The key issue in recent debates of Christian apologetics is whether there is any common ground of data and criteria between believers and unbelievers. Two main schools are divided on this issue, namely: evidential and presuppositional apologetics. The evidential apologists claim that a common ground exists, and that objective proofs of theism are possible from this common ground. In contrast, the presuppositional apologists argue that there is no common ground; and they maintain that theoretical arguments (including apologetic ones) are unavoidably prejudiced by religious presuppositions. In this study, both sides are claimed to have their own flaws. The former apologetics has the flaw that its epistemic foundation (i.e., “classical foundationalism”) is fatally defective; and it is criticised by the reformational philosophical tradition, as well as secular contemporary (postmodern) epistemology. In contrast, the latter apologetics has the flaw that when the existence of common ground is entirely denied, the problems of circular reasoning (hence, relativism) and total communication breakdown are unavoidable. In order to clarify and deepen the issue, the tradition of reformational philosophy, which is represented by Kuyper, Dooyeweerd and Van Til is first examined; and it is shown that all three scholars struggle with the tension between antithesis and common ground; and they attempt their own solution. Secondly, the contemporary anti-foundationalist epistemology is examined; and it is shown that the same tension exists between “radical” and “moderate” postmodern (anti-foundationalist) epistemologies; and their debate is on-going – without any satisfactory conclusion. As a solution, it is suggested that the notion of common ground should be distinguished by the ontological and epistemological dimensions. From the epistemological standpoint, all knowledge is prejudiced; and no objective conclusion (on the issue of e.g., theism) can be arrived at by so-called “neutral” rational arguments. However, from the ontological standpoint, it is undeniable that all kinds of knowledge are made possible by certain universal (transcendental) conditions, which constitute the ontic common ground. In this distinction, the confusion is caused by the false assumption that the ontic common ground is meant to function as an epistemic neutral criterion. In contrast, this study argues that the ontic common ground functions only as the condition for the possibility of legitimate knowledge (including apologetic arguments). As a result, this study claims that traditional apologetics, based on objective theistic proofs should be abandoned, and that (radical) presuppositional apologetics needs to be modified. Therefore, as an alternative approach, a new “integral apologetics” is proposed – on the basis of Dooyeweerd’s modal theory of reality. This approach emphasizes the need to utilize different types of knowledge, which together could strengthen the apologetic persuasion towards Christian theism, and take into consideration of the whole context of apologetic dialogue. / PhD (International Trade), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

The purpose of this thesis will be a contrast of the Buddhist and the Christian responses to this-worldly suffering. Many scholars have proposed that the best way to create a better world with less suffering is to make Christianity more like Buddhism, so that an interfaith synthesis between the two religions results. These scholars’ proposals are described in Chapter 2. However, what these scholars desire (i.e. less this-worldly suffering) will not logically result from the solution they suggest (i.e. Buddhicizing Christianity). For to make Christianity more like Buddhism in its essentials would render Christianity less potent to oppose this-worldly suffering. The thesis will thus contrast Buddhism with Christianity in five crucial areas, namely, their viewpoints on ultimate reality, ultimate attachments, ultimate aversions, ultimate example, and ultimate purpose. These five areas provide the content to accurately define Buddhist compassion and Christian love. Chapter 3 describes Buddhism’s struggle to ground love of neighbor ontologically, whether by the ontological givens of dependent co-arising or nirvana. Buddhism struggles to ground not only whether we should love our neighbors, but also whether we can do so. Christianity, on the other hand, proves entirely capable of grounding love of neighbor—whether should or can—given its theistic ontology. Chapter 4 describes the Buddhist and Christian responses to suffering when it comes to attachments. Buddhism asks us to let go of rigid attachments to persons, truth and goodness. Meanwhile, Christians are to cling to God, and as a result of loving God, they are to love people, hunger and thirst for the good, and rejoice in the truth. These ultimate attachments to persons, truth, and goodness help overcome this-worldly suffering. According to Chapter 5, Buddhism and Christianity differ sharply when it comes to aversion to and grief over sin. Buddhists cultivate equanimity toward the sin, reasoning that the problem is not actually the person’s fault and, furthermore, that the problem is not really a problem. Christians, however, are to love people enough that they hate the sin which destroys them. In hating evil and restoring people, Christianity undermines immense worldly suffering. Chapter 6 contrasts Gautama and Jesus as examples of combatting suffering. At each juncture, Jesus offered more to actually fight against suffering than did Gautama. Incredibly, the interfaith scholar who would Buddhicize Christianity’s ultimate example would mar the portrait of the paradigm who exemplifies the very qualities the interfaith scholar wants to emulate. Chapter 7 examines the Buddhist emphasis on “thusness” and the Christian emphasis on purposefulness. Insofar as the interfaith scholar would Buddhicize Christianity’s ultimate purpose, the robust purposefulness that gives one’s life meaning and motivation would erode into a purposelessness which, however emancipating, leaves one comparatively impotent in the face of this-worldly suffering. In light of these five contrasts, Christian love and Buddhist compassion are able to be defined and contrasted. The logical conclusion drawn is that to Buddhicize Christianity’s ultimacy would be to truncate Christianity’s efficacy, a result which should motivate these interfaith scholars to reconsider their proposals. / PhD, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

Dans l’apologétique de Blaise Pascal, le rôle du corps est ambigu. Source des concupiscences, le corps éloigne les hommes de la connaissance des vérités. L’homme, composé d’âme et de corps, n’a aucune similitude avec Dieu, être purement spirituel. Mais selon Pascal, c’est ce constat qui fournit à l’homme les raisons de la nécessaire croyance en Dieu, et qui fait que celle-ci exige l’existence du corps. La première en est que la foi ne se donne pas pour objet des connaissances démontrables par la raison humaine. Elle est le seul moyen d’accès à la vérité de Dieu, que la raison seule n’est pas capable d’atteindre puisqu’elle est privée de sa fonction originelle depuis que l’homme est doté de sa chair. Ensuite, la foi prend la forme de pratiques physiques, du moins dans son stade initial : l’adoption des actes d’un autre qui est déjà croyant. L’initié, pratiquant des mouvements rituels sans s’interroger sur leur sens, est persuadé de la justesse de sa foi. Enfin, d’après l’apologiste, la dévotion à Dieu permet à l’homme de jouir de l’espérance d’une autre vie ; or c’est là le suprême bonheur de la vie terrestre. L’être humain n’obtiendrait la béatitude au moment de sa mort qu’après avoir passé sa vie dans un effort sincère et continuel pour mériter d’obtenir la grâce de Dieu et dans la crainte permanente d’être délaissé de lui. En assumant ce devoir, on acquiert un bonheur incomparable, puisqu’il offre la possibilité de réaliser l’énorme gain que représente la félicité infinie et éternelle à la suite de sa brève existence. La foi, selon Pascal, c’est le chemin vers la certitude du salut, autrement dit, la béatitude en puissance. / We comment on the epistemology, ontology and axiology of the notion of man as a body or “corps” according to Blaise Pascal, in order to shed light on the concept in relation to his apologetic views. According to Pascal, “customs” and “sentiments”, the two fundamental ways of understanding the human form, provide man with secular and religious beliefs, which both allow and yet prevent him from transcending his earthly state. This equates to the ambiguous nature of realities which Pascal calls “corps”: The term refers both to purely profane matters considered as objects for scientific research, and to religious ones with their inherent symbolism, the subject of veneration. To Pascal, man, being of flesh and blood, is fated to be caught between greatness and misery; it is this axiologically ambiguous position that demands from man faith — the hope for the eternal and spiritual life, which is denied him in life on earth.

This thesis explores the formative influences, development and impact of the theology of David Smith Cairns, Scottish minister, academic and writer, during the high point of British imperial expansion, and at a time of social tension caused by industrialisation. In particular, it describes and evaluates his role in the Church’s efforts to face major challenges relating to its relationships to the different world religions, its response to the First World War, and its attitude to the scientific disciplines that called into question some of its long-standing perceptions and suppositions. Examination of Cairns’s life and work reveals an eminent figure, born into the United Presbyterian Church and rooted in the Church in Scotland, but operating ecumenically and internationally. His apologetics challenged the prevailing assumptions of the day: that science provided the only intellectually legitimate means of exploring the world, and that scientific determinism ruled out the Christian conception of the world as governed by Providence. A major feature of his theology was the presentation of Christianity as a ‘reasonable’ faith, and throughout his life he maintained a particular concern for young people, having endured his own crisis of faith when a student in Edinburgh. He enjoyed a decades long involvement with the Student Christian Movement and the World Student Christian Federation, based on a mutually enriching relationship with one of its leading figures, the renowned American evangelist John Raleigh Mott. As chair of Commission IV of the 1910 World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh, Cairns spearheaded efforts to encourage the Church to redefine its role in relation to the different world religions, and to adopt a fulfilment theology that allowed for a dialogical rather than confrontational model of mission. As leader of a Y.M.C.A. sponsored interdenominational enquiry into the effects of the First World War on the religious life of the nation and attitudes to the Churches, Cairns reported on the Churches’ failure to engage with a large section of the population, and in particular with the young men at the Front. The resulting report offered an important critique of the Church and its vision in the early twentieth century, and provided a call for reform and renewal in Church life, with an emphasis on the need for social witness. The thesis concludes that in these three major areas Cairns provided a prophetic voice for the Church as it entered the twentieth century and faced the challenges of that time.

Face à un monde qui ne tardera pas à mettre les lumières de la raison à la place de Dieu, alors que la prolifération des sectes dissidentes, que le déisme et la libre-pensée mènent chaque jour de nouvelles âmes sur la voie de l'hétérodoxie, voire de l'athéisme, Leibniz et Berkeley prennent la plume pour défendre la cause d'un Créateur attaqué de toutes parts. L'apologétique, qui se donne pour double objectif de prouver la vérité de là religion et de montrer que le Dieu du christianisme est digne d'amour, est une exigence de l'intelligence et du cœur, elle est ce qui permet de pouvoir croire en raison. Pour le philosophe, la défense de la religion fait nécessairement corps avec la compréhension générale du monde et de ses principes, tandis que la métaphysique ne doit pas contredire les visées apologétiques et les présupposés théologiques qui l'accompagnent. Il existe, chez Leibniz et Berkeley, un va-et-vient constant entre le dieu de la raison, créateur des substances et de l'univers, simple cause première, et le Dieu d'amour des Évangiles qu'il faut défendre contre les accusations faites à l'encontre de sa bonté. Étudier la manière dont l'apologétique et la métaphysique s'entremêlent dans un système philosophique, c'est interroger les rapports de la raison et de la religion pour savoir si l'apologétique peut être une propédeutique à la foi chrétienne ou si elle n'atteint jamais que la cause première des déistes. / In a world where God will soon be replaced by the lights of reason, where dissident sects are multiplying, and where deism and free thinking lead ever more souls on the path to heterodoxy and even atheism, Leibniz and Berkeley stand up to defend the cause of a creator attacked on every side. Apologetics, whose goals are both to prove the truth of religion and to show that the Christian God is worthy of love, require mind and heart, and allow to believe in reason. When philosophers defend religion, it is inevitably linked to a global understanding of the world and its principles, when on the other hand metaphysics should not refute apologetic designs and theological presupposition. Leibniz and Berkeley go back and forth between the god of reason, creator of the substances and the universe, simple root cause, and the loving God from the Gospels, who needs to be defended against the accusations against his goodness. To study how apologetics and metaphysics intertwine in a philosophical system is to question the relationship between reason and religion: can apologetics be a propaedeutic to the Christian faith, or does it only achieve the root cause of the deists?

Este trabajo supone un estudio y análisis, así como una transcripción semipaleográfica, del manuscrito inédito P.iii.21 de la Biblioteca del Real Monasterio de San Lorenzo de El Escorial, que contiene una copia del Libro declarante o el Libro de las tres creencias, una obra generalmente atribuida al converso castellano Abner de Burgos y que se cree se redactó a mediados del siglo XIV. Consiste de dos partes principales: Una introducción crítica donde se analizan la estructura y el propósito del Libro, así como varios temas que todavía generan controversia y a los que no se ha llegado a dar una respuesta definitiva, como lo son la autoría del Libro y el posible propósito del autor al redactar esta obra. Se comparan estrategias retóricas utilizadas a través del Libro con las estrategias que se usan en otras obras de Abner de Burgos para, así, poder ampliar el campo de argumentación con nuevas evidencias que apoyen la atribución del Libro a Abner. La segunda parte es una transcripción semipaleográfica del contenido del manuscrito escurialense P.iii.21 con anotaciones al margen y referencias en hebreo a los pasajes transliterados del hebreo al alfabeto latino que se encuentran a través de este manuscrito. Se ha intentado emparejar los pasajes bíblicos en latín con el pasaje correspondiente en la Vulgata, y también se ha tratado de identificar las fuentes utilizadas en el texto que quedan fuera de la Biblia hebrea y el Nuevo Testamento. Como marco de referencia, en la primera parte de este trabajo se ofrece una breve introducción biográfica a la figura histórica de Abner de Burgos y la influencia que ejerció en la literatura polemista, tanto judía como castellana. También se incluye una breve introducción a la relación entre Abner, el Libro y los estilos de argumentación que eran populares en la Península Ibérica en los siglos XIII y XIV.

Thesis (M.A.)--Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1995. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 90-93).

Thesis (Th.M. (Ethics))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2004.

ABSTRACT C. S. LEWIS’ CONCEPT OF SEHNSUCHT: PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS, AESTHETIC ANALYSIS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR EVANGELISM AND APOLOGETICS Matthew David Crawford, Ph.D. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2015 Chair: Dr. Mark T. Coppenger C. S. Lewis’ concept of Sehnsucht as inconsolable longing for beauty holds much promise for Christian aesthetics, evangelism, and apologetics. In his autobiography, Surprised by Joy, and many of his other works, Lewis shows how desire for beauty can draw individuals toward God. This dissertation fully develops Lewis’ concept of Sehnsucht within the framework of his life story as well as his writings. The dissertation then explores the corroboration of Lewis’ concept within both Christian and secular philosophical contexts. Once this foundation has been laid, the potential of Sehnsucht for opening hearts to the gospel of Christ and overcoming objections to faith in Him is outlined. Finally, the dissertation aesthetically analyzes specific films and pieces of music in search of common elements that may evoke Sehnsucht, as well as elements that may prevent it from being experienced.

Charles Darwin has achieved both notoriety and fame for his evolutionary ideas encapsulated principally in The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man. Although credited for much originality in his writings, Darwin's legacy borrowed extensively from many who had propounded similar speculations centuries before him. His naturalistic argument for origin and species reveals both logical and theological problems with his thesis, and further unavoidable ramifications. The contention is that even Darwin himself could not, and did not, live by the ideas he boldly espoused. His ideas, if true, would destroy the very basis upon which his thesis depended. His evolutionary paradigm had to take for granted a world he could give no account for. Yet his antipathy of Biblical Christianity, and its God, inspired him to pursue his personal naturalistic agenda with little regard to the logical consequences. Modern evolutionary science may look back today with pride on its founder, Charles Darwin, yet the problems which were intrinsic to his thesis remain unanswered yet. / Thesis (M.Th. (Dogmatics))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.