- Joined
- May 21, 2023
- Messages
- 5,402
- Reaction score
- 5,778
- Points
- 138
- Faith
- Monergist
- Country
- USA
- Marital status
- Widower
- Politics
- Conservative
I keep seeing different ways of arguing that depend on whole differences of worldview. Not just assumption differences, but unstated, even unnoticed assumptions that come from the worldview. The biggest difference I see is, to me, heartbreaking.
This difference is between an anthropocentric worldview vs. a theocentric worldview. 'Man-centered vs 'God-centered'. Many Believers think they are on the right side of this question, yet they actually think they can on their own produce something to please God. They think their ability to formulate thought to equal truth. They make statements such as: "Maturity is when you have achieved a level of faithfulness where God knows he can trust you." They are usually synergists. They believe that a God-centered worldview depends on their ability to place God first in their lives. Many of their objections to sound but clinical-sounding-to-them arguments are about the practicality of the clinical assertion; e.g. "If man is going to heaven apart from his willed assent, why should he obey or even seek God anymore?" These are the ones I refer to as 'insisting on self-determinism' in their arguments.
Duck-duck's AI arranges these following statements:
An apologetic refers to a reasoned argument or writing in defense of a belief, doctrine, or system of thought, particularly in religious contexts. The term is often associated with apologetics in Christianity, which involves defending the faith against objections and misunderstandings.
Types of Apologetics
1. Classical Apologetics
Combines philosophy and theology to establish the truth of religious claims.
2. Evidential Apologetics
Focuses on providing evidence (historical, archaeological, etc.) to support beliefs.
3. Presuppositional Apologetics
Assumes a particular worldview and argues from within that framework, often addressing the underlying beliefs of the critic.
4. Experiential Apologetics
Emphasizes personal experience and transformation as a basis for belief.
Notice that the first two are not said to proceed from assumptions or presuppositions. Yet, it really is unavoidable that assumptions are made under those kinds of apologetics, and presuppositions that are not even presented, sometimes because they are assumed by one party to be common to all, or because the party is not even aware that it is there. One's worldview dominates those assumptions. The whole language of the apologist depends on it. The mode of expression, even the subject chosen for discussion, (particularly noticeable when arguing 'strawmen' or 'goalpost moving'), is subject to that worldview.
The third, Presuppositional Apologetics, AI says, assumes a particular worldview and argues from within the framework. To me, this is a strange way of describing how Presuppositional Apologetics actually is meant to be conducted --it better should have said, "assumes a thesis or fact"-- but probably more often than not, even by those engaging in their presuppositional arguments, AI's statement is correct as is. We do assume a worldview without realizing that we are doing it, and all our thinking is defined/is framed by it, but we don't often present that worldview as the topic for debate.
The fourth is frankly, --to me, anyway--, something that happens to all of us to some degree, and to our thinking, whether we realize it or not, but, hopefully, is not a basis for belief. THAT would be a mindset that doesn't care much for the other 3 kinds of Apologetics. This fourth, if believers, do not discard scripture, so much as they simply render everything they read according to their personal experiences. It falls under either worldview of the two I mentioned above, though I'm pretty sure it is more often of the anthropocentric type.
The theocentric worldview understands that, "In the beginning, God...", and "I AM", and so many other Biblical statements to the same effect, demonstrating God's self-existence and power and authority over all fact, implies that this (everything) is all about God, and not about us. It accepts our unworthy feeble nature as depending utterly upon God's will and mercy. It sees God's plan (decree) as the mover of every motion, and the determiner of (in particular) The End, and the means to that end. The believer that begins to think theocentrically finds himself thanking God for every obedience, and tries to think less of himself when an unhappy life or events befall him. This view is monergistic, and sees God very pleased with the work of His hands. He may consider himself able to ruin his own life, but unable to ruin God's decree. It finds, instead of the hope of Heavenly bliss and even release finally from the horrors of sin, secondary to the anticipation of being with Christ forever, seeing as we are seen. This is not about us, but about Christ.
This difference is between an anthropocentric worldview vs. a theocentric worldview. 'Man-centered vs 'God-centered'. Many Believers think they are on the right side of this question, yet they actually think they can on their own produce something to please God. They think their ability to formulate thought to equal truth. They make statements such as: "Maturity is when you have achieved a level of faithfulness where God knows he can trust you." They are usually synergists. They believe that a God-centered worldview depends on their ability to place God first in their lives. Many of their objections to sound but clinical-sounding-to-them arguments are about the practicality of the clinical assertion; e.g. "If man is going to heaven apart from his willed assent, why should he obey or even seek God anymore?" These are the ones I refer to as 'insisting on self-determinism' in their arguments.
Duck-duck's AI arranges these following statements:
An apologetic refers to a reasoned argument or writing in defense of a belief, doctrine, or system of thought, particularly in religious contexts. The term is often associated with apologetics in Christianity, which involves defending the faith against objections and misunderstandings.
Types of Apologetics
1. Classical Apologetics
Combines philosophy and theology to establish the truth of religious claims.
2. Evidential Apologetics
Focuses on providing evidence (historical, archaeological, etc.) to support beliefs.
3. Presuppositional Apologetics
Assumes a particular worldview and argues from within that framework, often addressing the underlying beliefs of the critic.
4. Experiential Apologetics
Emphasizes personal experience and transformation as a basis for belief.
Notice that the first two are not said to proceed from assumptions or presuppositions. Yet, it really is unavoidable that assumptions are made under those kinds of apologetics, and presuppositions that are not even presented, sometimes because they are assumed by one party to be common to all, or because the party is not even aware that it is there. One's worldview dominates those assumptions. The whole language of the apologist depends on it. The mode of expression, even the subject chosen for discussion, (particularly noticeable when arguing 'strawmen' or 'goalpost moving'), is subject to that worldview.
The third, Presuppositional Apologetics, AI says, assumes a particular worldview and argues from within the framework. To me, this is a strange way of describing how Presuppositional Apologetics actually is meant to be conducted --it better should have said, "assumes a thesis or fact"-- but probably more often than not, even by those engaging in their presuppositional arguments, AI's statement is correct as is. We do assume a worldview without realizing that we are doing it, and all our thinking is defined/is framed by it, but we don't often present that worldview as the topic for debate.
The fourth is frankly, --to me, anyway--, something that happens to all of us to some degree, and to our thinking, whether we realize it or not, but, hopefully, is not a basis for belief. THAT would be a mindset that doesn't care much for the other 3 kinds of Apologetics. This fourth, if believers, do not discard scripture, so much as they simply render everything they read according to their personal experiences. It falls under either worldview of the two I mentioned above, though I'm pretty sure it is more often of the anthropocentric type.
The theocentric worldview understands that, "In the beginning, God...", and "I AM", and so many other Biblical statements to the same effect, demonstrating God's self-existence and power and authority over all fact, implies that this (everything) is all about God, and not about us. It accepts our unworthy feeble nature as depending utterly upon God's will and mercy. It sees God's plan (decree) as the mover of every motion, and the determiner of (in particular) The End, and the means to that end. The believer that begins to think theocentrically finds himself thanking God for every obedience, and tries to think less of himself when an unhappy life or events befall him. This view is monergistic, and sees God very pleased with the work of His hands. He may consider himself able to ruin his own life, but unable to ruin God's decree. It finds, instead of the hope of Heavenly bliss and even release finally from the horrors of sin, secondary to the anticipation of being with Christ forever, seeing as we are seen. This is not about us, but about Christ.
Last edited:
