Apologetics 101

[AgnosticFront84]

Context is everything.

AF, what was it that made you change your mind about God?

You mentioned that your were Pentecostal for a number of years, but you then changed.

How so?

Thanks,

t.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A brief summary of my spiritual life. Here goes....

I was raised in an Assemblies of God church in upstate NY since I was born. My parents are devout born-again Christians and have forced

[AgnosticFront84]

You do realize that this is not talking about a

Edited June 18, 2005 by AgnosticFront84

[Kabowd]

You do realize that this is not talking about a  female but rather a nation. The passage serves to express the eagerness of the people of the Jews after idolatry. Context is everything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do, but will a 10-year-old? My point was that it could be offensive to a young person who will read and most likely comprehend that for what it says.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I mean no offense by this at all, but honestly...this has got to be one of the lamest excuses I've ever heard anyone try to use to discredit the Bible. I mean, plucking an obsure verse out of it's context and inventing a scenario which could *possibly* cause someone some concern is hardly a fair assessment of the book as a whole. For goodness sakes, you could take a book of Nursery Rhymes, pull out a single verse about the big bad wolf and scare a child to death with it too. If you want to talk about insulting intelligence, please, let's at least put together something more concrete and probable than the remote possibility of a small child perusing through the Old Testament and coming across a few bewildering passages.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not to insult your intelligence a second time but the reason I used that "excuse" was because it happened to me at 10 years old.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Surely you aren't suggesting that this is a common occurance simply based on your own experience though right? You do realize that it's EXTREMELY rare that you were reading Ezekiel at age 10...lol. Anyway, I read your testimony and am truly sorry that you endured all of that because that is a horrible way to grow up. It's honestly no wonder you have rejected religion and are at the place you are now. I would highly HIGHLY encourage you to read a book by Jay Bakker called "Son of a Preacher Man". It's the story of the child of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker and he describes a very very similar experience to what you've had. Growing up in a Pentecostal family with high expectations, etc. It's a really great book and an easy read too.

[Guest AsiD_ReiGN@yahoo.com]

Woah! Lets clear the hostility in the air! In the name of Jesus Christ and by the power of His strong blood I break off any ungodly ties and bonds between us here. If anything is said here that is not of you, Lord, I pray that you would let it fall away from us here and now, that you would give us eyes to see and ears to hear so that we might know where you are and where you are not. I ask that you continue to be here with us, beleiver and unbeleiver alike, guiding us in this time of wrestling and questioning, for it is in these places you are found. Amen!

Now, let me take an opportunity to make a few things crystal clear.

I am in no way telling you that you need to leave the word of God out of Apologetics. Go re-read what I said if you think that was my point at all. What I said was that WHEN USED DIRECTLY, meaning quoted verbatum, the Bible may not be the best tool to witness to someone seeking Truth and has not yet accepted Christ or the Word as fact. (For the reasons validation/support, as noted before that I won't bother repeating) Of course I don't beleive in changing the content, like doing rediculous things like leaving out Hell or the fact that we are all condemned through sin, or that Jesus is the only answer. Don't be rediculous. It isn't the content that I suggested was in need of changing, it is the CONTEXT. The DELIVERY that needs working on.

But wait, you mean paraphrase? Paul wouldn't have any of that, right? Again, lets stop and think about that a moment. Stop and reread what I said again for a moment. You'll notice that I DID in fact quote scripture, verbatum! But I did so to support an idea that I had already established! I once sat in on a seminary class once where the Prof (For the life of me I can't remember his name!) said something I considered revolutionary for me at the time.

Indicative: A declarative statement. Example: "Justin, don't forget your umbrella."

Imperative: A supportive statement. Example: "Its raining outside."

For a concept to be valid, you must offer both the indicative AND the imperative. If you leave any argument with one standing alone, it is unsound. The Bible ALWAYS supports this. Behave this way BECAUSE of This or That. Job was righteous in the Lord's eyes BECAUSE of X and Y. The Old Testimate itself IS the indicative to the New Testimate! They cannot stand alone and remain valid.

When someone asks a quesiton like: How is it that Jesus is both a Man and a God at the same time?

Sure, you can quote scripture at him untill your face turns blue. But what exactly does that tell him? It tells him what the Bible says about the subject, but thats it. Him beleiving it is conditional to his beleif that the Bible is true. That in turn is conditional to his beleif in God and the probability of his existence. That in turn is conditional to his experiences in life, his relationship with God, which is in turn...

Well, you get the point. Provind the indicative to an argument is NOT changing, altering, or lessening the imperative in any way. Both are necessary. If your response is: "Dont worry about that, just trust in Jesus and repent and you're saved!" You're not wrong. But you're not really giving an answer either. We are called to be witnesses! To say that we're just supposed to parrot the Bible and trust in God to make everything fit is not necessarily the whole truth. Yes, nobody comes to the Father unless he brings him there first, YES the Lord must change a heart before it is receptive to the Word, but that does NOT relieve us of the responsibility of fully understanding, expressing, and witnessing it to others. To bring someone into the presence of the father, sometimes we have to meet them where THEY are.

[Guest AsiD_ReiGN@yahoo.com]

Thank you for entrusting me with your testimony. I mean this earnestly, not in the corny sort of way most people would say it. Drop me a line. We'll talk shop. While its true, we're saved by Faith alone, it doesn't mean that we abdicate our Reason in response.

-Justin-

[Guest shiloh357]

Woah! Lets clear the hostility in the air! In the name of Jesus Christ and by the power of His strong blood I break off any ungodly ties and bonds between us here. If anything is said here that is not of you, Lord, I pray that you would let it fall away from us here and now, that you would give us eyes to see and ears to hear so that we might know where you are and where you are not. I ask that you continue to be here with us, beleiver and unbeleiver alike, guiding us in this time of wrestling and questioning, for it is in these places you are found. Amen!

Now, let me take an opportunity to make a few things crystal clear.

I am in no way telling you that you need to leave the word of God out of Apologetics. Go re-read what I said if you think that was my point at all. What I said was that WHEN USED DIRECTLY, meaning quoted verbatum, the Bible may not be the best tool to witness to someone seeking Truth and has not yet accepted Christ or the Word as fact. (For the reasons validation/support, as noted before that I won't bother repeating) Of course I don't beleive in changing the content, like doing rediculous things like leaving out Hell or the fact that we are all condemned through sin, or that Jesus is the only answer. Don't be rediculous. It isn't the content that I suggested was in need of changing, it is the CONTEXT. The DELIVERY that needs working on.

But wait, you mean paraphrase? Paul wouldn't have any of that, right? Again, lets stop and think about that a moment. Stop and reread what I said again for a moment. You'll notice that I DID in fact quote scripture, verbatum! But I did so to support an idea that I had already established! I once sat in on a seminary class once where the Prof (For the life of me I can't remember his name!) said something I considered revolutionary for me at the time.

Indicative: A declarative statement. Example: "Justin, don't forget your umbrella."

Imperative: A supportive statement. Example: "Its raining outside."

For a concept to be valid, you must offer both the indicative AND the imperative. If you leave any argument with one standing alone, it is unsound. The Bible ALWAYS supports this. Behave this way BECAUSE of This or That. Job was righteous in the Lord's eyes BECAUSE of X and Y. The Old Testimate itself IS the indicative to the New Testimate! They cannot stand alone and remain valid.

When someone asks a quesiton like: How is it that Jesus is both a Man and a God at the same time?

Sure, you can quote scripture at him untill your face turns blue. But what exactly does that tell him? It tells him what the Bible says about the subject, but thats it. Him beleiving it is conditional to his beleif that the Bible is true. That in turn is conditional to his beleif in God and the probability of his existence. That in turn is conditional to his experiences in life, his relationship with God, which is in turn...

Well, you get the point. Provind the indicative to an argument is NOT changing, altering, or lessening the imperative in any way. Both are necessary. If your response is: "Dont worry about that, just trust in Jesus and repent and you're saved!" You're not wrong. But you're not really giving an answer either. We are called to be witnesses! To say that we're just supposed to parrot the Bible and trust in God to make everything fit is not necessarily the whole truth. Yes, nobody comes to the Father unless he brings him there first, YES the Lord must change a heart before it is receptive to the Word, but that does NOT relieve us of the responsibility of fully understanding, expressing, and witnessing it to others. To bring someone into the presence of the father, sometimes we have to meet them where THEY are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

AsiD_ReiGN,

I think if you did some more extensive research on our threads, I think you would see that we often use history and science, and do not rely solely on the Bible. We try to provide reasonable and intelligent answers on this board to those who are willing to examine the facts.

It all boils down to a person's willingness to believe. There are many on this all to willing to engage in debate in the areas of science, history, and theology. I don't think that we simply "quote Scripture until we are blue in the face." I don't think that is a fair assessment of the methods used generally on the boards. You might find SOME who do, but that does not really represent us as a whole.

After everything is hashed out, it comes down to one thing in the end. What will a person do with Jesus Christ?

To date, no one on this board has been won to the Lord by a well crafted argument. No one has ever possessed the silver bullet that ended all opposition to the gospel. In the end it comes down to whether you believe the Bible or not.

Apologetics is not a witnessing tool generally speaking. Our witnessing tool is a Christ-honoring life, lived out in sincerity and truth. It is a Godly life that is consistent with our testimony and our teachings that will do more in the end to reach people.

I have heard missionaries abroad who have said, that when people see Jesus operate through his people, everyone wants to know Jesus. When their babies get healed, and people have enough to eat, when they clothes to wear, and clean water to drink, AND they realize that Jesus made all of it happen, they fall all over each other trying to get to the Saviour.

The Bible says that it is the goodness of God that leads man to repentance. When people truly experience Jesus, and NOT religion, they fall in love with Him.

[Guest AsiD_ReiGN@yahoo.com]

To make this as clear and concise as possible, I'm going to use a Q&A type of format. I'll just quote and respond, since anything else would mostly be me repeating myself.

"It all boils down to a person's willingness to believe."-

True. Without the thirst and desire for Truth nothing you say will really have any impact. They have to first desire it, they must be willing. HOWEVER, that beleif does NOT need to be a blind one. God offers support to his factuality, it exists between every line, in our daily lives, in our relationship with him, in our relationship with others and the world itself. Its up to us to express that in a way that the non-beleiver can understand. This means metaphysics, philosphy, theology, living a devout life and baring good fruit, doing good works, standing firm in the Lord before the eyes of the world, facing trials with grace and mercy, loving thy enemy, and the whole lot of it. Not just quoting scripture, but LIVING scripture and being able to stand on your results. Does this mean that Religion should substitute Faith? No! Faith is absolutely integral. But Faith is not unfounded.

"After everything is hashed out, it comes down to one thing in the end. What will a person do with Jesus Christ?"

Not everyone starts with that as their conclusion. I know that I wasn't one such person. I didn't begin my walk by saying, "Okay, Jesus is fact, so that means-" I began with "If an absolute Truth exists, lets examine the evidence" and found Jesus as the end result. We can't assume that everyone is willing to simply accept Christ and start from there, for some, I might even venture MOST, there needs to be some validation. For some it is necessary to examine the fruit of the vine, taste of it, question God and his presence in their life and in this world, reconcile themself with the problem of pain, etc. It is HEALTHY to wrestle. Did not one of Jesus's own disciples feel it necessary to touch the holes in Jesus's own hands before he would beleive? And the Lord smiled on him!

"To date, no one on this board has been won to the Lord by a well crafted argument. No one has ever possessed the silver bullet that ended all opposition to the gospel."

Also true, in-so-much that there is no universal golden rule that will win the mind of every man who hears it. But in my experience in evangelism, nearly everyone has specific issues or problems standing in their way that keeps them from beleif. It may be something as simple as having lost a loved one, to being as complicated as the nature of energy and the apparent randomness of sub-atomic particles. For me, I began to earnestly search for God when I came to certain conclusions about the nature of Free Will. The Father calls to us by instilling us with a thirst for Truth. I firmly beleive that any man who has an earnest desire to know what is True, who activley seeks it, will come to know the Father in his own time. Because if you trace any line of Facts down its chain of cause and affect, innevitably you will find the Prime Fact. There He waits.

"Apologetics is not a witnessing tool generally speaking."

I strongly disagree. If someone is challenging you in your beleif, they are usually searching themselves. Of course, you do get the occasssional trouble maker who just wants to get your rile, but many earnest seekers will begin by examining the evidence- you. So the defense of your faith is very much an evangelistic experience.

"Our witnessing tool is a Christ-honoring life, lived out in sincerity and truth."

Absolutely, positively true! Between that, prayer, and God working to change the heart, I might go as far as to say that is 90% of what goes on in being a witness to others. Its definitely the most difficult part. No matter the argument, if there is no evidence to back it up, it means nothing. But that doesn't make the argument any less essential.

There is no substitute for Faith. There is no substitute for a Christ-centered life. But again I'll repeat myself by saying that sometimes to bring someone into the presence of the Father, you have to meet them where THEY are.

-Justin-

[tsth]

I hope that the Foundation has not been forgotten? There is a reason that the Bible is used to testify and witness. Just the same reason that the following occurred.

John 1:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.

It does not say in the beginning "The Light" was with God, "The Rock", etc. THE WORD is pointedly significant. The Word has Power.

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

We cannot depart from what we heard in the beginning.

In His Love,

Suzanne

[Gerioke]

I believe that people who are not saved are in such a state because that's where they want to be.

[Guest shiloh357]

"It all boils down to a person's willingness to believe."-

True. Without the thirst and desire for Truth nothing you say will really have any impact. They have to first desire it, they must be willing. HOWEVER, that beleif does NOT need to be a blind one. God offers support to his factuality, it exists between every line, in our daily lives, in our relationship with him, in our relationship with others and the world itself. Its up to us to express that in a way that the non-beleiver can understand. This means metaphysics, philosphy, theology, living a devout life and baring good fruit, doing good works, standing firm in the Lord before the eyes of the world, facing trials with grace and mercy, loving thy enemy, and the whole lot of it. Not just quoting scripture, but LIVING scripture and being able to stand on your results. Does this mean that Religion should substitute Faith? No! Faith is absolutely integral. But Faith is not unfounded.

Again, I think that you begin with a false premise, and that is that we are advocating that all you need to do is hand people Scripture, or quote the Bible. If you really examine our boards, you will see that most here do not rely solely on Scripture.

I hear what you are saying. Our faith needs to be communicable, relevant and understandable. I completely agree with you on that. I don't necessarily agree with EVERYTHING being a witnessing tool, such as mentioned above, i.e. metaphysics, philosophy etc.. Part of the problem I have seen in the Christian world regarding our witnessing tactics, is that we tend to over extend what we are commanded to do.

The Gospel (not metaphysics, not philosophy not even apologetics) is the power of God unto Salvation. It is one thing to apologetically answer questions to give a reason for our faith and to demonstrate its veracity. It is another thing to go beyond our commission and attempt to play the part of the Holy Spirit and try to argue people into the Kingdom. I am not saying that you are suggesting such, but it is easy to end up in the ditch on either side of the road. We can be lazy, never study and have nothing to say when people ask us about our faith, or we can become over zealous and end up trying to argue people into the Kingdom which is nothing less than futile. I would also add that the best apologetics is our testimony as to what Christ has done for us, and how he has brought us through in times of trouble, and heartache.

"Apologetics is not a witnessing tool generally speaking."

I strongly disagree. If someone is challenging you in your beleif, they are usually searching themselves. Of course, you do get the occasssional trouble maker who just wants to get your rile, but many earnest seekers will begin by examining the evidence- you. So the defense of your faith is very much an evangelistic experience.

I hear you, but I believe that our witness/testimony is active, and pertains to how we live, and less with what we say. Being able to give a reason for our faith is important, and I am not taking anything away from that, but it is not primary as far as evangelism goes. You will recall that I said that apologetics is not a witnessing tool "generally speaking." I am not discounting its value as something to be used by the Holy Spirit when the occasion arises, when such an avenue fits the situation, but as a general rule, apologetics was not designed to win anyone to the Lord.

If someone refuses to receive the gospel, it is not the fault of the Christian because they did not use metaphysics or philosophy, or because they are not a skilled apologist. It is not because they did not use an electric guitar or the latest audio/visual technology. It comes down the hardness of heart in the person rejecting the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Not every Christian is a skilled apologist, and cannot draw from every sphere of human existence to make a high-browed defense of the faith. But EVERY Christian can be a living sacrifice, every Christian can be an example of holiness, every Christian can take a stand for righteousness, and and every Christian can present the pure, simple Gospel of Christ.