Weaknesses Of Classical Apologetics

We 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 – Introduction
01:47 – Classical Apologetics Isn’t Infallible
02:10 – Some False Criticisms Of Classical Apologetics
02:33 – One Doesn’t Need Rational Arguments For Proper Faith To Be Held
04:03 – Classical Apologetics Does Not Substitute Faith For Reason
07:18 – Three Concerns With Classical Approach
07:40 – Classical Apologetics Overestimate Reason Criteria For Truth
08:22 – Logic Is Universally Insufficient For Truth
13:12 – No Universal Criteria For Truth Without Assuming A Worldview
14:24 – Assumes Human Reasoning Can Get To God
16:17 – Are Classical Arguments Sound
18:21 – Classical Arguments Are Difficult For People To Understand
18:53 – Classical Arguments Don’t Lead Directly To The Biblical God
20:21 – Classical Approach Doesn’t Talk About The Personal Factors Of Belief
22:40 – Not All Classical Apologists Hold All Criticism Against Them
23:44 – Further Classical Apologetic Criticism
26:30 – Not All Is Lost For Classical Apologetics
27:06 – Claiming Neutrality For Classical Apologists Is Impossible
28:13 – Classical Apologetic Claims Are Not All Agreed To
28:44 – Classical Apologetics Tend To Overlook The Non-Rational Side Of Arguments
28:57 – A Response To Classical Apologetics For Some Is Evidentialism
30:38 – Conclusion