Defense Of Apologetics Analysis

Defense, Critique and Integration of the 4 Apologetic Methods
Defense of Fideism To approach apologetics is to seek to fulfill the command of Scripture “always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” In light of this, the believer ought to approach apologetics as the overflow of their relationship with Jesus. Approaching apologetics from the fideist perspective is to embrace the mystery and paradox of knowing God in faith, rather than through an extended philosophically rooted line of reasoning. Instead of using human means to explain the reality which is far above human understanding, fideist seek to share their encounter with Jesus, the ultimate reality, rather than attempting to …show more content…
Kierkegaard says “If I actually have a firm conviction (and this, to be sure, is a qualification of intense inwardness oriented to the spirit), then to me my firm conviction is higher than reasons: it is actually the conviction which sustains the reasons, not the reasons which sustain the convictions.” The idea that a conviction of faith is the ultimate foundation of Fideism, only furthers the point that a genuine and honest approach to apologetics must be rooted in the experience a believer has had as they have encountered Jesus Christ, the revealed member of the Trinity. For apart from this anyone could argue for the truth of the Bible albeit unfaithfully because they have not encountered the true and living God of the Bible. A Critique of Classical Apologetics The classical approach to apologetics seeks to use philosophical arguments to reason and prove theism. While they whole heartedly do this, theism means that the reality of the personal God revealed in Jesus Christ cannot be approached through this method. If the end goal of apologetics is, “defending the Christian faith,” then one must seek to make the basic tenants of the faith evidenced in the apologetic method used. The classical approach fails to do …show more content…
While there is value in an awareness and understanding of the other approaches, trying to weave together a framework of the various methods and link them, breeds a much more complicated and confusing framework by which to affirm our faith. An integrated model runs the risk of merging together disparate starting points creating a uneven base. To integrate would mean, rather than a new fifth model that completely merges the individual models, the four models would be layered upon one another and used in a sort of pick and choose fashion. The necessary line of argument or approach could be selected and used. While this sounds quite favorable to the modern believer who likes to avoid absolutes, it in fails to remain faithful to the Bible. In some ways it again forces God into a human framework. God is far above us and to try and pick and choose what parts of Him ought to be reveled, it lacks a trust in the Holy Spirit’s divine desire to reveal Himself through his word. It’s as if presenting the living word of God is not enough. The pressure is on the believer to know which specific method needs to be heard, rather than trusting that the Word of God is in and of itself the words of God spoken to