What Apologetics Topics give you the Most Trouble?

[Apologetics Evangelism Guy]

What issues are most difficult for you to deal with?

• Islam
• Atheism
• Faith VS Reason
• Evolution
• How to start a conversation?
• Biblical Evidences

You can add to the list. I just posted a few as examples.

I'd love some feedback on this.

I'll use these topics in upcoming podcasts. I launched my Apologetics Evangelism Podcast recently and want to deal with relevant issues!

 

Thanks,

Dylan

Edited August 26, 2016 by Apologetics Evangelism Guy

[Running Gator]

On 8/26/2016 at 10:48 AM, Apologetics Evangelism Guy said:

What issues are most difficult for you to deal with?

• Islam
• Atheism
• Faith VS Reason
• Evolution
• How to start a conversation?
• Biblical Evidences

You can add to the list. I just posted a few as examples.

I'd love some feedback on this.

I'll use these topics in upcoming podcasts. I launched my Apologetics Evangelism Podcast recently and want to deal with relevant issues!

 

Thanks,

Dylan

where can we find your PodCast?

[OneLight]

1 hour ago, Out of the Shadows said:

where can we find your PodCast?

http://apologeticsevangelism.podbean.com/

[Apologetics Evangelism Guy]

http://apologeticsevangelism.podbean.com/

 

It can also be found on iTunes and Google Play. Thanks for the feedback!

[thilipsis]

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Apologetics Evangelism Guy said:

What issues are most difficult for you to deal with?

• Islam
• Atheism
• Faith VS Reason
• Evolution
• How to start a conversation?
• Biblical Evidences

You can add to the list. I just posted a few as examples.

I'd love some feedback on this.

I'll use these topics in upcoming podcasts. I launched my Apologetics Evangelism Podcast recently and want to deal with relevant issues!

 

Thanks,

Dylan

I spent a lot of time on the Creation vs Darwinism controversy.  The biggest problem isn't dealing with the evidence, that's the easy part. It's the way that evolution, defined scientifically as,'the change of traits in populations over time', is equivocated with the philosophy of natural history known as Darwinism that causes the real problem. Someone mentioned presupposition, well the key presupposition is that, 'all change organic and inorganic is the result of natural law rather then miraculous interpolation'. I didn't make that up those are Darwin's words from the preface to the sixth edition of, On the Origin of Species. Key word is all.

The evidence  doesn't support Darwinism and Darwinism has never produced anything useful as science. The science, including two laws of inheritance, are coming from Mendelian Genetics. 

Bottom line when you get down to the real evidence and issues this is fish in a barrel. Its when you let them equivocate evolution and Darwinism or natural assumptions with natural science that things get confused.

Edited December 21, 2016 by thilipsis

[Leonardo Von]

Quote

What Apologetics Topics give you the Most Trouble?

It only there is trouble when we talk to people who don't care about the truth, but only to what is fit for them (2Tim 4:3,4).

[choir loft]

On 8/26/2016 at 11:48 AM, Apologetics Evangelism Guy said:

What issues are most difficult for you to deal with?

• Islam
• Atheism
• Faith VS Reason
• Evolution
• How to start a conversation?
• Biblical Evidences

You can add to the list. I just posted a few as examples.

I'd love some feedback on this.

I'll use these topics in upcoming podcasts. I launched my Apologetics Evangelism Podcast recently and want to deal with relevant issues!

 

Thanks,

Dylan

At its core apologetics is nothing more than philosophy with a holier-than-thou coat of paint. In Matthew 7:24-27 Jesus warned us against it.

The passage in Matthew teaches about two houses.  One is built on shifting sand and the other is built upon a rock.  

Biblical interpretation of Jesus' parable has been hijacked by the Roman Catholic Church to justify apostolic succession - religious thought control.  In point of fact Jesus used the parable to compare Subjective philosophical argument, of which apologetics is one, with Objective Mosaic LAW.  The two are not the same.

Philosophy and Apologetics are kin, except their parents don't speak to one another.  

Both are based upon SUBJECTIVE argument.  A subjective argument is one that's changeable.  Mosaic LAW is OBJECTIVE.  It doesn't change.  There are 10 commandments, not four (as in Islam).  They are commandments not suggestions (as in philosophy).  Therefore Jesus' parable may be said to compare Subjective changeable thoughts of man with the Objective unchanging Biblical LAWs of God.

Philosophy and its sister Apologetics is based upon changeable human society.  Every ten to fifteen years society changes those things it deems important - it's philosophy.  It's very much like a chess game except that it plays games with one's head.  In chess the winner memorizes clever moves to win.  In the same way, philosophy and apologetics players fashion new arguments (moves) to oppose an assertion (a basic argument from which a debate proceeds).  The winner of such a contest maneuvers his opponent into a position that cannot be opposed.  Christian  witnesses of such an event applaud and yell, "we win". It's the same as taking the king in a game of chess except it's all in the head - a mind game.   

In apologetics, the pastoral conundrum is to play catch-up with the social philosophy of the day.  Unfortunately the process takes about five to ten years for religious philosophical arguments to be conceived and to percolate throughout the religious community.  By then social philosophy is very near another change.  When it comes the whole process begins anew - move and counter move, argument and counter-argument.  When social philosophy changes faster than pastoral apologetics can keep up it's the religious community that's pinned.  Christians begin to doubt God - when it's actually their mind game that's in doubt.

At present, social conditions in America have reached a philosophical point of no return - a tipping point leading to social disaster.  Pastors can no longer keep up with philosophical change.  Their arguments seem outdated and irrelevant because apologetic arguments aren't matching social philosophical changes fast enough.  The game is lost before the contest is engaged.

Philosophy and Apologetics are subjective in nature.  They are houses built upon shifting sand.

ENTER MOSAIC LAW.

Mosaic LAW is objective in nature.  It doesn't change.  This is the house built upon the solid rock of God's unchanging Word.

Society may change, but the LAW of God doesn't.  It's still wrong to kill even though society may legalize war abroad and abortion at home.  Adultery is still a violation of the LAW despite it's entertainment value.  SIN is still punishable by death even though society has forgotten what SIN is. God still dies upon the cross as a requirement of the LAW so as to enable our forgiveness and salvation.  Christians embrace lawLESSness and lose credibility in society for abandoning their moral and spiritual compass - their principles.  

Philosophy has no answer for human guilt except denial of it.  Apologetics has no answer because its outdated.

The LAW always has an answer because it does not change.  The answer is REPENTANCE leading to FORGIVENESS and SALVATION in Christ.  Salvation is in Christ because no other presumed god DIES for the SINs of man and no other presumed god rises out of His own grave to prove His power of Life and Death.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

Edited November 8, 2021 by choir loft

[NickyLouse]

• answering cults such as LDS and JW

[missmuffet]

Any issues that do not line up with the true literal Word of God. 

[toocoolblue]

The most difficult topic I find in apologetics is wondering, why bother?

You will never argue someone into heaven. And you are not supposed to, you present the gospel of Christ and the person you have witnessed to - is free to take it or leave it. The rest is up to the Holy Spirit and the person.

As far as science, it's great to talk about. But only with Christians. We are told to, "avoid oppositions of science falsely so called" in 1 Tim 6:20.

Is this because there is no way to oppose what's laughably being called 'science'? Of course not, it's just that it's a waste of your time.

People who believe that a rock created itself out of nothing, and next a monkey crawled out of the rock and became their grandfather aren't about to hear that there might be a flaw in that plan.

If you ask someone, "Where did your cell phone come from? Was it designed by an engineer you never met and built in a factory you've never seen?... Or, did it create itself out of thin air?"  You tell me, what is the more logical and likely explanation?

Unless you're crazy, the intelligent engineer is the most likely creator.

Yet the Atheist who starts his argument from the premise of, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" doesn't even realize his claim of instant self creation of the Universe and everything in it, is the extraordinary claim. And that he's the one who must provide extraordinary evidence.

How do you argue with this? In the south, there is a saying, "Boy...you can't fix stupid." But it's not really stupidity, it's a wilful choice to reject the gospel at any price. No matter how absurd any alternate explanation may be.

With such a person, you're not going to have a discussion or a debate decided by facts, logic and truth. What you are going to have is an argument. And a argument is really just two idiots standing on the street corner yelling at each other. It's probably better to not be one of the idiots.

Edited February 8, 2022 by toocoolblue