Stuart DiNenno

I agree. But we also need to be careful that our "peace and love" is not misconstrued as acceptance of their sinful lifestyles and their rejection of Christ. Harsh condemnation might only harden unbelievers against hearing the truth, but coddling them and appearing to be tolerant of their rebellion against God can also lead them into a false sense of safety. Remember, Paul was always confronting men with the truth knowing "the terror of the Lord" and the consequences for remaining in a state of disobedience. Also, it's true that we must interact with the ungodly. As Paul said to the Corinthians, we would have to leave the world if we were to separate ourselves from all sinners. But he also told them that "evil communications corrupt good manners." We cannot be aloof to the point that we are not able to bear witness of Christ's righteousness in our lives but we also should not be too chummy with people who show no interest in the gospel or those who have already rejected Christ.

I never liked the mixture of American patriotism and Christianity that is found in many of today's Evangelical churches. You won't find any American flags posted anywhere in the room where we hold our Sunday meetings, we don't sing anything but psalms and religious hymns, and no one preaches sermons exhorting Christians to political activism. They don't discourage their members from being politically involved and they don't condemn patriotism, but the preacher often points out that the political and social movements commonly promoted by today's churches are futile because many of those same churches have turned away from preaching a straightforward and convicting gospel message and have deemphasized the necessity of repentance and obedience to the word of God.

As I said (I did say it, right?) NO church or denomination is perfect. The thing is, though, it doesn't have to be perfect, people just need to have their hearts in the right place. On that note, you will ALWAYS find SOMEONE in ANY church who has a bad attitude and whatnot, but you know what? You can pray for them, and you can go about your daily life in the church unhindered in your worship because of their problems. Just make sure that the church has the things that are indispensible; the core values, the belief in the Father, Son, the Holy Spirit....things like that. I think you know what I mean. I believe that we NEED fellowship with other believers. I also believe that this is a scriptural view, as it says in Hebrews 10:25 "Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another

But what if, for all the reasons mentioned in my previous post, he doesn't feel comfortable in any of the numerous churches he has visited and so he decides to stay away from them all. Is he doing anything wrong if he decides to stay home on the Lord's Day, study the Bible, read doctrinal writings, and live out his faith in his daily life as best as he can?

And what if, after spending time among numerous groups which all profess to be Christian churches, he finds himself believing that none of them are theologically accurate on all points of doctrine, he believes that their church meetings are conducted in an unbiblical way, he believes that the churches are not governed according to the teaching of the Bible, and he believes that the majority of the members of the churches are quite worldly-minded and their religion is superficial. What should he do then? Stuart DiNenno

Question for the group: How should one go about finding a church to join, if he doesn't already belong to one? Stuart DiNenno

If you are referring to Paul's preaching to the Athenians, Paul did nothing more than proclaim the truths of the biblical God and the gospel of Jesus Christ before an audience that was willing to hear it. Some believed and some did not. He did not debate anything and he did not attempt to prove anything, in this case. And when he did debate and offer proof, it was only with men who already accepted that the Scriptures are the word of God, and the proof of his doctrine consisted solely of scriptural argumentation. I don't believe that there is any support for the practices of modern apologists in anything Paul did. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I just assumed that everyone knew that the minute you open your mouth before unbelief, that you are defending the faith whether you are witnessing or being accused. Maybe it's true that anytime we open our mouths before unbelief we're defending the faith in some way. But there are many times when we ought to keep our mouths closed before unbelief, and when we do open our mouths before unbelief, then we should do it in ways that are in line with the Bible's teaching. Again, in the Scriptures we never see believers debating with rank unbelievers or trying to offer proof to them. That sort of apologetics is foolish and futile. Stuart DiNenno

That's funny. I was gonna say the same thing for evolution. "How are you going to convince anyone with even half a brain of the 'truth that we evolved from a rock?'" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If the man whom he is trying to convince has a rock in that other half of his brain, then he has a good chance of succeeding.

Your questions assume that unbelief is an intellectual problem and can be solved by appeals to the intellect. That's a false assumption. And your questions assume that I am interested in discussing the things of God with atheists. That's another false assumption.

It is because I "trust and obey" that God exists and that the Scriptures are the word of God as they claim to be, that I don't give that which is holy unto dogs by trying to offer the ungodly proof of the existence of God, nor do I cast my pearls before swine by debating with unbelievers about the validity of the Holy Scriptures. But if anyone else is determined to do so, then I will not stand in his way. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I take that as a "yes" it has a lot to do with the "hope that lies within you," correct? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Obviously, what you are getting at is that if the validity of the Scriptures and the existence of God have to do with "the hope that lies within" me, then I must be prepared to give answers about these two things to any man that asks. And I agree that I must be ready to do so. But it has to be done in accordance with the examples given in the Scriptures. And since the Scriptures do not exemplify or support debating with unbelievers or attempting to prove things to them, I do not believe that this is included in what Peter is requiring Christians to do. And though I must always be ready to give answers about these things to any man that asks, that does not mean that I must always be willing to give answers to any man that asks. As Calvin said about this verse: "Peter does not expressly bid us to assert and proclaim what has been given us by the Lord everywhere, and always and among all indiscriminately, for the Lord gives his people the spirit of discretion, so that they may know when and how far and to whom it is expedient to speak." Christians have to discern who is worthy of being answered and who is not, and Christ himself sometimes gave no answer at all to questions or remarks addressed to him.

It is because I "trust and obey" that God exists and that the Scriptures are the word of God as they claim to be, that I don't give that which is holy unto dogs by trying to offer the ungodly proof of the existence of God, nor do I cast my pearls before swine by debating with unbelievers about the validity of the Holy Scriptures. But if anyone else is determined to do so, then I will not stand in his way.

Sorry, I accidentally posted the same message twice.

So you say, but I don't know that to be true. I can only go by the tools I have and by the testimony of the Scriptures in which the things that modern apologists do are not exemplified. Not with anything like the methods used by modern apologists, as I have already shown. Agreed. False doctrines that creep into the church need to be refuted and the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures needs to be thoroughly declared to the faithful. But I don't believe that there is anytime when it is necessary to debate unbelievers, respond to their attacks, or try to prove anything to them. No, you're wrong on this point. In Paul's so-called apology, there was no debate or proof offered. He only declared the biblical God and left it at that. Now, if you want to limit the definition of apologetics to this sort of thing, then I'll agree that apologetics is biblical. There's no reason to go on with examples of what you mentioned above because I don't dispute any of it. I only maintain that these things don't support the practices of modern apologists which I have repeatedly mentioned. And it would also be irresponsible for me to accept the unproven assertions of a stranger in a discussion forum. But I'm not relying solely on a dictionary and I have done a little bit of research in some of the things that you mention. What I rely most upon is the testimony of Scripture interpreted by Scripture. And there is no support for practices such as debating atheists about the existence of God or trying to prove the validity of the Scriptures to unbelievers. Since you mentioned that I should be referencing commentaries, here is John Calvin's commentary on 1 Peter 3:15. Notice that he interprets the verse to mean only that Christians ought to be ready to avow their faith and make it evident through their words and actions that they truly worship God and practice a holy religion. He says absolutely nothing that supports the practices of modern apologists which I have said are not biblical: "Though this is a new precept, it yet depends on what is gone before, for he requires such constancy in the faithful, as boldly to give a reason for their faith to their adversaries. And this is a part of that sanctification which he had just mentioned; for we then really honor God, when neither fear nor shame hinders us from making a profession of our faith. But Peter does not expressly bid us to assert and proclaim what has been given us by the Lord everywhere, and always and among all indiscriminately, for the Lord gives his people the spirit of discretion, so that they may know when and how far and to whom it is expedient to speak. He bids them only to be ready to give an answer, lest by their sloth and the cowardly fear of the flesh they should expose the doctrine of Christ, by being silent, to the derision of the ungodly. The meaning then is, that we ought to be prompt in avowing our faith, so as to set it forth whenever necessary, lest the unbelieving through our silence should condemn the religion we follow. But it ought to be noticed, that Peter here does not command us to be prepared to solve any question that may be mooted; for it is not the duty of all to speak on every subject. But it is the general doctrine that is meant, which belongs to the ignorant and the simple. Then Peter had in view no other thing, than that Christians should make it evident to unbelievers that they truly worshipped God, and had a holy and good religion. And in this there is no difficulty, for it would be strange if we could bring nothing to defend our faith when any one made inquiries respecting it. For we ought always to take care that all may know that we fear God, and that we piously and reverently regard his legitimate worship. This was also required by the state of the times: the Christian name was much hated and deemed infamous; many thought the sect wicked and guilty of many sacrileges. It would have been, therefore, the highest perfidy against God, if, when asked, they had neglected to give a testimony in favor of their religion. And this, as I think, is the meaning of the word apology, which Peter uses, that is, that the Christians were to make it evident to the world that they were far off from every impiety, and did not corrupt true religion, on which account they were suspected by the ignorant. Hope here is by a metonymy to be taken for faith. Peter, however, as it has been said, does not require them to know how to discuss distinctly and refinedly every article of the faith, but only to shew that their faith in Christ was consistent with genuine piety. And hence we learn how all those abuse the name of Christians, who understand nothing certain respecting their faith, and have nothing to give as an answer for it. But it behoves us again carefully to consider what he says, when he speaks of that hope that is in you; for he intimates that the confession which flows from the heart is alone that which is approved by God; for except faith dwells within, the tongue prattles in vain. It ought then to have its roots within us, so that it may afterwards bring forth the fruit of confession."

If you are referring to Paul's preaching to the Athenians, Paul did nothing more than proclaim the truths of the biblical God and the gospel of Jesus Christ before an audience that was willing to hear it. Some believed and some did not. He did not debate anything and he did not attempt to prove anything, in this case. And when he did debate and offer proof, it was only with men who already accepted that the Scriptures are the word of God, and the proof of his doctrine consisted solely of scriptural argumentation. I don't believe that there is any support for the practices of modern apologists in anything Paul did.