Apologetics and defense of the gospel?

[Guest shiloh357]

On 6/8/2017 at 9:44 AM, Neighbor said:

Seeing the apologetics area on the board I am led to wonder and to question the overall industry of apologetics as it is applied today.

Just what good purpose does it serve? Is there any  anything at all, or is the industry more  a series of contests for entertainment of followers of this debater and that one? Is there salvation testified to in the debates? Is the Holy Spirit called upon  to open the eyes and then change the hearts of the unsaved?

 Just what do the ship cruises that sell berths for a week of hearing James White,  or Phil Johnson take on Ergun Caner, or whoever is set up as the opponent plan  to accomplish, other than  to make a living for the debaters the cruise lines and the planners of debates? I get the strong feeling one comes out having listened to such debates enlightened only in that which they went in with and  did  already claim and profess.  If so then  the purpose is what? 

The purpose of apologetics is to demonstrate the rationality and coherence of the Christian faith.  Faith, by nature, is evidentiary.  Ours is not blind faith, but apologetics shows how our faith makes sense with the human experience.   It is not about proving the existence of God, or proving something we didn't know before, but it strengthens our ability to demonstrate that we are not believing in fairy tales or irrational claims.

It doesn't win arguments, as it is not designed to do that.  But even if skeptics disagree with us, apologetics will take away from them, the oft-made claim that our faith is akin to believing in Santa Claus.

[Reinitin]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

The purpose of apologetics is to demonstrate the rationality and coherence of the Christian faith.  Faith, by nature, is evidentiary.  Ours is not blind faith, but apologetics shows how our faith makes sense with the human experience.   It is not about proving the existence of God, or proving something we didn't know before, but it strengthens our ability to demonstrate that we are not believing in fairy tales or irrational claims.

It doesn't win arguments, as it is not designed to do that.  But even if skeptics disagree with us, apologetics will take away from them, the oft-made claim that our faith is akin to believing in Santa Claus.

You have to admit some of those who love the debates are cloaked in flowing gowns of arrogance with fruitless hearts, and those with the weakest of doctrins love to dominate and threaten fellow Christians with flat out copy and paist arguments pulled as far out of context as the scriptures they use for sloppy catch all doctrins.

[Reinitin]

On 6/8/2017 at 9:44 AM, Neighbor said:

Seeing the apologetics area on the board I am led to wonder and to question the overall industry of apologetics as it is applied today.

Just what good purpose does it serve? Is there any  anything at all, or is the industry more  a series of contests for entertainment of followers of this debater and that one? Is there salvation testified to in the debates? Is the Holy Spirit called upon  to open the eyes and then change the hearts of the unsaved?

 Just what do the ship cruises that sell berths for a week of hearing James White,  or Phil Johnson take on Ergun Caner, or whoever is set up as the opponent plan  to accomplish, other than  to make a living for the debaters the cruise lines and the planners of debates? I get the strong feeling one comes out having listened to such debates enlightened only in that which they went in with and  did  already claim and profess.  If so then  the purpose is what? 

I believe some of it is used by God as much as He used Paul to debate the philisophical think tanks of his time. But, sadly alot that is called apologetics in this chat is just over inflated ego's with the ability to use google and copy, paist and parrot people that may or may not have studied to show themselves approved and may or may not have saught the Lord in all humility knowing God loves and desires to save not condemn the people on the other side of the debate. So without love and a desire that men be saved it is just hateful banter of people trying to look smart and make other people appear stupid. Flesh beggeting Flesh and in arrogance sowers of discord among brethern. 

Edited August 22, 2017 by Reinitin

[Jaydog1976]

On 6/11/2017 at 0:06 AM, Your closest friendnt said:

Hello Neighbor, I would like to invite you to a debate. 

I am just kidding. 

There is no place for debates in a church environment, and there is no place also for examining the speaker, unless you ready for your exit from that church. 

I always examine what my pastor does and teaches. I make sure that what he preaches lines up with scripture. 

 

[Sower]

hypocrite

(1) A person who engages in the same behaviors he condemns others for.
(2) A person who professes certain ideals, but fails to live up to them.
(3) A person who holds other people to higher standards than he holds himself.

Hello His Closest Friend. At first I thought you were playing the devils advocate. Tongue  in cheek. I think we all, well most, understand wanting to spare someone hurt feelings, or encouraging a child. Or even preventing someones harm by not revealing information that could lead to their unjustified death. "Wise as a serpent, harmless as a dove"  But based upon the meaning of the word 'hypocrisy' that you use, it just doesn't work.  There times in scripture where God allows men who meant evil, where God meant it for good. That is not hypocrisy. You cannot question God's methods, as is witnessed now, with this thread, which caused me to get in the word to give reply. A father who tells his son he did a good job cutting the grass, when it wasn't as good as Dad could do, yet realizing it was a good job based upon his son's age, experience, and abilities, is not hypocrisy. That would be called wisdom, compassion. Look at the definitions above. May God bless this discussion.

[Neighbor]

On 6/8/2017 at 10:44 AM, Neighbor said:

Seeing the apologetics area on the board I am led to wonder and to question the overall industry of apologetics as it is applied today.

Just what good purpose does it serve? Is there any  anything at all, or is the industry more  a series of contests for entertainment of followers of this debater and that one? Is there salvation testified to in the debates? Is the Holy Spirit called upon  to open the eyes and then change the hearts of the unsaved?

 Just what do the ship cruises that sell berths for a week of hearing James White,  or Phil Johnson take on Ergun Caner, or whoever is set up as the opponent plan  to accomplish, other than  to make a living for the debaters the cruise lines and the planners of debates? I get the strong feeling one comes out having listened to such debates enlightened only in that which they went in with and  did  already claim and profess.  If so then  the purpose is what? 

How is this for ego-quoting myself- ha!

Please excuse it. I  am trying to refresh my memory of what I was driving at and questioning, for my own benefit.

Apologetics is a reasoned justification of some conclusion. I use the word in connection with our mutual faith that Jesus is Lord God and our savior. We may use it in connection with a list of doctrines, which  is  closely held truths.

The issue for debate or exchange is; what is true?

My own question is; what is productive in the sharing of the gospel with an unsaved world?

Since I know a cruise operator that forms Christian cruises, and I have met and had some contact with a few of the individuals on the cruise ship apologetics/debates circuit, I started to wonder about it.

DO I want to go on a few such cruises? I can  likely even get a discount.

Might I learn things that will help me? Help me what?, then became my question. What gain is there for me in listening to such debates that will bring any glory to my Lord and savior? Is there any?

When does the debate become vain argument to be avoided?

Why is apologetics an industry? - least it seems to be for some. The three debaters I mentioned already rapidly came to mind, since I have been exposed to them some. I find them to be rather odd ducks, kinda snarky and swaggerly paced (if swaggerly is a word). Some really like them for sure! And they vie over getting chance to  pose a really probing question or positional thought of their own into the "hello how are you?" introductions to these debaters. The champions of their own doctrines, the stars of commercialized apologetics, have a quick putdown at the ready since they get this all the time.  Personally I don't see the value for anyone, in the process.

And so I wonder about the whole apologetics industry. Is this what it is? Just vain argument, a-  "I can top you effort", and not a seeking enlightenment from the illumination of the word through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and with much prayer and study?

 I wonder the purpose of apologetics as it is used commercially: 

Does it serve good Godly  purpose that brings glory to God in the attendees of these cruise debates, or not?

Is it just entertainment?  And I suppose my original thought is; will I enjoy such a cruise, will I find surprising grand benefit, will it bring benefit to me that may glorify God or not?

Does anyone ever learn anything they didn't already hold to be truth, even though there are two opposing sides to all  things debated?

Does anyone ever leave an apologetics debate saying; wow I have to change my mind based upon what I now have learned!" ?

Or is it just a vain exercise as practiced today, -an  entertainment to amuse and to display bits and pieces of articulation with no real purpose behind it?

Anyone here ever change their own mind as result of hearing these  "professional " debaters perform?

Guess one way to find out- book a short apologetics cruise- and ask if they open up the ship's casino when they  get past the 12 mile coastal territorial mark, just in case the debate is a total bore.  (Just kidding).

Edited August 22, 2017 by Neighbor

[Your closest friendnt]

2 hours ago, Gary Lee said:

hypocrite

(1) A person who engages in the same behaviors he condemns others for.
(2) A person who professes certain ideals, but fails to live up to them.
(3) A person who holds other people to higher standards than he holds himself.

Hello His Closest Friend. At first I thought you were playing the devils advocate. Tongue  in cheek. I think we all, well most, understand wanting to spare someone hurt feelings, or encouraging a child. Or even preventing someones harm by not revealing information that could lead to their unjustified death. "Wise as a serpent, harmless as a dove"  But based upon the meaning of the word 'hypocrisy' that you use, it just doesn't work.  There times in scripture where God allows men who meant evil, where God meant it for good. That is not hypocrisy. You cannot question God's methods, as is witnessed now, with this thread, which caused me to get in the word to give reply. A father who tells his son he did a good job cutting the grass, when it wasn't as good as Dad could do, yet realizing it was a good job based upon his son's age, experience, and abilities, is not hypocrisy. That would be called wisdom, compassion. Look at the definitions above. May God bless this discussion.

Hello Garry, 

Thank you for the definition, your good word, and the exable about the wisdom of the Father. 

And your post in general it was wrote in a wise way, and it was well taken. 

I might have had some reason why I posted in the tone of the attitude that I did. 

There is always a better way to communicate our thoughts, and I aknowledge the need for improvement . 

I some time challenge ( but not everyone will perceived what I challenge because it was not clear, it was a multifaced inquiry. and people will feel the need to defend, which I expect. 

JESUS called the Farisees hypocrites, some time he gave some reason, and in a different ways. 

JESUS he did not try to win them collectively. 

THOSE people believed for many years before JESUS CHRIST,  that they are the chosen People of the coming CHRIST and they groom themselfs to make them worthy to rain together with the Messaih and his kingdom, that's what they believe. 

JESUS had chosen his disciples the people to rain with him, in JESUS CHRIST consept not theirs, and the Farisees were not included, as a collective group. 

They were chosen by JESUS CHRIST to be part of his plan to complete his mission, they were an instrument, but their role was to be deferent. 

Those were the people who had the Power among other things to put to death anyone who offents what they believe, the preists and the Farisees were the Gardians of what they believe, and this is true, the Lord God Almighty had given them instructions how to punish those of their own who commitee sacrilegious offences. The punishment for Disobedience of the Sabath was Death. At the beginning it was practice, but later the whole nation went astray, the disobedient became the lost children of Israel. They were excluded. 

All this happened before the Cross, after the Cross JESUS CHRIST is calling everyone to faith and the  change of mind and invites everyone to believe, the way David invited his enemies to join him, when they changed their mind about David. 

The same way it was with Paul, and many others. 

JESUS CHRIST had a mission to wake in them, the preist and the Pharisees their duty that they are the Gardians of the Sabath.

To make them accept their duty and to do something they had stopped doing, to put to death someone who discrated the Sabath, and that's not enough, he was also teaching the people that this is a blessing from God, that God healed the people on the Sabath, that was too much, God had punish with death the Disobedience of the Sabath, JESUS was talking like he had never knew what the Lord said to keep the Sabbath Holly. 

And ooue to him who is going to teach the people not to respect the Sabath. 

JESUS called them hypocrites because on the Sabath they saved a life, whether a man's or an animal's. 

JESUS had to work hard to bring the Leaders in a position to uphold the Law and put him to death. 

The Leaders were afraid of him, Jesus had a very difficult task to accomplish. 

JESUS had powers to heal, that meant he had powers to distroy. 

It was a very unbalance situation, the Farisees were waiting for some time for the Lord to raise a prophet with powers from them, to face Jesus the way it happens in the past all the time, when he raised Moses to face the ocult powers of Egypt, and Farraw, The leaders were left with only one option, to take matters upon their own hands. 

We do not expect the Farisees to love Jesus for what he was doing to them, and the way he provoked them to anger, and eventually hate, they wanted to kill him, they plan to kill him , that does not come out of love, JESUS CHRIST made sure that they were full of anger and "hate" for him, that their cup was running over, that they can not control them selfs, and made sure that they cannot find their peace till they put him to Death. 

JESUS CHRIST had to be put to death by the preist. He wanted them to hate him he did not want to win them over, before the Cross , only after the Cross he called them to faith. The same with every one who shouted "crusified" him. And latter Peter told that JESUS accepts their repentance, their change of mind, to understand that he was the CHRIST, (that repentance had nothing to do with morality). 

And he accepted their faith, according to the new Covenant he gave them Eternal Life. 

According to the old Covenant he should give them death, but JESUS is the Author of the New Covenant, of forgiveness and  the Author of Life, he gives LIFE not Death. there is no old , only the new, the old is past.