On today's program, I discussed apologetic methodologies, with a primary focus on presuppositionalism. I gave a brief history of apologetics, outlined the differences between presuppositionalism and evidentialism, and gave some critiques of both positions.
8 comments:
Are there any books you'd recommend to Lutherans to help learn and understand some presuppositional apologetic arguments?
BW the Drange-Wilson debate is a good read to see presuppositional apologetics in action against atheism. It is done by a Calvinist, but that doesn't have any bearing on the transcendental argument.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/drange-wilson/
Seems like the best apologetic approach is to learn the best elements of all three approaches and use them appropriately.
That being said, I like the reinforcement of the point that it's the gospel and not the apologetic that saves. And also the assertion that apologetics are in one sense more relevant to the believer in grounding him in the faith is spot on as well.
Very interesting program Jordan, thanks!
In your view, why are Lutherans so weak in the realm of apologetics? I have my own answers to this question, but I would be curious to know your point of view...
I don't think Lutherans are very weak in the realm of apologetics at all. Especially for Confessional Lutherans. Dr. John Warwick Montgomery (who is the best at answering Van Til, as he is an evidentialist) is an excellent theologian who has done tremendous work in the realm of apologetics. His book History, Law, and Christianity is what I would recommend the most: http://www.amazon.com/History-Christianity-John-Warwick-Montgomery/dp/1896363164 I think when we talk about apologetics we all to often try to argue the existence of God. Rather, we should be pointing back to the historical facts of Christ. This is why Lutheranism (and true Christianity for that matter) is a confessional faith.
Also, here is a great post from Brothers of John the Steadfast on Reformed and Lutheran apologetics. It is addresses Van Til and Montgomery specifically.
http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=19528
It's my understanding that the presuppositionalists don't argue that the unbeliever knows nothing; rather, their point is that the unbeliever DOES know something. It goes back to Romans 1, not philosophy. Anyone who leans too heavily on the philosophy of this apologetic and divorces it from the Scripture from which it is derived is, in my opinion, abusing the method.
Also, I have to say that from what I've heard from Dr. John Warwick Montgomery on Issues, Etc., I'm not sure he's a 200-proof Lutheran. I admire him a great deal; I think he's a brilliant man who knows his stuff and I appreciate the fact that he hinges everything on Christ crucified. However, he often talks like an Arminian when it comes to how a person is saved, and that bothered me long before I knew the first thing about presuppositionalism. Besides, we are all, from the most brilliant to the most simple-minded, required to proclaim and defend our faith, but we can't all know everything that Dr. Montgomery does. He has dedicated his whole life to learning evidence, but we can't all do that. What we can do, however, is learn our Bibles and proclaim the truth of the triune God from God's own Word.
As Abraham says in the so-called parable of the rich man and Lazarus, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead" (Luke 16:31). The Pharisees did not believe despite all the evidence Jesus presented them. We confess that we cannot by our own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, our Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called us by the Gospel, enlightened us with His gifts, and sanctified and kept us in the one true faith. And all this is accomplished by God's Word; "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ" (Romans 10:17). It appears to me, in what studying I've done so far, that presuppositional apologetics gives the greater opportunity--and indeed, the greater honor--to God's Word; it REQUIRES that we preach the Christ of Scripture, rather than putting Him on trial or in a corner. And that's why I believe that, in its best form, presuppositional apologetics is the most Lutheran apologetic. (Indeed, if the Calvinists were consistent in their application of it, they would become Lutherans when they realize that "is" means "is"!)
no actually Katy in my experiences i found it much more easier to argue with presuppositionist, and i can easily have them descend into emotional pleas, rambling,non-sequiturs,and post hoc rationalizations
Post a Comment