Results 1 - 9 of 9
|
|
|||||
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 | Emmaus | 57677 | ||
Kalos, The early Church Fathers used and were rather skilled at apologetics. All you have to do to confirm that is read some of their writings starting with Justin Martyr's "First Apology". On the other hand, apologetics has its limits unless grace is at work. So good judgement must be used in determining whether one is generating more heat than light and just wasting time and breath. There is a difference between a conversation and an endless argument. The older I get the less I like the the argument and the more I enjoy the conversation. I leave the rest to the Holy Spirit. The model I try, with limited success on my part, to follow is from 1 Peter 3:15. "...always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence..." Emmaus |
||||||
3 | Are Christian apologetics unbiblical? | 1 Pet 3:15 | kalos | 57702 | ||
Emmaus: Thanks for your reply. You make very good points here. I agree with you that arguing is unproductive and a waste of time. I just want to clarify something for the benefit of whoever may be reading this thread. When I used the word "argument" in my question, I did not mean it in the sense of "quarrel" or "disagreement." I meant it in the following sense: "argument -- 2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade 3 b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion" (www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary). I do not mean to imply that you did not get my intended meaning. Rather, I am clarifying my previous use of the word in order to remove any ambiguity or uncertainty about it. Also, I will post my answer to my question after we have read some more replies. Much grace to you, kalos |
||||||
4 | Are Christian apologetics unbiblical? | 1 Pet 3:15 | kalos | 57722 | ||
If we shouldn't use arguments[footnote 1] 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, you will see there is more to it than meets the eye.) 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 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 the two are mutually exclusive options. If we shouldn't use arguments[footnote 1] 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? Please tell us why you answer as you do. Whatever your reasoning behind your answer, tell us what it is. ------------- [Footnote 1] When I use the word "argument" here, I do not mean it in the sense of "quarrel" or "disagreement." I mean it in the following sense: "argument -- 2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade 3 b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion" (www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary). |
||||||
5 | Are Christian apologetics unbiblical? | 1 Pet 3:15 | flinkywood | 57755 | ||
Kalos, I joined this forum about a year ago. It's a mixed bag, definitely, with a lot of thick-headed, spiritless arguers. I answered a question here recently for someone of this type. A waste of time. Good thing is, you leave a body of correspondence behind for the sincere to browse. I like Makarios' posts, for ex., or Hank's, or yours, for that matter. Colin. | ||||||
6 | Are Christian apologetics unbiblical? | 1 Pet 3:15 | kalos | 57779 | ||
flinkywood: Thank you for the kind words. And I agree with you 100 percent -- "I like Makarios' posts, for ex., or Hank's." There are others on this forum you can trust including, but by no means limited to, Morant61 and Reformer Joe. Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
7 | Are Christian apologetics unbiblical? | 1 Pet 3:15 | flinkywood | 57787 | ||
Kalos, regarding arguers, there's 2 Tim 6.3,4 "If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions..." NASB I heard a joke recently: Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson are lying in a glade looking up at the stars. Holmes: Observe the sky, tell me what do you see, Dr. Watson. Watson: I see the Milky Way in all it's transfiguring glory, a spray of celestial baublery athwart an indigo firmament. What folly to fancy ourselves anything more than dust motes on a whirling bag of dust. Vanity, vanity is what I see. What do you see, Mr. Holmes? Holmes: Watson, you idiot, someone stole the tent! Some people are going to see, some aren't. Colin |
||||||
8 | Are Christian apologetics unbiblical? | 1 Pet 3:15 | kalos | 57808 | ||
Colin: Thank you for another post that is truly edifying. I enjoyed reading it. But, let me emphasize once more that when I use the word "argument" here, I do not mean it in the sense of "quarrel" or "disagreement." I mean it in the following sense: "argument -- 2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade 3 b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion" (www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary). Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
9 | Are Christian apologetics unbiblical? | 1 Pet 3:15 | flinkywood | 57824 | ||
Kalos, I understand. I'm following an argument of yours from a previous string in which you argue for argument over argument, as in "quarrel" or "disputation", if that is indeed your argument. I conclude this series of statements with a . Colin |
||||||