Teaching Apologetics

[panta dokimazete]

I am gearing up to restart the class I teach on apologetics for beginners - in the spirit of Semper Reformanda, I am starting to look at good course material to update the class. Recently, I found this resource from Apologetics Press - seems like a good curriculum and potentially makes up multiple courses.

Anyone have feedback on Apologetics Press?

Anyone here have some favorite resources they would like to share?

I am also looking for good web video resources - want to make it a good mashup!

 

[panta dokimazete]

Can an admin correct my spelling of apologetics in the title, please?

 

[panta dokimazete]

Well - I am doing some additional digging into AP's resources - they seem vehemently anti-Calvinistic.

Excerpt from an article:

One major cause of unbelief among those who have concluded that Christianity is false has been the advocacy of Calvinism. The rational, logical mind recognizes that a perfect, infinite God would not create beings in His own image (Genesis 1:27) that are not free moral agents responsible for their own decisions. Nor would He allow them to be subjected, through no fault of their own, to a condition of depravity, inherited from their parents, that makes them incapable of exercising their free moral agency to choose to accept or reject Him. Since a substantial segment of Christendom has promulgated Calvinism for over five centuries, multitudes of people unfortunately have assumed that the New Testament endorses Calvinistic tenets.

I think I'll look elsewhere for resources...

 

[RamistThomist]

just some things off the top of my head:

for a witty, attractive and pretty effective (if flawed at points), Peter Kreeft's website is dynamite. Kreeft is a fantastic communicator. However, he is a Thomist Roman Catholic, at that does come through. However, he is still too good to pass up.
The Official Peter Kreeft Site

I learned apologetics from Bahnsen and Frame. I think Frame has the most accessible approach and the most consistent.
Covenant Media Foundation
The Works of John Frame and Vern Poythress

 

[panta dokimazete]

Nice - thanks!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Can an admin correct my spelling of apologetics in the title, please?

Done.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Can an admin correct my spelling of apologetics in the title, please?

Done.

Thanks!

 

[aleksanderpolo]

RTS itunes U has Frame's class on Apologetics. I am not sure if the class notes are available somewhere though.

 

[caddy]

just some things off the top of my head:

for a witty, attractive and pretty effective (if flawed at points), Peter Kreeft's website is dynamite. Kreeft is a fantastic communicator. However, he is a Thomist Roman Catholic, at that does come through. However, he is still too good to pass up.
The Official Peter Kreeft Site

I learned apologetics from Bahnsen and Frame. I think Frame has the most accessible approach and the most consistent.
Covenant Media Foundation
The Works of John Frame and Vern Poythress

Agreed, Kreeft's Site is good. I've been reading his books for 25 years.

 

[cih1355]

Here is a link to a transcript of a debate between Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Stein:
http://www.bellevuechristian.org/fa...PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf

Here are some links to some articles written by Greg Bahnsen:
Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics

PA105

About six months ago, my church offered a course in apologetics during the Sunday School hour. The following are my notes from one of the class sessions:

How To Do Apologetics

Introduction

A. Philosophical orientations of our day

-Ultimately, there are two worldviews. A worldview that embraces Christ and a worldview that rejects Christ. All non-Christian worldviews have this in common: They reject Christ.
-Religious pluralism
-Secular humanism
-Denial of the supernatural
-Postmodernism
-Living for pleasure

B. Examining apologetics of our own time.

1. Classical apologetics

a. Step one: prove the existence of God.
-Appeal to natural theology to prove God's existence

1) Ontological argument.
-God is the greatest possible being. God exists in our minds.
A being who exists only in the mind is not so great as a being
who exists in reality as well as in the mind. If God existed only in
mind, he would not be the greatest possible being. Therefore,
God exists in reality as well as in the mind.

2) Cosmological argument
-Whatever has a beginning has a cause. The universe had a
beginning. The universe has a cause. The cause of the universe
is God.

My comment: There are different versions of the cosmological
argument. For example, one version of the argument says that
if there are contingent beings then there must be a
necessary being and that necessary being is God.

3) Teleological argument.
-Things in nature are designed. The design in nature requires a
Designer and that Designer is God.

My comment: A classical apologist would argue like the
following: The arrangement of the nucleotides in DNA has
meaning. They convey information. The meaning of DNA is what
determines which order the nucleotides are arranged.
The information of DNA does not come from DNA nor
does it come from the parts of DNA. The information of DNA
exists outside of and prior to the arrangement of the nucleotides
in DNA. Whatever gave DNA its meaning or information came
from an intelligent cause and that intelligent cause was God.

b) Step two: a presentation of historical evidences
-Prove that the Bible is reliable and then prove that it is the inspired
by God. Prove that Christ rose from the dead. Show that the
resurrection of Christ is the best possible explanation for the fact
that Christ's tomb is empty.

My comment: Historians use different tests to confirm that a
document is historically accurate. Classical apologists use these
tests to confirm that the Bible is reliable.

Weaknesses of classical apologetics
- One's worldview influences how one interprets the facts of science, history, archaeology, etc. The unbeliever is going to interpret the facts according to his worldview. He will not interpret the facts in the same way that a Christian would.
- A Mormon, Muslim, etc. would be convinced by the arguments for God's existence, but they would not believe in the Christian God.


2. Evidential apologetics

-One step approach to apologetics.
-No need to prove God's existence first before proving that Christianity is true.
-Appeals to facts, evidence, and miracles that would simultaneously prove that God exists and that Christianity is true.
-Prove that the best explanation for Christ's empty tomb is that He rose from the dead.
-Uses probability arguments to prove that Christianity is most likely to be true than false.

My comment: Probability arguments are inductive arguments. The conclusion of an inductive argument follows with a greater or lesser degree of probability. A probability argument for God's existence would say that God's existence is more likely to be true than false. The Bible does not teach that God's existence is more likely to be true than false. Romans 1 says that unbelievers suppress the truth in unrighteousness and that God has revealed Himself in such a way so that men have no excuse for not believing in Him.

Weakness of evidential apologetics:
- Same weaknesses as in classical apologetics. Unbelievers are not neutral towards God. They will not interpret the facts and evidence in the same way that a Christian would.

3. Reformed Epistemology
-Challenges the assumption that you cannot believe something without evidence.
-It is reasonable or rational to believe some things without evidence.

Weakness of Reformed Epistemology
-You may rationally believe something that is not true.

C. Biblical examples of doing apologetics

-Show unbelievers what is wrong with their worldview.
-2 Cor. 10:5 says that we should destroy arguments and every lofty
opinion raised against the knowledge of God.

1. The gospel presented to the Jews (Acts 2:14-41)

Peter is speaking to the Jews. Peter uses the Old Testament to prove
that Jesus is the Messiah, that He rose from the dead, and that He
is the exalted Lord.

2. The gospel presented to the Gentiles (Acts 17:15-34).

a. The background of Athens

-The Athenians worshipped false gods. They would spend their time
in nothing except telling or hearing something new.

b. Paul was provoked within because of idolatry (v. 16)


c. Paul reasoned with Jews, God-fearing Gentiles, and anyone else
(vv.17-18)


d. Paul was taken before the Areopagus to give his defense (vv. 19-21)


e. Paul's defense (vv. 22-34)
-Paul saw their idols and an altar with the inscription, "To an unknown
God".
- Paul tells them who the true God is. Paul shows them that there
conception of God is wrong.
- Paul says that God does not live in temples made by man and that
God does not need anything.
-Every nation of mankind comes from Adam. God determined where
and when they would live.
-Everyone should seek God.
-God is not far from us. People exist only by God's providence.
-God created man. Since God created man, we should not think that
God is like gold or silver or stone, a man-made image. Idols are
man-made things. The true God is not a man-made thing.

- Paul says that God commands everyone to repent. Jesus will judge the
world. God gave us the assurance that Jesus would judge the world
raising Him from the dead.

 

[Jim Johnston]

Well - I am doing some additional digging into AP's resources - they are vehemently anti-Calvinistic.

Excerpt from an article:

One major cause of unbelief among those who have concluded that Christianity is false has been the advocacy of Calvinism. The rational, logical mind recognizes that a perfect, infinite God would not create beings in His own image (Genesis 1:27) that are not free moral agents responsible for their own decisions. Nor would He allow them to be subjected, through no fault of their own, to a condition of depravity, inherited from their parents, that makes them incapable of exercising their free moral agency to choose to accept or reject Him. Since a substantial segment of Christendom has promulgated Calvinism for over five centuries, multitudes of people unfortunately have assumed that the New Testament endorses Calvinistic tenets.

I think I'll look elsewhere for resources...

1. The rational, logical mind cannot conclude that God would make men *in his image* and give them a different kind of freedom than he has.

2. Apropos 1, does God have libertarian freedom? Is it possible for him to actuate the alternative possibility to sin?

3. Is original sin denied? Why do babies die in the womb? From the curse of sin? Sin brought on by Adam and Eve?

4. Apropos 3, is perfectionism a live option? Since man's nature is not affected by the guilt of sin, which touches all parts of their person, then is it a live option that a person would not be a savior? if so, then did Jesus not die for "all the world?" How is universali atonement kept with a position that recognizes the live possibility of perfectionism?

5. It wasn't Calvinists who said "NO ONE CAN COME TO ME UNLESS the father who sent me draws him..." (John 6:44).

6. One major cause for unbelief is that many people have ran into Arminian apologists who have assured them that we have libertarian freedom, and that God knows all things. Unbelievers have, like all rational, logical people, seen the problem here; and thus have tossed aside the Bible, declaring it fundamentally flawed.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Yup - I have seen a competent atho-apologist wrap an Arminian around the axle pretty quick - you just don't have the consistency...God is God - when you start limiting Him with a weak philosophy, you lose the solid foundation.

 

[RamistThomist]

6. One major cause for unbelief is that many people have ran into Arminian apologists. They have assured them that we have libertarian freedom, and that God knows all things. Unbeleivers have, like all rational, logical people, seen the problem here, and thus have tossed aside the Bible, declaring it fundamentally flawed.

Even before I was a Calvinist and did have a rather critical view of the Bible, I got so annoyed when people would make statements like "God is so sovereign that he gave us free will." That isn't an answer to the problem. That is a restatement of the problem.

 

[Jim Johnston]

Yup - I have seen a competent atho-apologist wrap an Arminian around the axle pretty quick - you just don't have the consistency...God is God - when you start limiting Him with a weak philosophy, you lose the solid foundation.

I believe the correct terminology is an "atheologist."

 

[panta dokimazete]

Yup - I have seen a competent atho-apologist wrap an Arminian around the axle pretty quick - you just don't have the consistency...God is God - when you start limiting Him with a weak philosophy, you lose the solid foundation.

I believe the correct terminology is an "atheologist."

ah, quite right, sir!

 

[Greg]

I learned apologetics from Bahnsen and Frame. I think Frame has the most accessible approach and the most consistent.

Have you read Frame's book, Apologetics to the Glory of God? I'm almost finished reading Always Ready and was considering reading this one next.

 

[RamistThomist]

I learned apologetics from Bahnsen and Frame. I think Frame has the most accessible approach and the most consistent.

Have you read Frame's book, Apologetics to the Glory of God? I'm almost finished reading Always Ready and was considering reading this one next.

I read it at least two times. Very, very good. Not perfect, but still very good. In some ways Frame is more systematic and comprehensive than Bahnsen (and I have read everything Bahnsen has written--he is my father in the faith).

I read Doctrine of the Knowledge of God two or three times. Probably the most foundational book in my thinking.

 

[toddpedlar]

JD -

I'd strongly suggest something like either Bahnsen's book or Frame's... something from a solid presuppositional standpoint. (But then I'm a presuppositionalist). It might be uncomfortable for you to use this, though, if you're more aligned with evidentialist argumentation (a la McDowell) or the classical approach (equally evidential, I think) of Gerstner & Sproul.

 

[panta dokimazete]

JD -

I'd strongly suggest something like either Bahnsen's book or Frame's... something from a solid presuppositional standpoint. (But then I'm a presuppositionalist). It might be uncomfortable for you to use this, though, if you're more aligned with evidentialist argumentation (a la McDowell) or the classical approach (equally evidential, I think) of Gerstner & Sproul.

I am also a presup...although there is some value to them, I can't abide the weaknesses of the other positions.

 

[toddpedlar]

JD -

I'd strongly suggest something like either Bahnsen's book or Frame's... something from a solid presuppositional standpoint. (But then I'm a presuppositionalist). It might be uncomfortable for you to use this, though, if you're more aligned with evidentialist argumentation (a la McDowell) or the classical approach (equally evidential, I think) of Gerstner & Sproul.

I am also a presup...although there is some value to them, I can't abide the weaknesses of the other positions.

Okay.. I asked because the materials you had pointed to seem to me to be
not only Arminian but fairly strongly evidentialist.

Todd

 

[toddpedlar]

hmm... maybe antiCalvinistic is the better label, but at least some of the Arminian tenets aren't there. They make a fairly strong statement in their next-to-last presentation in the Advanced set that those who do not hear the gospel are lost (unlike most Arminians I know, who are convinced that all those who don't hear are saved, since they 'never had a chance')

 

[panta dokimazete]

JD -

I'd strongly suggest something like either Bahnsen's book or Frame's... something from a solid presuppositional standpoint. (But then I'm a presuppositionalist). It might be uncomfortable for you to use this, though, if you're more aligned with evidentialist argumentation (a la McDowell) or the classical approach (equally evidential, I think) of Gerstner & Sproul.

I am also a presup...although there is some value to them, I can't abide the weaknesses of the other positions.

Okay.. I asked because the materials you had pointed to seem to me to be
not only Arminian but fairly strongly evidentialist.

Todd

my mistake - I rectified it later in - the course layout seemed good - then I started reading it...and repented!

 

[panta dokimazete]

hmm... maybe antiCalvinistic is the better label, but at least some of the Arminian tenets aren't there. They make a fairly strong statement in their next-to-last presentation in the Advanced set that those who do not hear the gospel are lost (unlike most Arminians I know, who are convinced that all those who don't hear are saved, since they 'never had a chance')

Go into their search section on "calvinism" - seemed they are using some pretty strong language...anyway - this is my process for "testing everything"...


BTW - I softened my earlier post to "seem anti-Calvinistic"...