Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Are Christian apologetics unbiblical? | 1 Pet 3:15 | kalos | 57676 | ||
If we shouldn't use arguments to promote the Gospel--because it's leaning on human wisdom and not God--then what are we to say? I have been challenged a number of times recently on the use of intellectual arguments and rational persuasion in the defense of the gospel. In other words, the whole idea of Christian apologetics is called into question as being unbiblical. For example, one reader said: "don't resort to...arguments to evade the clear statements of truth in the Bible,...be guided by Bible truth and put our trust in it first and foremost." (On the surface, this sounds OK. However, if you read this quote in the context of the post in which it is written, it will be plain to you that there is more to it than is evident on the surface.) Another wrote: "I want to see Scripture not no (sic) mumbo jumbo from Strong['s] or any other different references. I want Scripture." Another asked: "Is this article inspired by revelation, or, the Spirit of the living God, or, is it man's wisdom?" The implication by both these readers seems to be: you must choose between the use of intellectual arguments and rational persuasion or Bible verses alone. It's either/or. The assumption here is that using intellectual arguments and rational persuasion on the one hand and using Scripture only while passively relying on God on the other hand are two mutually exclusive options. If we shouldn't use arguments to promote the Gospel--because it's leaning on human wisdom and not God--then what are we to say? How would you answer this question? Tell us why you answer as you do. Whatever your reasoning behind your answer, tell us what it is. |
||||||
2 | Are Christian apologetics unbiblical? | 1 Pet 3:15 | srbaegon | 57730 | ||
Hello kalos An interesting question! Historically, the use of logic in theology has been considered a blessing. The area of systematic theology helps us to put the puzzle together. Where this breaks down is when we try to join verses that say similar things are removed from their context, and we come to an improper conclusion. One example is linking the "day" of Gen 1 with the "day" of 2 Pet 3:8. Even though the concept of a day is mentioned, the context shows these cannot be joined--the former speaking of creative days, the latter of the eternality of God. Because of this misuse, some groups avoid systematizing Scripture. They take a single verse out of context and create a doctrine from it. This is an extreme backlash. Proper exegesis places a verse in its correct context, and allows the expositor to systematize based on the correct underlying exegesis. Emmaus was correct that the Church Fathers were great logicians (Is that a legitimate word?) as were the Reformers. It's a neglected tool in modern theology. Steve |
||||||
3 | Are Christian apologetics unbiblical? | 1 Pet 3:15 | kalos | 57743 | ||
Steve: Thank you for sharing your good insight and observations with us. I would agree with you: sound apologetics does not equal Scripture twisting. Sound reasoning to arrive at a conclusion does not equal taking Scripture out of context and twisting it. I would also note that, while somewhat similar or related, Christian apologetics is not quite the same thing as systematic theology. On the other hand, if a group has no theology -- no statement of faith --, how do they define what it is they believe? How is anyone to know with any certainty what and how that group believes? Since all churches usually claim to go by the Bible, yet do not have the same interpretation of the Bible, then claims to go by the Bible alone are not adequate to express WHAT that church believes about the Bible or HOW they interpret or understand the Scriptures. Hence the need for churches to clarify what they beilieve -- what they mean when they say they go by the Bible alone. How do they clarify their position? By theology. By a statement of beliefs. But, again, my primary question has to do with Christian apologetics, not with denominational or systematic theology. Grace to you, kalos |
||||||