Christocentric Philosophy

In Part 1 , we pointed out that the non Christian rejects the revelational starting point of Christianity and instead starts with the self in building an epistemology. We also noted that such a starting point is problematic, specifically making reference to the problem of connection. In this part, we'd be further exploring another problem for any epistemology that starts with the subject. People do make mistakes in their examination and interpretation of certain facts. Sometimes, such mistakes are due to ignorance - ignorance of some relevant body of facts or information that would help interpret a certain fact correctly. It is also true that sometimes people believe something so strongly but some new fact comes along and overturns that belief. If we're going to posit the self as the starting point in epistemology as the non Christian does, then we have a problem. Without exhaustive knowledge of all facts and their relation to each other, how can we know that there isn't s...

The non Christian encounters his first problem at the very beginning of his epistemology - the starting point. When we talk of epistemology we simply mean a theory of what we can know, what we do know and how we know. To know anything at all, we have to start somewhere. The Christian starts with God and his revelatory Word. The non Christian starts somewhere very different. He starts with the self/subject. Some have even suggested that we cannot but start with ourselves in constructing an epistemology. Before moving on, some things about the Christian epistemological scheme must be noted. Our epistemological starting point is God's revelation. According to the Christian worldview, God has revealed Himself to us in his creation and in our very constitution. Man cannot escape the clear revelation of God because knowing ourselves implies knowing God as well. Given this starting point, we can know God. And because we can know God, we can also know ourselves and God's world. We ...

In the series of posts spanning over the next few days, we'd be examining and trying to defend a core claim of presuppositional apologists - that we cannot know anything without God. This treatment is in no way expected to be exhaustive, or provide the final say on the matter. Rather, it's meant to give a brief sketch of the core arguments in which apologists could delve into, develop and defend. Given that the treatments here would be sketchy, I would not be too technical. My aim is to keep things simple while not oversimplifying things. Basically, I'd be providing various arguments that undermine the rationality of the non Christian epistemological scheme. I may not be engaging with objections although some may be answered in the posts themselves. I hope you would be helped by this series.

All varieties of the non Christian worldview presuppose that the  intelligibility of human experience can be attained on autonomous lines. Deism is no exception. It teaches a non-interventionist god who just creates the world and leaves it to itself. Like how we handle any other variety of unbelief, we can compare the deistic view to the Chriztian, noting the points in which it denies the Christian worldview. Through this, we can show the folly of unbelief. Deism proposes a mute god. A god who has not communicated to humanity or acted in history. We can see from this that a deist would not claim to have received revelation and as such cannot adhere to a revelational epistemology as the Christian does. Hence, a deist is in no better position than the atheist is in providing an epistemology that accounts for knowledge and provides the preconditions of intelligible experience. Unlike the Christian who's epistemological starting point is God's revelation, the deist would posit th...

Classical apologetics attempts to rationally defend the Christian faith by employing, in most cases, the traditional proofs for God's existence. Offering proofs such as the cosmological, teleological, ontological and moral are the first in a two-step approach to establishing Christianity. The second being offering arguments from fulfilled  prophecy, miracles, resurrection, etc. Classical apologists aim to first establish that this is a theistic universe and then appeal to the arguments mentioned in the second step to distinguish Christianity from other forms of theism. In my estimation, such an approach to apologetics proves inadequate and unsatisfactory for reasons I will spell out shortly. I will divide these reasons into two categories - theological and philosophical. Theological Since the conclusion of the classical approach is that Christianity is probably true or is the most probable amongst others, the unbeliever is always left with an excuse to reject the existence of Go...