Weaknesses Of Classical ApologeticsWe close out our look at the classical method by looking at the weaknesses of classical apologetics. We are not drumming anyone out of the faith or decrying heretics here. We're taking a reasoned and logical approach to the method and that's exactly how classical apologists would want it.Timeline:00:00 - Introduction01:47 - Classical Apologetics Isn't Infallible02:10 - Some False Criticisms Of Classical Apologetics02:33 - One Doesn't Need Rational Arguments For Proper Faith To Be Held04:03 - Classical Apologetics Does Not Substitute Faith For Reason07:18 - Three Concerns With Classical Approach07:40 - Classical Apologetics Overestimate Reason Criteria For Truth08:22 - Logic Is Universally Insufficient For Truth13:12 - No Universal Criteria For Truth Without Assuming A Worldview14:24 - Assumes Human Reasoning Can Get To God16:17 - Are Classical Arguments Sound18:21 - Classical Arguments Are Difficult For People To Understand18:53 - Classical Arguments Don't Lead Directly To The Biblical God20:21 - Classical Approach Doesn't Talk About The Personal Factors Of Belief22:40 - Not All Classical Apologists Hold All Criticism Against Them23:44 - Further Classical Apologetic Criticism26:30 - Not All Is Lost For Classical Apologetics27:06 - Claiming Neutrality For Classical Apologists Is Impossible28:13 - Classical Apologetic Claims Are Not All Agreed To28:44 - Classical Apologetics Tend To Overlook The Non-Rational Side Of Arguments28:57 - A Response To Classical Apologetics For Some Is Evidentialism30:38 - Conclusion

BOOK LINKS:

Faith Has Its Reasons By Kenneth Boa & Robert M. Bowman Jr.

KindlePaperbackLogos