Is apologetics necessary?

[Stuart DiNenno]

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".

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.

For one, JEsus was constantly proving Himself as Messiah, as Word.

Not with anything like the methods used by modern apologists, as I have already shown.

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.

Agreed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

Edited August 14, 2005 by Stuart DiNenno

[Stuart DiNenno]

Sorry, I accidentally posted the same message twice.

Edited August 14, 2005 by Stuart DiNenno

[Stuart DiNenno]

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

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.

[Trust & Obey]

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

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?

[Stuart DiNenno]

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

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.

[Bread_of_Life]

How are you going to convince anyone with even half a brain of the truth of theism or Christianity, (which arn't immediately obvious by the natural light, as Descartes would put it), without developing some sort of arguments to show the truth of it all?

How can you ever hope to fulfill the great commission without at least trying to intellectually convince people that what you're saying is true?

[Trust & Obey]

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

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good response, Stuart. I agree.

There's nothing I can really add to what you just posted except that each believer needs to be the one to decide when and where he should or should not respond.

When folks come here to Worthy just to kick up dust and attack Christianity I do not give them much time at all.

If non-believers are truly inquisitive then they will also have my full attention.

[Trust & Obey]

How are you going to convince anyone with even half a brain of the truth of theism or Christianity, (which arn't immediately obvious by the natural light, as Descartes would put it), without developing some sort of arguments to show the truth of it all?

How can you ever hope to fulfill the great commission without at least trying to intellectually convince people that what you're saying is true?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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?'"

[Stuart DiNenno]

How are you going to convince anyone with even half a brain of the truth of theism or Christianity, (which arn't immediately obvious by the natural light, as Descartes would put it), without developing some sort of arguments to show the truth of it all?

How can you ever hope to fulfill the great commission without at least trying to intellectually convince people that what you're saying is true?

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.

[Stuart DiNenno]

How are you going to convince anyone with even half a brain of the truth of theism or Christianity, (which arn't immediately obvious by the natural light, as Descartes would put it), without developing some sort of arguments to show the truth of it all?

How can you ever hope to fulfill the great commission without at least trying to intellectually convince people that what you're saying is true?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.