![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I think that there should be some mention that most of these arguments argue for the existence of a very generic god and could be applied to almost any religion. After accepting, say, the Teleological Argument don't you still have to prove that this god definitely inspired the bible and not the qu'ran? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisKnott ( talk • contribs) 09:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I saw there was a Mormon apologetics and so I thought a "Christian apologetics" was a excellent category to create and such a category has precedence. User:128.205.191.60
My understanding of the translation of the greek into apology in the title "Plato's Apology" is typically more like "Plato's Explanation". --Cplot 07:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
No...it's Plato's "Apology," as in, Plato wrote it and it is titled Apologia. The most accurate translation of the Greek word is "defense," since the work purports to record Socrates' defense of himself at his trial.
This subject is long overdue for an article; glad its here...I altered the category to "Christian theology" rather than just "theology". I might suggest a trim in some ways; C.S. Lewis, for instance is the pre-eminent apologist of the 20th century, and yet is kind of just granted a passing mention. Also, the bibliography is far too long; I might suggest a second article be created called "Christian apologetics bibliography" or something. But most of this has to go. KHM03 18:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I reduced the size of the bibliography to a few key texts by a few key authors (Lewis, Ramm, Schaeffer, et al - the giants, really). We can edit that as needed. KHM03 21:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
The section on Criticisms is rather sloppily written. Could someone with knowledge of this area take a whack at it? For example, I know of at least one website devoted to fisking Josh McDowell, but I don't have it bookmarked.
I strongly agree with the above. It needs to be sharpened up considerably as it is rather muddled at the moment. Starless and bible black 22:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
while i won't do it myself, i think that whoever rewrites the criticism section should keep it short and simple. I think one good, simple thing to say is that while this branch of academics trys to justify belief in christianity's veracity by human reason, most christians will tell skeptics that man cannot discern the christian god with his own falliable reason, but only with his heart Helio462 07:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree the subject is long overdue. Please feel free to make changes as this was just a rough draft. I may make some revisions myself today perhaps.
ken 18:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I reformatted things so the page didn't look ugly anymore.
By the way, great contribution. I added a few books plus created a category for people who want additional reading with the bigger book list. I also reworded things so things flowed better. That was a great idea to get rid of the huge list as the main reading list. Better to have classics and introductory works.
ken 00:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
The page is taking shape and starting to look a whole lot better. Could probably still use a trim here or there but I will gladly leave that up to you experts. Looking good. KHM03 20:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I removed this section. Why was it part of this article? There are more liberal apologists, and criticism of conservative Christianity belongs on the articles for fundamentalism, evangelicalism, dispensationalism, etc....not here. KHM03 21:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
There is as yet no statement of the ontological argument in the article. The quotation there from Anselm has nothing to do with the ontological argument. Jeremy J. Shapiro 15:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
This is article is nothing more than a bibliography of several 20th century works, with no explanation why these works were included -- & others excluded. And only this article links to this list; so its existence is puzzling.
It has been sitting on Cleanup now for several months, but this has drawn little attention shown to improving it (after 2 months an anon editor removed the tag, but it was restored a month later). Can someone who believes in this article take it under her/his wing, add the details needed to improve it -- or merge it into an appropriate article? Continued neglect will only lead to it being listed on AfD. -- llywrch 22:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed James Orr in regards to defending the historicity of the Bible as he was a theistic evolutionist. [1] [2] [User:Kdbuffalo|ken]] 00:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
With all due respect, this is your personal view, and one shared by many conservative Christians. However, it is quite possible to defend the historicity of the Bible while excluding Genesis from the list of historical sections. Some sections are instead understood as metaphorical or as literture literature. Please separate your personal POV of "all or nothing" from the issue at hand. I'm reverting again, and hoping you don't turn this into an edit war. After all, you've tried to make this change a few times now and multiple people have reverted yoru attempts. Please take this as a sign that the consensus weighs against your actions. Thank you for understanding.
Al 01:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
See, that was just a personal attack, and not at all constructive. People make typos on occasion, and I'm as guilty as the next person. Often, I notice my errors and correct them. Sometimes, I don't. This is one of those times. Thank you for understanding. Al 01:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I added the weasel and unsourced templates as I counted 5 unsourced statements, 4 weasel phrases, and 2 POV (so-and-so should do so-and-so) in this section. There may be valid content here, but as written it is very weak. Would suggest that the editors involved read up on WP:WEASEL. The Crow 03:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems that the page is lacking content with respect to criticism. Specifically the notion of falsifiability. This is critical to Creationist ideals and is a reason for lack of scientific responses to Christian apologists’ claims. In addition I didn’t notice much reference to debate within the apologist community such as with reference to evolution’s role in creation. These seem vital so as to point out the lack of homogeneity within the various facets of the phenomenon of intellectualized religious beliefs.
It seems to me the very title of this page is weasel-worded- It suggests that Christians have alot to apologize for- true, but not npov. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.64.142.13 ( talk • contribs) 02:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
Shouldn't Tertullian be mentioned as one of the major early Christian apologists?
(FJA)Yes, I think the History section is weak in general. Not only Turtullian, but also, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Origen, and Jerome should be mentioned along with who they wrote to, what they wrote about, and why. Some of these wrote to government officials to show that Christianity was good, consistent with the philosophy, and should be tolerated, others to expose what they considered unorthodoxy/non-catholic forms of Christian belief, i.e. Gnosticism. As Christianity became legal and promoted within the Roman Empire, the latter type was more generally employed. During the Reformation, Catholic and Protestant writers used apologetics against the other; this still continues. In addition, in modern times, Christian apologitics is used to show that the religion and science are compatible, or that the Bible is right and science is wrong.
I suggest the removal of the sentence in the History section which says: "The apostle Paul, who was well-educated, said to beware philosophy (Colossians 2:8), though there is evidence that he was acquainted with Greek philosophy himself (Acts 9:29)." The full text of Colossians 2:8 says: "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." (NAS) There's no explicit "beware philosophy!" content, and even if some think it's implicit it needs to be in its own talking point and not asserted as an aside. c0bra 22:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I added this line, which was prmptly deleted as "unneeded."
Historically, Christian apologists have also defended the flat earth, geocentrism, heliocentrism, the extraordinary life spans of people in Genesis (e.g., Methuselah), the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Joshua halting the sun and moon, and the division of humanity into three races based on descent from the sons of Noah [5].
This statement seems both true and relevant to scientific apologetics. Jonathan Tweet 05:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I deleted this line as POV. "proven science has never contradicted the Bible in any way, which is certainly true" A better take might be something like Most modern-day scientific apologists assert that the Bible does not teach flat earth or geocentrism. They regard evolution as not yet proven and in fact plainly false. As to the age of the earth, they debate among themselves whether the earth is "young" or "old." Jonathan Tweet 05:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
No one has raised an objection to the material that another editor deleted. If someone else would revert it for me, I'd owe you one. Jonathan Tweet 05:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Changed lead paragraph in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Jonathan Tweet 15:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
KD, if you don't like my lead paragraph, write a better one. See above link on what a lead paragraph should be. Jonathan Tweet 15:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The first line of this Heading is:
"Evidentialist apologetics, such as today's Gary Habermas or the more introductory Christian apologetic works such as Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel, are the most popular apologetics and have been historically. This can be seen from the earliest times in Christianity(bold added), as the New Testament records the apostles appealing to eyewitness testimony."
First, there is no reference, and second, it doesn't follow with the rest of the article. This is the HISTORY section. Are these guys really the most popular apologetics historically? I think this is no more than a bias opinion, and think that these two lines should be removed.
Cjbeyer 20:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a link farm, and this article has passed the spam event horizon. Given that this article has many sources, the only valid links would appear to be those that offer additional context over and above what a great article would contain. Most of these are simply putting one or another point of view, and an awful lot are simply spam. Guy ( Help!) 10:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
In the subcategory labeled "Scientific Christian Apologetics", the information given does not speak of how Christian apologists have defended and are defending there faith through science and scientific eveidences; rather, the article mainly discusses several disputing beliefs concerning church dogmas that involve the science of the world. I implore educated members, even Christian apologetics, to add to this subcategory information discussing the ways Christian apologists and scientists have used evidences in science to prove or uphold Christian beliefs. I know for myself that there are many books and scientific observations that have been written to defend many aspects of Christianity - unfortunately, some are only located in the Christian or Religious section of your nearby library or bookstore (sometimes, this is because Christian apologetic books are considered to be read mostly by Christian readers), so most "non-believers" never hear about them. For those up to the task, you must research intensely from apologetics both inside and outside the faith. There is a good amount of information to work with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mymines229 ( talk • contribs).
I've corrected the apologists' misquotation of A.N. Sherwin-White on Acts, as per the Sherwin-White page itself.
To estabish notability at Criticism of Mormonism, I'm requesting a few articles.
A more complete list can be found on the talk page of that article. Any more notable sources of Christian apologetics that will improve citations would also be appreciated. Sorry if this is intrusive, and thank you. ClaudeReigns ( talk) 09:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I came to this page as I was redirected from "classical apologetics." I think the article is well written, but would like to offer a couple suggestions. Interestingly enough, this article says very little about the classical apologetic approach as such (referred to here as Thomism). It mentions different arguments Thomas Aquinas used (teleological, etc) but does not set classical apologetics apart as a whole school. There is a book published by Zondervan called Five Views on Apologetics. The five views that it looks at are Classical, Evidential, Presuppositional, Reformed epistomology and Cumulative case. (The epistomology and cumulative methods are not mentioned at all here.) I think these are good divisions, and someone could possibly incorporate this into the article. Kristamaranatha ( talk) 04:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the rebuttal from this paragraph:
The cited source supports the assertion made, but applying it to Christian apologetics and criticisms thereof is a synthesis since the article doesn't talk about Christian apologetics. The implicit premise is that Christian apologetics ideas are politically incorrect, and therefore subject to supression, stigma, and mobbing as discussed in the article. Even if a source were supplied for the implicit premise, it would still be synthesis to combine that source with the one on mobbing. What is needed is a source that brings these ideas together explicitly. -- Flex ( talk/ contribs) 00:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I propose renaming this heading "Scientific Apologetics." Creationism refers to those who support a literal 6-day creation, but this is not the full extend of scientific apologetics. Intelligent Design is in contrast to biblical creationism in that it may claim that God "used" evolution instead of a literal 6-day creation. Archeological apologetics may also fit under this heading - i.e. using historical and archeological records to prove the accuracy of the Bible. Another method of scientific apologetics used by both young and old earthers as well as ID is the argument for the fine-tuning of the universe as pointing to an intelligent Creator. I think these different ideas in apologetics warrant a renaming and adding-on to this section. Kristamaranatha ( talk) 02:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Per my comment above about "sparse or inapplicable qualifications":
- Gish, Duane. Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!, El Cajon: ICR, 1995 [1]
- Gish is a biochemist not a geologist
- Johnson, Phillip E. Darwin on Trial. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991
- Johnson is a law professor, not a scientist of any sort
- Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings; Baker Books; ISBN 978-0801060045; 1995.
- Morris is a hydraulic engineer, not a geologist
- Ross, Hugh. The Creator and the Cosmos. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1993, 2nd ed., 1995, 3rd ed. 2001
- Ross is in fact an astronomer -- the only one on the list with a relevant scientific qualification
- Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Towards God, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004.
- Strobel is a journalist, not a scientist of any stripe
Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
As to "Ed Brey's water example" -- no, water cannot erode (not dissolve) rock "quickly". And more particularly it erodes harder rock slower than softer rock -- so that if all the rock was eroded in a single event, we'd expect to see far more harder rock, and far less softer, than we see today. As to the evolution of the eye, read that article and spare us the argument from incredulity. 'Scientific creationism' is not "bad or wrong science" that has been put forward in good faith in an attempt to fill a void, it is a mix of pre-scientific notions mixed with misrepresentation of modern science in an attempt to dislodge legitimate science. Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
As to "POV because it implies that Creation Science does not involve science, which is just one point of view" -- it is not "just one point of view", it is the viewpoint of the Supreme Court, 72 Laureates, 17 state academies of science, and 7 other organisations, as well as a whole host of other scientific organisations. I think this is sufficient basis for not dignifying creationist apologetics as "scientific". Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
As far as sources for this viewpoint, the best I can come up with, to date, is Ronald L. Numbers (arguably the most authoritative historian of Creationism) using "scientific" in quotes when mentioning:
...my own research on Rimmer's "scientific" apologetics.
— Creationism in twentieth-century America, p xxiii
This is clear indication that Numbers considers this adjective to be illegitimate. Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The common dictionary definition of "creation science" is the effort to give scientific evidence for the literal truth of the Biblical account. [10] The dictionary entries give credence to the use of the term "scientific" to describe the efforts of the books. -- Ed Brey ( talk) 17:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I would also note that the link additionally gives the following definition:
a form of creationism advocated as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution, and holding that the creation of the universe and everything in it was supernatural and relatively recent.
Further, another version gives your quoted version, but continues:
...Creation science is not accepted by most scientists.
The end result is a lack of any substantiation that isn't highly equivocal in favour of applying the adjective "scientific" to Creationist apologetics. Put this up against the unequivocal opinion of the scientific community that Creationist apologetics is not scientific in its basis (and a frequent opinion that it is in fact pseudoscientific and anti-scientific), and really there is no contest. Hrafn Talk Stalk 19:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is:
Hrafn Talk Stalk 15:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk 04:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
In conclusion, I would state that you have not made anything even resembling a strong case, either for applying the name 'scientific apologetics' to 'creationist apologetics' or to placing the latter in the same category as the body of work currently described by the former term. Further your blatantly counter-factual assertions on creationist "rapprochement" with science have been aggravating in the extreme. Lacking any overwhelming WP:RS evidence to the contrary, I see no reason for torturing the English language in this way, and will oppose strenuously any attempt to do so. If anybody wishes to pursue this, the logical next step would be an WP:RFC. Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This lengthy & unencyclopaedic embedded list has been templated for some time, so I'm moving it here to talk.
Choices are to:
Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Some notable Christian apologists include:
[End material mved from article Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ]
[[Moved from User talk:Hrafn
Hello. You deleted references to Alan Richardson's book on Christian Apologetics without any discussion. It was reviewed originally in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 1948 XVI(4):229-230; doi:10.1093/jaarel/XVI.4.229 by American Academy of Religion published by Oxford University Press. Are you familiar with his works ? He was a very prominent author and scholar in theology and extensively published. [11] His New Dictionary of Christian Theology is recognised as one of the best, if not the best, one volume work of its kind. His work should be included. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc ( talk) 19:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
A few points:
On a more general note, the list of books is getting rather long. It really needs to be trimmed down to the highlights (which should really be turned into prose discussing the books, rather than simply listing them, per WP:EMBED). Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps someone can explain to me the logic of the "template" at the beginning of this section. When I attempted to remove it the move was undone and the following note added:
(cur) (last) 21:10, 21 August 2008 Teapotgeorge (Talk | contribs) (39,501 bytes) (rv. a conversation is NOT a reference!!! and please do NOT remove templates without discussion) (undo)
First, as far as I can see the demand for a citation in connection with the first sentence is unreasonable since this is a general statement about the issue under discussion that is supported by the following sentences. Therefore, why ask for a reference? This seems totally unnecessary.
Second, why are two references to the work of Rodney Stark marked as "improper synthesis?" It is factually true that Stark "originally advocated secularization theory" and in his book Sociology, which I cite, explains why he abandoned it.
Similarly, I do not understand the second use of the comment which is attached to the sentence "Among Stark's many contributions to this area is his book For the Glory of God: How Monotheism led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery.[38][improper synthesis?]" Anyone who has read the book or other recent works by Stark knows that my comment is factual.
Finally, now that I have read more about Wikipeadi policies I see that a normal academic reference to an oral source is not acceptable and will try to find an appropriate published source.
Thank you for your help Irvinghexham ( talk) 02:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
This section is near-ubiquitously and impermissibly
original research and
synthesis of material.
If you believe any of the {{syn}}-tags were made in error, I would suggest that you provide quotations here of where the cited material makes these exact claims (without needing interpretation, per WP:PSTS: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."). Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. This is very helpful. Actually, there are other third party published sources for these claims although it may take me a day or two to add them since I was working from memory and will have to track them down. There are also passages in the books I mentioned that say these things. Irvinghexham ( talk) 17:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I will therefore be re-templating this section. Should these templates be removed without first addressing these issues (rather than minor tinkering that does not correct these issues), I will simply delete the section wholesale. Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Irving Hexham writes: On the basis of questions students ask in Religious Studies classes I thought that I was adding useful information that contributed to a general understanding of these issues. If you disagree and find that it is off topic then please remove it. Irving Hexham ( talk) 13:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
[Moved from User talk:Hrafn ] Irving Hexham writes: If Christian Apologetics "aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defend the faith against objections," then it is reasonable to include defenses of Christian ritual as within the scope of apologetics. If this sounds strange to some it is important to remember that Newman's autobiography was conceived as an apologetic work - hence its title: Apologia Pro Vita Sua (autobiography - 1866, 1865). The problem I see with the article on "Christian Apologetics", as it now stands, is that it take a far too narrow, and essentially Fundamentalist, approach to the topic. For example, there is no mention of the Friedrich Schleiermacher who is without question one of the great Christian apologists of all time. No doubt his omission is due to the fact that he is the "father of Liberal Protestantism" and therefore seen as "unorthodox" by many. This is unacceptable because articles on Wikipeadia should not promote one point of view, rather then need to inform in a neutral way. Personally, I think Schleiermacher can be regarded as a heretic and his theology a disaster in the long term. But, this does not diminish his importance historically. Irving Hexham ( talk) 14:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I got tired with re-tagging the synthesis material, only for Hexham to remove the tags without correcting the synthesis, so have removed the offending material. Hint: if you are describing an author's views, it needs to be either a direct quote/close paraphrase of something they explicitly said, or a secondary source is required for the interpretation of their work. Please do not re-include material without providing such sourcing. Hrafn Talk Stalk 15:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I have removed bibliographic references to books written by Irving Hexham and Karla Poewe since these was added by Irving Hexham himself and therefore cause doubts about whether they are in fact among the most notable books in their field. If they are in fact notable enough to stand among the most important contributions in the field of christian apologetics I am sure that they will readded by someone who is not the author or a member of the authors immediate family. My removal is not an expression of judgement about the works value but only an attempt to highten the integrity of the article which may be stained by conflicting interests. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
That is fair. I added them before I studied the rules of Wikipeadia Irvinghexham ( talk) 16:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The following is from Apologetics. It needs to be integrated into this article.
There are a variety of Christian apologetic styles and schools of thought. In the Thomistic or Classical apologetics tradition, philosophical arguments for God's existence are emphasized before turning to the specific case for Christian revelation claims. In the Evidentialist tradition empirical arguments about the life, miracles, death and resurrection of Christ are presented as probabilistic proofs. The presuppositional tradition argues that belief in God must be presupposed, and from that vantage point non-theistic assumptions are proven to be fallacious.
In the first centuries AD a number of Christian writers undertook the task of proving that Christianity was beneficial for the Roman Empire and for humanity as a whole. Also they wrote to defend their faith against attacks made by other people or to properly explain their faith. Aristides and Quadratus of Athens, writing in the early second century, were two of the first Christians to write apologetics treatises. Other second-century apologetics writings of note included the First Apology and Second Apology of Justin Martyr and the Epistle to Diognetus, a response to the accusation that Christians were a danger to Rome, further more: Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilos of Antioch, Tertullian and Minucius Felix.
About a century after Emperor Constantine I's conversion to Christianity, the Roman Empire began falling to invaders from northern Europe. Some Christian writers sought to explain the decline of Roman culture and power by systematically downplaying the achievements of classical antiquity while emphasizing the persecution of Christians and the positive role of Christianity in society. Paulus Orosius wrote the first book advancing this perspective (History Against the Pagans), though the far more learned and influential work of this type was The City of God by Augustine of Hippo (426). citation needed
Several of the early Christian apologists developed arguments from fulfilled prophecy and gospel miracles as proofs of Christ's divinity. Eusebius of Caesarea in his Demonstration of the Gospel attempted to prove the truth of Christianity by fulfilled prophecies from the Old Testament, and by rebutting arguments that the apostles had made up the story of Christ's resurrection.
In Medieval Europe Anselm of Canterbury composed the Monologion and Proslogion in which he developed the ontological argument for God's existence. He believed that faith was necessary as a precursor to philosophical argument and expressed his position as "I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand: for this I also believe, that unless I believe I will not understand." citation needed
Theodore Abu-Qurrah, the ninth century bishop of Harran, composed On God and The True Religion. Abu Qurra represents a group of Christian Arabic apologists who argued their case under early Islamic rule.
A highly influential Catholic apologist was Thomas Aquinas who presented five arguments for God's existence in the Summa Theologiae. His approach, which adapted Aristotelian thought, is known as Thomism, and has dominated both Roman Catholic and Protestant approaches.
The first Protestant textbook of apologetics was written by the Dutch legal scholar Hugo Grotius, On The Truth of the Christian Religion. This work, which was released in 1632 and translated into many languages, remained in print in English until the late nineteenth century, defended the historicity of the gospels, and also addressed arguments to Jews and Muslims.
Since the seventeenth century the controversies over Deism, Atheism, the Enlightenment, Humanism, and theories of Feuerbach, Marx, Freud and Darwin, have each in turn spurred both Catholic and Protestant apologists to reply. Changing modes in apologetics, whether or not they are currently fashionable, are important markers in the history of ideas. Among the notable apologists of the early modern era are Blaise Pascal, Joseph Butler, William Paley, Søren Kierkegaard, and John Henry Newman.
The Roman Catholic G. K. Chesterton, the Anglican C. S. Lewis (who popularized the Christian trilemma), the Lutheran John Warwick Montgomery, the Roman Catholic Hugo Anthony Meynell and the Presbyterian Francis Schaeffer were among the most prolific Christian apologists in the 20th century. Among the most widely read Christian apologists writing in English have been Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel. Another modern apologist is Ravi Zacharias, author of The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha, who argues for Christianity over other religions and philosophies deemed false or heretical. Frank Morison is also notable, because of his famous defense of the historical Resurrection, Who Moved The Stone?, as is William Lane Craig. Although not primarily an apologist, Douglas John Hall authored Why Christian?: For Those on the Edge of Faith which is written as a series of dialogues with a young doubting inquirer. In the late 2000s, Catholic religion writer Robert Hutchinson published The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible.
Some prominent Christian apologists include:
-- Editor2020 ( talk) 02:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Will you please include a section defining What Christianity is. And what the faith is that is being defended.
This can then be referred to in other articles, such as Christian mysticism as criticism to illustrate that what their presentation of Christianity is has nothing to do with Christianity and it's central beliefs. Please can the passionate appologetics also assist with some input in article Christian mysticism. Thanks. ( Torchrunner ( talk) 02:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC))
PS: Christian mysticism goes with mysticism, which (as you will see on it's article) goes with Illuminism which links with the Illuminati and it's goals towards a New World Order, which goes with Freemasonry which is a form of Paganism and is rooted in the occult. To say Christian mysticism my view, is similar to say something like "Christian Lucifarianism", and any person that truly loves Jehovah, who is Holy, should be hugely upset by it. "So called prophets" such as Jakob Lorber, Emanuel Swedenborg and a long list of names listed under Christian mysticism has lured Christians away from the centrality of atonement and salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, and has introduced reincarnation and other Hindu beliefs into the Christian message, in order to incorporate Christianity into the New World religion called mysticism, as just one branch. I have been trying to illustrate how this is not Christian on site Jakob Lorber but received such opposition because the term Christian seems to be defined differently by everybody, according to their preferance. Please help. I don't have the tools and often my contributions gets just deleted straight after I make them on such sites. See also the word cult which has been totally changed in its meaning by humanism. Gnosticism, the quest for "higher knowledge", eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is contrary to the core aspects of Christianity. Even Freemasonry is considered innocent and to have nothing to do with the occult based on wikipedia. Let your lights shine. Sites like godonthe.net/cme/links/masons.htm that proves the association between Freemasonry and the occult has been banned by wikipedia to be used as a reference. See where it all is aiming towards: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Mysticism/id/1896155 See also my talk on Bible regarding a tendency towards incorporating neo-revelationism as a third section in the "New Bible". ( Torchrunner ( talk) 03:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC))
a definition of the common tenets of Christianity, as well as the differences between the individual Christian sects or churches, would belong on the central Christianity article. -- dab (𒁳) 13:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I think that there should be some mention that most of these arguments argue for the existence of a very generic god and could be applied to almost any religion. After accepting, say, the Teleological Argument don't you still have to prove that this god definitely inspired the bible and not the qu'ran? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisKnott ( talk • contribs) 09:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I saw there was a Mormon apologetics and so I thought a "Christian apologetics" was a excellent category to create and such a category has precedence. User:128.205.191.60
My understanding of the translation of the greek into apology in the title "Plato's Apology" is typically more like "Plato's Explanation". --Cplot 07:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
No...it's Plato's "Apology," as in, Plato wrote it and it is titled Apologia. The most accurate translation of the Greek word is "defense," since the work purports to record Socrates' defense of himself at his trial.
This subject is long overdue for an article; glad its here...I altered the category to "Christian theology" rather than just "theology". I might suggest a trim in some ways; C.S. Lewis, for instance is the pre-eminent apologist of the 20th century, and yet is kind of just granted a passing mention. Also, the bibliography is far too long; I might suggest a second article be created called "Christian apologetics bibliography" or something. But most of this has to go. KHM03 18:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I reduced the size of the bibliography to a few key texts by a few key authors (Lewis, Ramm, Schaeffer, et al - the giants, really). We can edit that as needed. KHM03 21:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
The section on Criticisms is rather sloppily written. Could someone with knowledge of this area take a whack at it? For example, I know of at least one website devoted to fisking Josh McDowell, but I don't have it bookmarked.
I strongly agree with the above. It needs to be sharpened up considerably as it is rather muddled at the moment. Starless and bible black 22:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
while i won't do it myself, i think that whoever rewrites the criticism section should keep it short and simple. I think one good, simple thing to say is that while this branch of academics trys to justify belief in christianity's veracity by human reason, most christians will tell skeptics that man cannot discern the christian god with his own falliable reason, but only with his heart Helio462 07:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree the subject is long overdue. Please feel free to make changes as this was just a rough draft. I may make some revisions myself today perhaps.
ken 18:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I reformatted things so the page didn't look ugly anymore.
By the way, great contribution. I added a few books plus created a category for people who want additional reading with the bigger book list. I also reworded things so things flowed better. That was a great idea to get rid of the huge list as the main reading list. Better to have classics and introductory works.
ken 00:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
The page is taking shape and starting to look a whole lot better. Could probably still use a trim here or there but I will gladly leave that up to you experts. Looking good. KHM03 20:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I removed this section. Why was it part of this article? There are more liberal apologists, and criticism of conservative Christianity belongs on the articles for fundamentalism, evangelicalism, dispensationalism, etc....not here. KHM03 21:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
There is as yet no statement of the ontological argument in the article. The quotation there from Anselm has nothing to do with the ontological argument. Jeremy J. Shapiro 15:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
This is article is nothing more than a bibliography of several 20th century works, with no explanation why these works were included -- & others excluded. And only this article links to this list; so its existence is puzzling.
It has been sitting on Cleanup now for several months, but this has drawn little attention shown to improving it (after 2 months an anon editor removed the tag, but it was restored a month later). Can someone who believes in this article take it under her/his wing, add the details needed to improve it -- or merge it into an appropriate article? Continued neglect will only lead to it being listed on AfD. -- llywrch 22:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed James Orr in regards to defending the historicity of the Bible as he was a theistic evolutionist. [1] [2] [User:Kdbuffalo|ken]] 00:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
With all due respect, this is your personal view, and one shared by many conservative Christians. However, it is quite possible to defend the historicity of the Bible while excluding Genesis from the list of historical sections. Some sections are instead understood as metaphorical or as literture literature. Please separate your personal POV of "all or nothing" from the issue at hand. I'm reverting again, and hoping you don't turn this into an edit war. After all, you've tried to make this change a few times now and multiple people have reverted yoru attempts. Please take this as a sign that the consensus weighs against your actions. Thank you for understanding.
Al 01:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
See, that was just a personal attack, and not at all constructive. People make typos on occasion, and I'm as guilty as the next person. Often, I notice my errors and correct them. Sometimes, I don't. This is one of those times. Thank you for understanding. Al 01:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I added the weasel and unsourced templates as I counted 5 unsourced statements, 4 weasel phrases, and 2 POV (so-and-so should do so-and-so) in this section. There may be valid content here, but as written it is very weak. Would suggest that the editors involved read up on WP:WEASEL. The Crow 03:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems that the page is lacking content with respect to criticism. Specifically the notion of falsifiability. This is critical to Creationist ideals and is a reason for lack of scientific responses to Christian apologists’ claims. In addition I didn’t notice much reference to debate within the apologist community such as with reference to evolution’s role in creation. These seem vital so as to point out the lack of homogeneity within the various facets of the phenomenon of intellectualized religious beliefs.
It seems to me the very title of this page is weasel-worded- It suggests that Christians have alot to apologize for- true, but not npov. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.64.142.13 ( talk • contribs) 02:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
Shouldn't Tertullian be mentioned as one of the major early Christian apologists?
(FJA)Yes, I think the History section is weak in general. Not only Turtullian, but also, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Origen, and Jerome should be mentioned along with who they wrote to, what they wrote about, and why. Some of these wrote to government officials to show that Christianity was good, consistent with the philosophy, and should be tolerated, others to expose what they considered unorthodoxy/non-catholic forms of Christian belief, i.e. Gnosticism. As Christianity became legal and promoted within the Roman Empire, the latter type was more generally employed. During the Reformation, Catholic and Protestant writers used apologetics against the other; this still continues. In addition, in modern times, Christian apologitics is used to show that the religion and science are compatible, or that the Bible is right and science is wrong.
I suggest the removal of the sentence in the History section which says: "The apostle Paul, who was well-educated, said to beware philosophy (Colossians 2:8), though there is evidence that he was acquainted with Greek philosophy himself (Acts 9:29)." The full text of Colossians 2:8 says: "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." (NAS) There's no explicit "beware philosophy!" content, and even if some think it's implicit it needs to be in its own talking point and not asserted as an aside. c0bra 22:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I added this line, which was prmptly deleted as "unneeded."
Historically, Christian apologists have also defended the flat earth, geocentrism, heliocentrism, the extraordinary life spans of people in Genesis (e.g., Methuselah), the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Joshua halting the sun and moon, and the division of humanity into three races based on descent from the sons of Noah [5].
This statement seems both true and relevant to scientific apologetics. Jonathan Tweet 05:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I deleted this line as POV. "proven science has never contradicted the Bible in any way, which is certainly true" A better take might be something like Most modern-day scientific apologists assert that the Bible does not teach flat earth or geocentrism. They regard evolution as not yet proven and in fact plainly false. As to the age of the earth, they debate among themselves whether the earth is "young" or "old." Jonathan Tweet 05:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
No one has raised an objection to the material that another editor deleted. If someone else would revert it for me, I'd owe you one. Jonathan Tweet 05:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Changed lead paragraph in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Jonathan Tweet 15:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
KD, if you don't like my lead paragraph, write a better one. See above link on what a lead paragraph should be. Jonathan Tweet 15:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The first line of this Heading is:
"Evidentialist apologetics, such as today's Gary Habermas or the more introductory Christian apologetic works such as Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel, are the most popular apologetics and have been historically. This can be seen from the earliest times in Christianity(bold added), as the New Testament records the apostles appealing to eyewitness testimony."
First, there is no reference, and second, it doesn't follow with the rest of the article. This is the HISTORY section. Are these guys really the most popular apologetics historically? I think this is no more than a bias opinion, and think that these two lines should be removed.
Cjbeyer 20:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a link farm, and this article has passed the spam event horizon. Given that this article has many sources, the only valid links would appear to be those that offer additional context over and above what a great article would contain. Most of these are simply putting one or another point of view, and an awful lot are simply spam. Guy ( Help!) 10:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
In the subcategory labeled "Scientific Christian Apologetics", the information given does not speak of how Christian apologists have defended and are defending there faith through science and scientific eveidences; rather, the article mainly discusses several disputing beliefs concerning church dogmas that involve the science of the world. I implore educated members, even Christian apologetics, to add to this subcategory information discussing the ways Christian apologists and scientists have used evidences in science to prove or uphold Christian beliefs. I know for myself that there are many books and scientific observations that have been written to defend many aspects of Christianity - unfortunately, some are only located in the Christian or Religious section of your nearby library or bookstore (sometimes, this is because Christian apologetic books are considered to be read mostly by Christian readers), so most "non-believers" never hear about them. For those up to the task, you must research intensely from apologetics both inside and outside the faith. There is a good amount of information to work with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mymines229 ( talk • contribs).
I've corrected the apologists' misquotation of A.N. Sherwin-White on Acts, as per the Sherwin-White page itself.
To estabish notability at Criticism of Mormonism, I'm requesting a few articles.
A more complete list can be found on the talk page of that article. Any more notable sources of Christian apologetics that will improve citations would also be appreciated. Sorry if this is intrusive, and thank you. ClaudeReigns ( talk) 09:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I came to this page as I was redirected from "classical apologetics." I think the article is well written, but would like to offer a couple suggestions. Interestingly enough, this article says very little about the classical apologetic approach as such (referred to here as Thomism). It mentions different arguments Thomas Aquinas used (teleological, etc) but does not set classical apologetics apart as a whole school. There is a book published by Zondervan called Five Views on Apologetics. The five views that it looks at are Classical, Evidential, Presuppositional, Reformed epistomology and Cumulative case. (The epistomology and cumulative methods are not mentioned at all here.) I think these are good divisions, and someone could possibly incorporate this into the article. Kristamaranatha ( talk) 04:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the rebuttal from this paragraph:
The cited source supports the assertion made, but applying it to Christian apologetics and criticisms thereof is a synthesis since the article doesn't talk about Christian apologetics. The implicit premise is that Christian apologetics ideas are politically incorrect, and therefore subject to supression, stigma, and mobbing as discussed in the article. Even if a source were supplied for the implicit premise, it would still be synthesis to combine that source with the one on mobbing. What is needed is a source that brings these ideas together explicitly. -- Flex ( talk/ contribs) 00:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I propose renaming this heading "Scientific Apologetics." Creationism refers to those who support a literal 6-day creation, but this is not the full extend of scientific apologetics. Intelligent Design is in contrast to biblical creationism in that it may claim that God "used" evolution instead of a literal 6-day creation. Archeological apologetics may also fit under this heading - i.e. using historical and archeological records to prove the accuracy of the Bible. Another method of scientific apologetics used by both young and old earthers as well as ID is the argument for the fine-tuning of the universe as pointing to an intelligent Creator. I think these different ideas in apologetics warrant a renaming and adding-on to this section. Kristamaranatha ( talk) 02:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Per my comment above about "sparse or inapplicable qualifications":
- Gish, Duane. Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!, El Cajon: ICR, 1995 [1]
- Gish is a biochemist not a geologist
- Johnson, Phillip E. Darwin on Trial. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991
- Johnson is a law professor, not a scientist of any sort
- Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings; Baker Books; ISBN 978-0801060045; 1995.
- Morris is a hydraulic engineer, not a geologist
- Ross, Hugh. The Creator and the Cosmos. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1993, 2nd ed., 1995, 3rd ed. 2001
- Ross is in fact an astronomer -- the only one on the list with a relevant scientific qualification
- Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Towards God, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004.
- Strobel is a journalist, not a scientist of any stripe
Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
As to "Ed Brey's water example" -- no, water cannot erode (not dissolve) rock "quickly". And more particularly it erodes harder rock slower than softer rock -- so that if all the rock was eroded in a single event, we'd expect to see far more harder rock, and far less softer, than we see today. As to the evolution of the eye, read that article and spare us the argument from incredulity. 'Scientific creationism' is not "bad or wrong science" that has been put forward in good faith in an attempt to fill a void, it is a mix of pre-scientific notions mixed with misrepresentation of modern science in an attempt to dislodge legitimate science. Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
As to "POV because it implies that Creation Science does not involve science, which is just one point of view" -- it is not "just one point of view", it is the viewpoint of the Supreme Court, 72 Laureates, 17 state academies of science, and 7 other organisations, as well as a whole host of other scientific organisations. I think this is sufficient basis for not dignifying creationist apologetics as "scientific". Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
As far as sources for this viewpoint, the best I can come up with, to date, is Ronald L. Numbers (arguably the most authoritative historian of Creationism) using "scientific" in quotes when mentioning:
...my own research on Rimmer's "scientific" apologetics.
— Creationism in twentieth-century America, p xxiii
This is clear indication that Numbers considers this adjective to be illegitimate. Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The common dictionary definition of "creation science" is the effort to give scientific evidence for the literal truth of the Biblical account. [10] The dictionary entries give credence to the use of the term "scientific" to describe the efforts of the books. -- Ed Brey ( talk) 17:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I would also note that the link additionally gives the following definition:
a form of creationism advocated as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution, and holding that the creation of the universe and everything in it was supernatural and relatively recent.
Further, another version gives your quoted version, but continues:
...Creation science is not accepted by most scientists.
The end result is a lack of any substantiation that isn't highly equivocal in favour of applying the adjective "scientific" to Creationist apologetics. Put this up against the unequivocal opinion of the scientific community that Creationist apologetics is not scientific in its basis (and a frequent opinion that it is in fact pseudoscientific and anti-scientific), and really there is no contest. Hrafn Talk Stalk 19:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is:
Hrafn Talk Stalk 15:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk 04:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
In conclusion, I would state that you have not made anything even resembling a strong case, either for applying the name 'scientific apologetics' to 'creationist apologetics' or to placing the latter in the same category as the body of work currently described by the former term. Further your blatantly counter-factual assertions on creationist "rapprochement" with science have been aggravating in the extreme. Lacking any overwhelming WP:RS evidence to the contrary, I see no reason for torturing the English language in this way, and will oppose strenuously any attempt to do so. If anybody wishes to pursue this, the logical next step would be an WP:RFC. Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This lengthy & unencyclopaedic embedded list has been templated for some time, so I'm moving it here to talk.
Choices are to:
Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Some notable Christian apologists include:
[End material mved from article Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ]
[[Moved from User talk:Hrafn
Hello. You deleted references to Alan Richardson's book on Christian Apologetics without any discussion. It was reviewed originally in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 1948 XVI(4):229-230; doi:10.1093/jaarel/XVI.4.229 by American Academy of Religion published by Oxford University Press. Are you familiar with his works ? He was a very prominent author and scholar in theology and extensively published. [11] His New Dictionary of Christian Theology is recognised as one of the best, if not the best, one volume work of its kind. His work should be included. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc ( talk) 19:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
A few points:
On a more general note, the list of books is getting rather long. It really needs to be trimmed down to the highlights (which should really be turned into prose discussing the books, rather than simply listing them, per WP:EMBED). Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps someone can explain to me the logic of the "template" at the beginning of this section. When I attempted to remove it the move was undone and the following note added:
(cur) (last) 21:10, 21 August 2008 Teapotgeorge (Talk | contribs) (39,501 bytes) (rv. a conversation is NOT a reference!!! and please do NOT remove templates without discussion) (undo)
First, as far as I can see the demand for a citation in connection with the first sentence is unreasonable since this is a general statement about the issue under discussion that is supported by the following sentences. Therefore, why ask for a reference? This seems totally unnecessary.
Second, why are two references to the work of Rodney Stark marked as "improper synthesis?" It is factually true that Stark "originally advocated secularization theory" and in his book Sociology, which I cite, explains why he abandoned it.
Similarly, I do not understand the second use of the comment which is attached to the sentence "Among Stark's many contributions to this area is his book For the Glory of God: How Monotheism led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery.[38][improper synthesis?]" Anyone who has read the book or other recent works by Stark knows that my comment is factual.
Finally, now that I have read more about Wikipeadi policies I see that a normal academic reference to an oral source is not acceptable and will try to find an appropriate published source.
Thank you for your help Irvinghexham ( talk) 02:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
This section is near-ubiquitously and impermissibly
original research and
synthesis of material.
If you believe any of the {{syn}}-tags were made in error, I would suggest that you provide quotations here of where the cited material makes these exact claims (without needing interpretation, per WP:PSTS: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."). Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. This is very helpful. Actually, there are other third party published sources for these claims although it may take me a day or two to add them since I was working from memory and will have to track them down. There are also passages in the books I mentioned that say these things. Irvinghexham ( talk) 17:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I will therefore be re-templating this section. Should these templates be removed without first addressing these issues (rather than minor tinkering that does not correct these issues), I will simply delete the section wholesale. Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Irving Hexham writes: On the basis of questions students ask in Religious Studies classes I thought that I was adding useful information that contributed to a general understanding of these issues. If you disagree and find that it is off topic then please remove it. Irving Hexham ( talk) 13:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
[Moved from User talk:Hrafn ] Irving Hexham writes: If Christian Apologetics "aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defend the faith against objections," then it is reasonable to include defenses of Christian ritual as within the scope of apologetics. If this sounds strange to some it is important to remember that Newman's autobiography was conceived as an apologetic work - hence its title: Apologia Pro Vita Sua (autobiography - 1866, 1865). The problem I see with the article on "Christian Apologetics", as it now stands, is that it take a far too narrow, and essentially Fundamentalist, approach to the topic. For example, there is no mention of the Friedrich Schleiermacher who is without question one of the great Christian apologists of all time. No doubt his omission is due to the fact that he is the "father of Liberal Protestantism" and therefore seen as "unorthodox" by many. This is unacceptable because articles on Wikipeadia should not promote one point of view, rather then need to inform in a neutral way. Personally, I think Schleiermacher can be regarded as a heretic and his theology a disaster in the long term. But, this does not diminish his importance historically. Irving Hexham ( talk) 14:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I got tired with re-tagging the synthesis material, only for Hexham to remove the tags without correcting the synthesis, so have removed the offending material. Hint: if you are describing an author's views, it needs to be either a direct quote/close paraphrase of something they explicitly said, or a secondary source is required for the interpretation of their work. Please do not re-include material without providing such sourcing. Hrafn Talk Stalk 15:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I have removed bibliographic references to books written by Irving Hexham and Karla Poewe since these was added by Irving Hexham himself and therefore cause doubts about whether they are in fact among the most notable books in their field. If they are in fact notable enough to stand among the most important contributions in the field of christian apologetics I am sure that they will readded by someone who is not the author or a member of the authors immediate family. My removal is not an expression of judgement about the works value but only an attempt to highten the integrity of the article which may be stained by conflicting interests. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
That is fair. I added them before I studied the rules of Wikipeadia Irvinghexham ( talk) 16:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The following is from Apologetics. It needs to be integrated into this article.
There are a variety of Christian apologetic styles and schools of thought. In the Thomistic or Classical apologetics tradition, philosophical arguments for God's existence are emphasized before turning to the specific case for Christian revelation claims. In the Evidentialist tradition empirical arguments about the life, miracles, death and resurrection of Christ are presented as probabilistic proofs. The presuppositional tradition argues that belief in God must be presupposed, and from that vantage point non-theistic assumptions are proven to be fallacious.
In the first centuries AD a number of Christian writers undertook the task of proving that Christianity was beneficial for the Roman Empire and for humanity as a whole. Also they wrote to defend their faith against attacks made by other people or to properly explain their faith. Aristides and Quadratus of Athens, writing in the early second century, were two of the first Christians to write apologetics treatises. Other second-century apologetics writings of note included the First Apology and Second Apology of Justin Martyr and the Epistle to Diognetus, a response to the accusation that Christians were a danger to Rome, further more: Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilos of Antioch, Tertullian and Minucius Felix.
About a century after Emperor Constantine I's conversion to Christianity, the Roman Empire began falling to invaders from northern Europe. Some Christian writers sought to explain the decline of Roman culture and power by systematically downplaying the achievements of classical antiquity while emphasizing the persecution of Christians and the positive role of Christianity in society. Paulus Orosius wrote the first book advancing this perspective (History Against the Pagans), though the far more learned and influential work of this type was The City of God by Augustine of Hippo (426). citation needed
Several of the early Christian apologists developed arguments from fulfilled prophecy and gospel miracles as proofs of Christ's divinity. Eusebius of Caesarea in his Demonstration of the Gospel attempted to prove the truth of Christianity by fulfilled prophecies from the Old Testament, and by rebutting arguments that the apostles had made up the story of Christ's resurrection.
In Medieval Europe Anselm of Canterbury composed the Monologion and Proslogion in which he developed the ontological argument for God's existence. He believed that faith was necessary as a precursor to philosophical argument and expressed his position as "I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand: for this I also believe, that unless I believe I will not understand." citation needed
Theodore Abu-Qurrah, the ninth century bishop of Harran, composed On God and The True Religion. Abu Qurra represents a group of Christian Arabic apologists who argued their case under early Islamic rule.
A highly influential Catholic apologist was Thomas Aquinas who presented five arguments for God's existence in the Summa Theologiae. His approach, which adapted Aristotelian thought, is known as Thomism, and has dominated both Roman Catholic and Protestant approaches.
The first Protestant textbook of apologetics was written by the Dutch legal scholar Hugo Grotius, On The Truth of the Christian Religion. This work, which was released in 1632 and translated into many languages, remained in print in English until the late nineteenth century, defended the historicity of the gospels, and also addressed arguments to Jews and Muslims.
Since the seventeenth century the controversies over Deism, Atheism, the Enlightenment, Humanism, and theories of Feuerbach, Marx, Freud and Darwin, have each in turn spurred both Catholic and Protestant apologists to reply. Changing modes in apologetics, whether or not they are currently fashionable, are important markers in the history of ideas. Among the notable apologists of the early modern era are Blaise Pascal, Joseph Butler, William Paley, Søren Kierkegaard, and John Henry Newman.
The Roman Catholic G. K. Chesterton, the Anglican C. S. Lewis (who popularized the Christian trilemma), the Lutheran John Warwick Montgomery, the Roman Catholic Hugo Anthony Meynell and the Presbyterian Francis Schaeffer were among the most prolific Christian apologists in the 20th century. Among the most widely read Christian apologists writing in English have been Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel. Another modern apologist is Ravi Zacharias, author of The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha, who argues for Christianity over other religions and philosophies deemed false or heretical. Frank Morison is also notable, because of his famous defense of the historical Resurrection, Who Moved The Stone?, as is William Lane Craig. Although not primarily an apologist, Douglas John Hall authored Why Christian?: For Those on the Edge of Faith which is written as a series of dialogues with a young doubting inquirer. In the late 2000s, Catholic religion writer Robert Hutchinson published The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible.
Some prominent Christian apologists include:
-- Editor2020 ( talk) 02:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Will you please include a section defining What Christianity is. And what the faith is that is being defended.
This can then be referred to in other articles, such as Christian mysticism as criticism to illustrate that what their presentation of Christianity is has nothing to do with Christianity and it's central beliefs. Please can the passionate appologetics also assist with some input in article Christian mysticism. Thanks. ( Torchrunner ( talk) 02:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC))
PS: Christian mysticism goes with mysticism, which (as you will see on it's article) goes with Illuminism which links with the Illuminati and it's goals towards a New World Order, which goes with Freemasonry which is a form of Paganism and is rooted in the occult. To say Christian mysticism my view, is similar to say something like "Christian Lucifarianism", and any person that truly loves Jehovah, who is Holy, should be hugely upset by it. "So called prophets" such as Jakob Lorber, Emanuel Swedenborg and a long list of names listed under Christian mysticism has lured Christians away from the centrality of atonement and salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, and has introduced reincarnation and other Hindu beliefs into the Christian message, in order to incorporate Christianity into the New World religion called mysticism, as just one branch. I have been trying to illustrate how this is not Christian on site Jakob Lorber but received such opposition because the term Christian seems to be defined differently by everybody, according to their preferance. Please help. I don't have the tools and often my contributions gets just deleted straight after I make them on such sites. See also the word cult which has been totally changed in its meaning by humanism. Gnosticism, the quest for "higher knowledge", eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is contrary to the core aspects of Christianity. Even Freemasonry is considered innocent and to have nothing to do with the occult based on wikipedia. Let your lights shine. Sites like godonthe.net/cme/links/masons.htm that proves the association between Freemasonry and the occult has been banned by wikipedia to be used as a reference. See where it all is aiming towards: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Mysticism/id/1896155 See also my talk on Bible regarding a tendency towards incorporating neo-revelationism as a third section in the "New Bible". ( Torchrunner ( talk) 03:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC))
a definition of the common tenets of Christianity, as well as the differences between the individual Christian sects or churches, would belong on the central Christianity article. -- dab (𒁳) 13:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)