great debt to the heretics, because they force the Church to define herself and refocus on scripture. The Church would be poorer without the Nicene Creed, the _Institutes_, the WCF, and _Christianity and Liberalism_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree. If there were no heretics, there would be no need for those things. If there were no need for those things, it would be because the Church was comprised of faithful believers who confirmed the Word of God. Such a situation would be perfect.
> 
> We are sorrier for the heretics. While they cause us to clarify our doctrine, there would be no need to clarify but for them.
Click to expand...


Clarification can only happen when one has a deeper understanding of what is true. Even if one does not investigate what heretics say, one benefits by having confessional statements that were born in the fire of answering heretics.

CT


----------



## Zenas

ChristianTrader said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I think the church owes a great debt to the heretics, because they force the Church to define herself and refocus on scripture. The Church would be poorer without the Nicene Creed, the _Institutes_, the WCF, and _Christianity and Liberalism_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. If there were no heretics, there would be no need for those things. If there were no need for those things, it would be because the Church was comprised of faithful believers who confirmed the Word of God. Such a situation would be perfect.
> 
> We are sorrier for the heretics. While they cause us to clarify our doctrine, there would be no need to clarify but for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clarification can only happen when one has a deeper understanding of what is true. Even if one does not investigate what heretics say, one benefits by having confessional statements that were born in the fire of answering heretics.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


Confessional statements are not effective because they were born in the fire of heresy, they are effective because they coherently communicate a system of doctrine based on God's Word. You don't need a heresy to respond to for that. See generally the Westminster Confession of Faith.

You're presuming that only under the plague of heresy can the Church formulate and convey orthodox doctrine. This is clearly erroneous.

Is it better to obey than to sacrifice? Yes, because if you obeyed, there would be no need to sacrifice. From this, I conclude it's better to be free of heretics, because without them, we would have no need for endless doctrinal re-clarification.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

I perceive it would be better to be free of evil all together yet God permits it for his good purpose. Why is this so, seems to have been the question of the last few millenia as we quickly learn from studying the details of what has transpired in the life of the Church.


----------



## Zenas

DD2009 said:


> I perceive it would be better to be free of evil all together yet God permits it for his good purpose.



I haven't been advancing anything other that what's contained in this simple sentence.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Zenas said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. If there were no heretics, there would be no need for those things. If there were no need for those things, it would be because the Church was comprised of faithful believers who confirmed the Word of God. Such a situation would be perfect.
> 
> We are sorrier for the heretics. While they cause us to clarify our doctrine, there would be no need to clarify but for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clarification can only happen when one has a deeper understanding of what is true. Even if one does not investigate what heretics say, one benefits by having confessional statements that were born in the fire of answering heretics.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Confessional statements are not effective because they were born in the fire of heresy, they are effective because they coherently communicate a system of doctrine based on God's Word. You don't need a heresy to respond to for that. See generally the Westminster Confession of Faith.
> 
> You're presuming that only under the plague of heresy can the Church formulate and convey orthodox doctrine. This is clearly erroneous.
> 
> Is it better to obey than to sacrifice? Yes, because if you obeyed, there would be no need to sacrifice. From this, I conclude it's better to be free of heretics, because without them, we would have no need for endless doctrinal re-clarification.
Click to expand...


They are effective because they communicate the system of doctrine based on God's Word.

I never said you need a new heresy to get a coherent orthodox system. My claim is that heresy promotes a deeper coherent system.

The Apostles Creed is coherent. It is, however, not as deep as Westminster.

As I was saying above one purpose of heretics and heresies is to force the church to go deeper. Another purpose is to pull away the pretenders.

Again clarification is not just some academic event. There is a point/purpose to it.

At the end of the day, what do you think 1 Cor. 11:19 is saying?

CT


----------



## Zenas

I would be just repeating myself at this point, and this includes what I think Corinthians says on the issue. Nothing I have said is inconsistent with that verse.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Zenas said:


> Is it better to obey than to sacrifice? Yes, because if you obeyed, there would be no need to sacrifice. From this, I conclude it's better to be free of heretics, because without them, we would have no need for endless doctrinal re-clarification.



The *point/purpose* of the heretics is the endless doctrinal re-clarification. It is not a "oh shucks" more doctrinal re-clarification.

If we agree here, then we have never had a disagreement. We were just talking past each other.

CT


----------



## Zenas

ChristianTrader said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it better to obey than to sacrifice? Yes, because if you obeyed, there would be no need to sacrifice. From this, I conclude it's better to be free of heretics, because without them, we would have no need for endless doctrinal re-clarification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *point/purpose* of the heretics is the endless doctrinal re-clarification. It is not a "oh shucks" more doctrinal re-clarification.
> 
> If we agree here, then we have never had a disagreement. We were just talking past each other.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


I've never denied it's the point, but I have also pointed out that they are the ones who also necessitate the need. Without them, there would be no need, just as if we obeyed, there would be no need to sacrifice.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Zenas said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it better to obey than to sacrifice? Yes, because if you obeyed, there would be no need to sacrifice. From this, I conclude it's better to be free of heretics, because without them, we would have no need for endless doctrinal re-clarification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *point/purpose* of the heretics is the endless doctrinal re-clarification. It is not a "oh shucks" more doctrinal re-clarification.
> 
> If we agree here, then we have never had a disagreement. We were just talking past each other.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never denied it's the point, but I have also pointed out that they are the ones who also necessitate the need. Without them, there would be no need, just as if we obeyed, there would be no need to sacrifice.
Click to expand...


Doctrinal reclarification implies growth and depth. That is needed in and of itself. The heretics are just God ordained means.

The need was always there, the only question was how is it going to be brought to reality.

We should always want to know more about God and dig more and more into his revelation. If we did so, the heretics would never have any place to set up shop.

CT


----------



## Zenas

ChristianTrader said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> The *point/purpose* of the heretics is the endless doctrinal re-clarification. It is not a "oh shucks" more doctrinal re-clarification.
> 
> If we agree here, then we have never had a disagreement. We were just talking past each other.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never denied it's the point, but I have also pointed out that they are the ones who also necessitate the need. Without them, there would be no need, just as if we obeyed, there would be no need to sacrifice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doctrinal reclarification implies growth and depth. That is needed in and of itself. The heretics are just God ordained means.
> 
> The need was always there, the only question was how is it going to be brought to reality.
> 
> We should always want to know more about God and dig more and more into his revelation. If we did so, the heretics would never have any place to set up shop.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...

Without heretics and heresy, there would be no need for doctrinal growth and depth; we would be free of error.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Zenas said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never denied it's the point, but I have also pointed out that they are the ones who also necessitate the need. Without them, there would be no need, just as if we obeyed, there would be no need to sacrifice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doctrinal reclarification implies growth and depth. That is needed in and of itself. The heretics are just God ordained means.
> 
> The need was always there, the only question was how is it going to be brought to reality.
> 
> We should always want to know more about God and dig more and more into his revelation. If we did so, the heretics would never have any place to set up shop.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without heretics and heresy, there would be no need for doctrinal growth and depth; we would be free of error.
Click to expand...


Lack of contradiction does not imply full growth. For example, the only reason that it is good that we have the Westminster confession over the Apostles Creed is so that we can fend off heretics? Or put another way, it is only better to have a deeper and fuller knowledge of God is because a heretic might come to my door?

CT


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Zenas said:


> Without heretics and heresy, there would be no need for doctrinal growth and depth; we would be free of error.


You seem to be implying more than we can discern from Scripture. In that God decreed heresy so that the elect can grow from it. Odd.

AMR


----------



## Megan Mozart

DMcFadden said:


> Megan,
> 
> A lot depends on your background in philosophy. Many of the books suggested can make your head spin worse than Linda Blair in the original Exorcist movie.



Well I do want to learn some philosophy too... before I learn some apologetics. I should have asked about that first...  My husband has a minor in philosophy and I'm jealous.

-----Added 10/26/2009 at 10:22:21 EST-----

For someone who dropped out of college, I think I might like learning just for the sake of learning way too much.


----------



## MMasztal

Megan Mozart said:


> For someone who dropped out of college, I think I might like learning just for the sake of learning way too much.



Ah, a latent philomath!


----------



## timmopussycat

P. F. Pugh said:


> I would say to balance out the presuppositionalists with common sense thinkers. No good presupper is going to deny evidence or common grace just as no common sense apologist is going to deny that our presuppositions play a significant role in the interpretation of evidence.
> 
> So yes, read your Bahnsen, Van Til, Plantinga, etc, but also read Aquinas, Anselm, Sproul, and Lewis.
> 
> Also be aware that presuppositionalism as such is a peculiarly American Calvinist phenomenon. I am not aware of any British or international apologists who have used the method, though historically it drew from the Dutch neo-Calvinist tradition of Kuyper, etc. as opposed to the common sense realism that dominated American seminaries until Van Til.



In several of Lewis' (relatively) little known journal articles collected and published as _God in the Dock_, he uses presuppostional questions without labelling his method. I believe Bahnsen is on record somewhere as saying that it was when he read something by Lewis that he realized he had found an approach that would shut unbelievers mouths everytime (or words to that effect.)


----------



## Confessor

I wouldn't go so far as Steven did in outright proscribing presuppositionalist literature, but for the most part I must agree with him. I guess the key is that you ought not to take presuppositionalists as gospel. (It's surprisingly effortless to do so.)

So, I would agree with a few others on this thread in that you should not restrict yourself to any particular school of apologetics. Read some of the modern-day evangelical philosophers (Craig, Moreland, et al.), some of the classics, some of the more recent guys (e.g. Reid), and even some of Clark. Clark has some...odd...conclusions, but his arguments are nonetheless worth looking into.

When dealing with people with poor theology, just avoid that. E.g. WLC is a fool when it comes to divine sovereignty and human responsibility, but his other work in philosophy and evidences in excellent.

---------

Steven, the reason it is helpful to prove theism prior to giving evidences for the resurrection is because it gives the hypothesis more _prima facie_ credibility. It is more likely that a resurrection occurred given theism. I'm pretty sure Craig made this point contra Habermas in _Five Views on Apologetics_, can't remember where exactly though.


----------



## Philip

> In several of Lewis' (relatively) little known journal articles collected and published as God in the Dock, he uses presuppostional questions without labelling his method.



But he does it all the while with a pre-modern Medieval epistemology more akin to Aquinas or Anselm than to Van Til.

And Megan--do read the classics: read your Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas (the three A's of pre-reformation theology), your church fathers, etc. You will not only be richer, but you will have a better understanding of what Christianity actually teaches. Improve your theology.


----------



## charliejunfan

A few of you here seem to be saying that philosophy etc... is useless because it is not the gospel, well, we use philosophy etc for God's glory!!! But yes, after the philosophy comes out then the gospel follows or is mixed in.


----------



## steven-nemes

Ben: the theistic arguments, as I was saying, don't have the initial compulsion that the resurrection arguments do. At least it doesn't seem to me that they do. And it is possible to use the resurrection argument as an indirect proof of God's existence, I think.


----------



## Brian Withnell

P. F. Pugh said:


> I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I think the church owes a great debt to the heretics, because they force the Church to define herself and refocus on scripture. The Church would be poorer without the Nicene Creed, the _Institutes_, the WCF, and _Christianity and Liberalism_.



I agree, the church had to hone the theology she embraced because of the heresies with which she was distressed. But I don't think the church "owes" anything to heretics. That is sort of like saying that the man who robs me is one to whom I owe the strengthening of my house against break-in. We owe no debt to the breast cancer that killed my first wife, even if it made her surgeon realize that breast cancer must be treated *very* aggressively in young women. Society owes nothing to the murderers of the man who was beat to death a couple of miles from my house, even if it makes the rest of us realize there is a need for vigilance even in affluent neighborhoods, even during the day.

I may be beating a dead horse ... but sometimes the thought process allows criminals to be looked at as victims, rather than the scum they (and all of us sinners) are.

-----Added 10/26/2009 at 06:04:27 EST-----



ChristianTrader said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doctrinal reclarification implies growth and depth. That is needed in and of itself. The heretics are just God ordained means.
> 
> The need was always there, the only question was how is it going to be brought to reality.
> 
> We should always want to know more about God and dig more and more into his revelation. If we did so, the heretics would never have any place to set up shop.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> Without heretics and heresy, there would be no need for doctrinal growth and depth; we would be free of error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lack of contradiction does not imply full growth. For example, the only reason that it is good that we have the Westminster confession over the Apostles Creed is so that we can fend off heretics? Or put another way, it is only better to have a deeper and fuller knowledge of God is because a heretic might come to my door?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


How about this as a joining statement ... in heaven, there will be no heretics, and no man will say to another "know the Lord" for the Lord will write on our hearts all that we need to know. From my perspective, this is better than anything we have here ... and there will be no more who teach falsely in all God's holy mountain. God uses heretics to sharpen our theology in this fallen age, but when what is perfect is fully realized, we will have no need for teaching.


----------



## Confessor

steven-nemes said:


> Ben: the theistic arguments, as I was saying, don't have the initial compulsion that the resurrection arguments do. At least it doesn't seem to me that they do. And it is possible to use the resurrection argument as an indirect proof of God's existence, I think.



Well, since the resurrection argument is probabilistic (because based on inference to the best explanation), part of the probability comes from the _prima facie_ plausibility and non-ad hocness of the event. A theistic explanation of the resurrection has an increased plausibility if the existence of God is established prior.

I agree that the veracity of the resurrection would skip the theistic proofs and seem to prove Christianity in a more direct fashion (giving it more compulsion, as you say), but the point WLC makes in _Five Views on Apologetics_ is that it's a lot easier to establish the historicity of the resurrection from a theistic foundation. Not that it's impossible to do without theistic proofs, just that it's easier with them.


----------



## SolaSaint

Megan Mozart said:


> SolaSaint said:
> 
> 
> 
> First I would like to ask why the interest in apologetics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, it is mostly a selfish motivation. When I was in high school I just had a strong desire to learn, and apologetics was one of the things that piqued my interest. Now I have a pretty much insatiable desire to understand the Bible. My desire to study apologetics and philosophy isn't as strong, but it's up there. I just want to be able to defend the faith when I talk to family members who aren't saved, alongside knowing Christian truths of course and I hope that God will use that. Another reason is that logic and debate is interesting to me and I want to be a rock of truth amidst people who don't want to think their way through deciding their beliefs, but just pick and choose whatever feels good.
> 
> Now the second reason is because I want to know enough about the subject so that when my kids ask me how we can know Christianity is true, and can give them a solid answer. And I want it to be some part of our homeschool curriculum. There's a podcast by a Christian named Randall Niles who ever since he was twelve asked his parents questions about how we know there is a God, etc and they always said "well, you just have to have faith," and nothing more. He ended up becoming an atheist, and only after a several year search of the truth as an adult he ended up converting to Christianity. Now that has been in my mind ever since and I really don't want to make that mistake with my kids.
> 
> -----Added 10/24/2009 at 11:02:45 EST-----
> 
> Oh, SolaSaint, if my avatar is worrying you about my grounding in the faith, don't let it. It's just a joke.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the reply, sorry I've been away for about 3 days. I loved your reasons for wanting to study apologetics especially for teaching your kids about God and His truths. God bless!


----------

