Jump to content

Christian apologetics: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 88: Line 88:
[[Young Earth creationism|Young Earth creationists]], who understand the Bible to teach that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, believe that [[dinosaur]]s are mentioned in the Bible in passages such as {{bibleverse||Job|40}} and that the scientific establishment has not proven that the world is much older. Young Earth creationists have also engaged in points of Biblical apologetics (see above) with regard to various parts of the primordial history in Genesis 1-11 &ndash; for instance, the long life spans of people such as [[Methuselah]].<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/805 Living for 900 years - Creation Magazine<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH311.html CH311: Vapor canopy's effect on lifespan<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> the [[Great Flood (Biblical)|Flood]],<ref>[http://www.icr.org/article/570/ Why Does Nearly Every Culture Have a Tradition of a Global Flood?<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp Get Answers: Noah's Flood<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> the [[Tower of Babel]],<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel? - ChristianAnswers.Net<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/confusionoflanguages.html CONFUSION OF LANGUAGES - Is there any reference in early Mesopotamian literature to what happened at the Tower of Babel?]</ref><ref>[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/140-the-tower-of-babel-legend-or-history The Tower of Babel—Legend or History?]</ref>
[[Young Earth creationism|Young Earth creationists]], who understand the Bible to teach that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, believe that [[dinosaur]]s are mentioned in the Bible in passages such as {{bibleverse||Job|40}} and that the scientific establishment has not proven that the world is much older. Young Earth creationists have also engaged in points of Biblical apologetics (see above) with regard to various parts of the primordial history in Genesis 1-11 &ndash; for instance, the long life spans of people such as [[Methuselah]].<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/805 Living for 900 years - Creation Magazine<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH311.html CH311: Vapor canopy's effect on lifespan<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> the [[Great Flood (Biblical)|Flood]],<ref>[http://www.icr.org/article/570/ Why Does Nearly Every Culture Have a Tradition of a Global Flood?<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp Get Answers: Noah's Flood<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> the [[Tower of Babel]],<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel? - ChristianAnswers.Net<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/confusionoflanguages.html CONFUSION OF LANGUAGES - Is there any reference in early Mesopotamian literature to what happened at the Tower of Babel?]</ref><ref>[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/140-the-tower-of-babel-legend-or-history The Tower of Babel—Legend or History?]</ref>


[[Old Earth creationists]], on the other hand, believe it is possible to harmonize the Bible's six-day account of creation with the scientific consensus that the universe is billions of years old, using basic reasoning. According to Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8, time, as it pertains to God is "a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day". If the number 1,000 is interpreted as an arbitrarily large number, as the context would imply, then the actual number of years the earth has existed becomes a scientific matter, not a religious debate. However, this is not the only valid interpretation and Old Earth creationists such as astrophysicist, [[Hugh Ross]] see each of the six days of creation as being a long, but finite period of time, based on the multiple meanings of the Hebrew word "yom" (day light hours/24 hours/age of time) and other Biblical creation passages.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.reasons.org/interpreting-genesis/other-creation-passages/response-genesis-and-big-bang |author=Ross, Hugh |coauthors=Endara, Miguel |title=Response to Genesis and the Big Bang by Gerald Schroeder |publisher=Reasons To Believe |date=31 Dec. 1990 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.christian-knowledge.com/forums/genesis-chapter1/day-genesis-t8.html |author=Russell, Ryan |title=Day 1 (Genesis 1:1-5) |publisher=Christian Knowledge |work=Genesis: verse-by-verse Bible Study |accessdate=3 Dec. 2010 }}</ref>
[[Old Earth creationists]], on the other hand, believe it is possible to harmonize the Bible's six-day account of creation with the scientific consensus that the universe is billions of years old, undermining the very message of the gospel. According to Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8, time, as it pertains to God is "a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day". If the number 1,000 is interpreted as an arbitrarily large number, as the context would imply, then the actual number of years the earth has existed becomes a scientific matter, not a religious debate. However, this is not the only valid interpretation and Old Earth creationists such as astrophysicist, [[Hugh Ross]] see each of the six days of creation as being a long, but finite period of time, based on the multiple meanings of the Hebrew word "yom" (day light hours/24 hours/age of time) and other Biblical creation passages.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.reasons.org/interpreting-genesis/other-creation-passages/response-genesis-and-big-bang |author=Ross, Hugh |coauthors=Endara, Miguel |title=Response to Genesis and the Big Bang by Gerald Schroeder |publisher=Reasons To Believe |date=31 Dec. 1990 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.christian-knowledge.com/forums/genesis-chapter1/day-genesis-t8.html |author=Russell, Ryan |title=Day 1 (Genesis 1:1-5) |publisher=Christian Knowledge |work=Genesis: verse-by-verse Bible Study |accessdate=3 Dec. 2010 }}</ref>


===Scientific apologetics===
===Scientific apologetics===

Revision as of 02:35, 7 June 2011

Part of a series on
Christianity
Principal symbol of Christianity
Theology
Nicene
Restorationist
Related topics

Christian apologetics is a field of Christian theology that aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defend the faith against objections, and expose the perceived flaws of other world views.[1] Christian apologetics have taken many forms over the centuries, starting with Paul of Tarsus, including writers such as Origen and Augustine of Hippo, and continuing currently with the modern Christian community, through the efforts of many authors in various Christian traditions such as C.S. Lewis. Apologists have based their defense of Christianity on historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, and other disciplines. Christian polemic is a rhetorical mode of apologetics primarily concerned with criticizing or attacking other belief systems.[2]

Biblical motivation

Apologists often appeal to the Big Bang to demonstrate evidence for a Creator God (Kalam Cosmological Argument).

Several biblical passages have historically motivated Christian apologetics.

The Book of Isaiah includes God's entreaty, "Come now, let us reason together" (1:18, ESV), and the First Epistle of Peter declares that Christians must always be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you ... with gentleness and respect" (3:15). To this R.C. Sproul mentions that "The defense of the faith is not a luxury or intellectual vanity. It is a task appointed by God that you should be able to give a reason for the hope that is in you as you bear witness before the world."[3]

Additionally, Psalm 19, which starts "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands," Psalm 139:13–14, and Romans 1:19–23 have given impetus to the apologetic enterprise, particularly in arguing from natural phenomena to a creator as in the cosmological argument or teleological argument:[improper synthesis?]

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

— Paul of Tarsus, Romans 1:20

History

The apostle Paul, who was well-educated, wrote that Christians should beware that they are not taken captive by worldly philosophy (compare to Jewish sophistry) that did not accord with Christ (Colossians 2:8). This same sentiment is given in the book of Proverbs, when it says "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge;" (see Prov. 1:7) The book of Proverbs itself might be considered philosophical in nature as it is commonly referred to as "wisdom literature." [4]

Thomas Aquinas, an influential Catholic philosopher, presented five arguments for God's existence in the Summa Theologica.[5]

Evangelical Christian apologist Norman Geisler composed an essay entitled "Beware of Philosophy: A Warning to Biblical Scholars," which exhorts Christians to beware philosophical systems that ultimately result in unorthodox theological views but also suggests that Christian scholars unite philosophical and theological studies so that unorthodox philosophies can be detected and eschewed.[6]

Many Christians understand the Bible to command the defense of the Christian faith when it says that one should "always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15). Some believers assert that a proper view of faith involves not simply accepting that what the Bible says is true, nor only trusting that God exists, but actually trusting in God and living a life in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ,[7] citing as an example that Satan's mere knowledge of God is insufficient for his own salvation (James 2:19).

Current landscape

Christian apologetics continues to the current day in a wide variety of forms. The Roman Catholics G. K. Chesterton,[8] Ronald Knox and Karl Keating, the Anglican C. S. Lewis (who popularised the argument which he called aut Deus aut homo malus ("either God or a bad man"), or Lewis's trilemma),[9] the evangelical Norman Geisler, the Lutheran John Warwick Montgomery, and the Presbyterian Francis Schaeffer were among the most prolific Christian apologists in the 20th century, while Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til started a new school of philosophical apologetics called presuppositionalism, which is popular in Calvinist circles. Others include Josh McDowell, Ravi Zacharias, Hugh Ross, Lee Strobel, Hugo Anthony Meynell, Timothy J. Keller, Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig and Peter Kreeft.

Varieties

There is a variety of Christian apologetic styles and schools of thought. The major types of Christian apologetics include: historical and legal evidentialist apologetics, presuppositional apologetics, philosophical apologetics, prophetic apologetics, doctrinal apologetics, biblical apologetics, moral apologetics, and scientific apologetics. The general information and arguments contained in the following overview are by no means exhaustive.

Various arguments have been put forth by legal scholars such as Simon Greenleaf and John Warwick Montgomery and others claiming that Western legal standards argue for the historicity of the resurrection of Christ.[10][11][12] In addition, legal authorities' opinions regarding the resurrection of Christ are appealed to.[13]

Christian scholar Edwin M. Yamauchi and others argue against the pagan myth hypothesis for the origin of Christianity.[14][15] Sherwin-White stated:

For Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions. But any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.... The agnostic type of form-criticism would be much more credible if the compilation of the Gospels were much later in time.... Herodotus enables us to test the tempo of myth-making, [showing that] even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core.

— Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press (1963), pp. 189-190.

Defense of miracles

C.S. Lewis, Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig and Christians who engage in jurisprudence Christian apologetics have argued that miracles are reasonable and plausible wherever an all-powerful Creator is postulated.[16][better source needed][17][better source needed][18] Lewis asserts that the term "all-powerful" or "omnipotence" does not include the power to take actions that are logically contradictory, distinguishing between different senses of impossibility. (The Problem of Pain page 18, also Miracles (book)) Other theologians, particularly in the Reformed tradition and in presuppositional apologetics claim that God's omnipotence is incomprehensible to the human mind and that human rationality is flawed by original sin, admitting the claim of the incoherent nature of omnipotence.

Prophetic fulfillment

In his book Science Speaks, Peter Stoner argues that only God knows the future and that Biblical prophecies of a compelling nature have been fulfilled.[19]

Apologist Josh McDowell documents the Old Testament prophecies fulfilled by Christ, relating to his ancestral line, birthplace, virgin birth, miracles, manner of death, and resurrection.[20]

Apologist Blaise Pascal believed that the prophecies are the strongest evidence for Christianity. He notes that Jesus not only foretold, but was foretold, unlike in other religions, and that these prophecies came from a succession of people over a span of four thousand years.[21]

Biblical apologetics

Biblical apologetics include issues concerned with the authorship and date of biblical books, biblical canon, and biblical inerrancy. In addition, Christian apologists defend and comment on various books of the Bible. Some scholars who have engaged in the defense of biblical inerrancy include Robert Dick Wilson, Gleason Archer, Norman Geisler, and R. C. Sproul. Also, there are several resources that Christians offer defending inerrancy in regard to specific verses.[22][23]

Authors defending the reliability of the Gospels include Craig Blomberg in The Historical Reliability of the Gospels[24] and Mark D. Roberts in Can We Trust the Gospels?[25]

Philosophical apologetics

Philosophical apologetics concerns itself primarily with arguments for the existence of God, although they do not exclusively dwell on this area. As such, they do not argue for the veracity of Christianity over other religions but merely for the existence of a 'god'.

These arguments can be grouped into several categories:

  1. Cosmological argument - Argues that the existence of the universe demonstrates that God exists. Various primary arguments from cosmology and the nature of causation are often offered to support the cosmological argument.[26][27][28]
  2. Teleological argument (argument from design) - Argues that there is a purposeful design in the world around us, and a design requires a designer. Cicero, William Paley, and Michael Behe employed this argument as well as others.[29]
  3. Ontological argument - Argues that the very concept of God demands that there is an actual existent God.
  4. Moral Argument - Argues that if there are any real objectively valid moral values, then there must be an absolute from which they are derived.[30]
  5. Transcendental Argument - Argues that all our abilities to think and reason require the existence of God.
  6. Presuppositional Arguments - Arguments that show basic beliefs of theists and nontheists require God as a necessary precondition.

Other philosophical arguments include:

  • Alvin Plantinga's argument that belief in God is properly basic.[31]
  • Pascal's wager,[32] an argument that, given neither theism nor atheism has an evidential advantage, theism is the wiser position.

Presuppositional apologetics

Main article: Presuppositional apologetics

Another apologetical school of thought, a sort of synthesis of various existing Dutch and American Reformed thinkers (such as, Abraham Kuyper, Benjamin Warfield, Herman Dooyeweerd), emerged in the late 1920s. This school was instituted by Cornelius Van Til, and came to be popularly called Presuppositional apologetics (though Van Til himself felt "Transcendental" would be a more accurate title). The main distinction between this approach and the more classical evidentialist approach mentioned above is that the Presuppositionalist denies any common ground between the believer and the non-believer, except that which the non-believer denies, namely, the assumption of the truth of the theistic worldview. In other words, Presuppositionalists don't believe that the existence of God can be proven by appeal to raw, uninterpreted (or, "brute") facts, which have the same (theoretical) meaning to people with fundamentally different worldviews, because they deny that such a condition is even possible. They claim that the only possible proof for the existence of God is that the very same belief is the necessary condition to the intelligibility of all other human experience and action. In other words, they attempt to prove the existence of God by means of appeal to the alleged transcendental necessity of the belief—indirectly (by appeal to the allegedly unavowed presuppositions of the non-believer's worldview) rather than directly (by appeal to some form of common factuality). In practice this school utilizes what have come to be known as Transcendental Arguments for the Existence of God. In these arguments they claim to demonstrate that all human experience and action (even the condition of unbelief, itself) is a proof for the existence of God, because God's existence is the necessary condition of their intelligibility.

Another position that is also sometimes called presuppositional apologetics, but should not be confused with the Van Tillian variety discussed above, is the one of Gordon Clark and his disciples. Clarkians hold that, if Christian theology is true, then God's existence can never be demonstrated, either by empirical means or by philosophical argument. The most extreme example of this position is called fideism, which holds that faith is simply the will to believe, and argues that if God's existence were rationally demonstrable, faith in his existence would become superfluous. In The Justification of Knowledge, the Calvinist theologian Robert L. Reymond argues that believers should not attempt to prove the existence of God. Since he believes all such proofs are fundamentally unsound, believers should not place their confidence in them, much less resort to them in discussions with non-believers; rather, they should accept the content of revelation by faith. Reymond's position is similar to that of his mentor, Clark, which holds that all worldviews are based on certain unprovable first premises (or, axioms), and therefore are ultimately unprovable.

Moral apologetics

Moral apologetics states that real moral obligation is a fact. We are really, truly, objectivly obligated to do good and evil.[33] In moral apologetics, the arguments for man's sinfulness and man's need for redemption are stressed. Examples of this type of apologetic would be Jonathan Edwards's sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God".[34] The Four Spiritual Laws religious tract (Campus Crusade for Christ) would be another example.[35]

Creationist apologetics

Main article: Creationism
See also: Objections to evolution and Flood geology

Various Christians[who?] over the millennia have put forth arguments that the God of the Bible is responsible for the existence of the natural forces that shaped the universe from the beginning of time, and the universe as we find it today.[citation needed]

Young Earth creationists, who understand the Bible to teach that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, believe that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible in passages such as Job 40 and that the scientific establishment has not proven that the world is much older. Young Earth creationists have also engaged in points of Biblical apologetics (see above) with regard to various parts of the primordial history in Genesis 1-11 – for instance, the long life spans of people such as Methuselah.[36][37] the Flood,[38][39] the Tower of Babel,[40][41][42]

Old Earth creationists, on the other hand, believe it is possible to harmonize the Bible's six-day account of creation with the scientific consensus that the universe is billions of years old, undermining the very message of the gospel. According to Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8, time, as it pertains to God is "a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day". If the number 1,000 is interpreted as an arbitrarily large number, as the context would imply, then the actual number of years the earth has existed becomes a scientific matter, not a religious debate. However, this is not the only valid interpretation and Old Earth creationists such as astrophysicist, Hugh Ross see each of the six days of creation as being a long, but finite period of time, based on the multiple meanings of the Hebrew word "yom" (day light hours/24 hours/age of time) and other Biblical creation passages.[43][44]

Scientific apologetics

Many Christian apologists contend that science and the Bible do not contradict each other. Theistic Evolution and Evolutionary Creation are similar concepts that assert that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. Theistic Evolution and Evolutionary Creation (also referred to by some observers as evolutionary creationism) states that the Creator God uses evolution to bring about his plan. Prominent evolutionary creationist, Denis Lamoureux, in Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution states that "This view of origins fully embraces both the religious beliefs of biblical Christianity and the scientific theories of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution. It contends that the Creator established and maintains the laws of nature, including the mechanisms of a teleological evolution."[45] Eugenie Scott, citing personal communication with Lamoureux, states that "the differences between Evolutionary Creationism and theistic evolution lie not in science but in theology, with EC [Evolutionary Creationism] being held by more conservative (Evangelical) Christians, who view God as being more actively involved in evolution than do most theistic evolutionists".[46]

Experiential apologetics

Experiential apologetics is a reference to an appeal “primarily, if not exclusively, to experience as evidence for Christian faith”.[47] Also, “they spurn rational arguments or factual evidence in favor of what they believe to be a self-verifying experience” . As a strength, this view stresses experience that other apologists have not made as explicit, and in the end the notion that the Holy Spirit convinces the heart of truth becomes the central theme of the apologetic argument.[48]

See also

References

  1. ^ John M. Frame (1994). Apologetics to the Glory of God. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed. ISBN 978-0875522432.
  2. ^ Maijastina Kahlos, Debate and Dialogue: Christian and Pagan Cultures c. 360-430 (Ashgate, 2007), pp. 7–9 et passim; Thomas E. Burman, Religious Polemic and the Intellectual History of the Mozarabs, c.1050-1200 (Brill, 1994), p. 62.
  3. ^ Sproul, Robert C. (2003). Defending Your Faith: An Introduction to Apologetics. Wheaton IL: Crossway Books. p. 9. ISBN 978-1-4335-0315-3.
  4. ^ Russell, Ryan. "Proverbs Introduction". Retrieved 3 Dec 2010.
  5. ^ "Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), "The Five Ways"". Texas A&M University Department of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 2007-10-23. Retrieved 2007-11-20.
  6. ^ "Beware of Philosophy: A Warning to Biblical Scholars,". Apologetics.com. Archived from the original on 2007-10-22. Retrieved 2007-11-20.
  7. ^ Russell, Ryan. "Practice What You Preach". Apologetics Training Course 1. Christian Knowledge. Retrieved 3 Dec 2010.
  8. ^ Chesterton, G.K. (2008). The Everlasting Man. Wilder Publications. p. 180. ISBN 160459246X.
  9. ^ Lewis, C.S., Mere Christianity, London: Collins, 1952, p54-56. (In all editions, this is Bk. II, Ch. 3, "The Shocking Alternative.") Note: G. K. Chesterton used a similar argument about someone else in his The Napoleon of Notting Hill (1904): "He may be God. He may be the Devil. But we think it more likely as a matter of human probability that he is mad." See Cecil Chesterton, G. K. Chesterton: A Criticism (Seattle: Inklng, 2007), 26.
  10. ^ Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853). "Testimony of the Evangelists". BibleTeacher.org. Retrieved 2007-11-21.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  11. ^ Dr. John Warwick Montgomery. "The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity". Issues, Etc. Article Archive. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
  12. ^ Richard J. Radcliffe. "Exploring the intersections of law, religion and culture". Law Religion Culture Review (Blog Spot). Retrieved 2007-11-21.
  13. ^ Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon. "The Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ Part 2: Could the Evidence Stand Cross-Examination in a Modern Court of Law?". Ankerberg Theological Research Institute. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
  14. ^ Edwin M. Yamauchi. "Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?". LeadershipU.com. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
  15. ^ "Refuting the myth that Jesus never existed". Bede's Library by James Hannam. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
  16. ^ "Are Miracles Logically Impossible?". Come Reason Ministries, Convincing Christianity. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
  17. ^ ""Miracles are not possible," some claim. Is this true?". ChristianAnswers.net. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
  18. ^ Paul K. Hoffman. "A Jurisprudential Analysis Of Hume's "in Principal" Argument Against Miracles" (PDF). Christian Apologetics Journal, Volume 2, No. 1, Spring, 1999; Copyright ©1999 by Southern Evangelical Seminary. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-10-26. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
  19. ^ Chapter 2, Science Speaks, Peter Stoner
  20. ^ McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. chapter 8. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |nopp= ignored (|no-pp= suggested) (help)
  21. ^ Pascal, Blaise (1966). Pensées. England: Penguin Group. pp. x, xii, xiii.
  22. ^ "Bible Query"
  23. ^ A Christian Thinktank
  24. ^ Bloomberg, Craig (1987). The Historical Reliabilty of the Gospels. Downeres Grove: Inter-Varsity Press. ISBN 0-87784-992-7.
  25. ^ Roberts, Mark D. (2007). Can We Trust The Gospels. Crossway. ISBN 978-1581348668.
  26. ^ Evidences for God from Space
  27. ^ Apologetics Press - "So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!”
  28. ^ Keith H. Wanser, physics
  29. ^ A brief history of design
  30. ^ Morality Apart From God: Is It Possible?
  31. ^ Intellectual Sophistication and Basic Belief in God
  32. ^ Apologetics.com: Challenging Believers to Think and Thinkers to Believe
  33. ^ Kreeft, Peter (1994). Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press. p. 72. ISBN 0-8308-1774-3.
  34. ^ Select Sermons | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
  35. ^ The Four Spiritual Laws - English
  36. ^ Living for 900 years - Creation Magazine
  37. ^ CH311: Vapor canopy's effect on lifespan
  38. ^ Why Does Nearly Every Culture Have a Tradition of a Global Flood?
  39. ^ Get Answers: Noah's Flood
  40. ^ Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel? - ChristianAnswers.Net
  41. ^ CONFUSION OF LANGUAGES - Is there any reference in early Mesopotamian literature to what happened at the Tower of Babel?
  42. ^ The Tower of Babel—Legend or History?
  43. ^ Ross, Hugh (31 Dec. 1990). "Response to Genesis and the Big Bang by Gerald Schroeder". Reasons To Believe. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  44. ^ Russell, Ryan. "Day 1 (Genesis 1:1-5)". Genesis: verse-by-verse Bible Study. Christian Knowledge. Retrieved 3 Dec. 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  45. ^ Evolutionary creation, Denis Lamoureux
  46. ^ Evolution Vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott, Niles Eldredge, p62-63
  47. ^ Geisler, Normal L. (1999.), Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics., Grand Rapids: Baker Academic {{citation}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
  48. ^ Lewis, Gordon R. (1990), Testing Christianity's Truth Claims: Approaches to Christian Apologetics., Lanham, MD: University Press of America Inc.{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

Further reading

Main article: List of Christian Apologetic Works

General and classics

Overview and reference

  • Dulles, Avery. 1999. A History of Apologetics. Wipf & Stock, Eugene, Oregon.
  • Geisler, Norman L. 1999. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Introductory evidential

  • McDowell, Josh, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Thomas Nelson, Inc, Publishers, 1999
  • Strobel, Lee. 1998. The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
  • Hanegraaff, Hank. 2002. Resurrection: The Capstone in the Arch of Christianity. W Publishing Group, Nashville, Tennessee.

Other evidential

  • Habermas, Gary, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (College Press: Joplin, MI 1996).
  • Habermas, Gary and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Kregel, 1994)
  • Kitchen, Kenneth, On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ISBN 0-8028-4960-1, 2003

Prophetic

  • Stoner, Peter Science Speaks (Chapter 2: Prophetic Accuracy and Chapter 3: The Christ of Prophecy), Chicago, Moody Press, 1963

Philosophical

  • Clark, Gordon (1961). Religion, Reason, and Revelation, 3rd ed. Trinity Foundation (1995). ISBN 978-0940931862
  • Kreeft, Peter and Ronald Tacelli (1994). "Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions". InterVarsity Press
  • William James. "Pragmatism's Conception of Truth" (1907) and "The Will to Believe" (1896). Reprinted in Pragmatism: A Reader, Louis Menard, ed. New York: Vintage Books, 1997.
  • Meynell, Hugo Anthony The Intelligible Universe: A Cosmological Argument, Totowa, N.J. : Barnes & Noble, 1982
  • Ramm, Bernard (1962). Varieties of Christian Apologetics: An Introduction to the Christian Philosophy of Religion. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
  • Geisler, Norman and Chad Meister (2007). Reasons for Faith: Making a Case for the Christian Faith. Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois
  • Craig, William Lane (2010) On Guard .
  • Madrid, Patrick and Hensley, Kenneth (2010), The Godless Delusion: A Catholic Challenge to Modern Atheism. Our Sunday Visitor.

Biblical

  • Archer, Gleason, New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties; ISBN 0-310-24146-4; 2001.
  • Bruce, F. F., The Canon of Scripture; InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois; 1988.
  • Geisler, Norman and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties; Baker Books, Grand Rapids Michigan; 1992.
  • Geisler, Norman (ed.), Inerrancy; ISBN 0-310-39281-0; 1980.
  • Kaiser, Walter C., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, and Manfred Brauch, Hard Sayings of the Bible; Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois; 1996.

Scientific

Creationist

Responses to postmodernism

  • Meynell, Hugo Anthony Redirecting philosophy: Reflections of the Nature of Knowledge from Plato to Lonergan,Toronto; Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1998 and Postmodernism and the New Enlightenment,Washington, D.C. : Catholic University of America Press, 1999
General apologetics
Training
Scientific
Historical, legal, and evidential apologetics
Debates
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_apologetics&oldid=432961186"