• Questions About Apologetics

  • 著者： Keith Muoki
  • ポッドキャスト

Questions About Apologetics

著者： Keith Muoki
無料で聴く

  • サマリー

  • The English word “apology” comes from a Greek word which basically means “to give a defense.” Christian apologetics, then, is the science of giving a defense of the Christian faith. There are many skeptics who doubt the existence of God and/or attack belief in the God of the Bible. There are many critics who attack the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. There are many false teachers who promote false doctrines and deny the key truths of the Christian faith. The mission of Christian apologetics is to combat these movements and instead promote the Christian God and Christian truth. Probably the key verse for Christian apologetics is 1 Peter 3:15, “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect...” There is no excuse for a Christian to be completely unable to defend his or her faith. Every Christian should be able to give a reasonable presentation of his or her faith in Christ. No, not every Christian needs to be an expert in apologetics. Every Christian, though, should know what he believes, why he believes it, how to share it with others, and how to defend it against lies and attacks. A second aspect of Christian apologetics that is often ignored is the second half of 1 Peter 3:15, “but do this with gentleness and respect...” Defending the Christian faith with apologetics should never involve being rude, angry, or disrespectful. While practicing Christian apologetics, we should strive to be strong in our defense and at the same time Christ-like in our presentation. If we win a debate but turn a person even further away from Christ by our attitude, we have lost the true purpose of Christian apologetics. There are two primary methods of Christian apologetics. The first, commonly known as classical apologetics, involves sharing proofs and evidences that the Christian message is true. The second, commonly known as “presuppositional” apologetics, involves confronting the presuppositions (preconceived ideas, assumptions) behind anti-Christian positions. Proponents of the two methods of Christian apologetics often debate each other as to which method is most effective. It would seem to be far more productive to be using both methods, depending on the person and situation. Christian apologetics is simply presenting a reasonable defense of the Christian faith and truth to those who disagree. Christian apologetics is a necessary aspect of the Christian life. We are all commanded to be ready and equipped to proclaim the gospel and defend our faith (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Peter 3:15). That is the essence of Christian apologetics.
    Copyright Keith Muoki
    続きを読む 一部表示

あらすじ・解説

The English word “apology” comes from a Greek word which basically means “to give a defense.” Christian apologetics, then, is the science of giving a defense of the Christian faith. There are many skeptics who doubt the existence of God and/or attack belief in the God of the Bible. There are many critics who attack the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. There are many false teachers who promote false doctrines and deny the key truths of the Christian faith. The mission of Christian apologetics is to combat these movements and instead promote the Christian God and Christian truth. Probably the key verse for Christian apologetics is 1 Peter 3:15, “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect...” There is no excuse for a Christian to be completely unable to defend his or her faith. Every Christian should be able to give a reasonable presentation of his or her faith in Christ. No, not every Christian needs to be an expert in apologetics. Every Christian, though, should know what he believes, why he believes it, how to share it with others, and how to defend it against lies and attacks. A second aspect of Christian apologetics that is often ignored is the second half of 1 Peter 3:15, “but do this with gentleness and respect...” Defending the Christian faith with apologetics should never involve being rude, angry, or disrespectful. While practicing Christian apologetics, we should strive to be strong in our defense and at the same time Christ-like in our presentation. If we win a debate but turn a person even further away from Christ by our attitude, we have lost the true purpose of Christian apologetics. There are two primary methods of Christian apologetics. The first, commonly known as classical apologetics, involves sharing proofs and evidences that the Christian message is true. The second, commonly known as “presuppositional” apologetics, involves confronting the presuppositions (preconceived ideas, assumptions) behind anti-Christian positions. Proponents of the two methods of Christian apologetics often debate each other as to which method is most effective. It would seem to be far more productive to be using both methods, depending on the person and situation. Christian apologetics is simply presenting a reasonable defense of the Christian faith and truth to those who disagree. Christian apologetics is a necessary aspect of the Christian life. We are all commanded to be ready and equipped to proclaim the gospel and defend our faith (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Peter 3:15). That is the essence of Christian apologetics.
Copyright Keith Muoki
スピリチュアリティ 聖職・福音主義
続きを読む 一部表示
エピソード
  • What is the argument from reason?

    What is the argument from reason?
    2021/08/09
    The argument from reason is an attempt to demonstrate that belief in naturalism is unjustified; that is, it is a belief that cannot be trusted. This is done by showing that belief in naturalism is contradictory to confidence in human reason. This is an important point, as atheists often attempt to frame their worldview as “more reasonable” than one that holds to transcendent ideas. A general statement of the argument from reason would be as follows: Either “reason” is merely an illusion of physics—in which case there is no justification for relying on it to produce truthful beliefs—or “reason” is something more than physical—in which case naturalism is false. If human reason is driven by mindless particle interactions, it does not necessarily correspond to truth. If we believe reason corresponds to truth, we cannot also believe reason is determined purely by physical means. An even more concise phrasing would be “the existence of reason itself argues against naturalism.” As with any discussion of philosophical ideas, specific definitions matter. In this case, reason is the ability of a mind to infer and conclude in a logical way. As it applies to the argument from reason, reason refers to the use of the intellect to come to real, true conclusions. Naturalism is the belief that everything is reducible to physical components; it is the view that reality is nothing more than matter and energy. Philosophy also draws a distinction between the questions “how do we know truth?” and “what is reality?” These fields are known, respectively, as epistemology and metaphysics. The argument from reason is an epistemological claim: it narrowly examines how we know and how much we trust an idea. Because reason is an inextricable part of our understanding, the argument from reason heavily implies a metaphysical claim, as well. If “reason” is objectively valid—if reason is “real”—then naturalism would have to be “unreal.” If reason does not exist, why did humanity come to see it as we do: as a non-material, but real thing? If there were no such thing as light, we’d never know we were living in darkness; in fact, such an idea would be pointless to consider. Yet we distinguish between reason and irrationality. The argument from reason is really a series of arguments, in different forms, voiced by both believers and non-believers. Thinkers such as Victor Reppert, C. S. Lewis, G. K. Chesterton, and Thomas Nagel have been associated with these claims. Each argument has its own strengths and weaknesses, but they all share a common theme. To suggest that literally everything about the universe is effectively random is to suggest that one’s own thoughts and conclusions are equally unreliable. One does not have to start from—or even conclude with—a biblical worldview to appreciate the logical force of this idea. An especially famous version of the argument from reason was popularized by Alvin Plantinga: the evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN). Plantinga notes that evolution is driven by survival of the “fittest,” yet beliefs more “fit” for survival are not necessarily the same as those that are “true.” Therefore, if evolution is true, belief in naturalism is unjustified. In other words, at the very least, belief in naturalism logically contradicts itself, thanks to evolution. To visualize the evolutionary argument against naturalism, consider an extreme example: a man develops the overwhelming desire to be eaten by an invisible bear. This drives him to seek out locations where he sees no bears. That belief is contrary to survival—not to mention bizarre—but more importantly, it’s factually wrong. His reasoning did not lead to truth, since there are no invisible bears. And yet, that bizarre, false reasoning makes the man more “fit” for survival since it encourages him to stay away from the bears he can see; that is, ones that exist. This demonstrates how “that which is good for survival” is not identical to “that which is true.” It...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    11 分
  • Could Atheists be more intelligent than believers?

    Could Atheists be more intelligent than believers?
    2021/07/07
    What is implicit in this question is that many atheists make public claims that they are the intelligentsia of society—and that they are too intelligent for any sort of belief in religion. It is true that many atheists are highly intelligent, and many are highly educated (intelligence and educational attainment not being synonymous). But are atheists correct in claiming that they are smarter than those who believe in God? Atheist Richard Dawkins is more intelligent than many believers in certain areas, especially biology. He has achieved a higher educational level than many as well. Does this mean he is therefore more qualified to know if God actually exists? Of course not. The problem atheists have is not their level of intelligence; it is their struggle with sin. They have traded away the knowledge of God for the knowledge of this world. The book of Proverbs is an entire book about how to be wise. Solomon begins the opening section of this book by identifying the first step to being a wise person: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7). Solomon clearly says that, for a person to truly gain knowledge, he must first acknowledge his need and possess reverence for the one true God. If a person is to gain wisdom, he must first be in a right relationship with God. The atheist starts in the wrong place and heads in the wrong direction. Solomon finishes Proverbs 1:7 this way: “But fools despise wisdom and instruction.” So a wise person fears God (he has a respect for who God is and willingly submits to His authority). However, a fool despises wisdom. A foolish person does not acknowledge God’s authority over his life; therefore, he shuts himself off to truly gaining wisdom. An atheist can be highly intelligent and very ignorant at the same time. He can have multiple academic degrees and yet be, by the Bible’s definition, a fool. Education is no measure of intelligence, and intelligence is no measure of spiritual condition. A man of the humblest intellect who nevertheless believes God’s promises is wise in what matters most. “Your commands are always with me and make me wiser than my enemies” (Psalm 119:98). There is a big difference between being intelligent enough to succeed in academia and being “wise for salvation” (2 Timothy 3:15). “The foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom” (1 Corinthians 1:25). The intelligence of this world is temporary and can only go so far. But the wisdom that comes from God is eternal and higher than the world’s intelligence (see James 3:13–18). The atheist, who does not have the Spirit of God, cannot discern spiritual truth and might naturally consider those who live by faith to be foolish, irrational, or less intelligent: “The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit” (1 Corinthians 2:14). The problem is not that the atheist does not see enough evidence for God. The problem is that sin has so darkened his heart and mind that he refuses to accept the evidence of God right in front of him. The Bible teaches that sin is not just actions that go against God’s will but is the natural condition of every person due to the curse of Adam (Genesis 3). We come into this world as sinners. One of the effects of sin is spiritual blindness. Atheists can be intelligent by the world’s standards, and they may proclaim their intelligence far and wide, but they are actually fools because they miss the most important fact of life: they are created by a sovereign God who lays claim to their lives. Paul says that the problem with sinful mankind is not that God has not revealed Himself clearly enough but that men suppress the truth: “Although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    12 分
  • Is there real evidence for the existence of God?

    Is there real evidence for the existence of God?
    2021/07/06
    There is evidence for the existence of God. Not everyone finds that evidence compelling or convincing; this does not mean such evidence is nonexistent. Most who deny evidence for God demand forms of proof—or levels of certainty—that are either irrelevant or unreasonable. Looking at logic, experience, and empirical observations, there is much evidence for the existence of God. Assessing evidence includes properly categorizing it. Some balk at the idea of “evidence” for a God who is invisible and immaterial. However, even hardened skeptics accept the meaningful existence of many such things, such as the laws of logic. Logic is neither material nor visible, yet it’s legitimately considered “real” and can be both perceived and examined. One cannot see logic or mechanically quantify it, but this does not justify any useful claim that logic does not exist. The same is true, to varying degrees, with other concepts such as morality. This point also establishes that logic and philosophy are relevant when discussing evidence for the existence of God. As demonstrated in the case of the laws of logic, even if empirical proof is unconvincing, that does not mean the subject in question cannot be “real.” The probability that God exists is in no way reduced simply because empirical evidence is subject to interpretation; it is at least possible that something intangible, non-material, and meaningful actually exists. With that in mind, there are several broad categories of evidence for the existence of God. None are self-sufficient to prove that God exists or that the Bible’s description of Him is accurate. Combined, however, they form a compelling argument that the God described in Scripture is real. Human beings have a natural “sense” of God. Historians and anthropologists alike recognize belief in some supernatural reality as common to almost all human beings who have ever lived. The number of people who categorically reject every form of higher power or spirit is vanishingly small. This is true even in profoundly “secular” cultures. Even further, secular fields of study such as cognitive science of religion suggest that such beliefs are ingrained in the natural state of the human mind. At the very least, this suggests there is something real to be perceived, just as senses like sight and hearing are targeted at actual phenomena. Logic points to the existence of God. There are several logic-based arguments indicating that God exists. Some, like the ontological argument, are not considered especially convincing, though they’re hard to refute. Others, such as the kalam cosmological argument, are considered much more robust. Continuing along the same spectrum, concepts such as intelligent design—teleological arguments—make logical inferences from observations to argue for the existence of God. General observations support the existence of God. Teleological arguments arise because so many aspects of reality appear to be deliberately arranged. That evidence, in and of itself, is often extremely indicative of a Creator. The Big Bang is a classic example. This theory was initially resisted by atheists for being too “religious.” And yet the idea of a non-eternal universe, as demonstrated by secular science, is strongly supportive of the claims made in the early chapters of the Bible. History, literature, and archaeology support the existence of God. Whether critics like it or not, the Bible is a valid form of evidence for the existence of God. Not merely “because the Bible says so,” but because the Bible has proved to be so reliable. Dismissing it as biased, simply because it says things skeptics do not accept, is not a rational response. That would be as irrational as dismissing every book describing Julius Caesar and then claiming there are no records describing Julius Caesar. The reliability of the Bible and its coordination with secular history and archaeology are reasonable points to raise when it comes to discussing the existence of...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    12 分

Questions About Apologeticsに寄せられたリスナーの声

カスタマーレビュー：以下のタブを選択することで、他のサイトのレビューをご覧になれます。

Audible.co.jp

Amazon.co.jp
レビューはまだありません。