Cognitive Apologetics


	Cognitive Apologetics Cognitive apologetics falls within the realm of a Christian reasoning the Word, focusing it on the mind and will of the unsaved person, whilst relying on the Holy Spirit to apply what is being said to their minds and binding demonic 'confusion tactics' etc. It corresponds to what Aristotle described as the logos factor in effective communication: what we say must make sense, there must be good reasons and sound arguments, and the organisation and language must be clear and understandable. When it comes to talking or reasoning with people, it must be kept in mind that whether they are redeemed or not, by virtue of creation they are of value and have dignity and worth. Therefore at all stages we need to be affirming them. We need to beware of winning an argument but alienating the people! Successful apologetics occurs when a high relational dynamic is maintained, and we come with a desire to engage the person (over against 'Bible-bashing' or just having a one-way conversation) [see Experiential Apologetics below]. As mentioned earlier, we must be able to give reasonable answers to reasonable questions people may have at each of the five evangelistic steps noted earlier (at this point I would refer the reader to works by Josh McDowell, such as 'Evidence that demands a verdict', for some specific helpful detail, and also the organisation Answers in Genesis). But when it comes to foundational questions about God, the Bible, and why a person should even bother listening to a Christian talk about Jesus, the works of Francis and Edith Schaeffer provide some brilliant apologetic material. Their work has been hammered out on the anvil of hundreds of discussions with questioning people from all over the world. Below I reproduce in short form what I have gleaned as the essence of Schaefferian apologetics, and sense is also an excellent foundation for all philosophic thinking (of which apologetics is a part):


	ifcc .online Leader's guide Preface Introduction The Gospel Alpha How to be born again Why we need to born again Helping others to be born again Five Basic Evangelistic Steps Spirit -Soul-Body Dynamic Spiritual Dynamic Cognitive Apologetics Experiential Apologetics Incarnational Dynamic Final Thoughts Beta Gamma Delta Epsilon Zeta In Summary Suggested Curriculum Bibliography

Schaefferian apologetics in short

The basic quest underlying all questions is really the search for an adequate worldview - ie which system of thought actually corresponds with reality. When a person asks "But is the Bible really true?", we need to take people back a step and help them first to appreciate what the Basic Questions are, and then find what the system taught in the Bible has in the way of answers.

Two 'basic questions' must concern us in the first instance, and these deal with explaining:

"The Universe and its form" - an amazing jigsaw puzzle
"The Mannishness of Man" - personality; people are different from all other things in the world.

There are two main alternative worldviews to that which is taught by Christianity:

The West has a materialistic view and is non-religious
The East has an immaterialistic view and is religious

But both are impersonal systems.

The result is that, in both the West and East, men and women are seen as abnormal aliens to the way things really are.

In Eastern terms they are spoken of as maya or illusion.
In Western terms, as absurd machines.

But the facts are that none of us actually live, or desire to live, our lives in that fashion.
Therefore both of these systems are false, not being true to reality.

Only Christianity truly accounts for personality, because it begins with the Infinite-Personal God.

We can see that Schaeffer latched onto the truth that life is found not in practising a religion but in living congruently to a true worldview. And it is exactly at this point that we have rich entry points for speaking with people about the Gospel, because hardly anyone has even given thought as to what worldview they actually have, let alone bothered to investigate whether it is true to reality and actually will enable them to live life to the full! (Note: the modern secular mind is so 'fragmented'. Consider the popular expressions of worldview - art, music, film, literature - and you will see just what a mish-mash is out there!)

And when talking about 'truth' let us be clear what we mean here. Firstly, whilst we cannot know anything exhaustively, we can know it truly. That is, just because we cannot know something or someone exhaustively does not mean that I do not truly know it or them!

Secondly, truth cannot be relative; the laws of non-contradiction apply to reality. Consider the statement "My truth is my truth; your truth is your truth". This cannot hold true in reality, as can be clearly demonstrated by the following opposites: "My truth is I want to rape; your truth is you don't want to be raped". In this case it is not an issue of truth any more, but one of power.

Thirdly, the truth of a statement needs to be weighed against an 'undeniability test' (a test for truth) and an 'unaffirmability test' (a test for falsehood). Take, for example, the issue of my existence. While my own existence cannot be logically proven, it is nevertheless existentially undeniable. That means I cannot deny my existence without affirming it at the same time. As another example, just because something can be stated, it does not necessarily follow that the statement is true. "I cannot speak a word of English", may be passionately stated, but it cannot be affirmed at the same time.

This all allows us to say a final word on whether truth as a category really exists. In the post-modern world in which we exist today, many claim that there is no such thing as truth that corresponds to reality. But applying the above tests reveals that the statement defeats itself, because it implies that it is not reflective of reality!!

(For an extended treatment, see "Can Man Live Without God" by Ravi Zacharias, Word, 1994)

So, in helping another person to see whether their own worldview or religious or philosophical system is true, we need to help them examine and discern what it says about:

1. Origins - "where do we and this universe come from?"
2. Condition /State - "what is the present state of people and the universe?"
3. Salvation - "how will/can this present state be improved?"
4. Destiny - "what is the whole end purpose or goal of everything?"

And each of those four factors must be critiqued at five levels (sources of credibility):

1. Metaphysical critique (what are the origins?) cf Job chapter 38
2. Historical critique (did it happen?) cf Acts 17:31
3. Experiential critique (is it applicable?) cf Acts 9:22
4. Pragmatic critique (does it work for me?) cf John 9:25
5. Community critique (does it work for the community?) cf Acts 16:30-31

Correspondence (statements correspond to fact) and coherence (all the facts form a cohesive system) tests must apply over these five areas. As Schaeffer discerned for himself, only the Christian system as presented in the Bible and exemplified in the life of Jesus fully fits the bill. Our task as Christian apologists is to help others also come to the same conclusion, and to do so our apologetics must function philosophically at three levels:

1. the level of logical persuasion (that which can be demonstrated by argument)

Can I defend what I believe - is it logically tenable?

2. the level of experiential relevance (that which can be tested and illustrated by life)

If everyone gave themselves the prerogatives of my philosophy, would there be harmony in existence - is it livable?

3. the level of prescriptive mandates (that which can be applied to others)

Do I have the right to make moral judgements in the daily matters of living - is it transferable?

With all these foundations laid, there should (hopefully) be intellectual space in the hearer to actual 'hear' what the Bible has in the way of answers.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws