Groothuis' "Christian Apologetics" ch.2: The Biblical Basis for Apologetics

"False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel.  We may preach with all the fervour of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion." --J. Gresham Machen, p 28

"The claim that no one is argued into Christianity is simply false.  Although reasoning with unbelievers can prove frustrating, this may be more the fault of poor arguments, poor presentations or poor character than of the fruitlessness of apologetics per se. ... Moreover, noteworthy individuals such as John Warwich Montgomery and C.S. Lewis trace their conversions to key transformations in their thinking wrought through rational arguments." pp. 29-30 (Groothuis' Christian Apologetics)

Also, his mention on page 43 of retreating and restrategizing if the conversation is just counter-productive, then referring in a footnote to Jesus' discussion of not casting pearls before swine (Matthew 7:6), helped me to better understand what Jesus was getting at.  That passage bugged me for a long time.  It is only taken as an insult by someone who thinks they know it all and is offended at the thought they may need to change their mind upon learning the truth.  One is swine if one rejects evidence and good reasoning (pearls) only on the basis that it does not line up with their worldview.  As long as they are more attached to their worldview than to an honest examination of those pearls, they will just trample them under their feet into the mud of their beloved worldview.  It's true of all of us.  It's the same message communicated in Jesus' talk of new wineskins.

(discussion index)

Recommended iPhone apps...

As you are visiting this blog you might find these apps interesting:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Think Christianly (Jonathan Morrow)
Stand to Reason (this is Greg Koukl’s stuff)
RZIM (Ravi Zacharias International Ministries)
Reasonable Faith (that’s all William Lane Craig’s stuff)
Apologetics Study Bible

Feel free to reply with similar apps :)

(Check this out for iTunes U, but...I have very little patience to let it load or take up space on my phone.)

Wilkins and the EAAN -- a reply by Dr. Alvin Plantinga

The January 30 Philosophers' Carnival featured Classical Global Skepticism and the EAAN by Jim S. at Agent Intellect.  January 31, John Wilkins at Evolving Thoughts responded with Plantinga's EAAN.  I volunteered to host the next carnival, inviting submissions with an emphasis on dialogue, being sure to email Professor Plantinga regarding these developments.  I said I would be happy to host his reply on my blog, knowing he does not have a blog of his own.  He answered that he would reply to Wilkins in roughly a week.  I was hoping to have his reply posted in time to include it in the February 20 carnival I just hosted, but I received his reply today and am honored to post it below.  I will submit it to the next carnival, which will be hosted at critique my thinking (you can submit articles to that carnival using the form on this page).

The rest of this post is written by Dr. Plantinga.


***

Philosophers' Carnival #138

Welcome again to Philosophers’ Carnival, “which aims to showcase the best philosophical posts from a wide range of weblogs. We invite submissions from bloggers and readers, and collate the submitted posts into one big round-up (or ‘carnival’) every three weeks, offering a brief summary of each entry, and a link to the complete post.”  This is carnival #138.

We begin with…

Ethics

Who Wrote the Gospels? by Timothy McGrew

Lecture notes and accompanying chart can be downloaded here. You can click on each blue checkmark to see the evidence.

Call for submissions to February 20's Philosophers' Carnival

On February 20, Ichthus77 will be showcasing philosophy blog posts for Philosophers' Carnival.  I will display whatever is submitted, within reason, but am hopeful to receive responses to posts featured in past carnivals, or even just responses to posts featured on other philosophy (or related) blogs.  The emphasis here is on dialogue.  For example, I am already seeing some dialogue about Plantinga's EAAN, mentioned in a post submitted to the last carnival.  More of this, please! :)

Genuine faith is never blind

I grew up believing that reason can only take you so far--after that, faith takes over. In one sense this belief is true: Intellectual faith/belief, if it isn’t blind, comes ‘after’ good evidence. However, in the sense that faith persists independent of reason or even in spite of evidence to the contrary (the sense preferred by New Atheists) this belief is false.

One cannot trust God and his promises unless one already knows (with good evidence) God and his promises exist--and simply knowing does not equate to trusting. Compare this to having faith in the faithfulness of one's spouse. Whether or not they exist or have made promises of faithfulness is not a matter of faith. Trusting them and their promises is where faith comes in.

Some doubt, like Thomas did, even though he was daily in the presence of the miraculous before Jesus was crucified. Some all out reject Jesus and everything (they think) he is about, as did most of the Pharisees in Jesus’ day, who would rather claim his signs were demonic than change their worldview. So even in the presence of overwhelming evidence, faith can be lacking. Genuine, biblical faith is more than just knowing, it is more than mere intellectual assent. It is trust, and is never blind.