More key Defenders of the Faith terminologies, views, thoughts and arguments in question and answer format.

What is Descartes (Meditations) ontological argument? - Descartes argues that every one can conceive of God. The idea of God is that of an infinite perfect unlimited Being. For everything there must be a cause as great or greater that the effect. Therefore, for the idea of God which we have, there must be an infinite, perfect, unlimited cause. But we are not infinite, perfect or unlimited and therefore could not create such an idea ourselves. There must be a cause outside of ourselves, which is infinite, perfect and unlimited, which caused the idea of God which we have in our minds. This Cause, according to Descartes, is the God of the Bible.

What is the negative form (proslogion 3) of ontological arguments? - This argument begins from the negative position that no contradictory thing can be conceived. No inconceivable thing can exist (the rational=real formula). The idea of God, by definition, a necessary Being, who does not exist is a contradiction and thus inconceivable. Thus, a God who does not exist cannot exist. Therefore, God of the Bible exists.

What is the difference between Van Tils approach and the more traditional approaches to apologetics? - According to Van Til himself, traditional approaches to apologetics neglects to make proper use of facts as Gods facts. Rather, it implies that man is an autonomous reference point for interpreting the facts. The traditional method compromises God and Christianity by considering God to be only probable as opposed to ontologically and rationally necessary. What this method does in effect is allow unbelievers excuses by minimizing natural revelation and making poor use of Scripture. It compromises all the biblical teachings, including God, man, revelation, creation, the fall and redemption of man.

Van Tils approach insists that Christian appeals to non-Christians no longer be made to that which is believed by both (common notion) but that which is true of both (common ground). Christians must convey the authority of the self attesting, self-explanatory Christ of Scripture. Van Til feel strongly that we Christians must confront the autonomous rebellious will of non-Christians by challenging their concepts and presuppositions to reveal the end result; absurdity. We must present the facts as they are (and what the non-Christian already knows) and call them back to the reality of life in Christ.

What are some of the pro and con points regarding Free-Will Defense against evil? -

PRO: The nature of free-will renders man human rather than mechanical. It makes the world a better place in which to live because it allows man, as Gods creation, freedom to make decisions. God cannot then, be held responsible for allowing evil to exist. His creatures freedom is being protected regardless of the decision he makes. Also, a human world is a more God-like world and thus for Christians, a better world. A world of robots cannot reproduce the character of God. A human, free choice world can.

CON: Man cannot have free-will if God pre-destines. That is, if there is a certain order of causes according to which everything happens, then by predestination all things happen that were meant to happen. Therefore, there is nothing really in our own power, which means man does not have free-will.

Some have argued also from the standpoint of the New Jerusalem. If New Jerusalem will have no sin then naturally everyone will choose good which suggests that there was not really a choice. Other opponents to the free-will defense suggests that free will is an illusion, not reality; that maybe free-will has no moral value to offer; the world may be better if occupied by robots (with respect to evil), and so on.

What is fideism? - Fideism is an approach to apologetics which emphasizes the belief that truth in religion rest solely on faith. Reason has no place in fideistic thought on religion. They present no rational defense for the faith and it is purely based on a leap of faith.

I do not think fideism is a good or even necessary method for defending Christianity as it denies the possibility of defense. Though many of its supporters offer good insight into the dynamic of faith (and certainly when Christians stumble across the mysterious, depend upon this faith) it devalues the role of reason. In fact, it objects to the necessity of reason in assessing truth in religion.

I do not believe further that Christianity calls us to a blind leap of faith. I am among those who feel faith should be responsible. Christians should be able to intelligently explain their position so that non-Christians may be intelligently convinced. I wonder if fideists, in their leap of faith do not lose much of Christianitys content. Even if the fideists acceptance of the truth of Christianity were right, they would be unable to discuss with non-believers why it is right. Must a non-Christian close the door on reason and understanding in order to have faith? I dont think so. In my humble estimation, faith and reason should go hand in hand. They complement and supplement each other.