Is apologetics necessary?

[Stuart DiNenno]

Then you know something I don't know.

There's a TON of things in the Bible that you don't know...it's obvious!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe so. But let's get back to discussing the topic.

By the way, Rock, I'm sorry for mocking your question. That was not appropriate on my part. It would have been better if I had just refrained from responding to it.

Edited August 14, 2005 by Stuart DiNenno

[apothanein kerdos]

Peter commands it in his epistle, to hold a ready defense to those that ask of what we believe. In essence, he is saying when someone attacks what we believe or ask why we believe what we believe, we need to be able to defend it.

According to Strong's, the Greek word apologia can mean a reasoned statement. It doesn't always means a defense against an adversary. And I have noticed that the Greek word aiteo is used in the verse which means ask and never refers to an adversarial challenge. Therefore, I think that the KJV properly translates apologia here as answer (to an inquirer) instead of defense (against a challenger).

Based on the above, I take Peter's statement to mean no more than that we are to give a "reasoned statement" to those sincere inquirers who ask us why we believe. I think that it's a tremendous stretch to take this one statement of Peter's and use it to justify debating atheists, trying to prove the validity of the Scriptures to unbelievers, and similar things.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Being as one who speaks Koine Greek, though not fluent, I can tell you that apologia in this instance is to mean a "ready defense". The word, when used in a secularized context, is almost always used in the context of the accused answering his accusations before a judge. In other words, it's what we would call a defense attorneys argument today. So even if Strong's has "reason" in there, it still doesn't nullify the mental picture this would have painted for the readers of Peter's epistle. In modern context it would draw to mind Johnny Cochran and OJ Simpson. The overall meaning is that whenever an accusation against our faith is brought forth, we are to have a reason for it, a defense for it. Bringing this into a broader context aiteo I think your trust in Strong's is misgiving. This is used to describe the Pharisees and Sadducees "asking" Jesus a question that was meant to be a challenge to who He was. For in many of these instances Jesus shot back at them closing down their arguments. So Strong's may give you the definition, but it's failing to give you a broader context of what is being said. Peter is painting a picture of us before a judge being accused (challenged) in our faith, and Peter's response is to act like a defendand and defend your faith, give a reason for it.

Hope that shed's more light on ths issue.

[apothanein kerdos]

I do want to add that apologetics is not an offensive weapon, such as going out and attacking other religions. It is, however, a defensive weapon, meaning when attacked we can provide a logical response as to why we have faith. In modern context, it is the body armor of the Christian faith, not the gun or ammunition.

[Mikeyjay]

Apologetics is a biblical concept and something we are commanded to do in Scripture.

1Pe 3:15  But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

The Greek word for "answer" above is apologia and is where we get the word "apologetics."

It means to give a ready defence.

Main Entry: apol

[Stuart DiNenno]

Being as one who speaks Koine Greek, though not fluent, I can tell you that apologia in this instance is to mean a "ready defense". The word, when used in a secularized context, is almost always used in the context of the accused answering his accusations before a judge. In other words, it's what we would call a defense attorneys argument today. So even if Strong's has "reason" in there, it still doesn't nullify the mental picture this would have painted for the readers of Peter's epistle. In modern context it would draw to mind Johnny Cochran and OJ Simpson. The overall meaning is that whenever an accusation against our faith is brought forth, we are to have a reason for it, a defense for it. Bringing this into a broader context aiteo I think your trust in Strong's is misgiving. This is used to describe the Pharisees and Sadducees "asking" Jesus a question that was meant to be a challenge to who He was. For in many of these instances Jesus shot back at them closing down their arguments. So Strong's may give you the definition, but it's failing to give you a broader context of what is being said. Peter is painting a picture of us before a judge being accused (challenged) in our faith, and Peter's response is to act like a defendand and defend your faith, give a reason for it.

Hope that shed's more light on ths issue.

You may be right, Super Jew, but I don't know anything about you, nor do I have any way of testing the veracity of your assertions. And I hope you understand that I have to trust Strong's definitions over those given by a stranger in a discussion forum. According to Strong's, the word apologia can mean what you claim it does mean in the verse we are examining. But as I pointed out before, it can also mean nothing more than the giving of a reasonable statement.

Again, I take Peter's statement to mean no more than that we are to give a reasonable statement to those sincere inquirers who ask us why we believe. I think that it's a tremendous stretch to take this one statement of Peter's and use it to justify debating atheists, trying to prove the validity of the Scriptures to unbelievers, and similar things.

You mentioned that Jesus was sometimes asked insincere questions by the Jews and he responded to them. But those men were professing believers. They claimed to be following the biblical religion. And Christ's answers to them were always declarations of what the Scriptures said, or answers in parables. Neither He nor anyone else in the Scriptures ever debated the claim that the Scriptures are the word of God, nor did they ever labor to prove the existence of God. And I have yet to find a biblical example of anyone discussing religion with rank unbelievers, much less trying to prove anything to them.

[Stuart DiNenno]

as a student

Edited August 14, 2005 by Stuart DiNenno

[Stuart DiNenno]

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. You are accused before you ever say the first word. Then if you have the power of God witnessing with you like Paul did it makes your defense and witness believable.

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.

[apothanein kerdos]

You may be right, Super Jew, but I don't know anything about you, nor do I have any way of testing the veracity of your assertions.

Ask Joy in the Journey.

And I hope you understand that I have to trust Strong's definitions over those given by a stranger in a discussion forum. According to Strong's, the word apologia can mean what you claim it does mean in the verse we are examining. But as I pointed out before, it can also mean nothing more than the giving of a reasonable statement.

The problem you have right there is that you are trusting in a dictinoary to help you out. All it does it give you the definitions. You aren't relying on any commentary, lexicon, or grammar. That would be like taking a verse in English that says, "I love ice cream" and throwing out all the definitions for Love from Websters. I'm placing the word into the context it's meant, and using the secularization of the word. It was used to refer to the defense established by someone before a judge, which would be a "defense" or a "reasonable statement".

Again, I take Peter's statement to mean no more than that we are to give a reasonable statement to those sincere inquirers who ask us why we believe. I think that it's a tremendous stretch to take this one statement of Peter's and use it to justify debating atheists, trying to prove the validity of the Scriptures to unbelievers, and similar things.

The problem with this is you are basing it off of a faulty interpretation that you came to by using a dictionary and not seeking out any commentaries, lexicons, or grammars. This is how false doctrines are made. Not that you are teaching a false doctrine, but that you certainly are using the process.

You mentioned that Jesus was sometimes asked insincere questions by the Jews and he responded to them. But those men were professing believers. They claimed to be following the biblical religion. And Christ's answers to them were always declarations of what the Scriptures said, or answers in parables. Neither He nor anyone else in the Scriptures ever debated the claim that the Scriptures are the word of God, nor did they ever labor to prove the existence of God.

For one, JEsus was constantly proving Himself as Messiah, as Word. Secondly Jesus' dealings were only with Jews where it was established fact that the Word was inspired. THus it came down to a debate on interpretation. However, His apostles and even more so later Christians, had to deal with Greeks and their philosophy. Early apologists, as early as the first century, were having to defend the validity of scripture and enter into debates with all sorts of philisophic attacks.

And I have yet to find a biblical example of anyone discussing religion with rank unbelievers, much less trying to prove anything to them.

Have you read Acts or any of the epistles of Paul? For one, Acts 17:23 comes right out and shows us a story of what you are talking about. Secondly, Romans 1 deals with an argument for the natural being proof for God. Why would Paul do this? Because the gentiles and Jews in Rome that had converted were being hit hard with problems concerning the world in which we live, and if God is loving why did He create a material world that is evil (early seeds of gnosticism). Thus Paul makes his argument in the first chapter. The first part of the Gospel of John and then the first epistle of John were letters debating against what a gnostic leader at the time was saying. I could go on.

I suggest you seek out a commentary, lexicon, and grammar on the subject of your interpretation if you aren't going to listen to me on it, because relying solely on a dictionary is simply irresponsible.

[Trust & Obey]

I think that "the existence of God and the validity of the Scriptures" are part of "the hope that is in you." Therefore, I think it falls under it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And I think that before people defend practices upon which the professing church spends countless thousands of hours and untold amounts of money, they should be able to offer something a bit more concrete than the isolation of a few words from only one verse of Scripture, followed by the vague and conjectural explanation of "I think it falls under it."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, let me ask you.

Does "the validity of the Scriptures" and the "existence of God" have something, anything, to do wth "the hope that lies in you, Stuart?

If not... please explain why it has nothing to do with your faith.

[Trust & Obey]

And it is necessary to expose false doctrine

What if what you "think" is false doctrine is actually correct...and you are wrong???

There's alot of this going around due to the deception that satan has put out in mainstream Christian-ism that God doesn't do much anymore (miracles have passed away, God no longer heals, prosperity was for the Old Testament Saints, and other foolish satanic doctrines based on carnal thinking)

This is why the world is laughing at Christianity...because mainstream Christian-ism tells the world that God is good and Jesus is Lord, and then turns right around and tells them that this same God is making people sick, broke, causing car wrecks, houses burning down, etc.

Sorry. Because God allows sin to run its course doesn't mean that God "causes" it. He merely is allowing that which humanity has chosen... sin.

And, remember who the "god of this world is."

2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Sin is the result of man's disobedience towards God... encouraged by Satan. We are in a fallen world and that is the explanation for the sickness, etc.

Regarding people being broke. That is usually attributed to poor financial handling and a materialistic society that people have bought into, pardon the pun.