Os fragmentos que compõem a obra que, hoje, conhecemos como Pensées, são notas preparatórias de uma apologia da religião cristã que Blaise Pascal pretendia escrever. Ao nos debruçarmos sobre as anotações do filósofo francês, chama-nos a atenção o fato de o autor, em nenhum momento, propor qualquer demonstração metafísica da existência de Deus ou mesmo pretender provar, de modo inquestionável, algum dos dogmas católicos. A total ausência de demonstrações que se pretendam perfeitamente probantes explica-se, a nosso ver, pelo fato de Blaise Pascal ser um filósofo cético, ou seja, pelo fato de Pascal não crer que a razão humana é um instrumento capaz de apreender a Verdade. Assim, trata-se, aqui, de, primeiramente, estipular a plausibilidade da hipótese de leitura segundo a qual Pascal pode, com justiça, ser considerado um pensador cético. Isto feito, tratar-se-á de analisar os motivos que levaram nosso filósofo a não se utilizar de nenhuma das tradicionais provas da existência de Deus e a não considerar como plenamente probantes os raciocínios por ele elaborados em prol da religião cristã fatos que caracterizamos como limites epistemológicos da apologética de Blaise Pascal. / The fragments that compose the book that today we know as Pensées are preparatory notes of an apologetics of the Christian religion that Blaise Pascal intended to write. When examining the annotations on the French philosopher, our attention is attracted by the fact that the author never proposes any metaphysical demonstration of God\'s existence, neither intends to prove, unquestionably, some of the Catholic dogmas. The total absence of demonstrations presented as definitive is explained, in our point of view, by the fact that Blaise Pascal is a skeptical philosopher, ie, because Pascal does not believe that human reason is an instrument capable of grasping the Truth. Thus, it is here to, first, establish the plausibility of the hypothesis of the interpretation according to which Pascal may justly be regarded as a skeptical thinker. This done, well analyze the reasons why our philosopher did not use any of the traditional proofs of God\'s existence and did not consider as fully demonstrative the reasonings he elaborated himself in favor of the Christian religion - facts that we consider as epistemological limits of the apologetics of Blaise Pascal.

陳美玲. / 論文(神學碩士)--香港中文大學, 1998. / 參考文獻: leaves 96-100. / 中英文摘要. / Chen Meiling. / Chapter 1. --- 導言 --- p.1 / Chapter 2. --- 希克的宗教多元主義如何理解基督宗教 --- p.10 / Chapter 2.1 --- 救贖與宗教傳統 --- p.13 / Chapter 2.1.1 --- "希克對""宗教""的理解" --- p.13 / Chapter 2.1.2 --- 宗教經驗與意義 --- p.20 / Chapter 2.1.3 --- 基督宗教與其他宗教傳統 --- p.24 / Chapter 2.2 --- "希克的提案一一 ""哥白尼式神學""" --- p.26 / Chapter 2.2.1 --- """上帝中心""的基督宗教" --- p.26 / Chapter 2.2.2 --- "不可言喻的""實在""" --- p.32 / Chapter 2.2.3 --- "希克的""神話""基督論" --- p.36 / Chapter 3. --- 一元拯救論結構的宗教多元主義假說 --- p.44 / Chapter 3.1 --- 方法論上的問題 --- p.44 / Chapter 3.1.1 --- 基本論題 --- p.45 / Chapter 3.1.2 --- 沒有內容的認信一一進退兩難 --- p.50 / Chapter 3.2 --- ´ؤ元救贖終局與多元救贖終局 --- p.54 / Chapter 3.2.1 --- 只有一種終局的多元論 --- p.54 / Chapter 3.2.2 --- 希克救贖觀的兼容取向 --- p.59 / Chapter 3.2.3 --- 基督中心與上帝中心 --- p.63 / Chapter 4. --- 基督宗教拯救論的多元性 --- p.68 / Chapter 4.1 --- 初期基督教會對拯救論的理解 --- p.69 / Chapter 4.1.1 --- 基督爲照明者 --- p.71 / Chapter 4.1.2 --- 勝利者基督與回歸於一 --- p.74 / Chapter 4.1.3 --- 基督賜予不朽與神化 --- p.77 / Chapter 4.1.4 --- 基督爲我們的犧牲 --- p.81 / Chapter 4.2 --- 在多元實況下維持基督信仰的意義 --- p.86 / Chapter 5. --- 結語 --- p.91 / 參考書目 --- p.96 / 譯名對照表 --- p.101

Thesis (doctoral)--University of Otago, 1979.

Matthew Scott Wireman, Ph.D. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2012 Chair: Dr. Stephen J. Wellum This dissertation examines the Protestant doctrine of Scripture's self-witness of divine authority. Chapter 1 examines the current evangelical milieu. The doctrine has become nearly obsolete in the discussion of systematic theology. Consequentially, wherein lies authority has been greatly misunderstood in Protestant circles. Chapter 2 surveys the doctrine through the history of the church. Particular note is made of Augustine, John Calvin, John Owen, and Herman Bavinck. This chapter evinces the near consensus of the church that the authority for the Church is found preeminently in the Scriptures. Chapter 3 summarizes post-conservative, Stanley J. Grenz and John R. Franke, attempts to ground theology in Scripture plus culture and tradition. This chapter does not offer a critique as much as it aims to represent post-conservatives in their own words. Chapter 4 looks at how the Old Testament viewed itself--particularly through the ministries of Moses and the prophets. YHWH chose representatives who would speak to the covenant community and write down the stipulations and history of YHWH's relationship with Israel for posterity. Chapter 5 looks at the New Testament, which follows the paradigm instituted by the Old Testament. In the person and work of Jesus Christ, God's promises find their fulfillment, which foments his commissioning of the Twelve Apostles to be his spokesmen. Chapter 6 ties together the threads that cohere in the two testaments of Scripture. It makes explicit the claims of Scripture that God is a se, he communicates with his creation, he uses spokesmen, and his written Word is its own witness for its authority. Chapter 7 defines the doctrine of Scripture's self-witness and applies it to tradition, culture, and the task of apologetics. The chapter explicates the thesis of the dissertation that Scripture's self-witness must be the ground of systematic theology.

Recognizing that Christians cannot adequately understand the mysteries of faith from a single vantage point, Catholic theologians have been keen on emphasizing the multidimensional nature of theological understanding since Vatican II. The advantage of such a method has helped believers to understand the rich, in-depth quality of Catholic faith.<br>One of the fields of theology which has not been discussed in the models approach, however, is apologetics&hibar;which includes as one of its aspects the art and science of defending the doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church. When all of the relevant passages in the documents of Vatican II are taken into consideration, a unique apologetical approach emerges that incorporates key advances as they emerged historically from the Church's apologists. Each of the individual apologetic systems from the past will be shown to have its own particular strengths and weaknesses. By way of contrast, I will argue that the best way to "make a defense for" the Gospel in a postconciliar church is to advance the integrated model of the Council. This integrated model of Catholic defense is called combinationalism. The interests and views of the apologists are proven to be complementary rather than competing.<br>This integrated model helps apologists and evangelists to recognize that although one approach might be needed in a certain context, it would be an egregious mistake to take that one system and use it as the exclusive means to reach persons situated within different circumstances and cultural contexts. This essay will not only exploit the different apologetic models in the post-Vatican II period, it will also serve as a serious work of apologetics in its own right by focusing on certain challenges as test cases to highlight the pertinence and livelihood of each model. / McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts; / Theology / PhD; / Dissertation;

Thesis (D. Min.)--Ashland Theological Seminary, 2007. / Abstract . Includes "An apologetic catechism for disciple development" in appendix. Description based on microfiche version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 129-131, 138-142).

If Jesus's resurrection did not happen, the Christian faith is falsified. The question is therefore raised as to whether it is possible to prove the historicity of the resurrection, and thus verify the Christian faith. The problem is first historical (what is the nature of the evidence for the resurrection?) and secondly apologetic (how does the resurrection help in communicating the Christian faith?); this thesis aims to address the historical question, and introduce apologetics as a future concern. The work is set in context by a survey of approaches to the historical Jesus through the centuries, culminating in the "Third Quest for the Historical Jesus." The origins of the idea of resurrection are sought in an examination of ancient Hebrew ideas about death, exploring the development of hope from the survival of the community rather than the individual, through the awareness of the need for justice and the continuing relationship with God, through a range of metaphors to the first explicit hope of resurrection from the dead. The influence of Hellenism and ideas of immortality in the intertestamental period are noted, but these ideas were not adequate to explain the experience of Jesus's disciples. The New Testament is then surveyed to identify all resurrection traditions. Some traditions are theological and metaphorical, but some are narrative or apparently derived from a historical event. It is noted that some canonical books make relatively little of the resurrection, and that extracanonical books such as the Gospel of Thomas ignore it completely. A study of the extracanonical texts suggests that omission of resurrection tradition is due to later theological preference, rather than indicating early tradition implying that passion-resurrection tradition was a later innovation. Where there is extracanonical resurrection tradition, it is dependent upon canonical tradition. There follows a discussion of the various criteria which have been used to examine New Testament tradition for historicity, examining the strengths and weaknesses of each. It is concluded that no single criterion is adequate, but that it is possible to achieve a satisfactory degree of historical plausibility. The discussion returns to the New Testament traditions to identify where they purport to be historical, and then explored in the light of the historical criteria for plausibility. While there is clear theological development and interpretation, there is a persistent core tradition deriving from an original event. Alternative explanations, that the disciples invented resurrection to explain other experiences, are dismissed as resurrection is the least likely explanation for them to offer. The historical event itself is irrecoverable, but may be discerned by its effects. The most plausible explanation for the testimony underlying New Testament tradition, celebration on the first day of the week, and the explosive growth of the Jesus movement, is that the resurrection actually happened. Brief consideration is given to the implications of the resurrection for theology, eschatology, apologetics and engagement with postmodernism. / Thesis (M.A. (New Testament)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, in association with Greenwich School of Theology, U.K., 2009.

If Jesus's resurrection did not happen, the Christian faith is falsified. The question is therefore raised as to whether it is possible to prove the historicity of the resurrection, and thus verify the Christian faith. The problem is first historical (what is the nature of the evidence for the resurrection?) and secondly apologetic (how does the resurrection help in communicating the Christian faith?); this thesis aims to address the historical question, and introduce apologetics as a future concern. The work is set in context by a survey of approaches to the historical Jesus through the centuries, culminating in the "Third Quest for the Historical Jesus." The origins of the idea of resurrection are sought in an examination of ancient Hebrew ideas about death, exploring the development of hope from the survival of the community rather than the individual, through the awareness of the need for justice and the continuing relationship with God, through a range of metaphors to the first explicit hope of resurrection from the dead. The influence of Hellenism and ideas of immortality in the intertestamental period are noted, but these ideas were not adequate to explain the experience of Jesus's disciples. The New Testament is then surveyed to identify all resurrection traditions. Some traditions are theological and metaphorical, but some are narrative or apparently derived from a historical event. It is noted that some canonical books make relatively little of the resurrection, and that extracanonical books such as the Gospel of Thomas ignore it completely. A study of the extracanonical texts suggests that omission of resurrection tradition is due to later theological preference, rather than indicating early tradition implying that passion-resurrection tradition was a later innovation. Where there is extracanonical resurrection tradition, it is dependent upon canonical tradition. There follows a discussion of the various criteria which have been used to examine New Testament tradition for historicity, examining the strengths and weaknesses of each. It is concluded that no single criterion is adequate, but that it is possible to achieve a satisfactory degree of historical plausibility. The discussion returns to the New Testament traditions to identify where they purport to be historical, and then explored in the light of the historical criteria for plausibility. While there is clear theological development and interpretation, there is a persistent core tradition deriving from an original event. Alternative explanations, that the disciples invented resurrection to explain other experiences, are dismissed as resurrection is the least likely explanation for them to offer. The historical event itself is irrecoverable, but may be discerned by its effects. The most plausible explanation for the testimony underlying New Testament tradition, celebration on the first day of the week, and the explosive growth of the Jesus movement, is that the resurrection actually happened. Brief consideration is given to the implications of the resurrection for theology, eschatology, apologetics and engagement with postmodernism. / Thesis (M.A. (New Testament)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, in association with Greenwich School of Theology, U.K., 2009.

Thesis (M.A.)--Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2005. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 118-120).

Thesis (M. Div.)--Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology, 1996. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves xxxix-xliii).